Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Stryke 9 on February 22, 2003, 06:32:44 pm
-
'Cos otherwise I'm getting a C-4 vest and paying a visit to Washington. You wanna talk evil?
Patriot Act Mark II (http://www.whatisdeepfried.com/MEDIA/patriot2.pdf)
-
I thought you already knew about the PATRIOT ACT. They could probably arrest you for that post under it.
-
This is version two. Twice as bad. Read some.
-
I don't even want to KNOW what's on it. Is this really necessary? I come here to get AWAY from Bush and his lunatic gestapo, do they have to be brought here?
-
They're ****in' everywhere now. Only way to get rid of them is to get rid of them.
-
ah-ah-ah...don't say that. Remember, they're monitoring us now. Just wait till the next re-election, and vote for the other guy, no matter what.
-
**** that. You think elections are gonna do anything? You think he'll just go away if you be quiet and stick your head in the sand?
This country's got a prime axample of a dictator on its hands. Dictators don't just dissapear if your cover your ears and start singing loudly. They have to be deposed before they mone into their own all the way.
-
If all goes well, in what, 2 years, you'll have all your old freedoms back and you'll appreciate them more.
If things go okay, you'll end up with a new leader who tries to go against people like Ashcroft and Rumsfeld. You'll get some freedoms back but you'll still have lost a lot.
If things go badly, Bush will commit another act of electoral fraud and stay in power. If this happens, your only hope is that enough congressmen are willing to risk their lives opposing him and stop him passing a bill to allow him to continue for more than 2 terms.
If all hell breaks loose, Ashcroft will be elected and British Intelligence and Special Forces will be sent in to execute all American leaders from Mayors right up to the President and joint cheifs.
-
Bull****. The DNP is clearly trying to throw the election again- exactly one of the candidates has even a snowball's chance in hell- and at this rate in two years it's gonna be too late. If most of us are even still alive and free by then. I've seen politics for long enough to know that if you want something done, you really gotta do it yourself.
-
Last time I check the Dems have always had the history of "adjusting" elections. Kennedy anyone?
And are you saying the United States Supreme Court was rigged?
Anyway... that isn't on an official site.. therefore I don't believe it. IF you find an official sight for it then maybe I will believe it. All laws must be posted.
-
Rutherford B. Hayes? Nixon?
At any rate, the whole party thing is transparently bull****, a distraction for the easily-fooled masses. Look at their respective platforms and see- it really is Tweedledum and Tweedledee. Both a joke, and the only consistency they have is that they disagree with each other.
And it's not enacted yet. They're planning to force it through Congress when war hysteria's on in a bit, according to a few sites that also have it. Which is why it's still confidential.
-
Do you believe everything you read on the internet? What sites?
Who runs them? I'm not discounting this but please make sure these sites are credible.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Rutherford B. Hayes? Nixon?
True but the whole election **** last time was because no candidate had very different views.
And every country has it's weird elections. The most recent one with France.
-
Which is why I'm not saying it's definitely not a hoax. It's in character for Ashcroft and Googling it reveals that a good number of people don't think it's a hoax, some of them who wouldn't normally be fooled. It changes nothing whether this is real or not- it's only an extension of the damage the Bush government already has done.
-
You crack m up man. Do a google search on the moon landing and see what you find... or even better UFOs. Histeria is always created. Misinformation is wonderful. Please check your sources and tell me WHAT sites they are.
-
Do it your own ****ing self. I don't give a ****.
-
Originally posted by an0n
If things go okay, you'll end up with a new leader who tries to go against people like Ashcroft and Rumsfeld. You'll get some freedoms back but you'll still have lost a lot.
Rumsfeld? You have a problem with Rumsfeld? Just because he actually understands the idea of classified and doesn't tell the media stuff unless it isn't sensitve. (do realize if it is sensitive then there probably are people that are at risk if the information is given out. agents/sources)
Or is that he actually understands the idea of diplomacy? There is always a reason a country does something. Does the "Old Europe" comment bother you? I find it hilarious and true.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Do it your own ****ing self. I don't give a ****.
LOL Okay. If you want to believe MISinformation go ahead. Not my fault. Also you not presenting the sites makes my argument more credible.
-
Yes. Because I don't play fetch and run a Google search for Your Highness on "Patriot Act II" I'm covering up that I made this up myself in my secret Area 51 UFO lab.
Actually, things like Rumsfeld trying to declare peace demonstrators "terrorists" are what bother me. He's a psychotic bastard of the sort who belongs in a cage.
-
LOL... no I'm not saying you made it up... and chill for the love a god... you may pop a blood vessel. I'm saying that just because it's on the internet it may not be credible. If it was so true NY times or the Post would have gotten it first and made an article about it. NY times would love to publish something like that too.
LOL when did he try to do that? Maybe if they started destroying things, but otherwise I highly doubt it. That sounds pretty histerical to me.
-
Was during the Afghan thing, he ranted on about it for about five minutes, and then never mentioned it again- probably because someone marginally saner shut him up before he got his ass shot off like it should be.
And the news doesn't report much of anything these days. I live right almost in DC. **** goes on here of national significance that never gets reported, precisely because it reflects badly on Bush. There's damn little news left that isn't government propoganda- I don't know what happened, but it's scary as **** to see what gets glossed over.
-
OMFG... the Times and other news agencies are ****ing run by leftist people. They do EVERYTHING they can to hurt Bush.
What get's glossed over chief? Generalities are wonderful.
-
How 'bout the big peace protests? Most of 'em don't even get back page coverage, and when they do the numbers are generally figured extremely low. How 'bout all the arrests, the cops shooting up blacks out here for no reason, and what amounts to "dissapearances" of a lot of the Muslims?
Yes, the news is so liberal, it's a wonder they can't stop talking about how great Bush is. Once again, case of a misleading name meant to distract from the **** that's really going on... stick a tag on it and you think you understand it, eh? Doesn't work that way, jefe. Naming something is a long jump from having a clue what it is, particularly in politics, where if a word gets used enough it can mean whatever the **** you want it to, and hence means nothing at all. Hell, look at "terrorist". Look at "commie" ten years ago. Buzzwords. They're worthless for really explaining anything.
-
Where have you been? The protests were HUGE news. They were on all the front pages not to mention the top stories on the major news networks.
What network do you watch that says how great he is? Never heard it. I think you're hatred of one man blinds you. I support him in some areas but not all. Being polarized is dangerous.
For no reason really? Does it ever say they have a gun and threaten them? You do realize those cops are REAL people. You stereotype so quickly it is disturbing. They go home and have to deal with shooting people. Only maniacs can shoot someone without having tramatic issues about it. Anyone in the Army deals with it... shell shock and or "the shakes" as they're called.
Muslims dissapearing? I have many muslim friends and they ain't going anywhere. The only people dissappearing are people being be called up for the reserves.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Naming something is a long jump from having a clue what it is, particularly in politics, where if a word gets used enough it can mean whatever the **** you want it to, and hence means nothing at all. Hell, look at "terrorist". Look at "commie" ten years ago. Buzzwords. They're worthless for really explaining anything.
Yeah calling someone who targets civilians PURPOSELY a terrorist is naming someone something without providence. And calling someone a commie was a true statement if they were communist. They called us evil capatalists.
-
When everything everyone else says is either a lie or a misinterpretation, it must make absolutism easy, doesn't it? Enjoy your blinkered little planet.
-
No I never said that pal. Look simmer down. Have a calm discussion. Flaming is not necessary.
I am one of the few that requires EVIDENCE... proof that something is real or true. Hysteria is dangerous. Reaction is dangerous. People wanted to annhilate the middle east after 9/11... I wanted to find out who it was.. they did. If Bush was like what you think he is... we would have leveled the middle east the day after.
-
Fine. Prove that the protests didn't exist. 'Cos I saw 'em myself, and didn't hear **** about them.
-
You're both idiots.
Bush = Evil
Ashcroft = Evil
Kissinger = Evil
Ghandi = Good
Hitler = Used evil things to carry out his very accetpable goals (IE, world domination)
Blair = Bush's *****
Bender = Funny
The above is right in perpetuity throughout the universe for all time. Anyone claiming that the above is somehow wrong forfeits ownership of their immortal soul, which becomes the property of an0n-Enterprises™.
©2003, an0n
-
Oh and:
- Where's the evidence linking Al Qaeda to the towers?
- Where's the evidence linking Iraq to Al Qaeda?
- Where's the evidence showing Aghanistan was supporting Al Qaeda?
- Enron?
- Who was it that ordered thousands of troops to level Afghanistan without even knowing where it was?
- Where's the evidence that Iraq has WMD's?
- Anyone notice how the two jets headed for civillian targets made it, but the ones headed for the Whitehouse and Pentagon failed?
Yeah calling someone who targets civilians PURPOSELY a terrorist is naming someone something without providence
Funny. When America was giving them weapons they were Freedom Fighters. It's interesting how things change so quickly.
And at least Al Qaeda don't go blowing up Red Cross buildings.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Fine. Prove that the protests didn't exist. 'Cos I saw 'em myself, and didn't hear **** about them.
WTF? I just said they did exist and there were major headlines.
-
Originally posted by an0n
Oh and:
- Where's the evidence linking Al Qaeda to the towers?
- Where's the evidence linking Iraq to Al Qaeda?
- Where's the evidence showing Aghanistan was supporting Al Qaeda?
- Enron?
- Who was it that ordered thousands of troops to level Afghanistan without even knowing where it was?
- Where's the evidence that Iraq has WMD's?
- Anyone notice how the two jets headed for civillian targets made it, but the ones headed for the Whitehouse and Pentagon failed?
Funny. When America was giving them weapons they were Freedom Fighters. It's interesting how things change so quickly.
And at least Al Qaeda don't go blowing up Red Cross buildings. [/B]
Seeing how they were targeting the military to free them... hmm therefore freedom fighters.
Did we do it on purpose? No. Bad things happen in war pal. We MEAN to hit a target but collateral damage is ACCEPTABLE in international law.. terrorism isn't. Major difference: one targets something.. the other is an accident.
Al Qaeda? They linked the people to them.
The Pentagon? You stupid? It hit the ****ing pentagon. And did you notice how they were after the towers? We were kinda aware **** was going on.
Oh yeah he didn't know where Afghanistan was... sure. Just because he isn't as elloquent and the UN's ***** like clinton.
I can keep going if you want.
-
Originally posted by Falcon X
I can keep going if you want.
Please do.
I find you opinions intriguing and wish to learn more about you political ideals. Do you operate some form of newsletter which I could subscribe to? Or perhaps an informational pamphlet?
I would also like information on where I can purchase one of your spiffy brown uniforms. What sizes are available? How much do they typically cost? Must I supply/make my own armband or does it come free with the uniform?
-
Hahaha. Name calling get's you nowhere and shows you don't have an argument.
Anyway... Shrike own this thread before it gets even more out of hand. These people can't have a political debate without getting personal.
-
and according to godwin's law it looks like falcon wins
"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. However there is also a widely- recognized codicil that any intentional triggering of Godwin's Law in order to invoke its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful.
http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/g/Godwin_s_Law.html
-
Originally posted by PhReAk
and according to godwin's law it looks like falcon wins
:lol: a-****ing-men :yes:
-
Terrorists
An group that makes systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion.
On a fundamental level the terrorists of Al-Queda and other, similar groups seek the destruction of democracy and freedom on a planetary scale. They seek to force all individuals to do as they say when they say it.
On a more personal note,
an0n, your less than utter disgust for Hitler, either as an individual or leader, shows that you have a low ethical character.
To turn on a previous statement and compare Falcon X to a Nazi shows a lack of attention to your previous statments and leads me to beleive you only say things to provoke a reaction, and any future posts from you should be not be viewed as valuable toward the discussion.
-
Actually, the terrorism charge has been used against everyone from drug dealers to peace protestors to Germany to Democrats. It doesn't wash in any of the aforementioned cases.
Never mind that terrorism is not so much a common as a routine part of total war- which is what we're fighting now, and what the US has been reveling in for decades. Tactics to demoralize and coerce the civilian populace are standard, and you'd be hard-pressed to win a war without them. In fact, you just plain wouldn't period. It's ugly, but its invariably necessary- ranting on and on about it doesn't make this any less true.
Liberator: You want a prize or something?
This isn't ****ing debate club, guys. I really oughta have stuffed a buncha you into lockers by now. There are no rules, nobody has to be ****ing relevant if they don't ****ing want to, and this is not an opportunity for you to show off your fine rhetorical talent. If you want to play debate club, **** off. This is serious real-world stuff.
-
no one's denying the existance of government propaganda, at some level. but if you really expect me to believe that Bush owned Ted Turner, you're out of your ****ing mind...
-
At any rate, apparently NPR did a report on new Act. That evidence enough for you, FalconX?
-
Like it or not, the United States of America is a nation of conscientious warriors. From the very day of it inception, Americans have fought in defense of freedom. Whether on our own soil in the Revoloutionary War, against the onslaught of Hitler's Third Reich in WW2, or in defense of a free Korea or Vietnam. More recently, America acted in defense of the people of Kuwait and the people of the former Czechoslovakia.
Of late the leadership of this great land has been short on both ideals and ethics, sacrificing any and all things to suit their purposes. Sept. 11 is likely a result of such a show of weakness. Now as America once again rises to defend the way of life that she founded, she is being attacked not only from without but from within as well.
To be sure, there have always been a number who believe peace at any cost is a just and noble goal. It is a noble goal, true.
But understand that there are those who cannot be dissuaded. There are those who will not rest until everything America stands for is ground into dust.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
At any rate, apparently NPR did a report on new Act. That evidence enough for you, FalconX?
Yup probably it is. See how easy that was? Now I will believe it seeing it is backed by a "credible" source.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Like it or not, the United States of America is a nation of conscientious warriors. From the very day of it inception, Americans have fought in defense of freedom. Whether on our own soil in the Revoloutionary War, against the onslaught of Hitler's Third Reich in WW2, or in defense of a free Korea or Vietnam. More recently, America acted in defense of the people of Kuwait and the people of the former Czechoslovakia.
Of late the leadership of this great land has been short on both ideals and ethics, sacrificing any and all things to suit their purposes. Sept. 11 is likely a result of such a show of weakness. Now as America once again rises to defend the way of life that she founded, she is being attacked not only from without but from within as well.
To be sure, there have always been a number who believe peace at any cost is a just and noble goal. It is a noble goal, true.
But understand that there are those who cannot be dissuaded. There are those who will not rest until everything America stands for is ground into dust.
Good point, but we're in a new position really now. We're like Europe of old.. uncontested... and they don't like that too much.
-
Originally posted by PeachE
no one's denying the existance of government propaganda, at some level. but if you really expect me to believe that Bush owned Ted Turner, you're out of your ****ing mind...
linkage?.. or time/date/broadcaster of said coverage? approximates are acceptable..
-
Originally posted by PeachE
linkage?.. or time/date/broadcaster of said coverage? approximates are acceptable..
LOL not asking for something that specific. I was asking for something other than an internet sight talking about it. He did now... now I will believe it. That simple. I just don't believe everything on the internet.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
This isn't ****ing debate club, guys. I really oughta have stuffed a buncha you into lockers by now. There are no rules, nobody has to be ****ing relevant if they don't ****ing want to, and this is not an opportunity for you to show off your fine rhetorical talent. If you want to play debate club, **** off. This is serious real-world stuff.
I'm not asking for a debate club. All I was saying is if you have to revert to shouting/yelling/or what Anon did then it shows you can't back your opinion.
Act like an airhead. Settle your problems that way if you want to. I just doubt you do that in real life.
There is something called courtesy... but wait... everyone now a days are just dicks.
-
Technically, America really doesn't have a record as the bastion of freedom. Got a great spin campaign, but short on results.
Hell, the basis of the Constitution was in French philosophy, and much of it was implemented there and in England first. Our famously impartial and well-done court system had its foundations in the Magna Carta.
The US was nearly the last to enfranchise the blacks, and the same goes for slavery. It is the only country of record to have carried out a successful genocide, in the American Indians, who may have numbered as many as 90 million before our colonists showed up.
Support for Hitler, fascism, and eugenics has a long history here- and indeed only went out of fashion after Pearl Harbor, due to a vicious (and highly bigoted) propoganda campaign that lead to the detention of all people of Japanese extraction in concentration camps on the west coast, regardless of whether they might have done anything or not. This country has only abandoned, as a society, deeply-ingrained racism VERY recently, in the 60s and 70s, and is still known for an authoritarian bent stronger than that of Europe.
The US has overthrown dozens of democracies when we didn't like the results of free elections, and installed militant dictatorships. Until nearly the second half of this century, the idea of a "free" election would have best been regarded as an uproarious joke, as favoritism, fraud, and bribery were routine in elections. Even now, we are "encouraging" the leader of more than one European state to act against the express will of its populace, and are considering seriously a number of acts such as the one linked to in this thread of the sort Orwell could have written about.
The US is most emphatically not the heart of freedom. It's the heart of propaganda. Not neccessarily bad, since we ain't exactly Soviet Russia, either, but it's an important distinction, and personally I think the US would be a lot less dangerous a country to the rest of the world if it lacked some of its hubris.
-
PeachE: I don't have 'em. I didn't hear the report myself, was only told about it by two people who had. Like I said, I'm not 100% convinced this is real myself (even NPR has sprung for hoaxes), but this'd be damnably hard to fake (just read it- you'd have to have a thorough knowledge of law to fool anyone with this, what with all the references), and I really have no reason to doubt it.
-
But you just said this is the heart of propaganda? Oh the query you raise.
-
Eh?
-
How can you believe ANYTHING you read here... if this is the heart of propaganda? What a interesting life you must live.
-
Technically, you can't rely 100% on anything you see or hear, either. Life is dealing with probability and what makes sense in the context.
Besides, it's not exactly life-and-death if I end up believing the wrong bull****, is it? Everyone does at times, and I'll just correct and move on.
-
But you just said that everything we do is propagandized... this is funny. It's given you can't believe everything... but you went and posted this thread... and when I asked for credibility you didn't really care. LOL. You crack me up.
-
I do care. However, note the thread title. And the fact that I still haven't given over myself one way or another, as I've said repeatedly. It's possible, going on probable, that this is the truth, and it's bad. So? What's your point?
Or is this another case of selective perception, where you wanna think I'm just mindlessly following any anti-Bush crap I hear, 'cos that fits your neat little preconceptions?
-
Just the fact that in the thread you seemed to believe it and when I asked for credibility you didn't care. Yet you go off talking about propaganda and how the US is full of it. I'm not going to even try to go into this... but that's seriously twisted pal.
BTW what grade are you in? Lockers? ha. Haven't seen one in quite some time.
-
:lol:
-
okay, so i'm reading this.. and i just don't buy it.
sure, whoever wrote this has a good idea of the legal system. and maybe it did originate in some official office, but if it did, it's just an idea being tossed between a few departments that would have been knocked down eventually anyway...
besides, much of it reads too much like rhetoric for it to be an actual legal Act. laws provide the letter of the law, not the arguments behind them.
-
:lol:
And there, in a nutshell, is his entire argument. :D
Actually, you may well be correct on the points in that last big post. And what in the world is wrong with that? In fact, if that stuff is all true, it would make the US the greatest and most powerful nation on the planet, one that is capable of conquering the world. I don't think they are quite that good at the moment, but it is possible if everything you are saying is completely correct.
Besides, if you are naive enough to think that there can exist a true "democratic" government that can actually survive without lying to and cheating the populace it represents, I really don't know what to say. :D (it only works for their practical well-being as it contributes to the whole, and the opinions are no exception) The whole idea of democracy is about who the best propagandist is, since he is the one who "convinces" people best. And I am not talking about it in merely a practical sense either; all "choice" boils down to being convinced by external forces, and propagandic media is just one of these. This is what democracy is all about, so get used to it.
I'm not asking for a debate club. All I was saying is if you have to revert to shouting/yelling/or what Anon did then it shows you can't back your opinion.
I've argued with him before; don't worry, he does that all the time too. :D
Actually, things like Rumsfeld trying to declare peace demonstrators "terrorists" are what bother me. He's a psychotic bastard of the sort who belongs in a cage.
This is actually not that far from the truth, but traitors is more like it for the vast majority of them. Close enough, at any rate. :D
Ghandi = Good
Now this bull cannot be allowed to stand. As a second-generation Indian immigrant, I have looked at the history there quite closely and have come to the conclusion that this is quite possibly the worst and stupidest man in recent history who ever lived, and certainly worse than Hitler. Hitler only killed his people, so the devastation caused to his nation lasted only that generation, but this guy spread dangerously stupid and popularly appealing ideas, ones that have not only brought down his nation but kept it down, since ideas live on beyond individuals. The guy who killed him deserved the title of the mahatma. :p :D
The US has overthrown dozens of democracies when we didn't like the results of free elections, and installed militant dictatorships. Until nearly the second half of this century, the idea of a "free" election would have best been regarded as an uproarious joke, as favoritism, fraud, and bribery were routine in elections. Even now, we are "encouraging" the leader of more than one European state to act against the express will of its populace, and are considering seriously a number of acts such as the one linked to in this thread of the sort Orwell could have written about.
This is what I admire most about them; they know the science of statecraft very well, second only to perhaps the UK. Also, the second half of the century has hardly changed a thing for "free elections," which have been more or less the same since the dawn of mankind. :p
Also, I found this rather funny:
'Cos otherwise I'm getting a C-4 vest and paying a visit to Washington.
I suppose this is your idea of standing up to oppressive authority. Now is it clear why they say that the opinions of the weak are irrelevant? :D
-
It's not supposed to be the law itself. As it says in there, it's sorta the legal equivalent of a WIP- a memo being passed around the Attorney General's office so they can formulate a new bill to be forced into congress next time someone blows something up or when the war starts, or a similar period of hysteria.
-
um, that is what democracy is; they "convince" the people at the right time. What exactly are you complaining about?
-
That driving people into a panic with propoganda and then getting their representatives to sign something with the name "Patriot" on it blindly for fear that otherwise their careers will be ruined is not democratic, per se. I suppose you could make the argument that nobody is literally forced into doing it, but the same rationalization could be used to argue for legalizing fraud.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
it's sorta the legal equivalent of a WIP- a memo being passed around the Attorney General's office
that's what i'm sayin.. so what's the big deal? nobody's going to pass this. it's probably the brainchild of some back-office lackey who hasn't slept in a month.
i mean, with phrases like "Aliens all too frequently flaunt the requirements of the Immigration and Nationality Act because the statute does not include effective criminal deterrence" (Sec 502), it will never, not in a million ****ing years, get past the democrats in congress. immigrants are their bread and ****ing butter.
so what if somebody dreamt this thing up as a WIP memo. there's probably equally frightening incomplete bills collecting dust in democrat offices.
doesn't mean anything will ever come of it..
-
Except that these days, what Bush wants, Bush gets. And the idea that Ashcroft could seriously consider this crap basically just confirms that he's a psychotic fascist bastard of the sort who has no place in any sane government. I mean, really. Look at it! Some of the bits in there are quite literally insane!
And get the party lines thing out of your head, boy. I don't care if there are insane Democrats, too- in fact, I know there are. I like them, if anything, even less than the Republicans- goddamn wishy-washy bastards don't even have the balls to be thoroughly evil like the current administation, and just come sorta halfway. But there are no Democrats this bad in power, or I'd be complaining about them, too.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
But there are no Democrats this bad in power, or I'd be complaining about them, too.
ummm.. i don't know about you, bud i didn't see an author credit. who says this was written by anyone in power? as i said, probably just some back office asshole dreaming up foolish ideas.
I mean, really. Look at it! Some of the bits in there are quite literally insane!
oh, i've read quite a bit of it already. and i have to agree. but..
Except that these days, what Bush wants, Bush gets. And the idea that Ashcroft could seriously consider this crap basically just confirms that he's a psychotic fascist bastard of the sort who has no place in any sane government.
ahem.. show me anything that says that Bush wants this.. or that he has ever even seen this document.. for that matter, while i wouldn't really doubt it, show me something that says Ashcroft is seriously considerring it..
-
Well, we'll see in the news, if it's there. It'd be exceedingly hard for this sort of thing to be circulated in Ashcroft's department, giving Ashcroft substantially greater powers, without him being aware of it, and it'd be just as unlikely that he'd know about it and Bush wouldn't. Besides which, some of the background to it suggests that... what the ****. I'll let the papers and the radio talk for me- I think at this point it's pretty likely to be there tomorrow, unless something really freaky's goin' on and it is an extremely well-done hoax, in which case the creator's still an asshole for making **** up...
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
and it'd be just as unlikely that he'd know about it and Bush wouldn't.
i find it extremely likely that (with all of the thousands of memos and bills and other various documents floating around Bush and his cabinet) Bush would never get a chance to read the vast majority of them. and i would extend that to Ashcroft as well. They have people that filter out all the day-to-day **** and outlandishness so they can focus on what's important.
-
This ain't exactly day-to-day, now is it? Something about, I dunno, better sewer cleaning standards, yeah, I'd agree with you, but not this ****.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
This ain't exactly day-to-day, now is it?
hence, outlandishness.
i doubt very much this would have ever hit Bush's desk if not for the probablity that the press will make a big thing of it.
you said so yourself, Work In Progress memo-type document. it's just an idea someone's throwing around. there's no reason to think anything would have ever come of it.
-
not to mention the fact that it's still probably a fake.
-
Not to mention this administration is not like Carter's. If good ol' Jimmy was in office then I'd guarentee he would have seen it. He was a control freak to a fault. (not saying he's bad, but that's not a good leader). Bush takes the Reagan stance... he hires good people for a reason... so he doesn't have to do everything... coordinates. That in any place (I'm not praising bush) is the ideal of a good leader. He's not in the mud of everything.... does a general fire the guns? Nope.
-
I ask you, if this were to land on Bush's desk, do you think he would be able to understand two words on it?
Lord Ashcroft on the other hand...
I do not like him
(Ashcroft, that name is just so evil sounding it's hard to beleve it isn't made up)
I have many times suported Bush and his war, but I should point out I have never realy liked him and in fact up untill 9/11 I wanted Gore, not becase I thought he was a better presedent but becase he scared me less,
there is no Democrat that currently I like, most of them seem to just be coniveing, not realy doing much more than playing lip survice to the people in suport of the war, republicans seem to realy want it
and most Republicans have at least one thing I am fundementaly oposed to (I should point out that the only person I realy like is McCain(R S AZ), though there are many things I disagree with from him)
I wish the democrats would just help with the war rather than just obstruct, so then I could like them again
-
Ach, or at least come up with some idea of their own. There are plenty of better plans than shooting up every Arab Bush sets eye on, you'd THINK it wouldn't be so hard to work one out and then actually unite to work for it, instead of prattling on.
I seriously am starting to wonder if the Dems are TRYING to lose everything? I mean- Lieberman? Ugh!
-
ya I don't think they could do worse if they tried, I mean even if they are going to give an anti-war aproch they could do a much better job of it than just being "were opposed to the war becase Bush is in suport of it" wich is what it seems like to me, if they wanted to do some damage then they would float some bills that would ban all american oil companies from doing direct bussnes in future Iraq, this would silence the cries that we were in it for the oil and the standard party reaction would cause Bush to fight it giveing the dems some much needed amunition
-
By now, I don't think they have any political say-so at any rate.
-
Do I think he could understand it? Yes. Why do you assume someone that can't understand something when he is not eloquent or can't speak well? That is the dumbest move you'll ever make.
-
becase he does not to me seem like a law type person
as much as I agree with the war policy on most other things I still think he's an idiot, though well advised
-
everybody thought Reagan was stupid too. but look back at his record. i mean, really look at it. he got nearly everything he wanted... stupid people just can't do that..
-
Why do you think he's an idiot? Accent? Or because some of his slip ups during public speaking.
-
It can also be an asset to be under-estimated. Look at the most recent election. The Dems got waxed in historical terms.
-
No, but stupid puppets can. He's clearly proven that he doesn't really understand the bills he keeps pushing, never mind cares about them- he's just the salesman. Hell, look at the State of the Union speech- fumbling and stumbling through, utterly unconvincing to the point where even he musta understood that he was being patronized by the standing ovation every other word, and then suddenly, bam! Something he actually gives a **** about, and can grasp intellectually (war), and he's talking straight outta a movie set. It was fantastic.
There's nothing particularly wrong with him being just a tool (personally I think a dozen smart people can handle a country a good bit better than one), there's just something wrong with the people he's a tool of.
-
no not becase he is from texas, not becase he mis spoke, but he just doesn't seem to ever potray a sence of inteligence about him, maybe I'm wrong, but I have yet to see him do much that I considered to be terably intelegent,
I mean I am hardly the person to judge someone simply becase they don't know how to spell something
now many of his aids are quite sharp, Colin Powel, Don Rumsfeild, Dick Cheiny, all quite well the people I want close to power while were fighting a war, though only Colin would be good to be in comand of thouse people IMHO
-
Seeing all of that was highly biased opinion. You didn't tell me one thing that I already discounted... A smart man doesn't make a good speaker. Are you telling me Steven Hawking is a good speaker? How about a prof? **** they are brilliant yet notorious for not being able to speak. That shows that being intelligent doesn't mean you are a good speaker.
Show me something else.
-
FalconX: Like I said in the previous post- we've seen he can talk when he knows what he's talking about. But most of the time he's short on info and doesn't really give a ****, which is why he sounds like he does. He's just told to sell the product and pushed onto the camera, and he makes a poor salesman.
Yet somehow, he sells. And people keep buying the bull****, eating it up and begging for more, hardly ever complaining about the smell.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
no not becase he is from texas, not becase he mis spoke, but he just doesn't seem to ever potray a sence of inteligence about him, maybe I'm wrong, but I have yet to see him do much that I considered to be terably intelegent,
I mean I am hardly the person to judge someone simply becase they don't know how to spell something
now many of his aids are quite sharp, Colin Powel, Don Rumsfeild, Dick Cheiny, all quite well the people I want close to power while were fighting a war, though only Colin would be good to be in comand of thouse people IMHO
Okay I understand this. But don't go jumping to conclusions... I mean he may be smart he may not be. But look at it this way... who picked those aids? Also many of the people that have worked with him say he's damn intelligent.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
FalconX: Like I said in the previous post- we've seen he can talk when he knows what he's talking about. But most of the time he's short on info and doesn't really give a ****, which is why he sounds like he does. He's just told to sell the product and pushed onto the camera, and he makes a poor salesman.
Yet somehow, he sells. And people keep buying the bull****, eating it up and begging for more, hardly ever complaining about the smell.
Actually if you look at the Iraq part he also slipped up in there.
-
He tripped over his words a little, but you never noticed it. That's what good talking's all about- you can hardly every get a speech out flawlessly, the idea is to carry over the stumbling with force of conviction. And he had plenty of that. It was good. I'm completely against the war, and it was good. Which is pretty good, for politics.
-
He strikes me as one of these guys that tends to reach the right conclusion for policy decisions with the wrong reasoning, but that is much better than many of the more "sophisticated" types, who reach a wrong conclusion with wrong reasoning. Also, he acts as a good mask for the rest so that the world does not take him so seriously, and as a result he and his men can operate more in the dark than they would be able to otherwise.
That driving people into a panic with propoganda and then getting their representatives to sign something with the name "Patriot" on it blindly for fear that otherwise their careers will be ruined is not democratic, per se. I suppose you could make the argument that nobody is literally forced into doing it, but the same rationalization could be used to argue for legalizing fraud.
That is perfectly democratic, because they are being "convinced," and if they were not, they would not agree to it. That is my point here.
-
Crud! I can't open the link. :mad:
-
True... but nothing like a good politician.
He actually did well on the other stuff. Personnaly I think he did a good job on the other stuff.
Now just remember that you're ASSUMING that he doesn't care about that ****. You have all circumstantial evidence.
-
It's an assumption, yes. But we know he's big on the war (and how), and we know he's much better talking about the war than, for example, anything not the war, so deduction would yield... well, solve it your own way.:D
-
I agree he is big on the war... but you're saying he doesn't care about anything else. That's the assumption.
-
It's an assumption, yes. But we know he's big on the war (and how), and we know he's much better talking about the war than, for example, anything not the war, so deduction would yield... well, solve it your own way.
um yeah, any person is obviously going to better at talking about something that they have reasons to support than something that they do not, which is why they would be taking that stance in the first place. :p
-
But I think he did a fine a job on the other stuff.
Look this is going to go nowhere seeing many of you are polarized against him.
-
I am quite fine with him; he may not be academically brilliant, but he has been getting the policies right for the most part.
-
Not really. In the SotU speech, he went over many things that I'm personally in favor of, though I wish he woulda given more support to and am suspicious of his motives in. He fell flat on those.
-
Really? What you think we're going to invade Africa now because we're giving them aide? The reason why that continent has gone to hell is because noone has tried to influence/help it out.
-
I think he's talking more about the fule cell cars and stuff like that (wich I too am fully in suport of)
-
I think he was just making a weak staba at being insulting, Bob.
-
Weak stab? Nah. Being sarcastic is more like it.