Command and Conquer: Renegade Official Forums - RDF feed
C&C: Renegade --> Dying since 2003™, resurrected in 2024!
In all fairness though, I'd be curious to see a movie/documentary on the Bush perspective on the Bin Laden/Saudi connection to 9/11 and the reasons on why this Iraq war is just. The fuse is lit.
Javaxcx In all fairness though, I'd be curious to see a movie/documentary on the Bush perspective on the Bin Laden/Saudi connection to 9/11 and the reasons on why this Iraq war is just. The fuse is lit. I am surprised. On 4 different news stations I have seen them go through the lies in his movie. MSNBC CBS CNN FOX All of them went though the lies.
While I don't know the orientation of the first two stations, I can honestly say I'm not surprised with the latter two. FOX News is parodied throughout the film.
Javaxcx While I don't know the orientation of the first two stations, I can honestly say I'm not surprised with the latter two. FOX News is parodied throughout the film. I suggest you read this. It just rips him apart. http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/
FOXNews is rightly critical of The Propagandist, Mr. Moore. Kind of surprising to see the Clinton News Network, PMS-NBC and Communist Broadcasting Service actually have something resembling actual truth about his film as they have been slavering over it for the past couple of weeks. A documentary is supposed to tell the truth at all times, using Actors only where the original participants are not available or do not wish to appear on camera. The Propagandist takes statements made by various individuals and edits them out of context to make it seem like they say things that they do not or worse, creates entire scenarios out of whole-cloth to push his blatant, Anti-America agenda and still passes it off as a Documentary.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I don't think Michael Moore is 100% correct, but he's not 100% incorrect either. For example, the movie consistantly implies there is a connection between the Bin Laden family and the Bushes, however, if there was a 'credible' collaboration, why did 9/11 happen? That wasn't addressed. Nor do I agree with his saterizing of the 7 minutes Bush was sitting in the school. If he was alerted of an attack on American soil, would it really be that bright of an idea to jump up and say "OMG WAR TIEM BY" in front a bunch of kindergarteners? Probably not. I'd also like to know where he got the statistic saying (roughly) 11000 troops were in Afghanistan by November, because I can't seem to find anything short of 30000. But those things aside (there are more, but I haven't mentioned them), he's certainly right about some vital things. The biggest one is Iraq's association with terrorists. Hell, he's got speechs of those big high-ups saying that Iraq was secure (prior to March 2003). On top of that, to date, there is no proof of Iraqi involvement with terrorist factions (ie Al Qaeda), and FOXnews agrees! http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,123051,00.html Quote: Bush, however, insisted Thursday that Saddam had "numerous contacts" with Al Qaeda and said Iraqi agents had met with the terror network's leader, Usama bin Laden, in Sudan. Saddam "was a threat because he had terrorist connections — not only Al Qaeda connections, but other connections to terrorist organizations," Bush said. Now remember, insisting something doesn't make it true. If the President could show some evidence, then his plea is justified. Otherwise, it's only an assumption. They're no WMDs either. It questions the motives for the war when there is no ground for going to it. Another thing that should be considered is the treatment of the ethnicities in regards to the election in 2000. I'm too tired to look up the facts on it now, but I'd bet the videos of the ethnics being scorned is awfully real.
Do you not realize how much documented PROOF there is of a Saddam / Al Qaeda tie?
You mean things like this? http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,123757,00.html I should like to see that document myself, instead of having mere referals to it.
I think people are looking for ties specifically pertaining to 9/11. Where as that link just talks about planning "how to oppose the Saudi ruling family". Crimson, if you don't mind, could you provide some links of this proof that you speak of?
Well, the US wants to have proof of Iraq having ties with terrorism. Any kind of terrorism, hence the "war on terror". 9/11 just the spark that lit the fuse.
SEAL I think people are looking for ties specifically pertaining to 9/11. Where as that link just talks about planning "how to oppose the Saudi ruling family". Crimson, if you don't mind, could you provide some links of this proof that you speak of? Well the 9/11 commission has said there are ties. They have met and and all that stuff. They cannot find clear evidence that Saddam had a hand in 9/11. These are older, but they say the same thing. http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9902/13/afghan.binladen/ http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,314700,00.html Then there is this http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3819057.stm
Crimson Do you not realize how much documented PROOF there is of a Saddam / Al Qaeda tie? I pose a question to you: Since there is no evidence tying Saddam to 9/11 (as stated by your own FOXnews stations), the war in Iraq is based on these old connections between Saddam and Bin Laden or Iraq and terrorism, right? (Not to say that old means irrelevant, of course) If that is true, then the US war on terror justifies the Unites States to attack and invade any country that has any ties to any terrorist pretenses. That being said, what about the Mafia? Is it possible to call them terrorists? By definition, terrorism is "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons." It's certainly not new news to know that the Mafia uses violence and intimidation to coerce societies. So why hasn't there been a shock and awe campaign in America, or (pardon my steriotype) Italy? While you can argue that the Mafia could be dealt with by small forces of cops or special ops, it is equally arguable to say that the war in Iraq (targeted at Saddam, for the most part) could have also been dealt with by special ops. Kirby will likely agree with me on that. Just a thought.
Please don't talk about the Mafia, the rest of the world thinks America is ignorant. But the rest of the world still thinks Al Capone runs Chicago..... When I was in England I told people I was from Chicago and they asked me If I was in the mob. You mention Chicago and everyone goes "Chicago? Do you know Al Capone?" When my mom was 8 she moved to California from Chicago. She said people literally moved out of her way on the side walks because they knew she was from Chicago. So they thought she was in the mob and drove a Cadillac.
I didn't say that Al Capone ran Chicago, nor do I think so. But it is obvious that the mob uses (or has used) unlawful violence and intimidation to get their way. That would make them terrorists aswell, and then subject to the "War on Terror".
In a recent article that I read, it made me see that Michael Moore is going to be a transvestite.
C'mon Java, you're smarter than that. You should know better than to use blatnat hyperexaggeration to try and make your case.
When you're arguing morality, every person counts.
Look, Clinton stood idly by while Islam-based terrorists continually attacked US interests and it culminated on 9/11/01 when they killed nearly 3000 innocent Americans. Unlike Clinton, Bush is doing something about it. It is sheer, blatant, unadulterated stupidity and ignorance to think that we should just sit here with our thumbs up our asses and continue to allow these psychopaths to kill us. QED
I never said that nothing should be done. I'm saying that going to war is not the right OR the best way to get something done.
Javaxcx I never said that nothing should be done. I'm saying that going to war is not the right OR the best way to get something done. And how would you recommend getting rid of Saddam? oh ya, there was never an alternate idea presented. These people are not going to just give up. Killing them is best simplest and the only way.
Tell you what kid, go watch Fahrenheit 9/11 and take a look at the Iraqi families destroyed by the war. Go and watch that and tell me that was the best way to deal with the threat of terrorism. I still would argue that the American Special Ops (which has been VERY successful in the past) would be a much better way of dealing with the situation of Saddam. In fact, I would even go as far as to bet that the UN would've supported the US in a LOT larger numbers if they weren't going to blast the hell out of innocent people. But yeah, you're right. War is the simpliest way to go about destorying a population. It doesn't say much for the conquerers, though.
Javaxcx Tell you what kid, go watch Fahrenheit 9/11 and take a look at the Iraqi families destroyed by the war. Go and watch that and tell me that was the best way to deal with the threat of terrorism. I still would argue that the American Special Ops (which has been VERY successful in the past) would be a much better way of dealing with the situation of Saddam. In fact, I would even go as far as to bet that the UN would've supported the US in a LOT larger numbers if they weren't going to blast the hell out of innocent people. But yeah, you're right. War is the simpliest way to go about destorying a population. It doesn't say much for the conquerers, though. Hey, my dad was in Iraq for a year. He was stationed near one of the poorest cities in Iraq. They made Harlem look like Beverly Hills. They had no roads, schools, or clean water. They now have that and tons more. They have business there they have food they have all new conveniences. What we did is what we knew what was going to happen. These people could have either been terrorized and treated like shit for 50 more years or what is happening now. A few months of violence then after that they will be fine. Do you know how many civilians we killed before d-day? the French death toll 30min into d-day was over 3000. People. I believe the total came to over 10000. We killed more French civilians on d-day then German soldiers. But word war two was worth it.
Nodbugger Hey, my dad was in Iraq for a year. Don't take what I said the wrong way. I have absolutely nothing wrong with soldiers doing their duty. They're just doing their jobs. I'm saying there is something wrong with the choices with the people at the top. Quote: He was stationed near one of the poorest cities in Iraq. They made Harlem look like Beverly Hills. They had no roads, schools, or clean water. They now have that and tons more. They have business there they have food they have all new conveniences. Well at the same time, you're likely to see a charred baby being loaded onto a truck of dead innocents with a family crying hysterically asking Allah why it had to happen to them. Quote: What we did is what we knew what was going to happen. huh? Quote: These people could have either been terrorized and treated like shit for 50 more years or what is happening now. A few months of violence then after that they will be fine. Who said anything about allowing the tyranny to continue? The UN doesn't support terrorism. The don't (at the time) support unnecessary wars either. Quote: Do you know how many civilians we killed before d-day? the French death toll 30min into d-day was over 3000. People. I believe the total came to over 10000. We killed more French civilians on d-day then German soldiers. But word war two was worth it. But remember, there is a difference between helping your allies and invading another country. After Pearl Harbour, the US finally decided to send some manpower in the east and retake France from an invading force. Not unlike the Gulf War, an ally is under attack, and the enemy is forced out. Iraq was not an ally in March 2003, and yet it was invaded on shakey pretenses and pick'n'choose tactics (Remember! The Mafia are still terrorists! But they're not being dealt with as harshly as Iraq is!). It's the whole "the ends don't justify the means" thing over again. Those schools, stores, roads, whatever, are all good things. But they don't justify the means that were used to get them. And don't get me started on the torture incident.
j_ball430 In a recent article that I read, it made me see that Michael Moore is going to be a transvestite. At the risk of being a hypocrite, I'm going to have to congratulate you on your outstanding contribution to this thread.
I know firsthand that the Cisco Networking Academy opened up their first Iraq-based academy a few weeks ago. That's progress that I see in Iraq that I obtained not through the media and not through a fatso manipulative liar like Michael Moore.
mrpirate j_ball430 In a recent article that I read, it made me see that Michael Moore is going to be a transvestite. At the risk of being a hypocrite, I'm going to have to congratulate you on your outstanding contribution to this thread. Thank you, I thought it added a nice touch.
Idiot. Without France, your country wouldn't even exist. Go take a look at the history of your own country before you make such ridiculous accusations.
Yeah...a whole ton of anti-french drivel is born of ignorance. For one, when the French surrendered, they really didn't have a huge choice during WWII. The blitzkrieg had never really been witnessed before, so the French rolled all their tanks right up to their border and figured to make an unassailible fortification. Then the Germans came in huge numbers, rolled through the line, and by the time word got out to other parts of the line, Germans were already behind them. Even then, when the French had to help the Germans as part of a surrender agreement, most French commanders of naval units sunk their ships instead of firing on the Allies. And during the Revolutionary War, the French gave the U.S. big-time help, as mentioned above. sw33t and believe that kerry is a pot smoking nazi who sleeps with MJ I don't think you actually know anything about Keryr except maybe what your blindly Republican parents tell you. By the way, your story sucks.
All things considered, I don't think there is that much conspiracy going on. At least, no more conspiracy than the democrats claim not to have.
This week on "When Stereotypical Gits Come Out" we'll be seeing how the Propagandious-Believicous makes mistakes common to it's species. Our host Grendies will provide commentary and light discussion on said mistakes: Grendies: Crikey! Take a look at this one mates, e's got jaw muscles that could rip ya in 'alf! Don't get too close now, Propagandious-Believicous get real fighsty when aggravated! Whoop! Watch out, e's rearin 'is 'ead round! Take a look at the white pasty coloring under 'is chin! --- I for one ama RepublicanCongratulations, your "W00t Rep!" badge is waiting for you at the Information Desk in the lobby.[/MST3K]. I cna say that Kerry supports nothing the United states does.you're absolutely right, assuming you're excluding the approximate half of the country that would rather vote for him than for Bush[/MST3K]he would rather give nukes to the french and have them.Really? I haven't seen anything to suggest that...[/MST3K] Tell me are the french our allies,NOCare to explain that? There's signed documents labeling them as allies, and until something official is made saying otherwise I believe you're BSing...[/MST3K],we saved thier asses in ww1 and 2Yep, along with several other countries.[/MST3K],we went to war with Iraq once,Did the french help us,NOOk, so they didn't want to risk getting shot at for doing something they didn't want to do, there's nothing saying they had to attack Iraq if they didn't want to.[/MST3K],they would rather watch us go to war them when kerry gets into office they nuke us and take overO.o Dude, you are one paranoid little twerp.....[/MST3K],i personally think that i have a million other people who have my back on this oneGiven the millions upon millions of people living in the US I bet that there's a safe bet that there's enough paranoid people who also support the Republican party to reach more than a million.[/MST3K].on a more personal note,i bet u a democrat made the movie and thinks he can meake a great president look badPossibly, but I've yet to see anything that Bush (assuming that's the president you're referring to) has done that could be called "great" if you consider the outcomes in their entirety[/MST3K].more than have the presidents were Republicans and they have the drive to become succeful in lifeCare to provide us with your definition of success? And I'm assuming we're excluding successes that required one's fellow citizens to suffer.[/MST3K].political ideas are based on what u believeYou don't have to be head cashier at the local Wal-Mart to figure that one out <_<[/MST3K] and believe that kerry is a pot smokingYou know Bush was into that kind of stuff too, maybe using drug-references to support Bush isn't the best of ideas.[/MST3K] naziAh yes, the Nazis, the people who gave us the original Homeland-Security (who's job was to search for and remove political dissidents, among other things....kinda like the modern US Department of Homeland-Security 'cept now days they're less open and aggressive...it should be noted that whoever suggested that name for the US DHS should have been smacked for being a moronic git), the people who set up their country so that civil rights were all but non existent (akin to the effects of the Patriot Act and the abilities of the Department of Homeland-Security), the people who's political goals took on a religious like attitude (interesting how Bush mentioned in a speech that this was a crusade *Bush's speech writer has lost -10 respect!*).[/MST3K] who sleeps with MJMJ? Michael Jackson? What on Earth does he have to do with this?[/MST3K] --- And don't even think about accusing me of being a Democrat. The Democrat party is a whiny group of idiots and liberal extremists. The Republican party just happens to be just as bad albeit on the other end of the spectrum (short tempered idiots and conservative extremists). Bush is a fascist git who's administration is comparable to that of the Nazi government and who's intelligence and wit is only that of an imbecile. Kerry is no doubt a fool and would likely continue to make things worse for the country just as much if not more so than Bush if voted into office. Either way this country is going to have another 4 years of embarrassment and hardship thanks to incompetent national representation and leadership. Thank you for being with us ladies and gentlemen, see you next time on "When Stereotypical Gits Come Out"! [}~{] If you're considering the war in Iraq a great accomplishment, then I beg to differ based on the fact that it was poorly planned. Any idiot can take out an army if all they have to do is push a big red button labeled "LAUNCH" in bold letters, but one needs to consider the possible outcome of said pushing and plan out what one's actions will be after one pushes the button. [}~{]
How can sw33t be a republican if he's like 8 years too young to vote?
He supports (at least verbally) the Republican party. He may not be officially a Republican, but he believes in what it stands for and agrees with it's goals. wait....he's only 10ish and he's saying that he knows who's right and wrong politically? O__o;
90% of minors out there are democratic/republican because of your parents. Sure...you can say "But either way I would have turned out a [democrat/republican] regardless of my parents!", but who are you kidding, eh?
My parents are Democrats. I'm a Republican. Nearly got kicked out of the house when I got into a politics argument with them.
Quote: Bush is a fascist git who's administration is comparable to that of the Nazi government and who's intelligence and wit is only that of an imbecile. Kerry is no doubt a fool and would likely continue to make things worse for the country just as much if not more so than Bush if voted into office. Whether or not any of that is a joke, the fact remains that you are an idiot for even remotely believing any of that.
It was an obvious exaggeration of actuality. I was feeling somewhat acidic while I was writing that and I apologies if anyone took any serious offence. Of course he isn't a "fascist git who's administration is comparable to that of the Nazi government and who's intelligence and wit is only that of an imbecile". While his shortcomings in understanding of English grammar on many occasions (among other things) can give the impression of being redundant in the head, it may or may not be evidence of his intelligence. The fascist and Nazi lines were in reference to things such as the Patriot Act and the abilities and the naming -- and I really do think whoever decided on the name for this should be fired -- of the Department of Homeland Security. These two particular things effectively remove civil liberties from being guaranteed. This may not be what one imagines when one thinks of Fascism and Nazis, but it isn't difficult to see the similarities. "Kerry is no doubt a fool and would likely continue to make things worse for the country just as much if not more so than Bush if voted into office." Pure opinion and speculation on my part, that's why I didn't imply it as a fact. Again I apologies if anyone took offence, I didn't realize that I would have to explain what was intended further.
I got my political beliefs from my dad but it wasn't because he imposed them on me... I asked, he explained. The extensive research and news following that I've done since then only cements my beliefs.
And how would you know? Just because I don't agree with a war doesn't make me a die-hard democrat. Being a kid of around 10 years, I wouldn't expect you to understand anything about how the world works.
You haven't argued with me. You've just beaten around the bush. A common trait of a ten year old.
Well, someone oold enough to vote would also have had to go through at least 2 years of high school, which involves 2 years of language arts classes, where they teach you how to spell and use punctuation and things like that. Also, from your July 10th post, i don't think you have any comprehension of the issues. It's probably a good thing that you choose not to vote.
Once again supporting my point that you have no comprehension of the issues. Why will Bush probably win if he's so low in the polls? Oh well, 6 months ago, Bush was up over Kerry. Well, there aren't 6 more months for the polls to switch again. And North Carolina just had their biggest political rally ever for Kerry.
Except Kerry/Edwards is 12 points above Bush in the polls.
No, he isn't. Usually the announcement of the VP causes a candidate to jump 10-12 points, but in Kerry's case it had little to no effect.
If you listen to the incorrect polls on FOX News, then yes, it had no effect. If you listen to the actual polls, then it had roughly a 12 point jump.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Presidential_Tracking_Poll.htm I don't know which way these guys lean but I don't see a 12 point jump. Where's YOUR link?
Crimson Look, Clinton stood idly by while Islam-based terrorists continually attacked US interests and it culminated on 9/11/01 when they killed nearly 3000 innocent Americans. Unlike Clinton, Bush is doing something about it. It is sheer, blatant, unadulterated stupidity and ignorance to think that we should just sit here with our thumbs up our asses and continue to allow these psychopaths to kill us. QED To come back on this two-week old post, I just saw an interview with Clinton by the Dutch news/actualityprogram Nova (Clinton was in Holland today for his book) and Clinton said that under his administration twenty Al-Qaeda cells were dissolved, the same amount as has been dissolved since 9-11. That's not what I call standing idly by.
Yeah, and Clinton is a known liar. I would need more proof than what that man says.
Grendies Bush is a fascist git who's administration is comparable to that of the Nazi government Godwin's Law. Game over. http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/g/Godwin_s_Law.html
Crimson Yeah, and Clinton is a known liar. I would need more proof than what that man says. And Bush is a known idiot. Is his word worth anything to you?
Wrong. Bush's IQ is far above what you'll get in your emails. Clinton was tried and convicted as a liar. He had to pay a fine and was disbarred. Now where's your proof?
Tried as lying about whaat? His sexual relationships. What do his sexual relationships have to do with ANYTHING in government? Why, none at all. George Bush is not a smart man. My evidence? He doesn't do anything smart. You can't see him on TV saying smart things. You can't hear him saying smart things. You can hear him stumble all over words and display lack of comprehension, however. Remember in F9/11 when his staff informs him that the U.S. is under attack from the trade centers, and he just starts reading a kid's book for 7 minutes? Smart people don't do that. Idiot people do that.
Crimson Wrong. Bush's IQ is far above what you'll get in your emails. Clinton was tried and convicted as a liar. He had to pay a fine and was disbarred. Now where's your proof? What I'll get in my emails? WTF are you talking about? Anyway, here's my proof: have you EVER listened to ANYTHING that George W. has said? My great-grandmother's been losing her mind for a decade already and she still sounds more intelligent than he does. I said he was a "known" idiot. Not a "convicted" idiot. Everyone knows he's a moron. Most people just don't care, apparently. (Of course, that's not surprising, considering the fact that the majority of the country is probably at least as stupid as he is.)
SuperFlyingEngi Tried as lying about whaat? His sexual relationships. What do his sexual relationships have to do with ANYTHING in government? Why, none at all. Except when it's cigars in the oval office.
And the fact that when Monica was done sucking him off, he's ejaculate on the wall in the Oval Office. http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/presiq.htm
Interesting.... I'd never seen that before. There has to be at least some truth behind that, though, or people wouldn't believe it. I mean, come on, Bush is a retard. Everyone knows that. The IQs and stuff are obviously made up, but I wouldn't be surprised if Dubya is indeed the dumbest president we've had in quite some time. (I won't say "dumbest politician," though, because I'm sure Quayle could give him a run for his money.) Oh, and you want some evidence? How's this: Bush fell off of a Segway. Yeah, that's what I said. He managed to tip over something that is designed to automatically balance. You know how he managed it? It was NOT a design flaw. Prez Dubya was just too much of an idiot to actually turn the damn thing on.
Everyone? I don't think he's an idiot. I prefer his way of speaking to Clinton's any day.
mahkra Interesting.... I'd never seen that before. There has to be at least some truth behind that, though, or people wouldn't believe it. I mean, come on, Bush is a retard. Everyone knows that. The IQs and stuff are obviously made up, but I wouldn't be surprised if Dubya is indeed the dumbest president we've had in quite some time. (I won't say "dumbest politician," though, because I'm sure Quayle could give him a run for his money.) Oh, and you want some evidence? How's this: Bush fell off of a Segway. Yeah, that's what I said. He managed to tip over something that is designed to automatically balance. You know how he managed it? It was NOT a design flaw. Prez Dubya was just too much of an idiot to actually turn the damn thing on. OK, here is a little fact for you. People with high IQ's tend to have problems with verbal communication.
K9Trooper OK, here is a little fact for you. People with high IQ's tend to have problems with verbal communication. I'm not basing my conclusion that Dubya's a fucking moron solely on his inability to speak. (or read off of a teleprompter, for that matter...) Also, here's another fact for you: bad verbal communication skills do NOT imply high IQ. *Maybe* most people with high IQs are bad at speaking, but pretty much everyone with a really low IQ is bad at speaking...
Crimson Everyone? I don't think he's an idiot. I prefer his way of speaking to Clinton's any day. Okay, sorry. "Everyone with even half a brain." Is that better? I swear, you'd have to be dumb as a pile of manure to think Dubya is intelligent...
Wow, I thought you could debate without debasing yourself and stooping to insults. Apparently I was wrong. Once you are ready to talk again, let me know.
Well, since we weren't even debating anything.... "I think Dubya's stupid!" "I think he's smart!" Yeah, that's some debate.... Since your only argument was "you can't prove he's stupid," I figured the discussion wasn't really worth continuing. Also, I didn't say you can't think he's a good president. Lots of stupid people are good friends and can sometimes even be good at their jobs. (Personally, I'm not really sure what I think of him as a president...) I was just saying that if you truly think he's intelligent, I feel sorry for you.
Segways are dangerous when their batteries are low. The fall over. I think the latest segway accident claimed 50 lives.
mahkra I figured the discussion wasn't really worth continuing. So you decided to lower yourself to insults, I understand.
heh, I'm not taking sides here but something I saw on a program recently. A few days ago there was a documentary on stupidity, yes stupidity. They referred to reasons of who would qualify as the lowest common denominator, and how we as a whole tend to respect and look up to stupidity rather than intelligence. One person that was featured as a possible lowest common denominator was Bush. They quoted such things as the speech where he states "It's a struggle between good, and a struggle between evil" (good vs good and evil vs evil?). However, they did mention as they had with others, that maybe it's an act. Seeing as how people look up more to stupidity than intelligence, maybe like so many others, he's acting stupid to gain and keep public approval. If need be, I can discuss this documentary more, so as to gt the point across as to why we prefer stupidity over intelligence, but my point has been stated, so unless asked, I won't go any further.
Crimson mahkra I figured the discussion wasn't really worth continuing. So you decided to lower yourself to insults, I understand. Hey, I never claimed to be above insults. I just think it's stupid when people reduce themselves to nothing but insults. EDIT: And warranto, that actually sounds like a (potentially) pretty neat documentary. I'd be interested to hear more about it.
Crimson Everyone? I don't think he's an idiot. I prefer his way of speaking to Clinton's any day. Is it hard for you to understand Clinton when he uses words more then four syllables long without stumbling on them? K9Trooper OK, here is a little fact for you. People with high IQ's tend to have problems with verbal communication. Ha ha! You're trying to pretend that George Bush mispronounces words and doesn't use big ones because he's too smart? Wow, that's a new one. I laugh at you. I really do. Nodbugger Segways are dangerous when their batteries are low. The fall over. I think the latest segway accident claimed 50 lives. Out of curiosity, how did a Segway falling over claim 50 lives?
I understand the words that Clinton used, but they are not words that one uses every day and while I take a second or two to remember what the word means, you've already missed another sentence. All this from a guy who doesn't know the meaning of the word "is".
So it's bad the he doesn't use everyday language? The President is not supposed to be an ordinary person. Republicans thought that might be a good idea with Ronald Reagan, but it was not a good idea. I heard a good idea on the internet - instead of putting Reagan's face on the ten, we should put it on Federal Treasury Notes, since we pay off the national debt with them. And the whole meaning of "is" came about because of clarification of the judge's definition of what sexual relations are. During those terrible trials where Republicans were doing whatever they could to make Clinton look bad. In fact, a lot of lawyers have said we have to re-define the rules of what can and cannot be asked in court because of those trials.
That's funny, I prefer someone who relates to me and others, not someone who acts like they're better than everyone else.
Crimson That's funny, I prefer someone who relates to me and others, not someone who acts like they're better than everyone else. Which is exactly why I think our political system sucks. The uneducated masses should not be choosing the President. The more capable person should be president. Our system simply makes the most popular person win. And popularity is NOT a good substitute for competence...
Crimson That's funny, I prefer someone who relates to me and others, not someone who acts like they're better than everyone else. Clinton showing that he is very intelligent is not him telling you that you're too stupid to be bothered with. It's him being an educated person. Unllike George Bush. So, having someone without the capacity for higher language skills is preferable to someone with, at least in your mind?
SuperFlyingEngi It's him being an educated person. Unllike George Bush. Quote: Personal Life and Education Bush was born in Connecticut and grew up in Midland and Houston, Texas. He has four younger siblings: Jeb, Neil, Marvin, and Dorothy. A younger sister, Robin, died of leukemia in 1953, at the age of three. He followed his father and grandfather in education at Phillips Academy and Yale University, where he received a bachelor's degree in 1968 and where he joined Delta Kappa Epsilon and the Skull and Bones Society. He then received a Master of Business Administration (MBA) from Harvard Business School. He is the first president with an MBA degree. Source: http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?content=598
Crimson, Yale is pathetically easy to get into. And he didn't even get in on his own merit. "He followed his father and grandfather." Also, Harvard nowadays is nothing but a name. Among quite a large portion of educated people, a Harvard "education" is a joke. Once you're accepted, it's more difficult to fail than it is to graduate. And I'm sure being the son of a President played some part in Dubya's acceptance... EDIT: A friend pointed out to me that I misspoke when I said "the son of a President." Back then, Bush Sr. wasn't yet President. He was only the director of the CIA. (Who probably has more power than the president anyway...)
Crimson I understand the words that Clinton used, but they are not words that one uses every day and while I take a second or two to remember what the word means, you've already missed another sentence. All this from a guy who doesn't know the meaning of the word "is". So what you're saying is your brain can't handle multiple things at once? Oh, and saying someone has an MBA does not declare them to be intelligent. That's a master's in common sense, which he apparently needs some more training in. Degrees in BA are like getting degrees in running McDonalds' franchises.
SuperFlyingEngi Tried as lying about whaat? His sexual relationships. What do his sexual relationships have to do with ANYTHING in government? Why, none at all. Clinton was tried for PERJURY!!!!!!!!!!! That means LYING UNDER OATH!!!!!!!! PERJURY IS A FREAKING FELONY Is it that hard to understand??????
hydra1945 Is it that hard to understand?????? No, it's not hard to understand. I just don't think it matters. So the president lied about cheating on his wife... Why should I care?
hydra1945 SuperFlyingEngi Tried as lying about whaat? His sexual relationships. What do his sexual relationships have to do with ANYTHING in government? Why, none at all. Clinton was tried for PERJURY!!!!!!!!!!! That means LYING UNDER OATH!!!!!!!! PERJURY IS A FREAKING FELONY Is it that hard to understand?????? ...why was he convicted for perjury? For lying about his sexual engagements. Which have nothing to do with government. Republicans couldn't pin anything on Clinton except that he was rather naughty in the White House, which I do no agree with, but it has nothing to do with government and it's his own business.
SuperFlyingEngi hydra1945 SuperFlyingEngi Tried as lying about whaat? His sexual relationships. What do his sexual relationships have to do with ANYTHING in government? Why, none at all. Clinton was tried for PERJURY!!!!!!!!!!! That means LYING UNDER OATH!!!!!!!! PERJURY IS A FREAKING FELONY Is it that hard to understand?????? ...why was he convicted for perjury? For lying about his sexual engagements. Which have nothing to do with government. Republicans couldn't pin anything on Clinton except that he was rather naughty in the White House, which I do no agree with, but it has nothing to do with government and it's his own business. It doesn't matter what you lied about. It is just that he lied under oath. He could have said he owned a 1967 Cadillac when he was 23. If that was found to be a lie he could be thrown in jail.
But his sexual relations are none of anyone's goddamn business. The fact that Republicans used it as their main attack point showed how wicked they had become.
SuperFlyingEngi But his sexual relations are none of anyone's goddamn business. The fact that Republicans used it as their main attack point showed how wicked they had become. It became someone elses business when he spooged all inside the oval office. Would you be mad if the Pope was jacking off in the Vatican?
It's no different now. Sandy Berger's classified documents are for pinning him for sexual harassment in his lederhosens.
I would not care if the pope was jacking off in the Vatican. But if Clinton was such a "bad president" who didn't do anything right, why did Republicans concentrate on Monica Lewinsky, and then have to make things up like Whitewater?
SuperFlyingEngi I would not care if the pope was jacking off in the Vatican. But if Clinton was such a "bad president" who didn't do anything right, why did Republicans concentrate on Monica Lewinsky, and then have to make things up like Whitewater? What did they make up? He got a blow job then stuck his cigar in her pussy. Then spooged all over the place.What was there to lie about?
SuperFlyingEngi WHITEWATER!!! THEY MADE UP WHITEWATER! the way you said it. They made things up like whitewater. Worded that way you sare saying they made things up in addition to whitewater.
In that context, "like" means "for instance," to the best of my understanding.
Micheal Moore is a big fat stupid white man. I laughed my ass off at this book I am almost done with it. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060763957/qid=1091330563/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-3877990-8730449?v=glance&s=books Also, I have one more thing to say. That is, there is no point arguing with this liberal monkeys. They will never understand and you don't need to waste your time typing up this essays. It has been said before and I will say it again. Arguing online is like running in the special olympics, no matter if you win or lose you're still retarted.
Everyone agrees with me when I say that Micheal Moore is the next Micheal Jackson, but instead of melestering little boys, he will rape politicians. (not to be taken seriously.)
SuperFlyingEngi Crimson That's funny, I prefer someone who relates to me and others, not someone who acts like they're better than everyone else. Clinton showing that he is very intelligent is not him telling you that you're too stupid to be bothered with. It's him being an educated person. Unllike George Bush. So, having someone without the capacity for higher language skills is preferable to someone with, at least in your mind? http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=106&ncid=742&e=3&u=/nypost/20040913/cm_nypost/cuomokerryiscommatose Yes, I'm bumping a really old thread, but a Democrat agrees with me.
SuperFlyingEngi I would not care if the pope was jacking off in the Vatican. But if Clinton was such a "bad president" who didn't do anything right, why did Republicans concentrate on Monica Lewinsky, and then have to make things up like Whitewater? You know, we elected Clinton to be President of the United States... I don't remember anyone electing him to have sex while on duty.