What burns me?

[Hackysack]

What burns me up is all the people who try to bash every single thing bush does. Bush although not a very bright man, is smart enough to become president of the strongest country in the world. If you think that its so easy to do, lets see you try. Then people go and listen to media which is written by bias'd reporters, and watch bias'd movies. For example: Fahrenheit 9/11. That movie truely shows us that people are stupid. How? People will try to use things from the movie to argue or bash bush. Now why is that stupid? For the simple fact that the movie is bias'd. Easy enough to say. Another thing that burns me up, is people who still think John Kerry would have been the better president. If people took the time to watch his speeches or read up on his past, you would learn that he would've mad quite a bad president. Why? I have never heard or seen someone flip-flop as much as kerry did. Not only that, but Kerry admitted to committing was crimes yet his propaganda was surrounded by him being a "war hero". What war hero do you see?! I see a man who admitted that he took part in burning down civillian villages, a man who killed cattle and inocent lives for pleasure. This man is still believed to have been the better choice in some peoples eyes. Which is quite sad. Another reason I dont like him, is he flip-flopped on the topic about draft. Thats a real touchy topic to be sketchy about. Another thing that burns me up, is people that still think it was all about getting oil. Dont you think that if Bush started this war to get oil he would've atleast had NATO back him up for the war? Or the fact that since the war oil prices have been higher than they have been since the sixties. Does that make much sence? Now before you all think im a Bush fan, let me tell you im not. Im pro-choice, which Bush is not. Im for stem-cell research which Bush isnt. Im also a toker, which Bush has the War of Drugs, I dont care about weather someone is gay or not which Bush has made gay marriage illegal. I could probably keep going, but I dont want to make you read to much. Anyways, Im glad to see people like Dr. Worthless on here that actually know what they're talking about. Now to get to what has already been said on this topic. As far Tora Bora, pretty much what worthless said. It's a huge moutain full of caves and tunnels. we bombed alot of the caves and thought we got him. The fact is we cant just drop a huge bomb on the mountain and hope he dies. As far as Farenheight 9-11 goes, have you ever seen the video of the pentagon attack? It was on sites liek ebaumsworld and such. The video was created 100% bais'd that that the attack was actually a missle not a plane. They used flashy graphics and music to try to mess with peoples heads. Alot of people began to believe it. In the movie they claimed there was no evidence of plane parts. when you could easily go to google and find lots of pictures of the plane parts. Now as far as arkansas and what not, I too live in NY. I live in upstate NY in a place called Rochester. If you look it up Rochester NY used to be #3 for top terrorist attack threats. Yet I support Bush. As far as you being more affected then people from other states, what about the family members of those who were in the towers. The firefighters that lost their lives, that weren't even part on NYFD. What about all the soldiers who got shipped out or died in war; or their families? Im pretty sure that 9/11 affected them more than you. its also funny how people can say honestly say

Why are the people in the highest risk areas mostly in opposition of what the President is doing? It is because they know what his administration is doing is only putting us more at risk. Us in New York are being put at risk because of this administration's actions not the people of low population areas. Why would terrorists attack areas with the lowest human life loss? It's just not smart to do that.

Who made you NY's spokesmen? Im pretty sure most people dont believe that. Why would I say that? Take another look at Bush's re-election. It would appear that alot of people supported him, huh? Now for the comment about suicide bombings... Heres a video to show you how few people are used for the car bombings. http://www.en!@#$%^&*.com/mov...b_Goes_Off.html

 

Thats it, im too lazy to continue.

[LearJett+]

John who?

[Aileron]

Eww....I apologize for the bit of absence I had over the summer...I only have access to a decent internet connection at college. I really apologize for not being here to moderate this thread...the personal insults seemed to have stopped though, so I won't lock it for now.

 

Do you have a similar link that shows the same video without going to a pornography site? Little kiddies do post here.

 

Upstate NY must have the most non-representative government in the US...the NY state government and congressional positions are dictated by what NY city wants...I wonder if the people in upstate NY even vote for anyone above the local positions.

 

 

 

I wouldn't criticise Bush's policy too much...for what its worth, the mainland US hasn't been attacked since Sept 11th. That doesn't mean much, but it does mean he hasn't made any major mistakes.

[Hackysack]

Do you have a similar link that shows the same video without going to a pornography site?  Little kiddies do post here.

 

Upstate NY must have the most non-representative government in the US...the NY state government and congressional positions are dictated by what NY city wants...I wonder if the people in upstate NY even vote for anyone above the local positions.

 

 

 

I wouldn't criticise Bush's policy too much...for what its worth, the mainland US hasn't been attacked since Sept 11th.  That doesn't mean much, but it does mean he hasn't made any major mistakes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Im not sure if I can find it on another site. Its probably on other sites simular to it. Maybe even on Ebaumsworld. Oh well. As far as the upstate NY comment, you're correct for the most part. NY tried passing a bill that would have cost upstate NYers alot of money for a stadium in NYC. Why would we pay for something we most likely aren't going to use? So that bill never got passed. As far as presidential elections here, we take it just as serious as anywhere eles. I wish we didnt in a way, so people would stop putting election signs in my yard. <_<

[MonteZuma]

I wouldn't criticise Bush's policy too much...for what its worth, the mainland US hasn't been attacked since Sept 11th.  That doesn't mean much, but it does mean he hasn't made any major mistakes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not necessarily. Spain hasn't been attacked since the Madrid bombings. France and Germany haven't been attacked either. If the absence of attacks means that there haven't been any major mistakes, then you'd have to say that their policies are working too.

 

The UK have followed essentially the same policy track as the US and they have been attacked. Indonesia has followed a completely different path, and yet they were attacked.

 

I don't think it is possible to make such !@#$%^&*essments about policy based on whether or not there have been any homeland attacks. The threat level in the west, especially in pro-Bush countries is still high. That speaks volumes

[Aileron]

Spain and the UK aren't part of the US. Governments are responsable for their countries and only their countries, otherwise one is putting far too much power and responsability on one man's shoulders.

 

There is one major difference between the US and UK, though a subtle one...in the US the populace overall supported the action in Iraq, where in the UK it didn't as much. That difference is subtle but very important. Generally it means that if the terrorists struck the US, the US would just get angry and hit them back. However, when the terrorists attacked Spain, Spain backed out, because they weren't as zealous as the US. They attacked the UK and Egypt under the same line of thinking.

 

I will admit that I am clearly overanaylizing terrorist thinking...their cellular structure causes them to strike apart from the big overall strategy sometimes.

 

I wouldn't put any stock in the color-coded threat level....it probably depends on little more than the mood of some commitee.

[MonteZuma]

Spain and the UK aren't part of the US.  Governments are responsable for their countries and only their countries, otherwise one is putting far too much power and responsability on one man's shoulders.

I don't get your point? My statement was not about responsibility. It was about inductive reasoning. Just because you observe a number of situations in which a pattern exists doesn't mean that the pattern is true for all situations. That is, the fact that there have been no terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11 doesn't prove that GWBs policies have prevented those attacks.

 

There is one major difference between the US and UK, though a subtle one...in the US the populace overall supported the action in Iraq, where in the UK it didn't as much.  That difference is subtle but very important.  Generally it means that if the terrorists struck the US, the US would just get angry and hit them back.  However, when the terrorists attacked Spain, Spain backed out, because they weren't as zealous as the US.  They attacked the UK and Egypt under the same line of thinking.

This is more inductive thinking. It may or may not be true. I think you are wrong. I think the reasons are much more complex.

 

I will admit that I am clearly overanaylizing terrorist thinking...their cellular structure causes them to strike apart from the big overall strategy sometimes.

I think you are oversimplifying the situation. The factors that lead a bunch of British citizens to blow themselves up and kill innocent people are very complex.

 

I wouldn't put any stock in the color-coded threat level....it probably depends on little more than the mood of some commitee.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Put stock in the ridiculously high security that is needed to get on a plane or into a large cultural event. Put stock into the police officers that carry machine guns or US subways. There is plenty of evidence that the world is not a safer place, yet.

[Hackysack]

That is, the fact that there have been no terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11 doesn't prove that GWBs policies have prevented those attacks.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ah, but if it can't be proven that his policies have prevented those attacks, then what proof shows that his policies havent worked?

[Aileron]

Yes, the logical flaws in the statement are obvious...hence the "for what it's worth" added to the begining of the statement. It was only meant as a very weak statement to begin with.

[»SOS]

What burns me is that people see nothing other than Bush or Iraq or terrorism when they look at the world of politics... there's so much so important stuff out there!

 

I was really hoping to see a wide variety of topics here, but... no? Maybe the whole contingent of politically thinking minds in USA is so caught up with these three topics that more important issues are all forgotten?

 

I'm a bit young, so I don't know... maybe this has always been like this... has it? Can some older people tell me what were the "hot topics" in... say 1995?

 

I'm glad the situation is not like this in my tiny country... although I must admit that there's not much of a political discussion here on other topics either. In fact, I found another thing that burns me: there are three types of people in Estonia that care about politics:

1) The media people - luckily they're not very biased here

2) The retired people - it seems to me like most of them don't understand anything about politics and just listen to insane rumors and conspiracy theories. Some do, of course, but... the lot of them just vote for one of our oldest and largest parties because the (now ex-)leader of that party is a very ... ... ... (I can't find a suitable word... pro-Estonian, pro-elderly) old guy. They just vote for him, no matter what the party does or says.

3) Some youth groups - a bit less of the insane consipracy theories here, but still some... and most of the young people are just in it for the company. Even the official groups of political parties are mostly joined for the free alcohol and hotels that they hand out for meetings... yeah, they give free alcohol to underaged teens... And the few people who really care about stuff are just swamped in this big field of normal teens.

 

So in summary, it burns me that the only people who really care and do stuff about political issues are the politicians themselves. The people are just "there" and easily manipulated (recently, we lost a Prime Minister and the Cabinet because of some foolish squabble about a very sensible anti-corruption plan that some politicians just twisted into some totalitarian weapon in the media...).

[MonteZuma]

What burns me is that people see nothing other than Bush or Iraq or terrorism when they look at the world of politics... there's so much so important stuff out there!

Yeah. But so many things the US does affects all of us. Also, probably 50% of the online english speaking community are north american.

 

I was really hoping to see a wide variety of topics here, but... no? Maybe the whole contingent of politically thinking minds in USA is so caught up with these three topics that more important issues are all forgotten?

Me too.

 

I'm a bit young, so I don't know... maybe this has always been like this... has it? Can some older people tell me what were the "hot topics" in... say 1995?

I'm probably a bit older than you, but yeah....I think its been like this since WW2

I'm glad the situation is not like this in my tiny country...

Perhaps this is because Estonia was closely aligned yo the only other superpower of the last 50 years - the Soviet Union.

 

So in summary, it burns me that the only people who really care and do stuff about political issues are the politicians themselves. The people are just "there" and easily manipulated (recently, we lost a Prime Minister and the Cabinet because of some foolish squabble about a very sensible anti-corruption plan that some politicians just twisted into some totalitarian weapon in the media...).

Perhaps in estonia....In some countries, the media and the community are very active in politics. Voting in Australia is compulsory and voter-turnout is about 97% The media is very critical of the federal and state governments. There are gaps in media coverage and critical analysis of the issues, but in general the coverage by the media and the interest in the whole community is good.

 

But when it comes to world news, I think American news and views predominate...and yeah...its a shame. The unity in the EU seems to be boosting European influence. I think that is a good thing.

[spin]

 

WOW, where to begin? A good deal of the puzzle has been laid out here to back up AstroProdigy's initial concern. Heck, even Dr.Worthless and Hackysack contributed -just not the way they intended!

 

 

I guess first I should state the obvious--Dr.Worthless has a fitting nick-name and his arguments fit well with the discussion of neo-conservative propaganda driving our perceptions here in America.

 

MonteZuma, your dead on about the cut and paste from the source, WITHOUT fact checking being part of the problem.

 

white_0men, bingo with "Subs!@#$%^&*ute terror and communism and it's the same thing rehashed and reshaped, and the American public still fell for it."

 

LearJett+, you have some good points, but I am sorry Bush/neo-conservatives are using our military like it is-- the Iraq War isn't about liberation. The idea of liberating a population from the rulers that US foreign policy placed in power to work with multinational oil companys is appealing, but whole scale invasions isn't how it is done, nor is it the reason for Bush's drive into the Middle East.

 

There are many things that Dr.Worthless said that are pure neo-conservative bull!@#$%^&*... the inspectors being thrown out... Saddam not complying with resolutions as justification for the war, some things you said about WWII (actually Jewish organizations begged for us to bomb the camps to delay and disrupt more killing)... goes on and on..

 

This thread had about run its coarse with Dr.Worthless showing us how America's corporate media is indeed brainwashing and mislead far too many America voters. Lets open new threads discussing the errors of Dr.Worthless.

 

In the meantime....

One of the better fact-checking sites that keep the ditto-heads from going too far is mediamatters.org

 

And as a hint as to what threat to open up next might be who Bush's neo-conservatives are and how this mess or Bush's Middle East invasions and propaganda got its start even before Bush got "elected".

 

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr071003.htm

http://www.crisispapers.org/Editorials/PNAC-Primer.htm

[»SOS]

Voting in Australia is compulsory and voter-turnout is about 97%

 

WOOT! That's incredible I would never have imagined something like that

[LearJett+]

Spin, you sound like a liberal consiracy theorist who thinks they know the 'truth' because of what they read from liberal sources.

 

Just look at "http://mediamatters.org/". Every article on there is against Bush. The site sounds like an impartial one, but read it before you post it as an unslanted source. For God's sake, the next source's !@#$%^&*le was "Neo-Conned" and all I had to do was read the first sentence of the last one to know not to read the rest of it.

 

You tatter on about Neo-Conservatism but you make no real point. You merely tried to disprove some people with your bogus sources and agree with others who had weak points.

 

You agreed that it was just like Communism that began in the 50's. Are you some sort of expert? Who cares if you think that someone is "Bingo" with a point? It is nothing like Communism to me. There are no Joe McCarthys or propaganda films. Bush isn't trying to scare people into a war.

 

I guess first I should state the obvious--Dr.Worthless has a fitting nick-name and his arguments fit well with the discussion of neo-conservative propaganda driving our perceptions here in America.

You made no point there. It was merely an attempt at bashing someone.

 

There are many things that Dr.Worthless said that are pure neo-conservative bull!@#$%^&*... the inspectors being thrown out... Saddam not complying with resolutions as justification for the war, some things you said about WWII (actually Jewish organizations begged for us to bomb the camps to delay and disrupt more killing)... goes on and on..

 

This thread had about run its coarse with Dr.Worthless showing us how America's corporate media is indeed brainwashing and mislead far too many America voters. Lets open new threads discussing the errors of Dr.Worthless.

No point there either... you say he's wrong but you don't prove anything. Try proving something instead of giving what looks like just an opinion.

 

LearJett+, you have some good points, but I am sorry Bush/neo-conservatives are using our military like it is-- the Iraq War isn't about liberation. The idea of liberating a population from the rulers that US foreign policy placed in power to work with multinational oil companys is appealing, but whole scale invasions isn't how it is done, nor is it the reason for Bush's drive into the Middle East.

Why don't you try telling us what the reason we went to war is, then? You think you're great at debunking reasons why we are, but why don't you tell us why we are? I never said why we were going to war, I simply stated outcomes of the war. You have done neither.

 

Next time you post, try making a point. You put down other ideas without valid sources or even an idea behind it. Anyone can post their opinions on here. Opinions and facts divide intelligent discussions from brainwashed babble.

[AstroProdigy]

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.

[LearJett+]

Astro, you just agreed with someone who didn't actualy SAY anything.

 

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.

This is because what you said was WRONG. He had valid, impartial sources (which are a rare commodity on these forums) that proved you wrong. He used vulgarity because it is frustrating when people post and believe things that are simply wrong.

 

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.

You make no sense there. You say that he says our troops aren't there, and then say that if they were there we would be invaded...? It seems like you meant to prove him wrong, when in reality you agreed with him??

 

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.

Astro, you have done nothing to disprove any of what you call 'conservative propganda'. I defended him because he said the same things that I think. Maybe if you actually made intelligent, backed-up discussion on here you wouldn't get owned so much.

[AstroProdigy]

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.

[LearJett+]

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.

Worthless actually made points and used sources. Spin did not. Try using periods and capitalization next time...

 

 

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

Ahem. The liberals attacked Bush's record... was that not a low blow?

 

 

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. 

Could you please, for once, use a source? It's just you and spin talking about all of these things you 'know'.

 

 

It sickens me, but this is what these types of organizations do, anything to win.

The definition of political party: Noun 1. political party - an organization to gain political power. It's the definition - live with it.

 

 

They also love to play on emotions to avoid allowing people to use their brains.

??? Try giving an example next time - or even using your brain would suffice.

[AstroProdigy]

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.

[LearJett+]

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".

 

Common sense: If your information is unreliable/absent, you are wrong.

 

I never said I was right - simply that you're wrong.

[AstroProdigy]

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.

[LearJett+]

Well if your argument has no integrity, what makes you not wrong?

[spin]

Hi all, spin here

I just posting while I got some time...

I will edit this post later.... I just wanted to say for now "im still in the discussion"

 

LearJett+, YOUR RIGHT, I didn't post much that wasn't opinion, and I owe it to ya to flesh it out a bit.

 

There is a difference of opinion, but seeing how you gave a good honest first hand (or close to first hand ) account of things going on over in Iraq, and I know you are wanting a honest discussion-- I'll throw my 2 cents in later today I hope... and I'll try to give a bit more to back up anything I contribute this time.

 

I will try to merge where the discussion is now to where AstroProdigy started out.

[LearJett+]

I can't wait 'til you get back.

[»SOS]

If I'm wrong than you're right

 

I must nibble at this bit here. I absolutely cannot agree with any such statement. This is to me a blatant distortion of reality and a great contributor to unfair debate. The world is not as simple as that and in arguments' date=' people rarely understand each other enough to claim anything like this.

 

The truth is a three edged sword.

 

I've almost never seen a situation where someone was completely right or completely wrong. As Bernard Woolley seid in "Yes, Prime Minister" episode 1-4: "I suggest [...'] adopting a more flexible posture [...].". (Yes, I do love that show )