Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » Litmus test for liberals
|
|
|
|
| Litmus test for liberals [message #106993] |
Tue, 10 August 2004 18:23   |
 |
Crimson
Messages: 7429
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
I don't understand what you're saying or trying to say. All I see is a pathetic attempt, even for you, to try and refute this.
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Litmus test for liberals [message #107043] |
Wed, 11 August 2004 01:10 |
NHJ BV
Messages: 712
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
Back to the electoral college. Can someone explain why this system does not favor high-population areas? States with more people do have more electoral college points, don't they?
Furthermore I agree with Seal when he said
| Quote: |
A solution to both my side and your side of the argument would be to give electoral points proportionatly to what percent the candidate won by, for every state. For example, if Bush wins in state X, which has 10 electoral points, by getting 60% of the vote, he will only get 6 points (60% of 10).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Litmus test for liberals [message #107094] |
Wed, 11 August 2004 09:27 |
 |
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Nodbugger |
Have you read what Krugman has said about OReilly?
If someone called you a liar who and a terrorist every chance they got you'd be pissed at them to..
The Krugman guy is a lieing asshole.
|
I take it you only watched the part of the interview on FOX where you can only hear O' Reilly putting words in Krugman's mouth? Read the transcript.
Krugman isn't a lieing asshole, he's on the Nobel Prize short list, whereas O'Lielly spews bullcrap all day long on his show. Although it was weird, because I actually watched his show the other day, and he was attacking the Swift Boat Veterans Against Kerry. Well, I suppose this makes sense, because I don't think many groups lie more than Swift Boat Veterans Against Kerry, considering how their entire story is completely made up, and none of them ever served on his boat.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Litmus test for liberals [message #107106] |
Wed, 11 August 2004 10:48 |
|
Crimson
Messages: 7429
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
First off, one of these guys was Kerry's commanding officer... so don't tell me that none of them served with him.
Furthermore, the Senate doesn't just sit on their asses all day and vote on stuff. There are committees there who review intelligence and oversee... well, lots of things. They don't sit around and vote based on what the president says... there are lobbyists and action groups who also give their senators information, and the oversight committee has access to exactly the same intelligence information that Bush has access to, and they came to the same conclusion.
Unfortunately for Bush and America, Dean hopped on this anti-war wagon and invited everyone to come aboard and re-write history and act like Bush acted unilaterally in this Iraq decision and lied to the Senate... when the Senate had the SAME intelligence data!
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Litmus test for liberals [message #107265] |
Thu, 12 August 2004 01:16 |
NHJ BV
Messages: 712
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| Crimson |
First off, one of these guys was Kerry's commanding officer... so don't tell me that none of them served with him.
Furthermore, the Senate doesn't just sit on their asses all day and vote on stuff. There are committees there who review intelligence and oversee... well, lots of things. They don't sit around and vote based on what the president says... there are lobbyists and action groups who also give their senators information, and the oversight committee has access to exactly the same intelligence information that Bush has access to, and they came to the same conclusion.
Unfortunately for Bush and America, Dean hopped on this anti-war wagon and invited everyone to come aboard and re-write history and act like Bush acted unilaterally in this Iraq decision and lied to the Senate... when the Senate had the SAME intelligence data!
|
But don't you think that if the president says that he's sure Iraq has WMD's, the Senate will tend to believe him? Did they know they had all the exact same data?
Furthermore I would appreciate if someone would answer my question about the electoral college system, I'm a bit confused about it.
|
|
|
|
| Litmus test for liberals [message #107294] |
Thu, 12 August 2004 05:13 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
NHJ: I personally don't understand how the electoral college works at all...But, for a simplified look at it, here's How Stuff Works...
http://people.howstuffworks.com/electoral-college.htm
| hydra1945 |
If that's all you have to say about them, you can't be taken seriously anymore.
|
No, you have to in fact be an imbecile to believe what those people say...Yeah, one of them was his commanding officer, quite high up, however, so I doubt he actually served with him, and came out a couple days ago saying he didn't know what he was doing when he signed that petition, that he was making a big mistake, and that he's going to be in big trouble now...And then later that same day, like 6 hours later, he said, No, I was right all along, I should have signed this petition and I fully support Swift Boat Veterans Against Kerry.
Can you say large soft money donations from the Republican party? I know I can.
And people making such a big deal about whether or not he actually earned his purple hearts... If you get an open wound, you get a purple heart. It's not so much an award for taking home an injury as it is an award for facing combat and being injured in the process. Blood = Purple heart. There should be no discussion of whether he actually earned it, especially since there was shrapnel in the wound for the one people seem most fixated on.
Here's what I believe is the official description of the Purple heart:
Awarded for wounds or death as result of an act of any opposing armed force, as a result of an international terrorist attack or as a result of military operaitons while serving as part of a peacekeeping force.
It's also our first medal, established in 1782.
The Bronze Star,
For heroic or meritorious achievement of service, not involving aerial flight in connection with operations against an opposing armed force.
A medal that shows particular valor or meritorious service.
Ah, yes, the Silver Star:
For distinguished gallantry in action against an enemy of the United States or while serving with friendly forces against an opposing enemy force.
Third highest combat medal awarded by the U.S. Armed Force designed soley for heroism in combat. Winning this one is definitely a big deal.
And to top that all of, numerous commendations from all of his commanders, except perhaps Mr. I-like-to-flip-flop-after-taking-large-soft-money-donations-from-the-Republican-party.
Trying to attack his war record is a retarded idea. Except it just keeps going and going and going. It's not like Kerry is championing his exemplary record at every speech he makes, nay, he's talking about how he plans to fix America. But the media keeps coming out and saying that "No one knows how John Kerry is." Even though a lot of people do, they eat up fake opinions with a spoon. If you listened, you would know John Kerry's agenda.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
| Litmus test for liberals [message #107320] |
Thu, 12 August 2004 08:23 |
 |
Gizbotvas
Messages: 172
Registered: February 2003
Location: Madison, WI
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
Either you aren't reading the articlethat you yourself posted, you misunderstand the article, or you are misinterpreting it on purpose.
The article you quoted above never says Kerry would authorize the war, Kerry never says it, nobody listens anymore, nobody thinks anymore.
Kerry said the president should have the AUTHORITY to go to war. But that the authority was misused by Bush. In other words, he entrusted the president to have all options, and GW Bush fucked up.
From YOUR article:
| Quote: |
Kerry said ''Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it was the right authority for a president to have." Kerry has said the decision to invade rested with the president.
|
The article you posted actually CONTRADICTS your theory claim that Kerry would have done the same thing.
CRIMMY- it isn't your fault that your opinions are based on lies and misinformation since you listen to Rush Limbaugh as a news source.
| Quote: |
YOU SAID: I voted for the war, then I voted against the funding, then I campaigned on the premise that the war was unecessary and based on lies, then I said I would have voted for it anyway even if I knew there were no WMD stockpiles and the intelligence was faulty.
|
First lie: he didnt vote for the war. Second lie: he didn't vote against the funding, he voted FOR the bill with a condition that tax cuts be suspended to PAY for it, when that was defeated by republicans http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00373 he voted against the bill which was both fiscally responsible and remarkable insightful.
Third lie: "Then I would have voted for it". I have explained above why this is not true. Anyone who actually reads the newspaper knows this isn't true.
I am getting exhausted pointing out the flaws in your attacks on Kerry.
You claim above that my arguments were ineffective in the PITS FORUMS, and again I think you are blinded by your own jingoistic vitriol.
http://renegade.the-pitts.net/index.php?s=87448dc29695950cbcc2691685e9f64b&act=ST&f=26&t=8020&st=0
I think I made my point quite well in the Pits Forums, which is why maybe you came here to a forum board of younger, less informed folks to practice your propoganda on them.
Kerry is no more a "Flip-Flop" than GW Bush. To claim so is to ignore the nature of politics and to ask your politicians to be inflexible. A stance only the most ignorant people will hold onto.
"Everyone relax...Gizbotvas is here"
Pits moderator
n00bserver moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Litmus test for liberals [message #107358] |
Thu, 12 August 2004 10:35 |
|
Crimson
Messages: 7429
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
I didn't "come here". I own "here".
Kerry is obviously just pulling semantics here. You vote to authorize a war, you shouldn't be surprised when you get a war. And it still doesn't matter what Bush said to the Senate. They are adults, not children. They can think for themselves. They have nothing to lose from not doing what the president wants. That's the beauty of checks and balances. If these Senators are just going to do what the president wants (which they obviously don't considering Michael Moore's claim that Bush "had trouble getting legislation passed" when he first came into office... then these senators need to be disbanded and either elect more that will stand up for their beliefs or just eliminate that branch of the government.
But now we all know this can't possibly be the case, so don't make these senators out to be victims of these supposed "lies" when they were in a place to know what the intelligence said (the president knows nothing that the oversight committe doesn't know as far as that goes) and in a place to stop the war if it were so wrong.
Furthermore, I do not listen to Rush as a news source. First off, I don't listen to him at all, I read transcripts. But he's not a news show. He provides editorials/commentaries on the day's news. I use CNN as a news source.
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Litmus test for liberals [message #107370] |
Thu, 12 August 2004 10:50 |
|
Gizbotvas
Messages: 172
Registered: February 2003
Location: Madison, WI
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| Crimson |
Kerry is obviously just pulling semantics here. You vote to authorize a war, you shouldn't be surprised when you get a war.
|
It is actually YOU using semantics here. Since the Senate never authorized the war, it authorized the president to use the military if and how he deemed necessary. Never mind that the vote was driven by erroneous information and fear, that isn't the point. The point is that Kerry never cast a vote in favor of war in Iraq and you say he did.
"Everyone relax...Gizbotvas is here"
Pits moderator
n00bserver moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Litmus test for liberals [message #107426] |
Thu, 12 August 2004 13:24 |
 |
NukeIt15
Messages: 987
Registered: February 2003
Location: Out to lunch
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
Now's around the time when I step in and throw some more gas on the fire...
Engi, are you aware that medals were thrown around rather freely in the Vietnam war? Whether Kerry 'earned' them or not is open to debate. For an example, there was one case of an officer getting a medal for knowing how to operate a radio(and in doing it, calling in an artillery strike on a friendly position)! Purple Hearts, in particular, were used as a way to get out of the war quickly, in much the same way as National Guard service served as a way to prevent being shipped overseas. Since neither you nor anyone else here was present when the events that got Kerry his medals took place, it is impossible to know exactly how deserving he was of them. "Because he got them" is not a good enough reason. A medal is only as good as the deeds that earned it.
Don't mistake that as an argument for Bush, though- I'll bash him just as readily as anyone. However, I think that should Kerry get into office, his supporters will wind up just as disappointed as his opponents.
"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived of the use of them." - Thomas Paine
Remember, kids: illiteracy is cool. If you took the time to read this, you are clearly a loser who will never get laid. You've been warned.
|
|
|
|
| Litmus test for liberals [message #107439] |
Thu, 12 August 2004 14:11 |
|
Crimson
Messages: 7429
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
I just don't understand... Bush says "Hey, look at this intelligence we are looking at. Iraq needs to be taken down and Saddam needs to be taken out of power. I am going to use some of our military to do so, ok?"
Congress says "We authorize you to use the military to deal with Iraq"
a year later... "We authorized you to use the military but we didn't know you would actually re-open the Gulf War! How could we have ever guessed you would take Saddam out of power mere months after you did the same thing to the Taliban! It's unthinkable!"
Give the Senate a little more credit, ok?
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Tue Nov 26 00:23:56 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.02113 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
