ViperPilot 0 #101 August 12, 2005 QuoteYep, he's got it really tough compared to all those soldiers overseas. Through this entire thread you've continously alluded to how incredibly hurt and pissed the troops must be at Bush for this "vacation" as you call it. Well Funks, what gives you the grand idea that you have any right or basis to be the "fearless representer of the troops?" Well Funks, you're not us, so don't think you can speak for us. I don't give a shit that he's down in TX because I know damn well he can do the same work there as he can sitting in the Oval Office. It's a wonderful world of technology we live in today. The President's job consists of mostly meetings, phone calls, letters, speeches, etc....ALL of which he can do at the WH, Crawford, or my backyard. It doesn't matter, it all gets done regardless of location. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #102 August 12, 2005 QuoteQuote I think that the PEOPLE and ultimately the Elected OFFICIALS, will fix this border problem because that is what most of the nation wants. Who would you vote for, the left doesn't even want to call them illegal. Might hurt their feelings. Body... I don't know anymore. I am a republican, and I tend to vote that way. However, this border control issue is not being addressed by anyone. Shit, If i had the money and was old enough I might run We will have to wait and see what comes around in 08'. If Mrs. Clinton runs and says she'll fix the border, I still won't vote for her? Why? Well, because I live in NY, and I can not think of ONE thing she has done for this state yet as senator other than make an ass out of herself for the issue with Airt traffic Control. She allocated funding for security post 9/11, but every state did. She made a shitload of promises that she hasn't even addressed. I will vote for a third party if their adgenda is better than the Dem/Rep one. Even though it is a "wasted Vote", I need to make a stand on the issues I see as important. One of the biggest for me is the border issue. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JoeyRamone 0 #103 August 12, 2005 Hey if you can do a better job go for it. Love it or leave it.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AlexCrowley 0 #104 August 12, 2005 Quote Love it or leave it.. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
funks 1 #105 August 12, 2005 You think he is having hotdogs, hamburgers or chicken breast at the barbecue? Maybe some baked beans to go along with it? Wonder if he changed into his speedo to play on the slip and slide? Wow, he has got a rough life doesnt he? WE ARE AT WAR. HIS TROOPS ARE DYING ON A DAILY BASIS (oh wait, thats right according to him the war ended over a year ago). He is a pussy. He has all these kids off fighting his personal war while he laughs it up in the lap of luxury. This country should be ashamed of itself for electing this pathetic clown. On Friday, Bush arrived before noon at a neighbor's ranch for a barbecue that was expected to raise at least $2 million for the Republican National Committee. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050812/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AlexCrowley 0 #106 August 12, 2005 Couple of things: 1. Bush isnt the only guy working in the civil service, unbelievably he has thousands, perhaps millions, of people under him on the org chart. I know, tough to believe, but exactly how it wasnt Clinton screwing everything up, it isnt Bush either. 2. Presidents take holidays because it shows people that they are confident. Someone better aquainted with US politics can tell you which president it was that refused to go on holiday during a war and then lost voters confidence. I dont understand something, and I don't particularly like Bush from the personality he projects, but if you hate the guy so much isnt it a good thing that he's on vacation and having other people make decisions? God forbid people should think Im defending the right here. They're possibly worse with their anti-clinton bs - and then claiming that they are shocked by the hostility from the left wingers, conveniently forgetting the millions spent and the sheer volume of vitriol aimed squarely at Clinton for the majority of his presidency. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,090 #107 August 13, 2005 >WE ARE AT WAR. So you want him in the office where he can start another one? Jeez, everyone takes vacations. I do. Most politicians do. I'd be worried about someone who didn't. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
funks 1 #108 August 13, 2005 Quote>WE ARE AT WAR. So you want him in the office where he can start another one? Jeez, everyone takes vacations. I do. Most politicians do. I'd be worried about someone who didn't. i am glad to hear you take vacations, even though that is completely irrelevant to this discussion. We have had almost 2000 people die as a direct result of this unjustified war. Generally vacations are taken as a reward for working hard and doing a good job. The only hard work our president has done is managing the deaths of thousands of our kids for no reason whatsoever. Isnt it a rule of thumb that the more important a position is the more that person is needed in office? And dont give me the technology excuse and working remote crap, its all about perception. He is painting a very bad picture of his priorities and overall sense of urgency. He is a disgrace to this country and has no business managing a 7-11 let alone being the ruler of the most powerful country on this planet. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #109 August 15, 2005 Quote its all about perception. it's amazing how many people place more value on insubstative points/impressions rather than facts Rule by emotion is a terrible sovereign to have ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
funks 1 #110 August 15, 2005 QuoteQuote Rule by emotion is a terrible sovereign to have I agree. That is why Bush is such a crappy president. He started this war based on pure emotions and revenge. Perception was key in his basis for invading Iraq. He sure as hell didnt base it on factual information now did he? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #111 August 15, 2005 you certainly have your opinions ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ChasingBlueSky 0 #112 August 15, 2005 Quote Stop getting all your news from NPR, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, moveon.org and youngdemocrats.org. Maybe you can wake up a little happier, wash your mouth out with soap and show the President of the US the respect (at least the office) he deserves. Yes, please get your news from Fox News. Because we know they never slant either way. The only other places you haven't mentioned are the AP, Reuters, and BBC. Did you know that all of the news stations and newspapers all use these as a reliable source? Next time, pay attention to the initial line of a story used by the major outlets - you will find they often come from the same source. BTW - it must be great to take a 5 week vacation while making a huge salary like that. I know that the Pres and CEO of my company feel they cannot afford more than two weeks off (even with a blackberry at their hip and a HUGE support staff) and we are only a Fortune 100 company._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #113 August 15, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuote Rule by emotion is a terrible sovereign to have I agree. That is why Bush is such a crappy president. My Preception is, He started this war based on pure emotions and revenge. ,but thats just my emotional assessment Perception was key in his basis for invading Iraq.My preception is He sure as hell didnt base it on factual information now did he? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ChasingBlueSky 0 #114 August 15, 2005 Quote Rule by emotion is a terrible sovereign to have Rule by emoting fear out of your populace is better/different? Look in the months leading up to the election. We never heard the end of possible threats to this country which lead to a rise in threat level many times. We haven't had a full rise in threat level since the election ended. We had a slight increase in threat level on mass transit only after London was bombed. So, loose threats that Ridge declared as old and exaggerated before the election elicited more attention than an actual attack from our main focus?_________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites tcnelson 1 #115 August 15, 2005 off topic but, does your sig line mean that you believe in anarchy as a form of govt.?"Don't talk to me like that assface...I don't work for you yet." - Fletch NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ChasingBlueSky 0 #116 August 15, 2005 Quoteoff topic but, does your sig line mean that you believe in anarchy as a form of govt.? And you jumped to that conclusion how? Bush loves to limit American freedoms. This one in particular was connected to freedom of speech. Google it._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,465 #117 August 15, 2005 Quoteit's amazing how many people place more value on insubstative points/impressions rather than facts Rule by emotion is a terrible sovereign to have Do you honestly believe that emotions did not play an important part in the decision making process that led up to the invasion of Iraq? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #118 August 15, 2005 QuoteQuoteit's amazing how many people place more value on insubstative points/impressions rather than facts Rule by emotion is a terrible sovereign to have Do you honestly believe that emotions did not play an important part in the decision making process that led up to the invasion of Iraq? Yours and CBS comments are a complete non sequitor to what I was talking about - try to focus. Just because I think funks posts are an emotional tantrum, when instead he could be productively talking specifics about what is being done or not done rather the public relations aspect of something non-critical - does not imply anything on my positions on politics, the war, etc. You statement above agrees with me, in essence, when we let emotion rule our decision making process we make mistakes more often than the right thing. So I'm not sure why you guys would respond confrontatively instead of constructively. What's the difference between "Do you honestly believe" and "Do you believe"? Seriously, what is the emotional implication there - is it arrogance? is it disbelief? is it confusion? What's the purpose? (This is for the semantics nuts here that like to pick at that stuff) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,465 #119 August 15, 2005 QuoteYours and CBS comments It isn't a comment, it is a question. One I was hoping you would answer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #120 August 15, 2005 It was an implied comment. You guys always push a particular viewpoint (the question was a complete non sequitor, so if you want my opinion on a completely unrelated topic, PM me and I'll answer it - if posted, you obviously are incorrectly inferring something or pushing an agenda or just obsessed on one thing that you can't follow the thread). The persistence is commendable, but a clean discussion without the bias would be best. To the non sequitor question then: anyway - both sides leading up to the election had a ton of emotional content which was eaten up by the masses. The terrorism issue (of many topics this was a big one, but by no means the only topic on the table) was one of those that never reached a reasoned discussion on either side of the aisle - nor in the world court either. I wasn't terribly happy with either political party or the international position, frankly. Speakers Corner was actually a pretty good reflection of the chaos that topic reached because of the unreasonableness of people to discuss before deciding. It was never an issue of a war or not, it was an issue of who gets to make the power grab "this" cycle. Further, it was extremely difficult to find any substantive plan on any subject that didn't have a twist or dig hidden in the content (that's for those that weren't entirely an emotional appeal). Again, frustrating to have to vote for the candidate that I felt would do the least damage when it's hard to even pin them down on what they stood for. The world is full of quick fix, emotion junkies that would be unable to solve a math problem without feeling compelled to write an essay on how the problem made them feel in the context of the suffering of mankind. Do I believe the Repub used emotive arguments more than reasoned - Yes Ditto the dems - Yes, and even less subtly Biz as usual - Yes Was it only on terrorism? - Nope Do I expect it to change? - Nope, it's what the 'people' want - everywhere (because they are lazy) Do I expect it ever take time off? - Nope, used to, not anymore Lots of opinion/observation here. Sorry about that. It's easier that way. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites tcnelson 1 #121 August 15, 2005 QuoteAnd you jumped to that conclusion how? because there should be limits to freedom, plain and simple. the fact that you are using that quote in your sig line and my knowledge of your beliefs implies that you believe that there should be no limits to ones freedoms."Don't talk to me like that assface...I don't work for you yet." - Fletch NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,090 #122 August 15, 2005 >because there should be limits to freedom, plain and simple I agree. But there sure as hell shouldn't me _more_ limits to freedoms than those called out in the constitution and by our current laws - and that's exactly what Bush was suggesting. He was suggesting that a website that lampooned him should not be allowed to do so. In other words, he wished to quell dissent, and that is _exactly_ why the first amendment is there - to prevent the government from silencing dissenters. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ChasingBlueSky 0 #123 August 15, 2005 QuoteQuoteAnd you jumped to that conclusion how? because there should be limits to freedom, plain and simple. the fact that you are using that quote in your sig line and my knowledge of your beliefs implies that you believe that there should be no limits to ones freedoms. Quick answer: Bill got it, you missed it. I don't believe in anarchy. I believe in the freedoms this country was founded on and I believe there are responsibilities associated with them. Freedom of speech is, in my opinion, the root of all our freedoms. I do enjoy watching Bush hang himself with his own words. The president, and defender of our rights, pushed forth the thought that freedom of speech should be limited because it was used against him? On that thought alone he will never have a chance of gaining my support. On that thought alone he is the worst person to be in office leading our country._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,465 #124 August 15, 2005 Actually it was not an implied comment. You are right, the question may not have any direct bearing on the thread, but that hasn't stopped anybody before from asking or answering. In the end only one person is responsible for the decision to invade Iraq and that is the President. There are quite a few clues that emotion played a very significant role in the President's decision making process. I happen to personally believe that indeed that is the case. I was asking you what your thoughts were on that.... If you would prefer to get this in a pm, I would be more than happy to copy and paste this into a pm for you, but in my opinion that defeats the purpose of a forum. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites tcnelson 1 #125 August 16, 2005 QuoteOn that thought alone he will never have a chance of gaining my support. On that thought alone he is the worst person to be in office leading our country. i have a feeling that he didn't have a shot at your support no matter what and i'm sure you're just being overly dramatic when you say that he is the worst person for the presidency. if you truly believe that gwb is the worst possible person to have as the president then we will never see eye to eye on anyting dealing with politics."Don't talk to me like that assface...I don't work for you yet." - Fletch NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Page 5 of 6 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
rehmwa 2 #111 August 15, 2005 you certainly have your opinions ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #112 August 15, 2005 Quote Stop getting all your news from NPR, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, moveon.org and youngdemocrats.org. Maybe you can wake up a little happier, wash your mouth out with soap and show the President of the US the respect (at least the office) he deserves. Yes, please get your news from Fox News. Because we know they never slant either way. The only other places you haven't mentioned are the AP, Reuters, and BBC. Did you know that all of the news stations and newspapers all use these as a reliable source? Next time, pay attention to the initial line of a story used by the major outlets - you will find they often come from the same source. BTW - it must be great to take a 5 week vacation while making a huge salary like that. I know that the Pres and CEO of my company feel they cannot afford more than two weeks off (even with a blackberry at their hip and a HUGE support staff) and we are only a Fortune 100 company._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #113 August 15, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuote Rule by emotion is a terrible sovereign to have I agree. That is why Bush is such a crappy president. My Preception is, He started this war based on pure emotions and revenge. ,but thats just my emotional assessment Perception was key in his basis for invading Iraq.My preception is He sure as hell didnt base it on factual information now did he? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ChasingBlueSky 0 #114 August 15, 2005 Quote Rule by emotion is a terrible sovereign to have Rule by emoting fear out of your populace is better/different? Look in the months leading up to the election. We never heard the end of possible threats to this country which lead to a rise in threat level many times. We haven't had a full rise in threat level since the election ended. We had a slight increase in threat level on mass transit only after London was bombed. So, loose threats that Ridge declared as old and exaggerated before the election elicited more attention than an actual attack from our main focus?_________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites tcnelson 1 #115 August 15, 2005 off topic but, does your sig line mean that you believe in anarchy as a form of govt.?"Don't talk to me like that assface...I don't work for you yet." - Fletch NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ChasingBlueSky 0 #116 August 15, 2005 Quoteoff topic but, does your sig line mean that you believe in anarchy as a form of govt.? And you jumped to that conclusion how? Bush loves to limit American freedoms. This one in particular was connected to freedom of speech. Google it._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,465 #117 August 15, 2005 Quoteit's amazing how many people place more value on insubstative points/impressions rather than facts Rule by emotion is a terrible sovereign to have Do you honestly believe that emotions did not play an important part in the decision making process that led up to the invasion of Iraq? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #118 August 15, 2005 QuoteQuoteit's amazing how many people place more value on insubstative points/impressions rather than facts Rule by emotion is a terrible sovereign to have Do you honestly believe that emotions did not play an important part in the decision making process that led up to the invasion of Iraq? Yours and CBS comments are a complete non sequitor to what I was talking about - try to focus. Just because I think funks posts are an emotional tantrum, when instead he could be productively talking specifics about what is being done or not done rather the public relations aspect of something non-critical - does not imply anything on my positions on politics, the war, etc. You statement above agrees with me, in essence, when we let emotion rule our decision making process we make mistakes more often than the right thing. So I'm not sure why you guys would respond confrontatively instead of constructively. What's the difference between "Do you honestly believe" and "Do you believe"? Seriously, what is the emotional implication there - is it arrogance? is it disbelief? is it confusion? What's the purpose? (This is for the semantics nuts here that like to pick at that stuff) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,465 #119 August 15, 2005 QuoteYours and CBS comments It isn't a comment, it is a question. One I was hoping you would answer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #120 August 15, 2005 It was an implied comment. You guys always push a particular viewpoint (the question was a complete non sequitor, so if you want my opinion on a completely unrelated topic, PM me and I'll answer it - if posted, you obviously are incorrectly inferring something or pushing an agenda or just obsessed on one thing that you can't follow the thread). The persistence is commendable, but a clean discussion without the bias would be best. To the non sequitor question then: anyway - both sides leading up to the election had a ton of emotional content which was eaten up by the masses. The terrorism issue (of many topics this was a big one, but by no means the only topic on the table) was one of those that never reached a reasoned discussion on either side of the aisle - nor in the world court either. I wasn't terribly happy with either political party or the international position, frankly. Speakers Corner was actually a pretty good reflection of the chaos that topic reached because of the unreasonableness of people to discuss before deciding. It was never an issue of a war or not, it was an issue of who gets to make the power grab "this" cycle. Further, it was extremely difficult to find any substantive plan on any subject that didn't have a twist or dig hidden in the content (that's for those that weren't entirely an emotional appeal). Again, frustrating to have to vote for the candidate that I felt would do the least damage when it's hard to even pin them down on what they stood for. The world is full of quick fix, emotion junkies that would be unable to solve a math problem without feeling compelled to write an essay on how the problem made them feel in the context of the suffering of mankind. Do I believe the Repub used emotive arguments more than reasoned - Yes Ditto the dems - Yes, and even less subtly Biz as usual - Yes Was it only on terrorism? - Nope Do I expect it to change? - Nope, it's what the 'people' want - everywhere (because they are lazy) Do I expect it ever take time off? - Nope, used to, not anymore Lots of opinion/observation here. Sorry about that. It's easier that way. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites tcnelson 1 #121 August 15, 2005 QuoteAnd you jumped to that conclusion how? because there should be limits to freedom, plain and simple. the fact that you are using that quote in your sig line and my knowledge of your beliefs implies that you believe that there should be no limits to ones freedoms."Don't talk to me like that assface...I don't work for you yet." - Fletch NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,090 #122 August 15, 2005 >because there should be limits to freedom, plain and simple I agree. But there sure as hell shouldn't me _more_ limits to freedoms than those called out in the constitution and by our current laws - and that's exactly what Bush was suggesting. He was suggesting that a website that lampooned him should not be allowed to do so. In other words, he wished to quell dissent, and that is _exactly_ why the first amendment is there - to prevent the government from silencing dissenters. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ChasingBlueSky 0 #123 August 15, 2005 QuoteQuoteAnd you jumped to that conclusion how? because there should be limits to freedom, plain and simple. the fact that you are using that quote in your sig line and my knowledge of your beliefs implies that you believe that there should be no limits to ones freedoms. Quick answer: Bill got it, you missed it. I don't believe in anarchy. I believe in the freedoms this country was founded on and I believe there are responsibilities associated with them. Freedom of speech is, in my opinion, the root of all our freedoms. I do enjoy watching Bush hang himself with his own words. The president, and defender of our rights, pushed forth the thought that freedom of speech should be limited because it was used against him? On that thought alone he will never have a chance of gaining my support. On that thought alone he is the worst person to be in office leading our country._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,465 #124 August 15, 2005 Actually it was not an implied comment. You are right, the question may not have any direct bearing on the thread, but that hasn't stopped anybody before from asking or answering. In the end only one person is responsible for the decision to invade Iraq and that is the President. There are quite a few clues that emotion played a very significant role in the President's decision making process. I happen to personally believe that indeed that is the case. I was asking you what your thoughts were on that.... If you would prefer to get this in a pm, I would be more than happy to copy and paste this into a pm for you, but in my opinion that defeats the purpose of a forum. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites tcnelson 1 #125 August 16, 2005 QuoteOn that thought alone he will never have a chance of gaining my support. On that thought alone he is the worst person to be in office leading our country. i have a feeling that he didn't have a shot at your support no matter what and i'm sure you're just being overly dramatic when you say that he is the worst person for the presidency. if you truly believe that gwb is the worst possible person to have as the president then we will never see eye to eye on anyting dealing with politics."Don't talk to me like that assface...I don't work for you yet." - Fletch NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Page 5 of 6 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
ChasingBlueSky 0 #114 August 15, 2005 Quote Rule by emotion is a terrible sovereign to have Rule by emoting fear out of your populace is better/different? Look in the months leading up to the election. We never heard the end of possible threats to this country which lead to a rise in threat level many times. We haven't had a full rise in threat level since the election ended. We had a slight increase in threat level on mass transit only after London was bombed. So, loose threats that Ridge declared as old and exaggerated before the election elicited more attention than an actual attack from our main focus?_________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tcnelson 1 #115 August 15, 2005 off topic but, does your sig line mean that you believe in anarchy as a form of govt.?"Don't talk to me like that assface...I don't work for you yet." - Fletch NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #116 August 15, 2005 Quoteoff topic but, does your sig line mean that you believe in anarchy as a form of govt.? And you jumped to that conclusion how? Bush loves to limit American freedoms. This one in particular was connected to freedom of speech. Google it._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #117 August 15, 2005 Quoteit's amazing how many people place more value on insubstative points/impressions rather than facts Rule by emotion is a terrible sovereign to have Do you honestly believe that emotions did not play an important part in the decision making process that led up to the invasion of Iraq? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #118 August 15, 2005 QuoteQuoteit's amazing how many people place more value on insubstative points/impressions rather than facts Rule by emotion is a terrible sovereign to have Do you honestly believe that emotions did not play an important part in the decision making process that led up to the invasion of Iraq? Yours and CBS comments are a complete non sequitor to what I was talking about - try to focus. Just because I think funks posts are an emotional tantrum, when instead he could be productively talking specifics about what is being done or not done rather the public relations aspect of something non-critical - does not imply anything on my positions on politics, the war, etc. You statement above agrees with me, in essence, when we let emotion rule our decision making process we make mistakes more often than the right thing. So I'm not sure why you guys would respond confrontatively instead of constructively. What's the difference between "Do you honestly believe" and "Do you believe"? Seriously, what is the emotional implication there - is it arrogance? is it disbelief? is it confusion? What's the purpose? (This is for the semantics nuts here that like to pick at that stuff) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #119 August 15, 2005 QuoteYours and CBS comments It isn't a comment, it is a question. One I was hoping you would answer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #120 August 15, 2005 It was an implied comment. You guys always push a particular viewpoint (the question was a complete non sequitor, so if you want my opinion on a completely unrelated topic, PM me and I'll answer it - if posted, you obviously are incorrectly inferring something or pushing an agenda or just obsessed on one thing that you can't follow the thread). The persistence is commendable, but a clean discussion without the bias would be best. To the non sequitor question then: anyway - both sides leading up to the election had a ton of emotional content which was eaten up by the masses. The terrorism issue (of many topics this was a big one, but by no means the only topic on the table) was one of those that never reached a reasoned discussion on either side of the aisle - nor in the world court either. I wasn't terribly happy with either political party or the international position, frankly. Speakers Corner was actually a pretty good reflection of the chaos that topic reached because of the unreasonableness of people to discuss before deciding. It was never an issue of a war or not, it was an issue of who gets to make the power grab "this" cycle. Further, it was extremely difficult to find any substantive plan on any subject that didn't have a twist or dig hidden in the content (that's for those that weren't entirely an emotional appeal). Again, frustrating to have to vote for the candidate that I felt would do the least damage when it's hard to even pin them down on what they stood for. The world is full of quick fix, emotion junkies that would be unable to solve a math problem without feeling compelled to write an essay on how the problem made them feel in the context of the suffering of mankind. Do I believe the Repub used emotive arguments more than reasoned - Yes Ditto the dems - Yes, and even less subtly Biz as usual - Yes Was it only on terrorism? - Nope Do I expect it to change? - Nope, it's what the 'people' want - everywhere (because they are lazy) Do I expect it ever take time off? - Nope, used to, not anymore Lots of opinion/observation here. Sorry about that. It's easier that way. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tcnelson 1 #121 August 15, 2005 QuoteAnd you jumped to that conclusion how? because there should be limits to freedom, plain and simple. the fact that you are using that quote in your sig line and my knowledge of your beliefs implies that you believe that there should be no limits to ones freedoms."Don't talk to me like that assface...I don't work for you yet." - Fletch NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,090 #122 August 15, 2005 >because there should be limits to freedom, plain and simple I agree. But there sure as hell shouldn't me _more_ limits to freedoms than those called out in the constitution and by our current laws - and that's exactly what Bush was suggesting. He was suggesting that a website that lampooned him should not be allowed to do so. In other words, he wished to quell dissent, and that is _exactly_ why the first amendment is there - to prevent the government from silencing dissenters. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #123 August 15, 2005 QuoteQuoteAnd you jumped to that conclusion how? because there should be limits to freedom, plain and simple. the fact that you are using that quote in your sig line and my knowledge of your beliefs implies that you believe that there should be no limits to ones freedoms. Quick answer: Bill got it, you missed it. I don't believe in anarchy. I believe in the freedoms this country was founded on and I believe there are responsibilities associated with them. Freedom of speech is, in my opinion, the root of all our freedoms. I do enjoy watching Bush hang himself with his own words. The president, and defender of our rights, pushed forth the thought that freedom of speech should be limited because it was used against him? On that thought alone he will never have a chance of gaining my support. On that thought alone he is the worst person to be in office leading our country._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #124 August 15, 2005 Actually it was not an implied comment. You are right, the question may not have any direct bearing on the thread, but that hasn't stopped anybody before from asking or answering. In the end only one person is responsible for the decision to invade Iraq and that is the President. There are quite a few clues that emotion played a very significant role in the President's decision making process. I happen to personally believe that indeed that is the case. I was asking you what your thoughts were on that.... If you would prefer to get this in a pm, I would be more than happy to copy and paste this into a pm for you, but in my opinion that defeats the purpose of a forum. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tcnelson 1 #125 August 16, 2005 QuoteOn that thought alone he will never have a chance of gaining my support. On that thought alone he is the worst person to be in office leading our country. i have a feeling that he didn't have a shot at your support no matter what and i'm sure you're just being overly dramatic when you say that he is the worst person for the presidency. if you truly believe that gwb is the worst possible person to have as the president then we will never see eye to eye on anyting dealing with politics."Don't talk to me like that assface...I don't work for you yet." - Fletch NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
