Flare Sci-Fi Forums: "This is not ordinary laziness...

This is topic "This is not ordinary laziness... in forum The Flameboard at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/11/539.html

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

It is the luxurious laziness of a scion who was raised to think he did not have to give reasons, because he was the third generation of a dynastic family."

Oh, that's a great quote about Dubya.

Anyway, I hereby proffer three articles for your reading and knowledge enhancement.

It's the stupidity, stupid from Salon.com

The Emperor's New Brain from Slate.com

Nader's groovy night out from Salon.com

The election of the next United States President is getting closer...I think it was Michael Moore who said that Democrats have smart presidents and dumb staffs while the Repbulicans have dumb presidents and smart staffs.

Enjoy. Comment.

------------------
Get going! And answer those phones, install the computer system, and rotate my office so the window faces the hills.
~C. Montgomery Burns

[ fixed link ]

[This message has been edited by TSN (edited October 24, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Jay (edited October 24, 2000).]

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Well, as a staunch anti-Dubya supporter, I'm hoping Gore wins.

I really wish McCain had won the Republican nomination instead. Then I'd have to ask myself who I'd vote for.

------------------
You wouldn't understand. It's a Jeep thing.

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Funny. You could make that same quote about Gore, except for the "third" being replaced with "second".

And I ask you the same thing I asked my cousin, Jeff. Why don't you like Bush?

McCain didn't have a chance of getting the GOP nomination. He didn't get more than 25% of the Republican vote in any primary. The only reason he won ANY primaries was that stupid idea that someone came up with called an "open primary". DEMOCRATS were voting in OUR primaries.

As for these articles, whoever wrote them is just jealous of Bush's intelligence, 'cause they certainly don't have any of their own. I say again: WHAT EFFING DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE if he can't do public speaking well? I can't speak in public, but I'm one of the smartest people I know (not to sound immodest). Bush's IDEAS are better, and you can actually believe what he says, unlike Gore. Oh, and then there's the fact that he's never been involved in any criminal activity...

And in case you're wondering why I'm attacking your cantidate to defend mine, you started it.

------------------
Pilot: You're sure they were Americans, eh?
Fraser: They were all wearing new boots, they were driving a Jeep Wrangler, and they carried big guns.
Pilot: Americans it is.
- "due South"

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Which reminds me... did anybody else see the CNN report the other night that BLASTED Gore for lying in virtually every campaign ad about Bush's record in Texas?

------------------
"Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master

[This message has been edited by First of Two (edited October 24, 2000).]

Posted by Jeff Raven (Member # 20) on :

Hey Jay... if you watched the Al Smith Dinner speeches, you'd actually see Bush at his finest... And Gore...well, lets just say it was hard to tell if he was joking or not :P

------------------
Intelligence, Integrity, Responsibility.
Vote Bush/Cheney 2000

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

I'm sorry Omega, did I attack "your" candidate?

I DO NOT LIKE GEORGE W. BUSH

THAT IS NOT AN ATTACK, OMEGA. Neither is, "I am a staunch-anti Dubyah supporter"

It's that simple.

Now, THIS is an ATTACK!

GEORGE W. BUSH IS A LYING, SCUM-SUCKING, DADDY'S RICH BOY WHO IS A WORTHLESS GOVERNOR AND WILL DO TO THE U.S. WHAT HE DID TO TEXAS!

Do you see the difference?

Do you understand the difference?

Good.

------------------
You wouldn't understand. It's a Jeep thing.

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

speaking of which:

NEWSWEEK, Oct. 30, 2000

Suprise Testimony In Texas -

George W. Bush could face new questions following surprise testimony in a politically charged Texas lawsuit. Last year, the state's former chief funeral regulator, Eliza May, charged that she'd been fired for launching an investigation of a funeral conglomerate headed by Robert Waltrip, a major Bush contributor and family friend. In a sworn affadavit (see Newsweek.MSNBC.com), Bush denied any knowledge of the probe and said he'd had "no conversations" with any funeral-commission officials about it.

But in a deposition last week, NEWSWEEK had learned, Robert McNeil, the ex-fneral-commission chair and a Bush appointee, described an enounter with Bush at a '98 fund-raiser. According to McNeil, Bush asked him "have you and Mr. Waltrip got your prolems worked out?" Replied McNeil: "we're still trying to work on that, governor." Bush then said, "do your job." May's lawyers the testimony shows why they need to grill Bush under oath. Bush's addivavit was "disingenous at best" said one. A Bush spokesman called McNeil's account "False" and a "totally new rendition of what he's said before."

------------------
You wouldn't understand. It's a Jeep thing.

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

JeffR:

You're right about that. NASA funding in a hermetically sealed Zip-Loc bag? This is supposed to be funny?

JK:

"You" plural, Jeff. As in you and Jay, being both liberals.

"LYING, SCUM-SUCKING, DADDY'S RICH BOY"

And this doesn't apply to Gore?

"WHO IS A WORTHLESS GOVERNOR"

Hmm... Clinton, anyone?

"AND WILL DO TO THE U.S. WHAT HE DID TO TEXAS!"

One can only hope.

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

American politics gives me anal leakage, and a funny smelling rash.

I think I'm allergic to all of this hypocrisy from both sides of supporters.

I need to find a container to put all this runny refuse in.

------------------
"Hockey is a sport for white men. Basketball is a sport for black men. Golf is a sport for white men dressed like black pimps."
- Tiger Woods

Posted by Jeff Raven (Member # 20) on :

Don't worry...it'll all die down as soon as November rolls around...

------------------
Intelligence, Integrity, Responsibility.
Vote Bush/Cheney 2000

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Omega,

Are you really that stupid? Don't answer.

You said that I was attacking/bashing Bush by saying that I didn't support him.

I said, no, and then I gave you a demonstration of what an attack would have been so your pea-sized brain could see the difference.

And then YOU attacked.

Let me ask you a question, Omega: are you even old enough to vote?

Oh, and Omega ... Clinton isn't running for office. Term limits? I mean, bashing him is like me bashing Mr "Read My Lips." Of course, Clinton DID get re-elected ...

------------------
You wouldn't understand. It's a Jeep thing.

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited October 24, 2000).]

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

"You said that I was attacking/bashing Bush by saying that I didn't support him."

I said this where?

"Are you really that stupid?"

This coming from someone who thinks that ad hominem is a legitimate debating tactic...

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Looks like youns need a f'rinstance.

Okay: remember that study that (done by an independent watchdog agency, but released to the press by the DNC) showed Texas had dropped in rank of children's health care quality from 20-something to 48th?

Well, according to the people who released the study, the Children's Resource Center, the drop actually began BEFORE Bush was governor, and the data was collected BEFORE his first year had even elapsed! The real drop was due to the PREVIOUS governor... Democrat Ann Richards.

Ta-daa...

Oh, and there's a Gore add running in Nevada that intimates that Bush will guarantee that an unpopular nuclear waste storage facility will be built. In actuality, BOTH Gore and Bush oppose said facility.

Fibs, scare tactics, and half-truths. Brought to you by the folks at ClintonCo.

------------------
"Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master

Posted by Jeff Raven (Member # 20) on :

http://www.sacbee.com/voices/national/buckley/buckley_20001020.html

"High use of the language"

------------------
Intelligence, Integrity, Responsibility.
Vote Bush/Cheney 2000

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Omega,

I said "well, as a staunch anti-Dubya supporter, I hope Gore wins"

You said, "and I ask you the same thing I asked my cousin, Jeff. Why don't you like Bush?" in the same post, you added "and in case you're wondering why I'm attacking your candidate to defined mine, you started it."

THAT is where you implied that my earlier statement was an attack on Bush. I doubt very much that it was directed at Jay because you directed it at me by using my name.

I don't dislike Bush. You assume too much, Omega. Past your bedtime? He's a nice guy. I just don't want him running the country. HELL NO.

Now, I did do a fictious assault on him because you apparently don't know what an actual attack on a candidate is. Hopefully now you do. Do you? Hello? And then, accusing me of "ad homiem" all the way, you turned the attack right back on ... Clinton ...? Hello? He's not running for office, genius. Gee, maybe I'll attack Nixon next ...

NIXON'S A FUCKING ASSHOLE, DON'T VOTE FOR HIM, HE'LL FUCK THE COUNTRY UP!!!!!!! (go bash Johnson now, okay?)

I mean, come on ... kind of pointless, wouldn't you say, Mr. Omega? Nevermind that Nixon's dead ...

First, is there a current study showing what Texas' rank is? How long has Bush been in office there? I would imagine there'd be a follow up study -- tell me, where is Texas now? Is it better off? And if the drop began BEFORE Bush took off, that means it continued when he was in office. Maybe that was just clusmy wording, but thats how I read it.

I'm proud to say, that in Maryland, with Parris N. Glendenning, Democrat, Governor, the state passed the first comprehensive bill aimed at making handguns safer: in 2003, ALL handguns sold in the State of Maryland must be equipped with a built in trigger lock.

------------------
You wouldn't understand. It's a Jeep thing.

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited October 24, 2000).]

Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :

quote:
Don't worry...it'll all die down as soon as November rolls around...

And that's when the Canadian politics discussion will begin! *grins evilly*

------------------
"He may not be a god, but on this ship, I am!"
-Andromeda

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

Omega: When you come into play, ad hominem is sometimes the only option... *L*

------------------
"You're basically killing each other to see who's got the better imaginary friend."
-Yasir Arafat on religious wars

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

You know, this probably isn't the place for this, being the flameboard and all ...

But let's be thankful that we live in countries where we can decide to change our administrations by marking a ballot, and not by a revolution. =)

------------------
"[Smith] ran on an agenda that was revolutionary for his time -- a 45 cent minimum wage, limiting the workweek to six days, building a bridge to the 1930's -- and I want to say it's quite a tribute to Al Smith that Governor Bush has adopted the same agenda." - Al Gore

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Jeff: There is no current study, unfortunately.

Somebody tell me how trigger locks make guns safer.

I mean, for RESPONSIBLE gun-owning parents, because I personally feel if you're stupid enough to leave ANY deadly object, whether wepon or drano, where a child has easy access to it, you shouldn't be passing on your defective genes in the FIRST place.

------------------
"Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master

[This message has been edited by First of Two (edited October 24, 2000).]

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

JK:

"You said, "and I ask you the same thing I asked my cousin, Jeff. Why don't you like Bush?" in the same post, you added "and in case you're wondering why I'm attacking your candidate to defined mine, you started it.""

Yes, but you're cutting out a very important fact: between the two, I went on to a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SUBJECT. I was obviously not refering to my earlier comment. There are two entirely unrelated paragraphs between the two.

Since that eliminates the basis for the next two paragraphs...

"And then, accusing me of "ad homiem" all the way, you turned the attack right back on ... Clinton ...?"

That was not ad hominem on my part. It is a legitimate point that the same argument that you make against Bush can be made far more effectively against Clinton, a man who your own cantidate has much in common with (fictional middle-class tax cuts and perscription drug coverage, for example).

"in 2003, ALL handguns sold in the State of Maryland must be equipped with a built in trigger lock."

Fine. If I ever move to Maryland and decide to buy a gun, I'll just leave the lock off all the time.

As First would probably point out (if I wasn't beating him to the punch), if someone's so irresponsible as to leave a gun where a child can get to it, what makes you think that they'd be responsible enough to use the lock, instead? All a trigger lock does is make the gun a little more expensive (just an assumption, but it seems a valid one), and make the gun harder to use when needed. To quote (probably not exactly, but close enough) a NY gangster on the witness stand, "You pull your gun with a trigger lock, and I'll pull my gun. We'll see who wins."

TSN:

"When you come into play, ad hominem is sometimes the only option..."

I'll take that as a compliment, Tim.

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Why you would NEED a gun in Maryland is beyond me.

We're a pretty safe state.

Omega, you can't leave the lock OFF ... its built into the gun. Did you mean leave it unlocked?

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Yes, off, as in unengaged.

And no place is so safe that you have no conceivable use for a gun.

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

OH, GOD NO.

A gun discussion. Oh joy.

We all know how well these work.

I don't know what's more of a waste of time, partaking in these discussions, or trying to determine what skin color Michael Jackson is.

Is it possible for charles to put a ban on posts containing "gun" and "control" and, if possible "little rabid monkey-humpers?"

------------------
"Hockey is a sport for white men. Basketball is a sport for black men. Golf is a sport for white men dressed like black pimps."
- Tiger Woods

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Oh, now don't try and deprive First and I of our fun, UM. We haven't had the chance to thwap our new friend on the issue yet.

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

Hey! Some of us are perfectly capable of carrying on a logical and unheated discussion/debate regarding little rabid monkey-humpers. So there!

------------------
"You're basically killing each other to see who's got the better imaginary friend."
-Yasir Arafat on religious wars

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

Little Rabid Monkey humpers don't kill people, they hump them.

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :

Gun Locks, like house locks, will keep the honest people at bay, but if someone really wants to use the gun, they will. The only way for true weapon safety is to stop making them world wide, then, eventually, none of them will work for lack of parts and ammo.

The weapon isn't the problem, it's the way of life and the fact that so much of life is demeaning. More money can be made in a life of crime, drugs especially, than can be made with a job. If the drug dealers looked at people as people, instead of walking dollars, they wouldn't be able to sell them drugs.
In the old west weapons were prolific as hell, but from reading about it it doesn't seem like there were as many deaths as there are now. Why? Respect for life, higher morals, maybe a bit of religion thrown in?

It is the same thing that someone posted in the OPEC thread, times change, attitudes change, and in some cases, not for the better.

------------------
Stupid bastards and religious freaks,
so safe in their castle keeps...

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

"Oh, now don't try and deprive First and I of our fun, UM."

Does this sort of fun involve "little rabid monkey-humpers" then? You dirty, dirty sod.

------------------
"If every vampire who said he was at the Crucifixion was actually there it would've been like Woodstock. I was at Woodstock. I fed off a flower person and I spent six hours watching my hand move." - Spike, BtVS

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

::eyes UM and Omega:: I dunno what I'm hearin' about monkey-humping, but you two stay ten feet away from me where I can see you!

There is a problem with gun-locks -- and yes, that is it won't stop someone from killing you.

But they're not meant to do that. They're meant to keep children from killing themselves, because as much as we can talk about responsible parents here, there are a LOT of un-responsible parents, and a built in lock IS a good idea, and a step in the right direction.

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Which doesn't address the fact that if a parent is so irresponsible as to leave a gun where the kid can get to it, they're not gonna lock the gun in the first place.

Besides, how many children are killed in accidents involving guns every year? In '97 it was 20 (as opposed to 38 involving five-gallon buckets filled with water). Trigger locks simply WILL NOT save that many lives, especially when taking the above fact into account. Then you have to compare how ever few lives the locks will save to the number that would be lost because someone couldn't use a gun when they needed it. Five 'll get you ten that the second is an order of magnitude greater than the first.

[This message has been edited by Omega (edited October 24, 2000).]

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Omega,

How many times have you ever needed a gun to defend yourself?

What jobs (besides police officer) do you need a gun to protect yourself?

And where do you get these numbers?

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

His arse?

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

Ah, just about the warped train of thought that I imagined the subjecte would engender.

And again, I say just as I thought. Omega, me dear, did you actually read the articles? Cause your quote:

quote:
I say again: WHAT EFFING DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE if he can't do public speaking well?

certainly tells me that you didn't. The articles are about so much more.

Here, I'll help you with some of the things you missed while patting yourself on the back for being the smartest person you know.

quote:
In 1956, upon being told that he had all the "thinking people" on his side, Democratic presidential candidate Adlai Stevenson replied, "That's wonderful. But I need a majority." Bush's handlers are gambling that the majority will turn its back on the smart kid in favor of the frat party glad-hander....No presidential candidate ever went broke betting on the anti-intellectualism of the American people.

-First article

quote:
There's a slapdash disorder to many of his infelicities -- they are piles of disconnected words, a sequence of flash cards. Each stands for a slogan that stands for an impulse. He knows he is to repeat them, but he is not clear on what relation they have to each other.

-First article

quote:
He dashes around pressing rhetorical buttons: the "costs money" button, the "options" button, the "trust" button, the "strong" button, the school button, the hard work button. He cannot give cogent reasons for what he sys. He does not think he has to. In fact, throughout his career, he has not had to give reasons. He is entitled. He need not stoop to reason. This is not exactly stupidity, in the sense of native incapacity -- it may be that, but he has not been tested. What it is is slovenliness of a mind-boggling order. He may or may not be dyslexic, but who cares, since he has never had to read much, write much or reason much to get where he's gotten.

quote:
But what does he mean when he says that "insurance" is "a Washington term"?

-Second article

quote:
When he says that local control of schools is vital, criticizes his opponent for wanting to "federalize" education, promises as president to impose various requirements on schools, complains that federal money comes with too many "strings," calls for after-school funds to be used for "character education," endorses a federal law forbidding state lawsuits against teachers, and so on, does he have a path through this maze of contradictions? When he promises a federal school voucher program and then deflects criticism by saying "vouchers are up to states," is he being dense or diabolically clever?

-Second article

Bear in mind my political junkie friends that this is intended to be about Bush and his policies as he speaks them from his ever so nimble minds. This isn't necessarily anti-Gore, which is a fine tactic my conservative pals have tried to use in some of the above posts to divert attention from Bush.

So, if you want to argue for Bush go ahead, stay on topic if you can. I'll be waiting for someone to actually give substance to Bush's thought patterns.

------------------
Get going! And answer those phones, install the computer system, and rotate my office so the window faces the hills.
~C. Montgomery Burns

[This message has been edited by Jay (edited October 24, 2000).]

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Yeah, I do think thats where he gets 'em from.

Does anyone know how old Omega is? I'm thinking he's a 12-year old kid.

Guess what, Omega: there was an armed COP at Columbine, and he didn't even HIT the two kids who did that awful deed. That's right: he had a gun, he didn't have a trigger lock, and FAT LOT OF GOOD HE DID.

I suppose you'd've liked it if every kid at Columbine had been armed. I can see the hallways now, with kids shooting each other trying to hit the two badguys. Sheeeesh.

I know! Maybe the teachers should have guns too! You know what, maybe we should arm all house pets too, would you like that?

Omega, hundreds of children are killed every year because of handguns. It's sad. It's also sad you think that the death of a child is a worthy sacrifice for people to carry a killing machine with them.

One day, you'll realize this for yourself. I used to think everyone should be allowed to carry a gun, too.

You wanna know what happened? I grew up. Hey, maybe its just that I'm blessed to live in an area where I'm not in danger. Keep in mind: I live in Towson, MD, just north of BALTIMORE, and near Washington, DC. Keep in mind, D.C. used to be known as the murder capital of the world, and Baltimore has the 3rd highest murder rate in the U.S.!

So what does that mean? I'm probably in more danger than you are, living where I am, but I don't feel the need to carry a gun. Why is that, I wonder? I don't have a death wish. Maybe it just means that carrying a gun isn't an answer.

If you depend on a gun to "protect" yourself, how can you have a life? Do you look over your shoulder every five minutes expecting to see someone with an AK-47 aiming it at you? Oh, I know, Little Jimmy wants to pick your pocket. Go on, shoot him.

Hypothetical situation, Omega:

You're licensed to carry a gun, and you're coming out of a supermarket. You walk to your car, and someone surprised you, aiming a gun at you. "GIVE ME YOUR MONEY!" he demands.

WHAT DO YOU DO?

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

Oh, please, not guns again.

------------------
Get going! And answer those phones, install the computer system, and rotate my office so the window faces the hills.
~C. Montgomery Burns

Posted by Jeff Raven (Member # 20) on :

I read the articles, and found them to be so opinionated I really can't take them without a bucket of salt...

*whistles*
Can we get an objective article in here?

------------------
Intelligence, Integrity, Responsibility.
Vote Bush/Cheney 2000

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

It seems rather unlikely.

But I agree with the gist of this thread. Rabbit-humping shouldn't be allowed without a five day "cooling off" period. You'll go to hell if you hump a rabbit you don't love, after all.

------------------
love's function is to fabricate unknownnness
--
E. E. Cummings
****
Read chapter one of "Dirk Tungsten in...The Disappearing Planet"! And party everyday.

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

Now wait, I read Omega's Newsmax articles when he posted them on the Cuban thread...I must say that the Max isn't at all objective....but if you want this to be about objectivity (as if you really think there is such a thing) then you can take a good look at some of the articles on both sites that do not paint Gore in a good light.

So, like Omega says, prove the articles wrong. Show me in concrete ways that Bush isn't as painted in the articles.

------------------
Get going! And answer those phones, install the computer system, and rotate my office so the window faces the hills.
~C. Montgomery Burns

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

JK:

"How many times have you ever needed a gun to defend yourself?"

What do I have to do with it? Irrelevant.

"What jobs (besides police officer) do you need a gun to protect yourself?"

Who said anything about jobs? You need a gun to protect yourself in the event someone breaks in to your house, for the first thing. THEN we can talk about jobs, which include doing pretty well anything at night.

"And where do you get these numbers?"

I get them by staying informed. Unlike certain other people I could name.

Jay:

The quote that starts "In 1956" is all conjecture, and bad conjecture at that. Baseless crap.

The quote that begins "He dashes around" is rather trite. It accuses BUSH of not explaining what he's talking about? What the heck does "the "strong" button" refer to? As for not giving "cogent reasons for what he sys [sic]," I'd like to see an example of what they're talking about, please. I prefer not to waste my time shooting down vagueries.

The "When he says" quote is written by a heavily biased person. Whomever it is is taking that quote from Bush out of context, and it's the only contradictory thing there.

But you're right. The articles aren't saying that Bush shouldn't be president because he can't speak in public. They say he's dumb because he can't speak in public. BIG difference.

"I'll be waiting for someone to actually give substance to Bush's thought patterns."

And we'll be waiting for you to show us a valid attack to defend him against.

JK's second post:

"Does anyone know how old Omega is?"

This matters how? May age is irrelevant. I'm obviously better informed than you are, and have better training in logic and debate tactics, as you demonstrate by engaging in another ad hominem. You're digging a grave for your own credibility, here.

The rest is complete drivel. Not that that wasn't. Ignored.

[This message has been edited by Omega (edited October 24, 2000).]

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Omega,

Do you know what self-defense is?

If someone breaks into your home, why don't you have an alarm system?

Why don't you call your police?

If all else fails, why don't you get the hell out of your home until the police arrive?

And why didn't you answer the hypothetical question?

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

Or, since no one here who seems to support Herr Bush can't do so without being just as vague as he is, I'll ask another...and goodness I hope it's more objective to be as pleasing as a cool bowl of jell-o on a hot day....

What does having Al Gore and George Bush as the two main candidates running for the office of President of the United States have to say about the "anti-intellectualism of the American people"

------------------
Get going! And answer those phones, install the computer system, and rotate my office so the window faces the hills.
~C. Montgomery Burns

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Omega,

How can it be irrelevent if you're defending it? HOW MANY TIMES HAVE YOU (OR ANYONE YOU KNOW PERSONALLY) EVER USED A GUN TO DEFEND THEMSELVES?

Of course you get your numbers by staying informed. Too bad you never present any webpages that could possibly verify these numbers.

Now see, I want to know your age simply out of curiousity. It's not an attack. I'm not saying, "look at Omega, he wet his diapers." I want to know if you're a high school student, a college student, etcetra. I just want to know where in your life you are, thats all. I'm offended that you take it as an attack, but you do seem a bit paranoid (that's an observation, not an attack).

Dimwit (okay, THAT'S an attack, call out the militia, I've called Omega a dimwit! I'm such a ad-homenienium!)

No, seriously, dude. If you want to present numbers, I want you to back them up.

The question is: why do law abiding citizens need guns?

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

Quite obviously he'll say, 'Because the law-breakers do.' And it's not that I don't agree with that, but it's easier to get mad at those rabbit-humpers.

------------------
"Hockey is a sport for white men. Basketball is a sport for black men. Golf is a sport for white men dressed like black pimps."
- Tiger Woods

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Man, I wish Rob was here more. Beating back ignorance by one's self can be tiring...

JK1:

"Do you know what self-defense is?"

Yes. It's pointing a gun at someone from across the room so they can't kill you with the crowbar, for one example.

"If someone breaks into your home, why don't you have an alarm system?"

What makes you think that they can't circumvent the thing? Or that the police will get there in time? Let's see. Time it takes police to get to your house: five minutes, give or take. Time it takes a burgaler to get INTO your house and harm someone: about thirty seconds. Real tough call.

And that's assuming the competance of the alarm company. We once got three calls in the middle of the night from ADT wanting to confirm that our alarm had gone off. Our alarm's been unplugged for four years. In the meantime, someone wasn't getting police protection.

"Why don't you call your police?"

Who says we don't? But the above objections still hold.

"If all else fails, why don't you get the hell out of your home until the police arrive?"

That's 'bout the stupidest thing you've said yet, JK. Because it's MY HOUSE. The intruder has no right to be there, and he's not about to drive me and my family out. Even if you ignore that, ask yourself: burgaler, prowling about in the dark, exact wherabouts unknown, armament unknown. Do you really want to be moving your children about the house?

Jay:

Bush is vague? BUSH is vague? He's the one who gives specifics! "Oh, we're going to shore up medicare, and get 100,000 new teachers," says Gore. Oh, please, tell us how you plan to conjure up 100,000 new teachers. Go compare www.georgewbush.com and www.algore.com. See who has more details.

JK2:

"How can it be irrelevent if you're defending it?"

You really need to learn to make a coherant argument. I say that how many times I've needed to use a gun is irrelevant, and you say I'm defending... what?

"HOW MANY TIMES HAVE YOU (OR ANYONE YOU KNOW PERSONALLY) EVER USED A GUN TO DEFEND THEMSELVES?"

I can immediately think of one instance. And that's just the one that happened to come up because he was driving the vehicle we were in past the locale of the incident. You want statistics? An FBI study found that guns in the hands of private citizens prevent one to two MILLION crimes a year. Even you won't argue that that is outweighed by the number of deaths involving guns. Your credibility won't stand it, and you know it.

"Of course you get your numbers by staying informed. Too bad you never present any webpages that could possibly verify these numbers."

Because I don't feel like wasting my time aleviating your self-inflicted ignorance. Why don't you go do some research for yourself, eh? I'll even give you a good start.
http://ciir2.cs.umass.edu/Govbot/ http://www.firstgov.gov

And it's not an attack to say someone seems like they're twelve? How would you feel if I said you were acting like you were eight?

"If you want to present numbers, I want you to back them up."

Again, why don't you go do your own research? You have nothing to combat me with, except your own beliefs based in ignorance. Find the truth for yourself. It'll mean more that way.

"hundreds of children are killed every year because of handguns"

And your source would be...?

But just to make athe point, no one is killed BECAUSE OF HANDGUNS. They are killed WITH handguns. The original statement supports the view of many liberals: that normal, sane people can suddenly become homicidal maniacs when you put a gun in their hands, then revert when you take it away. It don't work that way. That's like saying people are killed because of the violence on TV. They're killed because of the hatred of the people holding guns, nothing else.

"why do law abiding citizens need guns?"

This is the stupidest question in the history of mankind. Sorry, but it is. No comment on your intelligence personally, just the question.

*ahem*

Let's work through this logically. A gun is a weapon. Weapons are for harming people (or other things, but we'll stick with people for now). Thus the question becomes: Why would a law-abiding citizen harm someone? This begs the question: How can one remian law-abiding and still harm someone? The obvious answer is if they are about to infringe on one's rights, or the rights of others. Thus guns, being a method of defence, can and should be used by law-abiding citizens to defend their rights, or the rights of others.

These rights include their lives, their property, and their freedom. Thus anyone who would violate one's rights is a valid target for a law-abiding citizen with a gun, be they criminals, errant government officials, or invading armies (or other possibilities that don't make themselves immediately obvious).

Good enough?

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

"Do you know what self-defense is?"

Self-defense? You mean, like, carrying a gun?

"If someone breaks into your home, why don't you have an alarm system?"

Unless it's the kind of alarm system that clubs intruders with a mallet, it won't always be especially effective.

"Why don't you call your police?"

Calling the police and waiting for them to arrive takes time.

"If all else fails, why don't you get the hell out of your home until the police arrive?"

Because it's silly to assume people should unconditionally surrender their houses to criminals?

"What does having Al Gore and George Bush as the two main candidates running for the office of President of the United States have to say about the 'anti-intellectualism of the American people'?"

I think both will probably be ineffective presidents. We should all vote for Harry Browne...being ineffective is his campaign promise!

------------------
Frank's Home Page
"Gardening for Dummies is too intense." - Rick

[This message has been edited by The Shadow (edited October 25, 2000).]

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

Well, okay, here's an idea... Anyone who wants to have a gun should have to go through a process wherein they are rigorously tested psychologically to see whether they may be likely to shoot people unnecessarily or give their gun to their kid, or something. This process should also involve training the person to actually know how to shoot a gun so they don't try to defend themselves and end up shooting three people standing behind their attacker.

I believe this is already done in other countries, yes?

Oh, and anyone found to possess a gun who hasn't gone through this process will be executed.

------------------
"You're basically killing each other to see who's got the better imaginary friend."
-Yasir Arafat on religious wars

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

quote:
The quote that starts "In 1956" is all conjecture, and bad conjecture at that. Baseless crap.

I see, rather than have an actual deep thought and wrestling with an issue, you apparently felt like running home to your Tickle Me Elmo doll cause it's safe.

Hey, next we can play with our "See and Say Dubya" toy.

Pull the string: I'm going to go to Washington and get things done

How Gov. Dubya?

Pull the string: Well, the difference is is that I can get it done.

Yes, Gov. Dubya, but how?

Pull the string: I have been a governor of a big state...

Ah, big state, cool! How much foreign policy does Texas generally conduct in a given year?

Pull the String: I've been a leader. I've been a person who has to set a clear vision and convince people to follow. I've got a strategy for the Middle East.

A strategy?!?! great, what is it.

Pull the string: To build coalitions to keep the peace.

Neato! how?

Pull the string: You've got to have a clear vision. That's what a leader does. A leader also understands that the United States must be strong to keep the peace.

*smacks See And Say Dubya toy*

Are there any answers in this thing. Oh, there's the problem, I've got it set on platitude mode.

There is a greater gap between Dubya having an actual original intellectual thought than the gap between Letterman's teeth.

------------------
Oh, yes, sitting. The great leveler. From the mightiest Pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?
~C. Montgomery Burns

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

*points finger at Frank*

*NelsonSpeak*

HA-ha.

Beat you.

Tim:

"Well, okay, here's an idea... Anyone who wants to have a gun should have to go through a process wherein they are rigorously tested..."

By whom? The government? Now you know how I'd feel about that. It's not a right if the government can revoke it. Now maybe if the gun company itself wanted to do that...

Jay:

So why exactly are you so worried about foreign policy? Perhaps because you know that Bush can absolutely destroy Gore on any domestic issue?

*smacks Jay*

Perhaps if you actually THOUGHT about his answers...

How is he going to build coalitions to keep the peace, you ask? Well, if you hadn't made up your mind that he's a moron already, you might actually expend some (and not all that much, at that) brainpower figuring out the answer to your own question. Here's a little hint: "By convincing other countries that it's in their own best interest."

Or maybe that's not so little a hint...

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Oh, BOY!

"there was an armed COP at Columbine, and he didn't even HIT the two kids who did that awful deed. That's right: he had a gun, he didn't have a trigger lock, and FAT LOT OF GOOD HE DID."

He wasn't IN the school, either. Lot of good you can do shooting through six inces of brick and concrete...

"I suppose you'd've liked it if every kid at Columbine had been armed. I can see the hallways now, with kids shooting each other trying to hit the two badguys. Sheeeesh."

No, but an inside security guard might have been able to handle it... but like I said, he WASN'T inside.

"I know! Maybe the teachers should have guns too! You know what, maybe we should arm all house pets too, would you like that?"

Re: teachers: it's illegal for civilians to carry weapons onto school grounds. The teachers know that, even those who own guns AND have carry permits, like my father. Too bad the kids' parents didn't teach them that.

"Omega, hundreds of children are killed every year because of handguns. It's sad. It's also sad you think that the death of a child is a worthy sacrifice for people to carry a killing machine with them."

Hundreds? where up your tuckus did you pull THAT one from? Or are you, like HCI, including juvenile gang members and all persons, whether homicides or suicides, under the age of 22?

"One day, you'll realize this for yourself. I used to think everyone should be allowed to carry a gun, too."

You were wrong. Not everyone should. Only responsible people with no criminal record and a desire or need to defend themselves against bad people.

"You wanna know what happened? I grew up. Hey, maybe its just that I'm blessed to live in an area where I'm not in danger. Keep in mind: I live in Towson, MD, just north of BALTIMORE, and near Washington, DC. Keep in mind, D.C. used to be known as the murder capital of the world,"

It still is, despite the fact that it's completely illegal to possess a gun within the city limits.

"and Baltimore has the 3rd highest murder rate in the U.S.!"

Likewise.

"So what does that mean? I'm probably in more danger than you are, living where I am, but I don't feel the need to carry a gun. Why is that, I wonder? I don't have a death wish. Maybe it just means that carrying a gun isn't an answer."

Or perhaps you just haven't been robbed, beaten, mugged, threatened, etc.

"If you depend on a gun to "protect" yourself, how can you have a life?"

Ask a cop, soldier, security guard, how they can have a life, and they'll probably laugh in your face. What's the diff? What do YOU use as protection, your inherent trust in the goodwill of people?

"Do you look over your shoulder every five minutes expecting to see someone with an AK-47 aiming it at you? Oh, I know, Little Jimmy wants to pick your pocket. Go on, shoot him."

Why, should I? And you know, guns are used far more often (on the order of 2,000,000 times a year according the the FBI's Uniform Crime Report) as a DETERRENT, without actually having to be fired.

Hypothetical situation, Omega:

You're licensed to carry a gun, and you're coming out of a supermarket. You walk to your car, and someone surprised you, aiming a gun at you. "GIVE ME YOUR
MONEY!" he demands.

Are we assuming I'm carrying at the time? In that case it's easy. Toss him my wallet (since I don't carry much there anyway, but have a secret pocket). As he turns to go, draw and fire. Retrieve wallet, go home. Pick up medal later.

Well, that's what SHOULD be legal. Probably, though, you'd be charged with some kind of manslaughter homicide, under a stupid pity-the-poor-criminal law, so the next thing you should do would be pick up the other guy's gun in a covered or gloved hand and fire a shot or two in the direction in which you were standing a moment ago. Then plead self-defense. Everybody wins.

------------------
"Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Actually,

I have been robbed. My car's been broken into twice. I've had people accost me for money on three occasions (two of them in front of a police station, so that didn't go very far at all).

But I still don't want a gun.

As for Columbine, that's not what happened.

"As Gardner steps out of his patrol car, Eric Harris turns his attention from shooting into the west doors of the High School to the student parking lot and the deputy. Garnder, visible in the brigfht yellow shirt of the community resource office's uniform, is the target of Harris' bullets. Harris fires about 10 shots at the deputy with his rifle before the weapon jams.

Garnder fires four shots at Harris.

Harris spins hard to his right and Gardner momentraily thiks he has hit him. Second later, Harris begins shooting again at the deputy. Although Gardner's patrol car is not hit, two vehicles that he is parked behind are hit by Harris' gunfire. Investigators later find two bullet holes in each of the cars."

Columbine Report/Timeline

Hardly shooting through glass, there was a clean line of sight and fire, especially if Harris could have hit the cars in front of Mr. Gardner.

Face it: there was a man on the scene with a gun, and even if he arrived too late to stop it from beginning, he wouldn't have been able to stop it.

First, you're talking about killing a man over a few dollars in your wallet. You're willing to take a life over a handful of paper ... ? Yes, you would be charged with a murder, and rightly so. It would be different if the guy actually started shooting at you.

And I'm not talking about police or soldiers. God knows they have difficult enough jobs -- but the soldiers are carrying their weapons in foreign countries, and so not applicable to a discussion about civilian gun use. And police officers are WELL TRAINED in how/when to use their firearms.

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited October 25, 2000).]

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

"First, you're talking about killing a man over a few dollars in your wallet. You're willing to take a life over a handful of paper ... ? Yes, you would be charged with a murder, and rightly so. It would be different if the guy actually started shooting at you."

Who said he'd kill him? Personally, I'd just shoot him in the butt or something.

And you can't be charged for murder for shooting someone who poses a threat to you. He still had a gun, and he could easily still shoot you.

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

Did someone give Omega word of the day toilet paper, and every sheet has ad hominem on it?

Actually, the point that's just been raised is what I have the problem with. It's not so much the guns, but the fact that some of you are willing to murder people. Even if someone broke into my house, I wouldn't be able to kill them. Hell, even if they attacked someone I knew, I'm not sure I'd be able to take someone's life.

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Omega,

Shooting him in the ass (even though he might deserve it) would still be malicious assault, possibly with intent to kill.

And if you can shoot him in the ass, that means he's not facing you -- probably walking away. Which means he's no longer an immediate threat. It would be different if he still had a gun pointed at you.

Omega, the rules of self defense are clear: only if you have no other option may you use lethal force.

That means, until the robber actually PULLS the trigger and fires at you, you CAN NOT respond with lethal force, because until that moment you do not know that he wants to kill you.

Sorry, dude. That's the law of the land.

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited October 25, 2000).]

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Liam:

Who said we needed to kill (not murder) them to stop them? Pointing a gun in someone's direction is usually enough.

JK:

"Shooting him in the ass (even though he might deserve it) would still be malicious assault"

How do I get this through to you? NOT IF HE WAS A THREAT.

"Omega, the rules of self defense are clear: only if you have no other option may you use lethal force."

Not true. In some states, you can use lethal force if someone tries so much as a carjacking. The REAL rule is that if you have sufficient reason to think that someone is a threat, you can use lethal force.

Get your facts straight before you start talking. You're credibility is going down the tubes.

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

"Who said he'd kill him? Personally, I'd just shoot him in the butt or something."

That is what you said Omega. I replied it would be malicious assault. Then you added:

"How do I get this through to you? NOT IF HE WAS A THREAT?"

Omega, let's do some basic figuring here. If you are able to shoot him in the ass, which way is he facing? Is he facing YOU? No, because if you're shooting him in the ass, he is facing away from you.

If he's facing away from you, after he's robbed you, he's probably leaving, which means he is no longer a threat.

Unless he's planning on farting you to death.

Do you comprehend oh ketchupy one?

As for it being allowed to use lethal force on someone attempting a carjack ... well, its just sad when life is so cheap that you can kill someone for that. I'm sorry Omega, but I believe life is a sacred gift, and I find it very sad when people treat it as something cheap to throw away.

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited October 25, 2000).]

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

In regards to the Bush and Gore websites ...

What I see on Bush's site is a lot of badmouthing of Gore. Nearly every link claims to disprove Gore.

There are no anti-Bush links on Gore's homepage.

Sorry, Omega. When Bush has to resort to posting negative papers on his opponent to fill his own webpage ... well, its just sad.

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

Well, one might say criminals have already thrown their lives away...

------------------
Frank's Home Page
"Gardening for Dummies is too intense." - Rick

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

Good grief, Frank! Even I wouldn't make a blanket statement like that!

------------------
"You're basically killing each other to see who's got the better imaginary friend."
-Yasir Arafat on religious wars

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

JK1:

You also need to learn when someone is talking to you, and when they're not. I said that to LIAM, as evidenced by the "Liam:" before that paragraph. Thus, my statement was in response to HIM, not you.

"If he's facing away from you, after he's robbed you, he's probably leaving, which means he is no longer a threat."

Anyone who has a gun and is willing to point it at you is a threat. Just because he has his back turned doesn't mean he's not going to turn back around and shoot you.

As for your final paragraph, let me see if I have this straight: being threatened isn't enough. Being in immenant danger isn't enough. You say that someone must ALREAY have tried to kill you before you can fire back. No effing way. Someone pulls a gun on me, and I have one too, he's going to be dead or seriously injured pretty quick.

JK2:

Oh, so now saying your opponent is lying is one of those "negative personal attacks" that the lib media is always talking about? Comparing your programs to your opponents is NOT an attack. It's the best way to inform the voters.

Frank & Tim:

If someone is in the process of comitting a crime, they are no longer protected under the law. Thus you might say that they have thrown their lives away. Of course, this ends upon apprehension.

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

"Who said we needed to kill (not murder) them to stop them? Pointing a gun in someone's direction is usually enough."

First, splitting the hair mighty fine there.

And second, what if it isn't good enough?

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

First off: No, I would NOT shoot him in the butt. Criminals, when shot anywhere that doesn't kill them, tend to, due mainly to the fact that they're unscrupulous scum to begin with, sue the pants off the people who shot them, thus rationalizing away any blame they might have taken upon themselves for their actions. I'm talking braincase.

Yes, I will kill you (the generic you, not anyone here specifically) for the bits of paper in my pockets. They're important to me, far more important than your life is. I don't give a damn about you, especially if you're taking something that is rightfully mine and threatening me to boot. Think about that before you try to rob me. Is YOUR life worth it?

Yes, people have robbed folk on the street, started to walk away, and then thought 'hey, I don't need a witness' and turned around and shot them. It happens that way quite a bit.

Plus, by slaying said individual: we save:
1. The cost of incarceration
2. The next 5, or 50, or 5000 or so people he would have robbed, mugged, burgled, raped, murdered, etc.

Most crime isn't a one-time thing. I was just on a jury that convicted a guy of possession of coke, marijuana, paraphenalia, and would have convicted him of intent to deliver (because of the huge amount he had - over 60 grams - if one of us hadn't been an idiot. I found out later that the guy had a rap sheet that was LITERALLY as long as my arm.

------------------
"Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

"Who said we needed to kill (not murder) them to stop them? Pointing a gun in someone's direction is usually enough."

"First, splitting the hair mighty fine there."

Perhaps, but like I said, the FBI's Uniform Crime Report says it happens that way a couple million times a year in the US. My father and younger brother have both gotten by doing even less than that, just displaying the fact that they had one.

"And second, what if it isn't good enough?"

Then you follow through. NEVER make a threat you won't back up.

------------------
"Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

The reason Gore has no anti-Bush links, but Bush has so many anti-Gore links is simple, if you think about it...

Gore's done many more questionable things.

T add to that statement, and to get things back on topic, here's a link to the CNN report on video. Unfortunately, I don't have the software to view it. Perhaps someone who does can watch it and give us a report?
http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/10/23/video.adwatch/index.html

------------------
"Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master

[This message has been edited by First of Two (edited October 25, 2000).]

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :

This is not an attack: (so ya know)

Omega, what do you know about ballistics?

Bullets tumble when they hit something, or splinter, or mushroom.
A shot in the ass can be fatal.
A bullet can hit the hip bone and tumble up to the heart.
A bullet can splinter and cause internal bleeding.
A bullet can mushroom, taking off a leg, leading to bleeding to death.

I have no web site to back me on the below, but ask a cop or a soldier that has been in a firefight.

A person has a great chance of aiming high when in a firefight. A shot in the ass can take off a head or rip out a chest.

Just points to ponder.......

I am trained in weapons from a 9mm pistol to mortars to 120mm, compliments of the U.S. Army. Will I own a weapon, even though I can get a federal CCW? Nope.

U.S. Army Infantry School Graduate
1988

1of2 is right, never bluff, it has gotten people hurt.

If anybody ever gets a chance take the Professional Security Training Network class. As for credits it isn't worth a hill of beans (which I found out after taking the class), but some of the facts are great in it.
------------------
Stupid bastards and religious freaks,
so safe in their castle keeps...

[This message has been edited by Ritten (edited October 25, 2000).]

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

First,

I can't believe you would be willing to take a life over a couple bucks. If you owned a store, and you caught someone shoplifting, would you kill them right there?

Let me tell you a story about something which recently happened in Virginia.

Prince Jones got off his job as a personal trainer at a Bally's in Hyatsville, MD, and began driving home in his Jeep Cherokee with PA tags.

He noticed a car trailing him. He tried turning down a couple of streets, but the other car remained directly behind him. Finally, he pulled into a driveway, flipped off his lights and got out of his car to find out what the hell was going on.

He was confronted by a black man in a leather jacket ... with a gun.

What would you do?

Jones confronted the man, dressed in plainclothes, and was shot 12 times by the other man.

Guess what? He was killed by a POLICE OFFICER.

There was an APB on a Jeep Cherokee similar to the one Jones was driving (although with MD not PA tags). The point is, confronting an armed man might not be the smartest thing to do.

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited October 25, 2000).]

Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :

*watches petty yanks squabble over guns*
*is thankful he lives in a quiet, safe corner of Canada, where guns are hardly talked about, other than for hunting*

------------------
"He may not be a god, but on this ship, I am!"
-Andromeda

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

JK:

Your points are true (and yes, I did know all that), but still, a butt shot has a lot less chance of killing someone than a shot to the chest. 'Course, if it DID kill them, it'd likely be more painful. I'd have to see statistics before I actually chose one of the two.

JK2:

You said to Fo2:

"I can't believe you would be willing to take a life over a couple bucks. If you owned a store, and you caught someone shoplifting, would you kill them right there?"

Well, I doubt that First here would kill someone who was walking away from him, but pulling the gun and cocking it REAL loud (TV cliche, I know) would probably stop him dead in his tracks. And if he tried anything, THEN you could shoot him, because he would be immediately threatening you.

Right, Robbie old boy?

As for your example, that all depends on the details. Specifically, did the man clearly ID himself as a cop? You know, like yelling REAL loud before Jones got out of the car?

Under any circumstances, it's probably a bad idea to play hero like that. If someone has a gun pointed at you, you don't pull your own, which comes from watching too many bad westerns; you find out what the guy wants.

Fab:

I wasn't aware that caring about your right to self-defence was petty...

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

Actually, if a cop shoots an unarmed person twelve times for driving a car that looks like one w/ an APB out on it, that cop needs to be shot twelve times himself...

As for a bullet bouncing off the pelvis and into the heart... Well, it's also possible that the bullet will miss, ricochet around, cut a rope that's hanging a piano from a crane, and cause said keyboard to fall upon the person at whom you're shooting, but it still isn't likely. :-)

And then there's the issue of shooting your assailant in the back as he/she/it is leaving...

"Anyone who has a gun and is willing to point it at you is a threat. Just because he has his back turned doesn't mean he's not going to turn back around and shoot you."

Alrighty, then, 'mega-man... If I ever see you walking down the street and realize you have a gun on you, I'll have to be sure to shoot you. Honestly, you don't strike me as the most stable individual in the world, so I'd be afraid you might turn 'round and shoot me if you thought I was a potential threat, or felt that I was breathing too loudly, or heard the voices in your head saying "Kill zem. Kill zem all..." like Sigmund Freud in that TNG episode. Shooting someone as they threaten you is one thing. But if you take it to the point where you can shoot them after they stop threatening you, pretty soon you'll want to shoot people before they start to threaten you...

------------------
"You're basically killing each other to see who's got the better imaginary friend."
-Yasir Arafat on religious wars

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

"The point is, confronting an armed man might not be the smartest thing to do."

Straightforward, simple, undeniably true.

Even less smart if I'M the armed man, no?

What's not smart for one person is not smart for all persons. It is not smart, to a criminal, to confront an armed person. That's why they so rarely do.

------------------
"Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

Hey, Omega, you didn't answer my question. Are you willing to kill someone to protect your wallet?

First: Thats you choice. If you think all criminals are scum, who will constantly reoffend, who don't deserve to live, then by all means, kill them if you think they are posing a threat.

But you don't think that that's a little bit of a black & white point of view? And maybe, a society who murders their criminals isn't the healthiest society in the world?

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Liam:

"Are you willing to kill someone to protect your wallet?"

Not really. But I do have that right, if he's physically threatening me in the process. And if he's physically threatening someone I care about, he's dead. I'm talking about what I have the RIGHT to do, not what I personally would do.

"And maybe, a society who murders their criminals isn't the healthiest society in the world?"

You still don't get it. If someone poses a threat, IT IS NOT MURDER. It's self defence. Besides, if violent criminals had a high rate of getting shot, there'd be less violent crime.

Tim:

"Alrighty, then, 'mega-man... If I ever see you walking down the street and realize you have a gun on you, I'll have to be sure to shoot you."

You pull a gun on me, then you constitute a threat, and you probably die (assuming I'm carrying a gun). My holding a gun doesn't constitute threatening you. Only if I point it at you, or otherwise indicate that I'm threatening someone. You're starting to grasp at straws.

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

*All following statistics courtesy the FBI Uniform Crime Report, or the Detroit-Chicago Police Record Study*

Liam, the U.S. recidivism rate is upwards of 80%.

That is, 80% of criminals who GET CAUGHT and then serve time, return to their criminal ways or get worse. (and that's just the rate of those who get caught AGAIN.

The repeat-offenders who DON'T get caught again pushes that percentage even higher.

The average criminal commits between 5 and 10 crimes before the first time he's caught. The average murderer or would-be murderer has committed 5-7 felonies before his first murder.

In other words, the chance of the guy in the example used being a 'only one time' offender is VANISHINGLY small.

And if you think my stance towards the criminal's 'rights' (what an oxymoron) is overly harsh? It's merely the equivalent of, as my dad used to say in the car... "you shoulda thought of that before you left."

------------------
"Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

quote:
Liam, the U.S. recidivism rate is upwards of 80%.
That is, 80% of criminals who GET CAUGHT and then serve time, return to their criminal ways or get worse. (and that's just the rate of those who get caught AGAIN

Wow, you guys really are safer then we are. Deterrence works!

[This message has been edited by Ultra Magnus (edited October 26, 2000).]

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

Oh, and:

quote:

If someone poses a threat, IT IS NOT MURDER

Killing someone, self-defence or no, is murder, is it not? You killed them. So what if they were trying to steal your prized Bavarian Cheese Holder, you still killed them. Killing is murder is it not? Intentional killing, anyway.

------------------
"Hockey is a sport for white men. Basketball is a sport for black men. Golf is a sport for white men dressed like black pimps."
- Tiger Woods

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary defines "murder" the noun as the following:

"The crime of unlawfully killing a person esp. with malice aforethought"

Said dictionary defines the verb "murder":

"To kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice"

It ain't murder unless it's illegal, and it's legal to kill someone in self-defence. That's why we don't arrest soldiers when they get home from wars. Get your facts straight.

Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :

You can use self-defense in your defense, but if there's anything questionable or hinky about it at, there's an obligation to prosecute. Might be for negligent homicide or manslaughter or even murder 2...but they have to prosecute.

------------------
"Two parts slush...one part solid ice...one part hard-packed snow...a dash of assorted debris...sculpt into sphere, and serve at high velocity without warning." --Calvin

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Which just illustrates another problem with the justice system. When I can be prosecuted for killing someone who was threatening my life, there's something bad wrong.

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

There are a few organizations out there which, if you join and pay a yearly membership fee, will pay all your legal defenses if you should happen to shoot someone in self-defense... provided the court rules in your favor.

There are also organizations that will, if you become a member, take care of your defense if you're audited by the IRS.. again for free.

If only we could somehow combine the two...

------------------
"Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

My personal favorite is the one that pays for your legal fees if you have to defend your right to homeschool your kids.

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

Well, I can just see how well it would work if we didn't have an investigation/prosecution process for self-defense cases.

"Ye gods, you've just shot that man! You're gonna spen the rest of your life in jail, buddy! You're under arrest!"
"Erm... It was self defense!"
"It was?"
"Yeah."
"Oh. Okay. Well, off you go, then. Just, er... don't leave this body here, eh? It's not a very nice sight, what w/ this being a playground and all..."
"Oh, right. No problem."

------------------
"You're basically killing each other to see who's got the better imaginary friend."
-Yasir Arafat on religious wars

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

LOL

------------------
Oh, yes, sitting. The great leveler. From the mightiest Pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?
~C. Montgomery Burns

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Omega,

We DO arrest soldiers when they get home from war.

Lt. Calley & My Lai. Do you know the story? It was a massacre, and Calley was tried and convicted for his role in it -- because the attack on the village wasn't WAR, it was a MASS-MURDER.

Similar for cops, they may use deadly force because it is their job to use deadly force (if the situation calls for it). But if they use it improperly -- into jail for them!

------------------
Friends Don't Let Friends Vote Republican
***
Gore/Lieberman 2000 - a step forward into the new millennium

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited October 27, 2000).]

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Make no mistake. NOBODY but an uncaught psychopath kills 'free from consequences.'

Anybody who's ever had to kill someone, even IN self defense or in the performance of their duties as a member of the military, even if they faced NO charges whatsoever, can tell you that. It's a horribly traumatic thing to do, even if you ARE in the right.

------------------
"Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :

I think that the point was for the common soldier, that killed the enemy, wasn't charged with murder. The US did right in convicting Calley, it shows to the world we do not condon acts of terror and violence, even from our stressed out troops. There is a difference in killing the enemies with weapons in combat and slaughtering women and children.

------------------
Stupid bastards and religious freaks,
so safe in their castle keeps...

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

It my thread and if I don't want to talk guns then I don't have to! :P

Michael Moore, one of my favorite writer and film maker type people wrote the following on Grassroots.com and for all you people wanting equanimity, I include the Gore questions as well...and direct you to look at the site as it is filled with just as many right wing loonies as good thing socialists.

FOR GEORGE W. BUSH:

1. Are you a functional illiterate? Will you prove to us that you can read and write on an adult level? Will you take the same test you want teachers to take? This is not meant to humiliate you. This is a national security issue. It is too dangerous to have a president sitting in the Oval Office who has a serious problem with his basic reading skills. This does not make you a lesser person. Millions of people are dyslexic or have a reading problem. But should their finger be on "The Button?" Perhaps you need help, or therapy, or Hooked on Phonics. But not the Oval Office. Please respond in complete and understandable sentences.

2. Are you an alcoholic? You say that you had a drinking problem, that you were more in love with "it" than those around you. You claim to have not touched one drop of alcohol since you turned 40, implying that you are unable to even have one drink for fear of abusing the substance. First of all, congratulations on your ability to overcome this disease. Millions of people are alcoholic, and many of them are able to live normal lives once they have come to grips with their problem. But should an alcoholic be President? As you have no idea yet of what it's like to experience the pressures and anxieties surrounding the most stressful job in the world, are you confident you can stay "on the wagon?" And if you aren't, what protections would you set up in advance to insure that WE are protected from any irrational decisions you may make while intoxicated? This is a national security issue.

3. Please list the felonies you have committed. You stated that you have not committed "a felony in the last 25 years" when asked about your rumored use of cocaine. What exactly does that statement mean? The implication is that you DID commit a felony before 1975. Was it regarding drugs -- or did you mean some OTHER felony? We have a right to know what that felony is. Why? Because if an enemy of the United States, either foreign (i.e., Saddam) or domestic (i.e., Exxon, Mobil), found evidence of this felony you seem desperate to hide, they could use it as blackmail against you. They could threaten to release it to the public if you do not do what they want you to do. This is a national security issue. You have to tell us what you are hiding so that no man or nation or corporation has anything to hold over you. The American people are a forgiving people. Come clean with your past so that it does not jeopardize OUR future.

4. You are a failed businessman, many times over. What leads you to believe that you will not sink the economy of the United States of America?

FOR AL GORE:

1. Your people have done a pretty good job scaring liberals into voting for you for fear that a Bush presidency would make abortion illegal, that George W. Bush would appoint justices to the Supreme Court like right-wing nuts Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia. If your support for a woman's right to choose is so strong, and you and the Democrats believe that Thomas and Scalia are abhorrent choices indicative of what Bush would give us, then why did you, as a Senator, vote "YEA" to place Antonin Scalia on the U.S. Supreme Court? And why did 11 Democrats cross over and vote in favor of Thomas' nominatioDon't we have the Democrats and you yourself to thank for the rightward tilt of the Court?

2. A few weeks ago, a 62-year old man by the name of John Adams was sitting in his living room chair watching "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire" on TV when
plainclothes police officers burst through the door and shot him dead. It was a drug raid, a popular tactic in the Clinton/Gore War on Drugs. Except John Adams wasn't a drug dealer. The police had the wrong house. His house was just a few miles down the road from your national campaign headquarters in Nashville. Mr. Adams is not the first mistaken casualty in your drug war. What do you have to say to his 70-year old widow?

3. Why are you supporting TWICE the increase in the Pentagon budget that Bush is proposing?

4. Why are you ignoring Bill Clinton? You act like he doesn't exist. This man made you vice president. You might end up being president thanks to him. And he didn't treat you like most vice presidents get treated. He included you in on his decisions. You got to attend all the meetings. He had a private lunch with you every week. He appointed you in charge of downsizing hundreds of thousands of people in the federal government. He made you point man on all environmental issues. He always said "Al and me" when going over his administration's accomplishments. Now you treat him like dirt. Hey, I got my problems with Clinton and what he has done, but whatever happened to loyalty and friendship? What does this say about YOUR character when you snub someone so publicly who has been so good to you? When Americans see this, they wonder about you. Could they trust you? Would you desert us the way you have deserted your friend, Bill Clinton? Would you be willing to barnstorm the country with him for the following week and win this damn election?

Those are my questions. I await them being posed, and I await the candidates' answers.

------------------
Oh, yes, sitting. The great leveler. From the mightiest Pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?
~C. Montgomery Burns

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

B1: Stupid question. The man knows too much about too many things to have memorized it all verbally. Under any circumstances, if he can't read or write, he can't be sworn in.

B2: Again, stupid question. If he wasn't confident he could handle it, he wouldn't be running.

B3: Stupid question. What effect could something Bush may or may not have done three decades ago possibly have on his job performance?

B4: Stupid question. The presidency is absolutely nothing like being the owner or CEO of a business.

G1: Legitimate question. Gore bashed a justice that he voted for. This to most would constitute hypocracy.

G2: Stupid question. What did Gore have to do with the mistake of our local policemen? I haven't been paying ALL that much attention to the story, but they apparently didn't announce their presence and ID, if you're wondering.

G3: Um, maybe because the military needs the money?

G4: Stupid question. Gore may have his honesty problems, but he isn't stupid. Clinton's personal approval rating is, what, 35%? He's NEVER gotten a majority of the vote. Heck, in the '96 election, he got 24% of the registered vote total! And more than that, he's never had coat-tails. The Democrats lost congress for the first time in four decades under him.

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

::re-reads Omega's answer carefully::

I can't believe it ...

------------------
Friends Don't Let Friends Vote Republican
***
Gore/Lieberman 2000 - a step forward into the new millennium

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

Oh, yes JK, believe it. Anything at all that questions Bush is a "stupid question" and therefor dismissed out of hand in Omega little world.

And since the Rupublicans bring the "character" question up and have made it the litmus test of everyone but Republicans:

1) It is a question that Bush needs to answer in light of all the Clinton bashing and the conservative belief that any President now needs to be above reproach...even going back to college and before.

2) The Republicans have done a wonderful job sidesteping the question and and not answering it.

------------------
Oh, yes, sitting. The great leveler. From the mightiest Pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?
~C. Montgomery Burns

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

In situations such as these, just remind yourself, that someday you will get pussy, while little Omega will still be reduced to slapping the purple zygote while viewing that one damn fake nude picture of Sandra Bullock. You know the one I'm talking about.

Yes you do. Admit it

------------------
"Hockey is a sport for white men. Basketball is a sport for black men. Golf is a sport for white men dressed like black pimps."
- Tiger Woods

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :

A FELONY???? You can't own a hand gun in this country for commiting a felony, but you can control a huge nuclear arsenal that can wipe out mankind.....

Does this seem (to quote Omega) STUPID!!!!!! and this guy can get nominated to run this country....

I think I am moving to Iraq shortly, at least there I know the people there want me dead.....

------------------
Stupid bastards and religious freaks,
so safe in their castle keeps...

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Jay:

"Anything at all that questions Bush is a "stupid question" and therefor dismissed out of hand in Omega little world."

Give me a legitimate question of Bush and THEN see how I respond.

And I'd point out that I also thought that the majority of Gore questions were stupid, too.

"And since the Rupublicans bring the "character" question up and have made it the litmus test of everyone but Republicans"

Show me one example where Republicans have used this unilaterally.

"It [presumably the drug question] is a question that Bush needs to answer in light of all the Clinton bashing and the conservative belief that any President now needs to be above reproach...even going back to college and before."

I've never heard anyone espouse this, and if they have, they need a reality check.

"The Republicans have done a wonderful job sidesteping the question and and not answering it."

There's probably a reason for that. Does the phrase "It's not relevant" mean anything to you?

Personally, I'd like to know why the media's never questioned GORE on the same issue, considering that we have a legitimate witness that HE used drugs, whereas we only have the accusations of a felon who would have no reason to know against Bush. A felon who's book was pulled by it's own publisher for lack of credibility.

UM:

And just remind yourself that I'm one of the few here that have any chance of being in a real, loving relationship at any point in my life. I win.

And in case you're going to say, "Well, that's your opinion," that's the only one that counts when it comes to my life. So there. :P

Ritten:

"A FELONY???? You can't own a hand gun in this country for commiting a felony, but you can control a huge nuclear arsenal that can wipe out mankind..."

A: I will say this ONE more time. THERE IS NOT A SHRED OF EVIDENCE THAT GEORGE W. BUSH EVER COMMITED A FELONY. All we have are the accusations of a REAL felon, who has no evidence himself, and who's book was pulled by it's own publisher for lack of credibility.

Besides, even if he did use drugs thirty years ago, there's a statue of limiations, you know.

Finally, the president can't use nukes on his own. That requires co-authorization by a senate-confirmed appointee.

And if you're trying to use this as an argument FOR Gore, we've got a lot more evidence that he HAS commited crimes, and recent ones at that. Not to mention that we've got a witness that's actually reliable that says that he used drugs quite a bit, if you really want to bring that into it.

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :

Question:

Why did Bush's businesses fail?

The answer to this question will either tell why he should be considered for Persident, or why not.

If he took up selling widgets and the market collasped, then it's not really his fault.

Bad managerment, not handling stress, and this type of thing would be his fault.

It shouldn't have been anything financial, with the backing of his father, but if Dad gave him the start up money, then said to sink or swim, it might very well be his fault.

The drug thing, unless it is an ongoing thing, is a moot point, since how many people 30 years ago used some sort of drug..... I am counting people that are running for some political office now, who would have been in the experimentitive youth then.

So, did he, or did he not, have a hand in the failing of his businesses, or just bad luck???

------------------
Stupid bastards and religious freaks,
so safe in their castle keeps...

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

Hello, Earth to Omega don't try to deflect legitimate questions by pointing over there and doing your bait and switch act. My goodness you are a comple imbecile...but the smartest one you know.

quote:
Show me one example where Republicans have used this [the character issue] unilaterally.

Again, that's just stupid. Ever since the impeachment, the Republicans have been on their high horse about how character counts. Deny that and you are a liar. Now, bear in mind that character only seems to count if you are Bill Clinton or Al Gore.

Since you want the press to go after Gore for whatever character questions you want to see...fine, let's have some member of the media stand up and do just that. And let that same member of the media stand up and ask Bush about his character and potential past drug use. And let him answer the question. He's been asked and he has refused to answer, leaving big character questions in my mind.

quote:
What effect could something Bush may or may not have done three decades ago possibly have on his job performance?

About the same amount that Clinton smoking pot in college would have. Oh, but my goodness, who the hell made that an issue and keeps harping on it as a character flaw to this day? Oh, Republicans. So, until Bush answers a direct question, you can in no way defend him or dismiss the character questions that the conservatives themselves have unleashed.

quote:
"It [presumably the drug question] is a question that Bush needs to answer in light of all the Clinton bashing and the conservative belief that any President now needs to be above reproach...even going back to college and before."
I've never heard anyone espouse this, and if they have, they need a reality check.

Had you the ability to read above the homeschool level, you could have read this above:

"And since the Rupublicans bring the "character" question up and have made it the litmus test of everyone but Republicans:"

So you assumption about my statements being simply a "drug" question again shows your general lack of reasoning skills.

And yes Matilida, Gore and Bradley admitted they smoked pot. Again, because the conservatives made it a relevant question by attacking Clinton for it. They answered the question that Bush won't. I wonder why...to be sure, that tells me something about his character.

So take your double standard and dismissive answers and flush 'em Sparky. Either answer the questions posed, or kindly move over to the side and shut the hell up.

------------------
Oh, yes, sitting. The great leveler. From the mightiest Pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?
~C. Montgomery Burns

[This message has been edited by Jay (edited October 28, 2000).]

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Have you heard of "Funeralgate"?

It's going on down in Texas right now, big scandal. I posted the article on the flame board a few days ago. There is sworn testimony that Dubya LIED about his involvement.

So, Jeff, in response to you "honor and integrity" drivel at the opening of this topic, how does Bush have honor or integrity about the Funeralgate scandal?

------------------
Friends Don't Let Friends Vote Republican
***
Gore/Lieberman 2000 - a step forward into the new millennium

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

'S okay, Omega... I just served on a jury a couple weeks ago, and I know better than to take a convicted felon at their word about somebody ELSE'S behavior, even if these guys don't.

------------------
"Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Ritten:

Not a clue. Never asked. But then, you might like to know that Gore has held, what, ONE job in the private sector? As a reporter. Thirty years ago.

Jay:

"Ever since the impeachment, the Republicans have been on their high horse about how character counts. Deny that and you are a liar. Now, bear in mind that character only seems to count if you are Bill Clinton or Al Gore."

Give me evidence that any Republican in congress has commited purjury, and I'll call up my representitive and tell him to start impeachment proceedings.

Heck, give me any evidence that any ten (there are a lot of them) GOP reps lied to get elected. THEN you might have a point.

"...fine, let's have some member of the media stand up and do just that. And let that same member of the media stand up and ask Bush about his character and potential past drug use."

Ah, but, see, there's the thing. Crimes Gore's commited and lies he's told during his career as a politician ARE legitimate questions about his character. The only time I care about things before that is if Gore lies about them NOW. Same for Bush.

"About the same amount that Clinton smoking pot in college would have. Oh, but my goodness, who the hell made that an issue and keeps harping on it as a character flaw to this day?"

No one that I've heard. Now the fact that he said it on MTV, and that he claimed he didn't inhale, and that he claimed it was the only time he used drugs... THAT I have a minor problem with. Why in the world would he smoke the stuff and not inhale? IINM, that's not smoking. And then there's the fact that we have some darned good evidence that he's used drugs after that, and DURING his tenure. But assuming it's true, that one incident doesn't bug me all that much. Again, it's the past, and I only care when he lies about it.

"Had you the ability to read above the homeschool level"

That's way above your reading level, bub.

JK:

So you have one man's word against Bush? That's it? Get back to me when you have REAL evidence.

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

So, what is your actual point Omega...that the character issue doesn't exist? Stupid.

Or that it exists only if you know that someone is lying? Stupid.

If Bush used drugs in his past, it says something about his character and in the current tennor of the political times...a climate I remind you again that the Republicans started...then Bush needs to be above reproach and speak to this issue with the American people.

quote:
And then there's the fact that we have some darned good evidence that he's used drugs after that, and DURING his tenure.

What the hell are you talking about? Are you trying to say that while president, Clinton lit a big bong in the Oval Office? I really have no idea how to respond that that sort of lunacy other than to say that maybe Dubya did a couple of line on the coffee table of the governor's mansion too.

And as far as those things you haven't heard, I suggest you broaden your horizons.

------------------
Oh, yes, sitting. The great leveler. From the mightiest Pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?
~C. Montgomery Burns

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Actually, there is a report that Clinton had to undergo nasal passage reconstructive surgery during his term as governor, make of that what you will...

And all that beside, even if he didn't use any illegal drugs while in the oval office (as if the Pres. couldn't get some if he wanted, and have the secret service keep mum)... we all still wonder if he smoked that cigar.

------------------
"Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Well, there was that wiretap of Roger's phone, where he was recorded as saying, "I gotta get some of that stuff for my brother. He's got a nose like a vacuum cleaner." But, hey, that's not evidence.

As for my point, it's that the character issue, for all relevant intents and purposes, destroys your cantidate, and has no demonstrable effect on mine.

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

Oh, and just who is my candidate oh smartest person you know?

------------------
Oh, yes, sitting. The great leveler. From the mightiest Pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?
~C. Montgomery Burns

[This message has been edited by Jay (edited October 29, 2000).]

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

Darn, and I so wanted this to go over 100 posts.

Well,I guess I have to do that my own self then with a bit more humor at Bush's expence.

George of the Jungle

------------------
Oh, yes, sitting. The great leveler. From the mightiest Pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?
~C. Montgomery Burns

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Well, Jay, you get your wish...

Whoever made that cartoon is either a spoonfed moron, or deliberately trying to mislead you.

I will ask one more time: why in the world do you think that Bush is unintelligent?

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :

It doesn't seem that he's not intelligent, just unable to finish a sentence and his wording is a bit off at times, not fully thinking before speaking. Also trying to put two or more thoughts in to one sentence is not a good thing.

------------------
Stupid bastards and religious freaks,
so safe in their castle keeps...

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Of course, even that's in a very small minority of his public speeches, really.

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

What would make me thing Bush is unintelligent?

Look at the quote in my tagline.

------------------
Read My Lips: NO NEW TEXANS!
***
Gore/Lieberman 2000
***
"I think anybody who doesn't think I'm smart enough to handle the job is underestimating." - George "Dubya" Bush

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

You do realize that there's nothing wrong with that quote unless you're looking for it?

You're being irrational. Again.

A man once was saying a prayer at the church I was attending. "And thank you, Lord, for the fruit of the loom..." Is he an idiot just because he misspoke? Or the child reading scripture: "...and the Spirit of God disintigrated like a dove..." Misspeaking is not a sign of unintelligence. Thinking that it is, now...

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

Overanalyzing, as well, naught.

------------------
Equality, Cooperation & Benevolence.

Vote Communist Party of America 2000.

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :

To me that seems like an unfinished sentence.
"....underestimating [my abilities.]" might be a good conclusion.

What were Bush's grades like?

How (not Oh) many of you know someone that is smart as hell/very intelligent/almost a genius but has the common sense of a log? This goes with that gifted cartoon posted here someplace sometime ago.
My sister-in-law is like that..... then again, I wouldn't want her running the country.....

How many of Gore's 'lies' have been twisted, like the internet invetion statement that he helped get Government fund for the 'net?

------------------
Stupid bastards and religious freaks,
so safe in their castle keeps...

[This message has been edited by Ritten (edited October 31, 2000).]

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Well, yeah. My IQ was last rated at 176, I scored in the 97th percentile or better in every standardized test I ever took in school, and I got a 1320 on the SAT while suffering from a case of the flu. I have, so I'm told by people I consider knowledgeable about such things (including a few professors) highly analytical mind, and a very good ability to apply it to the division of fact from opinion.

Still, I was socially inept, incapable of dealing with regular people, until late in college, and my grades weren't ever extremely good because I was either bored, daydreaming, or lazy. Mostly lazy. I frequently stumble verbally when I speak for any period of time, because my mind goes faster than my mouth can.

Still, I'm probably better informed than roughly 98% of this country's population... I won't pit that against the others, though, since I don't have acces to their various media resources -- ecxept MacLeans, if you can call that one.

And that's why I hold my opinions.

------------------
"Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master

Who Controlled What????
Admin.	Senate	House	Occurances
DEM	DEM	DEM	21
REP	REP	REP	22
DEM	DEM	REP	2
DEM	REP	REP	6
DEM	REP	DEM	3
REP	REP	DEM	1
REP	DEM	DEM	10
REP	DEM	REP	9
WHIG	DEM	DEM	2

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

...and you watch Voyager. Tsk.
------------------
Equality, Cooperation & Benevolence.
Vote Communist Party of America 2000.

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

Well Omega (the smartest person you know), there are times when humor can just be humor. Very much like all those anti Clinton lists that JR put up. So, in the humor department you are just going to have to deal with it.
As to Dubya's intelligence, speaking for myself, I have not seen an instance (the debates for example) where Dubya has spoken clearly, concisly and was able to tell me what his ideas were without dropping the ball somewhere along the line and flatlining into some deadheaded ramble.
Oh sure he's got ideas, but I do not believe for a second that they are his...rather I believe that he has been spoon-fed much of the stuff he tries to spout while speaking in public. I can't say that that makes him any more disingenious than Gore or any other major party candidate over the last 12 or so years.
I think that that lack of ability to think on his feet and precisely communicate his thoughts, such as I have seem in Bush, is a serious flaw in a potential President of the United States in the modern age of instant communications...(and maybe not so much of a flaw to a librarian).
------------------
Oh, yes, sitting. The great leveler. From the mightiest Pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?
~C. Montgomery Burns

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Fo2:
Darn, my IQ is only in the 160's...
Ritten:
IIRC, Bush was an average student. C's, mainly. Whereas Gore (not an attack, just a comparison, before JK jumps the gun) flunked out of school at least once. We don't even know his grades, last I heard. Like Clinton's medical records, he's gone to great lengths to hide them from the public.
Jay:
"Well Omega (the smartest person you know)"
I see you've picked up another trick from the liberals: misquoting. Next you're going to say that Mr. Newt wanted medicare to wither on the vine...
"I have not seen an instance where Dubya has spoken clearly, concisly and was able to tell me what his ideas were without dropping the ball somewhere along the line and flatlining into some deadheaded ramble."
What exactly do you mean by "deadheaded ramble"? Is that like saying "A tax cut that mainly benefits the top one percent" ten times in an hour?
"Oh sure he's got ideas, but I do not believe for a second that they are his"
And you believe this why? What's the reasoning behind it?
I would point out that I've had the same problem as First. If I try to speak as fast as I think, I get tongue-tied. Like First, it's probably because my mind works pretty darn fast. So why would getting tongue-tied when one's excited about something be a sign of UNintelligence, instead of just the oppoiste?
------------------
Pilot: You're sure they were Americans, eh?
Fraser: They were all wearing new boots, they were driving a Jeep Wrangler, and they carried big guns.
Pilot: Americans it is.
- "due South"

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

I think Bush could turn out to be a good president. I also think he is as dumb as a stone. He would lose to Elmo in a game of chess. He has the vocabulary of a pocket calculator, the wit of Cathy, and the comedic timing of Joe Piscapo. In a battle of the minds, he would lose to the hosts of The Man Show. I would not trust him to operate the gate at a parking garage. I might trust him to run the country though.
------------------
love's function is to fabricate unknownnness
--
E. E. Cummings
****
Read chapter one of "Dirk Tungsten in...The Disappearing Planet"! And party everyday.

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Your opinion is noted. What facts do you base that on?
------------------
Pilot: You're sure they were Americans, eh?
Fraser: They were all wearing new boots, they were driving a Jeep Wrangler, and they carried big guns.
Pilot: Americans it is.
- "due South"

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

At this point I would like to say that I am suprised, no AMAZED, this morning.
The Uniontown Herald-Standard, possibly the most diehardly Democratic newspaper in this excruciatingly Democratic part of Pennsylvania...
Today endorsed Bush.
------------------
"Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

Well, has Bush ever been on Seseame Streat? No?
You have to wonder why, don'tcha? What's he got to hide...
------------------
"If every vampire who said he was at the Crucifixion was actually there it would've been like Woodstock. I was at Woodstock. I fed off a flower person and I spent six hours watching my hand move." - Spike, BtVS

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

Judging W's heart
"His "compassionate conservatism" can move a grown man to tears, but how far does it really extend?"
Yet another fascinating article.
------------------
Oh, yes, sitting. The great leveler. From the mightiest Pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?
~C. Montgomery Burns

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

Omega, jut so your clear on the subject...these " " are quotes. Write that in your journal so next time you can see when someone is "quoting" you and when someone is not quoting you. Go now, scat and write that down now.
And again, I read your comments and see than rather deal with the issue, you propose to attack Gore.
Bravo my boy.
------------------
Oh, yes, sitting. The great leveler. From the mightiest Pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?
~C. Montgomery Burns
[This message has been edited by Jay (edited November 02, 2000).]

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

The quotes (or lack thereof) is not relevant. You still imply that I said that, which I didn't. Of course, I guess that means I can't say that you misquoted me, and I have to say that you outright lied instead. In that case, I stand corrected.
------------------
Pilot: You're sure they were Americans, eh?
Fraser: They were all wearing new boots, they were driving a Jeep Wrangler, and they carried big guns.
Pilot: Americans it is.
- "due South"

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

*raises handbag at Omega*
Ooooohhhhh.
------------------
"If every vampire who said he was at the Crucifixion was actually there it would've been like Woodstock. I was at Woodstock. I fed off a flower person and I spent six hours watching my hand move." - Spike, BtVS

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

In my humble opinion, Omega, I'd say he was just making fun of you.
Of course, you're doing a much better job of making fun of yourself then anyone else could possibly do ...
------------------
Gore/Lieberman 2000
***
I'll hug your elephant if you'll kiss my ass.
***
"I think anybody who doesn't think I'm smart enough to handle the job is underestimating." - George "Dubya" Bush

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

And Omega, what you DID say about yourself (on the first page of this topic) was ...
"I can't speak in public, but I'm one of the smartest people I know (not to sound immodest)."
THAT is a direct quote.
What Jay said was:
"Well Omega (the smartest person you know),"
Kindly explain to me how the above is a lie as you claim?
You clearly state that you are the smartest person you know. Jay clearly states that you believe yourself to be the smartest person you know.
I dunno, maybe you meant you were the stupidest person you know?
------------------
Gore/Lieberman 2000
***
I'll hug your elephant if you'll kiss my ass.
***
"I think anybody who doesn't think I'm smart enough to handle the job is underestimating." - George "Dubya" Bush
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited November 02, 2000).]

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

quote:
I dunno, maybe you meant you were the stupidest person you know?
Wow dude, you like, rule.
------------------
Equality, Cooperation & Benevolence.
Vote Communist Party of America 2000.

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

And didn't you used to have a status line that read "Only as Humble as his talents allow"? There's a sign of a small ego...*cough*
------------------
"If every vampire who said he was at the Crucifixion was actually there it would've been like Woodstock. I was at Woodstock. I fed off a flower person and I spent six hours watching my hand move." - Spike, BtVS

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

JK:
"You clearly state that you are the smartest person you know."
Where did I say that?
Little-known fact to liberals: Words mean things. You've got the quote. You figure it out.
Liam:
Seriously, I don't have much of an ego. I used to have one the size of Botswana, though. It isn't bragging if it's true. Which was the point of my former status line.
------------------
Pilot: You're sure they were Americans, eh?
Fraser: They were all wearing new boots, they were driving a Jeep Wrangler, and they carried big guns.
Pilot: Americans it is.
- "due South"

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

Ah, ah, ah. Dude, I think you should have said 'little known fact to SOME liberals', because, you know, blanket statements suck.
Although, I really don't care. I'm extreme left. Liberals & Conservatives are food for mutant goat-babies as far as I'm conserned.
"Lousy capitalist pigs! I hope your whores from which you get money give you herpes!"
------------------
Equality, Cooperation & Benevolence.
Vote Communist Party of America 2000.

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

WHERE did you say that you're the smartest person you know, Omega?
Go to the first page of this topic, and read your first post. THAT'S where you said it.
Obviously (going by the words, you understand), you find yourself to be the smartest person you've ever met. You also, obviously, haven't met very many people.
Gee, Omega, again with the blanket statements? If I wanted a blanket statement about conservatives I believe it would be, "all Republicans are supporters of White Pride and the Klu Klux Klan." Now, thankfully, I've met many Republicans who AREN'T members or supporters of either of those, but the KKK (and neo-Nazis, and other hate groups) are part of the Republican party. Blanket statements are dangerous Omega.
------------------
Gore/Lieberman 2000
***
I'll hug your elephant if you'll kiss my ass.
***
"I think anybody who doesn't think I'm smart enough to handle the job is underestimating." - George "Dubya" Bush
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited November 02, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited November 02, 2000).]

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

No, no, no, no.
Here's the quote again:
"but I'm ___ __ the smartest people I know (not to sound immodest)."
Spin! And buy a vowel. Or two. Then fondle Vanna White.
Mmmm....spinning the wheel....mmmmm
------------------
Equality, Cooperation & Benevolence.
Vote Communist Party of America 2000.

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Ok, right, ONE OF ...
Still a far cry for Omega to whine about Jay being a liar, tho.
------------------
Gore/Lieberman 2000
***
I'll hug your elephant if you'll kiss my ass.
***
"I think anybody who doesn't think I'm smart enough to handle the job is underestimating." - George "Dubya" Bush

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

He said I said something I didn't say. So did you. I'd rather call it a misquote, but Jay objected.
------------------
Francesca: He was born on the tundra, that's where he belongs. You'll kill him if you take him to Toronto.
Thatcher: That's a bit drastic, don't you think?
Francesca: Look, I've been to Toronto. Trust me, nothing can survive there. - "due South"

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

Oh, so no I'M a liar. I won't stoop to telling you to go screw yourself, which I should. I will however call you a fool and I caution you about using such terms.
And to paraphrase John Wayne from a movie I can't remember the title of at the moment, 'you'd better step off you high-horse there mister.'
------------------
Oh, yes, sitting. The great leveler. From the mightiest Pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?
~C. Montgomery Burns
[This message has been edited by Jay (edited November 02, 2000).]

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

Where he the name of Joe Camel are you getting this crap from Omega??
Since the homeschool library is closed, here you go:
sar�don�ic (s�r-dnk) adj.
Scornfully or cynically mocking.
sar�casm (s�rkzm) n.
1.A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound.
2.A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule.
caus�tic (k�stk) adj.
2.Corrosive and bitingly trenchant; cutting.
sat�ire (str) n.
2.Irony, sarcasm, or caustic wit used to attack or expose folly, vice, or stupidity.
------------------
Oh, yes, sitting. The great leveler. From the mightiest Pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?
~C. Montgomery Burns

Posted by Diane (Member # 53) on :

"Seriously, I don't have much of an ego. I used to have one the size of Botswana, though. It isn't bragging if it's true. Which was the point of my former status line."
Oh, you're too modest, Omega. I think I'll go over here and puke now. You obviously don't get it, do you? It's one thing to talk about how smart you are, and another to show it in your actions.

p.s.
I just found out what Omega's really good for, though. I'm working from 5-8pm at the library tonight, and I was really tired and sleepy after dinner. Then I thought to come and read the Flameboard, because answering Omega's posts wake me up.
------------------
"The distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion."
--Albert Eistein

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Well, Omega, Jay and I can always argue that we thought you were being sarcastic that you considered yourself only ONE of the smartest people you knew ...
So, its more our interpretation versus yours.
------------------
Gore/Lieberman 2000
***
I'll hug your elephant if you'll kiss my ass.
***
"I think anybody who doesn't think I'm smart enough to handle the job is underestimating." - George "Dubya" Bush

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

Well, no, I was being sarcastic refering to Omega as the smartest person he knows.
Again, I reference the fact that Omega should remove the stick from his but and talk about the subject at hand...and that would be our former drunk driver, little Dubya.
------------------
Oh, yes, sitting. The great leveler. From the mightiest Pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?
~C. Montgomery Burns

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

...and his opponent, the former stoned-out-of-his-gord Algore...
------------------
Francesca: He was born on the tundra, that's where he belongs. You'll kill him if you take him to Toronto.
Thatcher: That's a bit drastic, don't you think?
Francesca: Look, I've been to Toronto. Trust me, nothing can survive there. - "due South"

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :

And I invented the Internet while on Death Row in Texas......
------------------
Stupid bastards and religious freaks,
so safe in their castle keeps...

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

"...and his opponent, the former stoned-out-of-his-gord Algore..."
Yes. This means as much as
"...and the other candidate, the former no-regard-for-human-safety DUI drunkard Georgebush..."
You americans worry about the silliest things when it comes to leaders of your country.
It's a good thing I'll never run for president, because, well, I can't, because when I was 7, I wrote the 'F-Word' on a jungle gym. We can't have that now, can we?
------------------
Equality, Cooperation & Benevolence.
Vote Communist Party of America 2000.

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

LIAR!!! His name isn't Algore...you deceiver!!

I paint you with the ignominious stamp of loser.
------------------
Oh, yes, sitting. The great leveler. From the mightiest Pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?
~C. Montgomery Burns
(fixed spelling cause I suck)
[This message has been edited by Jay (edited November 03, 2000).]

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

HA!!! You mispelled 'Loser'. You are unfit for debate. Leave. Right now. You are not welcome any more.
What kind of moron thinks it's 'Looser'. It's not like he let out his pants.

------------------
Equality, Cooperation & Benevolence.
Vote Communist Party of America 2000.

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

D'oh!
------------------
Oh, yes, sitting. The great leveler. From the mightiest Pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?
~C. Montgomery Burns

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

UM:
"You americans worry about the silliest things when it comes to leaders of your country."
Which was exactly my point. Why should anyone care that Bush got a ticket for DUI half his lifetime ago?
------------------
Francesca: He was born on the tundra, that's where he belongs. You'll kill him if you take him to Toronto.
Thatcher: That's a bit drastic, don't you think?
Francesca: Look, I've been to Toronto. Trust me, nothing can survive there. - "due South"

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

For the same reason that people worry that Gore mispoke in claiming he invented the internet.
Drunk driving is the symptom of a disease: alcholism. Do all drunk drivers drink too much? Well, yes, otherwise they wouldn't be drunk.
Bush could've killed someone or himself, and its an irresponsible thing to do.
Now, true, it happened ... how long ago? Times were different then, and I'd like to hear what he has to say about it.
------------------
Gore/Lieberman 2000
***
I'll hug your elephant if you'll kiss my ass.
***
"I think anybody who doesn't think I'm smart enough to handle the job is underestimating." - George "Dubya" Bush

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

"Bush could've killed someone or himself"
That'd be kinda hard, since he was pulled over for driving too slowly...
------------------
Francesca: He was born on the tundra, that's where he belongs. You'll kill him if you take him to Toronto.
Thatcher: That's a bit drastic, don't you think?
Francesca: Look, I've been to Toronto. Trust me, nothing can survive there. - "due South"

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :

Speed isn't the killer on our freeways, it's speed variance. The more the faster moving traffic as to dodge Bush driving too slowly the more likely that Bush will be the cause of an accident.
Omega, you and Gore now have something in common, probably much to your dismay, having your words twisted slightly in to something that you had, possibly, no intention of saying.
Mayhap you can see how the twisting of words, from both main parties, will make people see things differently.
------------------
Stupid bastards and religious freaks,
so safe in their castle keeps...
[This message has been edited by Ritten (edited November 03, 2000).]

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

If, as reported in a CBS radio report, that a reporter asked Dubya 2 years ago if he had ever been arrested, and he answered no, then his ability to handle the truth is called in to serious questions.
Spending time in the drunk tank isn't something you forget...um, unless you can't remember it. Even then, being serious, he knows full well that he had been arrested for DUI.
Now, that brings up another interesting question. Ok, he drank and he kicked it...all the props in the world for that and it was, what 24 years ago. Big deal. However, it is the right of the American people to know if the canidate for the Oval Office has been arrested for any reason and what the offence was?
------------------
Oh, yes, sitting. The great leveler. From the mightiest Pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?
~C. Montgomery Burns

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :

Well, I have been reviewing Michigan's passt election results and the Supreme Court Appointees, and have come to the conclusion that the Republicans have screwed Michiganders. My biggest concern is the fact the in Michigan police have the right to be bored and pull people over, no cause, just for the hell of it.... Both houses and the Court are Republican, and it hasn't been pretty.
We have a proposal here in Michigan that will limit the Republican controled everything. Any law that effects the local government must pass with a super-majority.
So, now, having reviewed everything I am voting a Democratic/Independant Ticket this coming Tuesday. Engler lost Bush a vote. Oh, welllll.
------------------
Stupid bastards and religious freaks,
so safe in their castle keeps...

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Are you serious?
I can be driving along, doing the speed limit, and a cop can pull me over 'cuz he's got nothing better to do?
------------------
Gore/Lieberman 2000
***
I'll hug your elephant if you'll kiss my ass.
***
"I think anybody who doesn't think I'm smart enough to handle the job is underestimating." - George "Dubya" Bush

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

I seriously doubt the veracity of that statement.
Not that you don't actualy BELIEVE it's the truith, just that I doubt that it IS true.
After all, nearly EVERYBODY says 'but I wasn't doin' nothin!'
------------------
"Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Jay:
"If, as reported in a CBS radio report, that a reporter asked Dubya 2 years ago if he had ever been arrested, and he answered no, then his ability to handle the truth is called in to serious questions."
Not quite true. He answered "no" to a question about having been arrested since 1968, went in to that whole thing about not having a perfect record as a youth, then started to correct himself about his earlier statement. The reporter said he got the distinct impression that he was going to mention something he forgot earlier. But then someone came up to Bush and interrupted. Bush had to leave, and one of them never got back to the other.
"Spending time in the drunk tank isn't something you forget"
He didn't. He just went in and paid his fine.
"However, it is the right of the American people to know if the canidate for the Oval Office has been arrested for any reason and what the offence was?"
Funnily enough, since he pled guilty and paid the fine outright, he was told it was expunged from his record.
Ritten:
"Engler lost Bush a vote."
Well, that's a strange way of looking at it. Why vote against Bush because of something Engler did?
------------------
Francesca: He was born on the tundra, that's where he belongs. You'll kill him if you take him to Toronto.
Thatcher: That's a bit drastic, don't you think?
Francesca: Look, I've been to Toronto. Trust me, nothing can survive there. - "due South"

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

The point is, Omega, does it matter that it was expunged? George W. Bush was drunk and behind the wheel of an automobile, and nothing will change that.
Personally, I hope he lost the MADD vote.
------------------
Gore/Lieberman 2000
***
I'll hug your elephant if you'll kiss my ass.
***
"I think anybody who doesn't think I'm smart enough to handle the job is underestimating." - George "Dubya" Bush

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

I don't think MADD existed at the time, actually...
------------------
Francesca: He was born on the tundra, that's where he belongs. You'll kill him if you take him to Toronto.
Thatcher: That's a bit drastic, don't you think?
Francesca: Look, I've been to Toronto. Trust me, nothing can survive there. - "due South"

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Well, I'd imagine that if a Republican governor was making a mess, Ritten would be afraid of what a Republican president would do ... and for good reason (sorry folks, I just don't care for the Republican philosophy ... and I doubt the Party has changed this much in the 10 years since that "blackface" scandal). I quote now freely from the New York Times (Oct. 29th):
"Mr. Bush has asked to be judged by something more than his positions. He offers himself as an experienced leader who would end the culture of bickering in Washington and use wisdom and resoluteness in dealing with domestic social problems and international crises. But his resume is too thin for the nation to bet on his growing into the kind of leader he claims already to be. He does have great personal charm. But Mr. Bush's main professional experience was running a baseball team financed by friends and serving for six years as governor in a state where the chief executive has limited budgetary and operational powers. His three debates with Mr. Gore exposed an uneasiness with foreign policy that cannot be erased by his promise to have heavyweight advisers. John F Kennedy, as a far more seasoned new president, struggled through the Cuban missile crisis while his senior advisors offered contradictory advice on how to confront a Soviet military threat on America's doorstep. The job description is for commander-in-chief, not advisee-in-chief.
"The vice-president has admitted to his limitations as a speaker. But Al Gore has a heart - and a mind - prepared for presidential-scale challenges. When it comes to the details of policy making, he will not need on the job training."
------------------
Gore/Lieberman 2000
***
I'll hug your elephant if you'll kiss my ass.
***
"I think anybody who doesn't think I'm smart enough to handle the job is underestimating." - George "Dubya" Bush

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited November 04, 2000).]

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Omega,
But they do now. I wonder how they're reacting to this ...
------------------
Gore/Lieberman 2000
***
I'll hug your elephant if you'll kiss my ass.
***
"I think anybody who doesn't think I'm smart enough to handle the job is underestimating." - George "Dubya" Bush

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

Well, all this isn't going to change anyone's mind about who they vote for...and I'm not sure that it should.
But in the tit for tat politics brought on by the Republicans against Clinton and the holier than thou attitude seems to me rather disingenious at this point.
Read: The death of outrage

------------------
Oh, yes, sitting. The great leveler. From the mightiest Pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?
~C. Montgomery Burns

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :

JeffK is right,especially with how buddy-buddy Bush and Engler were during Bush's visit here. Imagine what kind of laws that Engler has that he hasn't brought up here in Michigan, that his pal Bush can try to get pushed through Nationally. Like I have posted before, I don't have the want for the Government to have that much control over my life. And a Government that can stop people for no reason, other than maybe he doesn't like the looks of them,has got tobe kept from office. Mind you, if this had happened with a Democratic Gov., Senate & Legislature(sp?), and Supreme Court, then I would be voting Republican.
Omega, I guess it has to do with what I perceive as my personal freedoms and who I perceive as limiting them, and those of the three kids in this room watching TV. I want these kids of mine to have the same freedoms that I was raised with, not a party that seems to not care if they limit them. I have no choice but to think into the future, for thier sakes.
------------------
Stupid bastards and religious freaks,
so safe in their castle keeps...

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

You know what I find hilarious?
One of the arguments for owning firearms is that they would be needed if/when the government went too far in violating citizens' rights ...
Yet those very same people want to elect a political party which seems to EXCELL in limiting people's rights.
Hmmmmm.
------------------
Gore/Lieberman 2000
***
I'll hug your elephant if you'll kiss my ass.
***
"I think anybody who doesn't think I'm smart enough to handle the job is underestimating." - George "Dubya" Bush

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

No, no, we're voting REPUBLICAN, remember? You know, the party that ended slavery? The party that shoved through the Civil Rights Act, against opposition by the likes of Albert Gore, Sr.? That party?
------------------
Francesca: He was born on the tundra, that's where he belongs. You'll kill him if you take him to Toronto.
Thatcher: That's a bit drastic, don't you think?
Francesca: Look, I've been to Toronto. Trust me, nothing can survive there. - "due South"

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

The Republican party tht ended slavery was not anything like the current Republican party.
------------------
Oh, yes, sitting. The great leveler. From the mightiest Pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?
~C. Montgomery Burns

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :

Okay, let's all get it together and restart the Whigs, then maybe we can get some real politicking done around here.
Our planks to our platform could be:
1. Health Care
Nationalize it.
2. Education
Nationalize it.
ooopps, I meant localize it.
.....
Reagan was slow, but he was old.
------------------
Stupid bastards and religious freaks,
so safe in their castle keeps...

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

quote:
Finally, there's Bush's apparent lie about the incident, when Wayne Slater of the Dallas Morning News asked him point-blank in 1998 about his arrest record -- a lie, or misstatement, that he may have been about to correct when his ever-vigilant spokeswoman Karen Hughes pulled him away from the reporter. It remains to be seen what other steps, if any, Bush took to conceal the arrest.
So, in two years he couldn't get back and "correct" his lie?
------------------
Oh, yes, sitting. The great leveler. From the mightiest Pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?
~C. Montgomery Burns

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :

So many executions, so little time.
Then I got busy, what, with people pointing out internet sights that were against me and devising ways to put put limits on freedom.
Then I had to pay off the Mars Company.
What were we talking about. Oh,yeah, gotta kiss the babies.
------------------
Yep

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Yes, Omega ... back in the day (140 years ago), the Republican Party and the Democratic Party were essentially reversed. The Republican Party was slanted to the left, the Democratic Party to the right. Its safe to say that if you & I had both lived back then, I'd be Republican and you'd be Democratic.
But, speaking of the Democratic Party ...
We're the Party that ended the Great Depression and World War II
We're also the Party that elected John F Kennedy into office.
Yeah, LBJ wasn't that great, but you can't exactly brag about Eisenhower, Nixon (*especially* Nixon) or Ford either.
------------------
Gore/Lieberman 2000
***
I'll hug your elephant if you'll kiss my ass.
***
"I think anybody who doesn't think I'm smart enough to handle the job is underestimating." - George "Dubya" Bush

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

"The Republican Party was slanted to the left, the Democratic Party to the right."
Good quote that applies to you. "He who fails to learn history is doomed to repeat it. He who fails to learn history correctly -- why, he is simply doomed."
The Whigs pretty well fell apart about this time. A faction split off from the democrats. Basically, all the abolitionists in the country formed the Republican party. Since the size of the federal government didn't really become the issue it is until FDR and LBJ ballooned the thing, the modern definitions of conservative and liberal really don't apply.
But no, I would not be a Democrat. I'm FOR the rights of law-abiding humans, remember? Thus, anti-slavery. Thus, Republican.
"We're the Party that ended the Great Depression"
Um, no. Hitler did that by starting WW2.
"and World War II"
Exactly how can you claim credit for that? What exactly did a democrat do that a republican wouldn't have?
"We're also the Party that elected John F Kennedy into office."
Oh, yes. Wonderful achievement. WTF did the man do that was of any import, anyway?
Let's see. Good democrat presidents of the century... Not Clinton. Carter didn't do much. You already said you didn't like LBJ, and JFK did absolutely nothing that wouldn't have been done anyway. That takes us back to FDR, the man that screwed up the federal government and placed the constitution on hold indefinitely.
At least we have Reagan and Bush on our side. :P
------------------
Francesca: He was born on the tundra, that's where he belongs. You'll kill him if you take him to Toronto.
Thatcher: That's a bit drastic, don't you think?
Francesca: Look, I've been to Toronto. Trust me, nothing can survive there. - "due South"

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :

I think he was killed in a Government conspiracy plotted by the CIA in which the FBI hired the FDA to hire the UAW to get a group to shoot him. His ideals never had a chance.
------------------
Yep

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Kennedy? Yeah, all he did was push for civil rights, and avert a nuclear war with the Soviets over that tiny little Cuba island ...
As to hear you blast FDR ... well, thats just plain sad, Omega, and proof that you don't know much about history yourself.
A Republican president would have maintained American neutrality during the war, and even if they had gone to war, would not have given support to the Allies through programs such as Lend Lease, which helped Britain fight Hitler before we entered.
To say that Hitler ended the depression is a half-truth. Yes, the war effort finished off the depression, but FDR's programs such as The New Deal, and the Works Progress Administration had already begun the work long before Poland was invaded.
In fact, before FDR's first 100 days in office was over, he had already created the NRA (National Recovery Administration), FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation), the Home Owners Loan Corporation, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and The Federal Emergency Relief Administration. All of theses were designed to combat the downtread economy.
Most key was the passage of the National Industries Recovery Act, which was aimed at "stimulating industrial production."
Yes, there were abuses of the system, but the NRA (not the Riffle Association, look back above) did increase labor-union recruitment.
Production and consumption were maintaining a steady rise, although not reaching pre-Depression levels.
Proof that FDR was doing a good job came in his reelection campaign, when the he recieved 60% of the poplar vote (only Maine and Vermont went to his opponent, Republican Landon).
By this time, FDR was already looking towards Europe, knowing a war with the Nazis would be close behind. This is why he came up with the Lend-Lease bill, which granted him "unprecendented powers to aid any country whose defense was deemed vital to the defense of the United States." America lent tanks, warplanes, and ships that could be returned after a War ... only hard lined isolationists like Sen Robert Taft opposed him.
I might add that Americans such as Henry Ford, Charles Lindbergh, and anti-semetic Father Charles Coughlin were strong supporters of the Neutrality Act of 1935, which made it illegal to sell munitions to any of the parties involved in WWII. This was one of America's attempts to stay out of someone else's war and remain neutral. (FDR got around this by the Lend-Lease Act).
Now, at this time, American politics was split between "isolationists" (who wished to remain neutral), and "interventionists" (who wanted to stop the War as quickly as possible, recognizing that the longer the US delayed entry meant higher losses).
Yes, when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, it was clear that there would be war, and the wartime production finished off the Depression, but to say that Hitler and not FDR was responsible is a half-truth and spoken more from ignorance than anything else.
***
I don't like LBJ because he kept the nation in Vietnam when we should've been getting the hell out. However, LBJ was a very strong supporter of the civil rights movement, and his finest moment came when he sent Federal agents into Mississippi to root out the racist Klansman/Police who killed three men (two whites and a black) whose only crime was helping blacks register to vote.
Omega, you claim you're for a party that supports individual rights, yet you fail to recognize the actions of Republicans (both civilian, law enforcement and elected)in surpressing the rights of those with a different color skin.
------------------
Gore/Lieberman 2000
***
I'll hug your elephant if you'll kiss my ass.
***
"I think anybody who doesn't think I'm smart enough to handle the job is underestimating." - George "Dubya" Bush

Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :

(ahem)...Reagan & Bush BAD....Nixon GOOD.
While obviously failing as a domestic president, Nixon was the pinnacle of foreign policy; there's a reason why he was still called "The Great Statesman" up to his death &why he was still send abroad as a goodwil ambassador.
Detente began under Nixon when he had the balls to actually TALK to Brezhnev & not insult him.
The foundation for arms reduction treaties began under Nixon.
Contrary to hippie propaganda, Nixon did more to END the war in Vietnam than LBJ.
"Only Nixon could go to China." Damn straight. That took huevos, man.
------------------
"Omigod. Singing meat. This is altogether too much."

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :

I was just shitting, about kissing the babies, then, the front page of the paper today had Bush kissing a 6 month old...... LOL
Ok, I think that post of mine was right on then.....
------------------
Yep

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Ok, ok ... Nixon wasn't all THAT bad.
Reagan ... the "Teflon President" =)
Now, he's another story.
------------------
Gore/Lieberman 2000
***
"You still don't understand, do you MacLeod? I am the End of Time!" - Kronos
"You're history!" - MacLeod
***
"I think anybody who doesn't think I'm smart enough to handle the job is underestimating." - George "Dubya" Bush

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

JK:
"Kennedy? Yeah, all he did was push for civil rights, and avert a nuclear war with the Soviets over that tiny little Cuba island ..."
The GOPs in congress were the ones that shoved the CRA through. And he nearly STARTED that war by placing missiles in... Turkey, wasn't it?
As for FDR, another typical Democrat idea. "Oh, forget that nothing he did actually did any good. His programs MEANT well." The depression was lightening up a LITTLE on its own before the war. WW2 ended it.
re LBJ:
Personally, I don't like him because he kept the status quo in 'Nam instead of beating the snot out of N. Vietnam. You don't fight a war with gloves on.
"you claim you're for a party that supports individual rights, yet you fail to recognize the actions of Republicans (both civilian, law enforcement and elected)in surpressing the rights of those with a different color skin."
Oh, yes. Racism and being a Republican have a LOT to do with each other. Go talk to my grandfather, the staunch democrat and racist, wudja?
Shik:
Yeah, Nixon was a mixed bag. Good foreign policy, CRAP domestically.
JK2:
re: Reagan
Yeah, he is a different story. Best president this century. You can thank him for the economy.
------------------
Francesca: He was born on the tundra, that's where he belongs. You'll kill him if you take him to Toronto.
Thatcher: That's a bit drastic, don't you think?
Francesca: Look, I've been to Toronto. Trust me, nothing can survive there. - "due South"

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Omega,
Of course FDR "meant well." He also did a lot of good, and had the Depression heading out the door when WWII came about. It would've taken longer without the war to end the Depression, of course, but it would have been done.
The start of the Cuban Missile Crisis was more a result of the Bay of Pigs, after which Nikita Kuschchev began to send the missiles to Cuba. Yes, the Russians were pissed about having missiles pointing at them from *several* Western European nations ... of course, the Russians also had their own missiles pointing at the same Western European nations, but had no missiles that could reach the U.S., and were rather upset about that.
To state that the GOP was responsible for the Civil Rights Act is ... well, laughable. Kennedy formed a "Commission on the Status of Women," to address the inequality of the sexes.
When the Civil Rights Act was up in the House, Howard W. Smith (a Republican from Virginia), added "sex" to the list of "race, color, religion or national origin", assuming the bill would be voted down (because, c'mon, who wants to give women the right to vote anyway?) Right there you have evidence of GOB scheming to defeat the bill, which passed the House, and was later signed into law by LBJ.
As for Reagan ... god, you really are ... well, I won't say it. Reagan was barely a president, having little control over what went on when he was in office. Two things helped him maintain his popularity:
1) The release of US Hostages in Iran when he entered Office, despite the fact that he had nothing to do with the releases.
2) His success at overcoming the attempted assassination (later, with Bush as president, Reagan's physician would tell news agencies that Reagan had been incapable of preforming the duties of his job, and powers should have been transfered - temporarily - to VP Bush)
George Bush condemned Reagan's economic plan as "Voodoo Economics", and another Republican primary opponent said his plan could only be accomplished by "mirrors."
Reagan's theory was that if taxes were cut --> people would produce more good --> spend more money --> creating more jobs --> higher government revenues
"Trickle-down economics", in other words.
Reagan's bill passed in '81. Shortly thereafter, the economy was soon in the midst of the full-blown recession. Gee, great economy, Mr. Actor.
Unemployment went high, inflation rose, banktrupcies and business failures skyrocketed ... the Federal Reserve Board (under Carter as well), had kept intrest rates high in an attempt to brake the economy. Eh ... didn't work.
The economy did begin to get better when oil prices were lowered, but you can clearly see that the immediate results weren't very good. Of course, the Federal Deficit went through the clouds.
"For years, conservatives had complained that liberal social programs had tried to solve problems by 'throwing money at them.' Now, under President Reagan, the conservatives were going to try to solve the 'weakness' of America's defenses by doing the same thing." - Kenneth C. Davis, author & historian
You also completely glossed over Iran-Contra, and the fact that Reagan was critized after his term (by members of his own administration!) as a man who was a "detached, disinterested Executive who asked no questions, ignored details, and allowed subordinates to run amok."
------------------
Gore/Lieberman 2000
***
"You still don't understand, do you MacLeod? I am the End of Time!" - Kronos
"You're history!" - MacLeod
***
"I think anybody who doesn't think I'm smart enough to handle the job is underestimating." - George "Dubya" Bush

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

*reaches a new level of sarcasm*
Yeah, man, don't you remember the HORROR of the eighties, when HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of Yuppies were out of work and living out of their BMW's??
come on!
oh, and as for supply side economics... perhaps the best thing about JFK is that HE believed in it, and used it, as well. D'oh!
>"Now, under President Reagan, the conservatives were going to try to solve the 'weakness' of America's defenses by doing the same thing." - Kenneth C. Davis, author & historian"
Yeah, but in this case it WORKED, because it was a competition to outspend the USSR, rather than throwing money in a bottomless pit, this one had a bottom. Guess who's still standing...
>"Reagan was critized after his term (by members of his own administration!) as a man who was a "detached, disinterested Executive who asked no questions, ignored details, and allowed subordinates to run amok."
Hmm. Criticized by his own subordinates (after all, the people in his administration were by definition his subordinates) for THEIR OWN running amok. I suppose you've never heard of the CYA phenomenon...
------------------
"Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master
[This message has been edited by First of Two (edited November 05, 2000).]

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Guess who is a few trillions in debt?
More on Reagan's office activities, from THE WASHINGTON TIMES:
"The board painted a picture of Ronald Reagan very different from what the world has become accostomed to in the last six years. No trace here of the lopsided smile, the easy wave, the confident men that carried him through past crisis; this portrait is of a man confused, distracted, so remote that he failed utterly to control the implemention of his vision of an initiative that would free American hostages and reestablish American influence in Iran, with all of its present and future strategic importance. At times, in fact, the report makes the President sound like the inhabitant of a never-never land of imaginary politics."
I would like to add that the board upon whose report this was written, was chaired by none other than Senator John Tower, a Republican (who later rejected by the Senate as Bush's Defense Secretary because of his drinking & womanizing).
------------------
Gore/Lieberman 2000
***
"You still don't understand, do you MacLeod? I am the End of Time!" - Kronos
"You're history!" - MacLeod
***
"I think anybody who doesn't think I'm smart enough to handle the job is underestimating." - George "Dubya" Bush

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited November 05, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited November 05, 2000).]

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

"To state that the GOP was responsible for the Civil Rights Act is ... well, laughable."
Well, considering it wouldn't have GOTTEN to Kennedy without GOP support...
"When the Civil Rights Act was up in the House, Howard W. Smith (a Republican from Virginia), added "sex" to the list of "race, color, religion or national origin", assuming the bill would be voted down (because, c'mon, who wants to give women the right to vote anyway?) Right there you have evidence of GOB scheming to defeat the bill..."
What evidence do you have that he didn't simply want women protected, too? Some memoirs?
"later, with Bush as president, Reagan's physician would tell news agencies that Reagan had been incapable of preforming the duties of his job, and powers should have been transfered - temporarily - to VP Bush"
Uh... they were.
"George Bush condemned Reagan's economic plan as "Voodoo Economics""
I should care what Bush said... why? Look up the numbers. The tax cut worked.
"Reagan's bill passed in '81. Shortly thereafter, the economy was soon in the midst of the full-blown recession."
Numbers, please? 'Cause that's the exact opposite of everything I've seen.
Reagan lowered taxes. Unemployment was ELIMINATED. Inflation stayed at five percent. Revenues doubled. More people jumped straight from lower to upper class than stayed in the lower class. Get the facts straight before you start blithering.
Rob:
"oh, and as for supply side economics... perhaps the best thing about JFK is that HE believed in it, and used it, as well. D'oh!"
Oh, yes, I forgot about that. I stand corrected. He DID do something useful.
JK2:
"Guess who is a few trillions in debt?
Not sure here, but I'd guess Russia owes us quite a bit of money, so they're pretty well as in debt as we are.
Second, the Democrats controlled congress during the eighties. Every budget Reagan sent in was pronounced DOA. You can thank your Dem friends and their pork-barrel spending for the debt.
------------------
Francesca: He was born on the tundra, that's where he belongs. You'll kill him if you take him to Toronto.
Thatcher: That's a bit drastic, don't you think?
Francesca: Look, I've been to Toronto. Trust me, nothing can survive there. - "due South"

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

Oh goodness, how could I let the candles go out on my Ronny "I built up a huge debt, watched capital flight run rampent, but derned if I didn't lie to Congress to help out them Contras...Mommy, comb my hair" Reagan shrine.
Mmmm, national debt.
------------------
Oh, yes, sitting. The great leveler. From the mightiest Pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?
~C. Montgomery Burns
[This message has been edited by Jay (edited November 06, 2000).]

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Omega,
Actually, Reagan's powers were never transfered to Bush, because the 25th Ammendmant was never invoked.
Howard W. Smith added the part about "sex" as a 'killer ammendment' -- another way to get it voted down. He had no desire to see anyone but white males protected. And if you can prove otherwise, more power to you.
Actually, even with Reagan in office, unemployment stayed around the 12-5% mark, so calling it "elminated" is a bit of stretch.
And for your information, Mr. Omega, Democrats DID help push through Reagan's '81 bill.
And I would imagine we're in debt because *someone* decided to outspend the Soviets ...
Yes, I do rely on history books, Omega. Who do you rely on? Right-wing publications and your parents?
------------------
Gore/Lieberman 2000
***
"You still don't understand, do you MacLeod? I am the End of Time!" - Kronos
"You're history!" - MacLeod
***
"I think anybody who doesn't think I'm smart enough to handle the job is underestimating." - George "Dubya" Bush

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited November 06, 2000).]

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

"Actually, Reagan's powers were never transfered to Bush, because the 25th Ammendmant was never invoked."
Funny thing, then, that every time I've seen the question discussed, it's been said that Bush executed Reagan's job for 24 hours...
"Howard W. Smith added the part about "sex" as a 'killer ammendment' -- another way to get it voted down. He had no desire to see anyone but white males protected. And if you can prove otherwise, more power to you."
I've got a better idea. Why don't you prove it in the first place? See, you've lost all credibility, so I have no inclination to just take your word for this. See where shooting your mouth off before getting the facts gets you?
"And I would imagine we're in debt because *someone* decided to outspend the Soviets ..."
Again, check your facts. Tax revenues doubled during the eighties, and yet military spending went up by around three percent of the total budget. So where'd all the other new spending come from, hmm?
------------------
Francesca: He was born on the tundra, that's where he belongs. You'll kill him if you take him to Toronto.
Thatcher: That's a bit drastic, don't you think?
Francesca: Look, I've been to Toronto. Trust me, nothing can survive there. - "due South"

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Omega,
I've got the facts, you don't.
Bush took over for *only* 24-hours? He should have had them for much longer, according to Reagan's doctor, and yet Reagan was back in charge after only a day?
Smith was a well known racist/sexist, et all.
And if I've lost all credibility, why do you still respond? You make yourself to be a fool, Omega.
------------------
Gore/Lieberman 2000
***
"You still don't understand, do you MacLeod? I am the End of Time!" - Kronos
"You're history!" - MacLeod
***
"I think anybody who doesn't think I'm smart enough to handle the job is underestimating." - George "Dubya" Bush

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

"Bush took over for *only* 24-hours? He should have had them for much longer, according to Reagan's doctor"
Well, then, YOU SHOULD HAVE SAID THAT. Don't you get that words mean things?
"And if I've lost all credibility, why do you still respond?"
Mainly so anyone that's reading your posts that doesn't know what's going on won't be convinced of the truth of all the misinformation you spout. That, and I just like showing you up.
------------------
Francesca: He was born on the tundra, that's where he belongs. You'll kill him if you take him to Toronto.
Thatcher: That's a bit drastic, don't you think?
Francesca: Look, I've been to Toronto. Trust me, nothing can survive there. - "due South"

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Gee, Omega,
I thought you would understand I was talking about the 25th Ammendment without my having to spell it out for you.
I'll know better next time.
I find it intereasting how you accuse me of misinformation, when you (and yes, this is not the first time I've made this accusation) sprout nothing but the Republican Party Line, yet accuse others (including me) of not thinking for themselves.

------------------
Gore/Lieberman 2000
***
"You still don't understand, do you MacLeod? I am the End of Time!" - Kronos
"You're history!" - MacLeod
***
"I think anybody who doesn't think I'm smart enough to handle the job is underestimating." - George "Dubya" Bush

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Well, see, the difference is that what I say is arrived at by independent thought, not to mention being true. Your information is copied and pasted straight off of web pages that don't give you all the facts. You don't think about it. I do.
As for Bush, what you said did not imply in any way relation to the 25th ammendment.
"Reagan's physician would tell news agencies that Reagan had been incapable of preforming the duties of his job, and powers should have been transfered - temporarily - to VP Bush"
Powers WERE temporarily transfered to Bush.
------------------
Francesca: He was born on the tundra, that's where he belongs. You'll kill him if you take him to Toronto.
Thatcher: That's a bit drastic, don't you think?
Francesca: Look, I've been to Toronto. Trust me, nothing can survive there. - "due South"

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Doctors are smart people, Omega. I'm sure Reagan's MD knew that powers were transfered to Bush ... so for him to say something about it OBVIOUSLY means that powers weren't transfered long enough, yes?
I doubt very much you arrive at anything by independent thought. Sounds like your parents spoon-feed you this "conservative" crap, IMHO.
I also think you're jealous that I've got web pages, newspapers, and magazines to quote from, and you've got ... well, nothing!
Although, I'm reminded of a quote once spoken by a great leader of his people, and it sort of sums up what I feel when I converse with you:
"It's like talking to a Klingon!"
Okay, maybe "great" is stretching things. But you're never open to new ideas, Omega, and that bothers me. Maybe college life will do that to you, I hope so, you're a smart kid, and I hope you'll realize the Republican party ... well, it has proven itself to be an enemy of homosexuals, a friend of big business, and just a bunch of hot air, who like to dish it out but can't take it.
"A mind is like a parachute -- it has to be open to work."
------------------
Gore/Lieberman 2000
***
"You still don't understand, do you MacLeod? I am the End of Time!" - Kronos
"You're history!" - MacLeod
***
"I think anybody who doesn't think I'm smart enough to handle the job is underestimating." - George "Dubya" Bush
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited November 06, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited November 06, 2000).]

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :

Just for giggles I made this chart:
This is by Congresses, starting from the 31st to the 106th. It is to show how often a party controls each area of the Government.

Who Controlled What????
Admin. Senate House Occurances
DEM DEM DEM 21
REP REP REP 22
DEM DEM REP 2
DEM REP REP 6
DEM REP DEM 3
REP REP DEM 1
REP DEM DEM 10
REP DEM REP 9
WHIG DEM DEM 2

------------------
Yep

[This message has been edited by Ritten (edited November 06, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Ritten (edited November 06, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Ritten (edited November 07, 2000).]

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Wow! You got way too much time on your hands =)
------------------
Gore/Lieberman 2000
***
"You still don't understand, do you MacLeod? I am the End of Time!" - Kronos
"You're history!" - MacLeod
***
"I think anybody who doesn't think I'm smart enough to handle the job is underestimating." - George "Dubya" Bush

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited November 06, 2000).]

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :

Yes, I do, and to think, I used to get drunk in my spare time, and now I can make and post html charts all night.
No, I really do have a life, give me a few hours to search the house and I'll proove it.
the spelling is intentional.
------------------
Yep

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

I've got a life too.
I think I left it under my textbooks ... oh, yes, there it is ...
------------------
Gore/Lieberman 2000
***
"You still don't understand, do you MacLeod? I am the End of Time!" - Kronos
"You're history!" - MacLeod
***
"I think anybody who doesn't think I'm smart enough to handle the job is underestimating." - George "Dubya" Bush

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

"Doctors are smart people, Omega. I'm sure Reagan's MD knew that powers were transfered to Bush"
There's a difference between being intelligent and being informed. Doctors may be smart, in general, but they're not omniscient.
"so for him to say something about it OBVIOUSLY means that powers weren't transfered long enough"
Not obviously. Considering that you don't have a direct quote, I can't really judge by context, but what you say he said could just as easily be interpreted as simply meaning that he agreed with the decision to transfer powers. You have a disturbing habit of being vague, then saying that there are obvious conclusions from your vaguries.
"Sounds like your parents spoon-feed you this "conservative" crap, IMHO."
Well, I don't really give a damn about your "humble opinion".
"I also think you're jealous that I've got web pages, newspapers, and magazines to quote from, and you've got ... well, nothing!"
Considering the very few webpages you've quoted only tell half a story, I'm certainly not jealous of your misinformation.
"But you're never open to new ideas, Omega, and that bothers me."
Never? Ziyal got me to question my position on capital punishment, didn't she? That would seem to mean that I DO have an open mind, that I DO weigh your arguments, and simply find them wanting, as would any rational being.
------------------
Francesca: He was born on the tundra, that's where he belongs. You'll kill him if you take him to Toronto.
Thatcher: That's a bit drastic, don't you think?
Francesca: Look, I've been to Toronto. Trust me, nothing can survive there. - "due South"

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

You're right, Omega, the web pages *were* biased. I notice you left the newspapers and Newsweek alone.
Did Ziyal get you to change your opinion? I understood you were still for the death penalty.
For the doctor to speak out about the situation, it would imply that he either knew about it when it happened, or found out later.
"...this image got another boost when Reagan survived an assassination attempt on March 30, 1981, and the country reveled in press reports of how he joked with the emergency-room staff. It was only after George Bush's election that Reagan's onetime White House physician stated that the 25th Amendment should have been invoked to transfer presidential powers temporarily to Vice-President Bush while Reagan was under general anesthesia and recovering from emergency surgery."
-Kenneth C. Davis, "Don't Know Much About History"
(No jokes about the title, either, its my handiest little reference guide, although I can break out much bigger books if you want ... )
------------------
Gore/Lieberman 2000
***
"You still don't understand, do you MacLeod? I am the End of Time!" - Kronos
"You're history!" - MacLeod
***
"I think anybody who doesn't think I'm smart enough to handle the job is underestimating." - George "Dubya" Bush
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited November 06, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited November 06, 2000).]

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

"Did Ziyal get you to change your opinion? I understood you were still for the death penalty."
Your point being? Being open-minded doens't mean agreeing with YOU. It just means considering what you, and everyone else, says. I've done that. Therefore, I am open-minded.
As for your quote, now THAT's the way you should have done it to begin with. But still...
1) What makes you think the 25th ammendment WASN't invoked for the transfer of powers that took place?
2) Why should we care about this doctor's opinion? What difference would it have made for Bush to be in charge for more than the 24 hours that he was? It's not like we went to war during the period or something.
As for your reference book, I hope it's not the only one you were using. It's info on supply-side is WAY off. On page 412 (paperback), it talks about "a succession of Reagan budgets slash[ing] domestic spending..." Reagan couldn't get a budget passed. Therefore, there WERE no Reagan budgets, unless you want to call them that only because he was in office at the time. Secondly, it compares social programs to the military, in terms of money helping. Dumb. Third, it says that the chief culprit in the deficit was defence spending, which is just stupid.
There are other mistakes on that page alone, but I think I've made my point.
------------------
Francesca: He was born on the tundra, that's where he belongs. You'll kill him if you take him to Toronto.
Thatcher: That's a bit drastic, don't you think?
Francesca: Look, I've been to Toronto. Trust me, nothing can survive there. - "due South"

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Oh, yes. Look
http://www.dol.state.ne.us/nelmi/pubs/underemp/perm.htm
for unemployment rates. You'll see that as soon as Reagan's tax cut took effect, unemployment plumeted.
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Chamber/2192/outlayes.jpg
For what percentage of spending was military during the Reagan admin. You'll see that military spending went from around 22% of total budget to around 28% of total budget. With doubled revenues, where did the rest of the money (and the deficit spending) go? 'Cause we DIDN'T spend it on the military.
------------------
Francesca: He was born on the tundra, that's where he belongs. You'll kill him if you take him to Toronto.
Thatcher: That's a bit drastic, don't you think?
Francesca: Look, I've been to Toronto. Trust me, nothing can survive there. - "due South"

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :

Omega, not really. You have just shown us your prospective of view on it. Reagan did have budgets, although Congress didn't like them. I have seen people get the defense budgets higher by adding in the moneys spent on aiding other countries militarily, a guy in school also added in all non-humanitarian aid to it. Also, comparing military and social expenses is not "dumb", for it points out where our tax dollars are going.
Along the same lines, did anybody read the article in the papers yesterday about "pork-barrel" spending, as revealed by a Republican from AZ or AR? I like some of the "don't for for us" things tossed in their. It also had a good bit of information on the actions of the Republican controlled Congresses and how they said that they were going to cut spending on some things and have actually increased spending 13%. This article also askes why we still have a Dept. of Ed., when the Republicans promised to remove it back in 1994. If they would have Bush wouldn't have the tool to use now, for nationalization AND localization of education.
The article was written by Michele Malkin at
Creators Syndicate
5777 West Century Blvd.
Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90045
email at Ms. Malkin or [email protected]
(Paper has a coffee spill, so I am not sure about the hyphen.)
Points from the article.

$176,000 to the Reindeer Herders Association
$300,000 for manure management systems in Florence, SC.
$500,000 for the restoration of a carousel in Cleveland, OH.
$1,000,000 for the Animal Waste Management Consortium in MO.
$1,250,000 for Aleutian Pribilof church repairs.
$1,500,000 to refurbish the Vulcan Statue in AL.
$4,000,000 for the International Fertilizer Development Center.
$5,000,000 for an insect rearing facility in Stonewall, MS.

The Senater that identified these was John McCain, R-AZ.
These have been approved. $13,726,000 in bullshit.
Yep, vote to keep the Republicans in office with their pork-barrels.
In a year or two we can debate the abilities of Gore and the Democrats.
Then again, some people never learn.
------------------
I see a red door and I want it painted black

[This message has been edited by Ritten (edited November 07, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Ritten (edited November 07, 2000).]

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Without knowing exactly the reasons for funding the above, how can one condemn them? Remember, the opposition always puts things in the worst possible terms...
After all, we spent hundreds of millions, back in the 60's, to fire a number of large primates into outer space. Anybody here REALLY believe that that was a waste of money?
------------------
"Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :

I don't think anybody said that in the '60s they wouldn't be spending money on sending chimps for a joy ride. Whereas the point of that article was to show how the Republicans said that once they are in control spending such as this wasn't going to happen.
Or did the Republican Contract With America end after the first year? Or did all those programs that the GOP promise to eliminate, such as the Department of Education, get eliminated and restarted?
Of course, the paper I read it in The Times-Herald promotes Gore for President, Abraham (R) for US Senate, Bonior (D) for HofR, etc, damned open minded paper.
------------------
I see a red door and I want it painted black

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Ritten:
"Also, comparing military and social expenses is not "dumb", for it points out where our tax dollars are going."
True, but I was pointing out that the argument against pouring money into failed social programs can't apply to the military, since the military actually does what it's intended to do.
As for the $13 mil, the government will never miss that. We're talking tens of BILLIONS with the democrats in the eighties.
------------------
Francesca: He was born on the tundra, that's where he belongs. You'll kill him if you take him to Toronto.
Thatcher: That's a bit drastic, don't you think?
Francesca: Look, I've been to Toronto. Trust me, nothing can survive there. - "due South"

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :

ok, how about the bill pending
$114 Billion, of which $43 billion is for federal education, for the Department of Education, which Republicans were to eliminate.
Congress has approved discretionary spending over Clinton's by $30 billion.
Tens of billions enough for you?
Read this article here from the Cato Institute.
Is the GOP Budget Revolution Lost?, A Game Plan for Round Two of the Budget, and How the Budget Revlution was Lost.
------------------
I see a red door and I want it painted black

[This message has been edited by Ritten (edited November 07, 2000).]

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

>"I don't think anybody said that in the '60s they wouldn't be spending money on sending chimps for a joy ride."
OH, yes they did. There was, and still is, a great deal of opposition to spaceflight. Don't you remember William Proxmire? Oh, and by 'large primates' I meant human beings, ie., the Mercury-Gemini-Apollo programs.
Everybody has their pet hates and pet programs.. Proxmire, while known for cutting what HE saw as wasteful programs for science, was very big in getting federal subsidies for the dairy farmers of his own state.
------------------
"Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master

© 1999-2024 Charles Capps

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3