Sorry About Our President.Com
A few years ago I remember this website. I added one of my own although this one sample I'm posting isn't it.
http://www.sorryaboutourpresident.com/index.php?vc84f3=5
I'm sorry that people are too stupid to understand their own best interest. When a rich white man votes Republican, it might actually be in his best interest. When the Bible-thumper votes Republican, it might appear to be in their best interest. But when the poor masses are voting Republican because their Church tells them to, they are NOT voting in their own best interest.
If you are under 30, and not a multimillionaire, vote Democrat or something else: Green, Progressive, Socialist even. Fascism simply does not suit you.
If you are over 30, and actually care about your kids and grandkids well being, don't vote away their rights and their future.
http://www.notsorryaboutourpresident.com/
Two websites, one very nice Google Ad Words money-making venture.
ohg...omg....you have to read some of these 'Not Sorry Reasons'
although #147 and #145 are cool 'not sorry reasons' Please read
number #143 and #144!!!
This IS what the evangelical christian television is telling people!
lies lies all lies! * faints * I can't believe it!
Location: Jose Tejas
W is a warrior for Jesus! If you hate him you hate Jesus and if you hate Jesus you are a terrorist!
First they did 9/11, then the bird flu, global warming, and VTech! FOUR MORE YEARS! -BADWORD- the constitution!
143 God Warrior
Did not apologize: 06.06.2007 - 05:14 AM
Location: Church
You're with us or you're with the terrorists. We occupy your lands to help you, and if you doubt this, then you are denying your country freedom, prosperity, and moral enlightenment.
Bush was appointed by God, and may he continue spreading the Lord's word. I hope that you will support us; so that you,too, may someday be a great Christian nation.
sky...
do you honestly think those are serious posts?
That's the sad thing about anti-right satire... there's nothing too extreme to be completely impossible or incredible anymore.
Yes because my own mother is one of them. My friend Shawn from Canada. His mother and grandmother talk the same way too.
It's crazy talk but you can't tell them that. They think they have the inside scoop from god. You have to know these things inorder to 'be ready'.
Don't get me wrong. We love our parents but we thing the way of this kind of thinking is really strange. :rollanim:
ps...I got to give a plug here. Anyone from Canada ...you've got to go to Lydia's pub in Saskatoon on Tuesday nights!!!
A few years ago I remember this website. I added one of my own although this one sample I'm posting isn't it.
http://www.sorryaboutourpresident.com/index.php?vc84f3=5
I'm sorry that people are too stupid to understand their own best interest. When a rich white man votes Republican, it might actually be in his best interest. When the Bible-thumper votes Republican, it might appear to be in their best interest. But when the poor masses are voting Republican because their Church tells them to, they are NOT voting in their own best interest.
If you are under 30, and not a multimillionaire, vote Democrat or something else: Green, Progressive, Socialist even. Fascism simply does not suit you.
If you are over 30, and actually care about your kids and grandkids well being, don't vote away their rights and their future.
With all due respect, if anyone actually followed this advice they would be idiots. Vote because of what you believe and in a person who at least shares in values that you think are important in a person who is going to represent what you think is important. It is a complete falsehood to think that "poor masses" vote because their church tells them how to vote. Most people are smarter than that. To vote one way because of someone you are not is just stupid.
It is a complete falsehood to think that "poor masses" vote because their church tells them how to vote. Most people are smarter than that.
It's not a complete falsehood. I (sadly) know lots of examples. I guess you can quibble over how many count towards "masses", and I certainly hope that it isn't "most people", but it is a lot.
We have webisites like this but no incentive for impeachment...
I think Merc is right, while some people do vote because the church tells them too the majority will vote based on their personal interests (or at least what they think their personal interests are).
... while some people do vote because the church tells them too the majority will vote based on their personal interests (or at least what they think their personal interests are).
So how does that explain the almost 1/3rd who still support one of if not the worst president in 100 years of history? Clearly 1 in three of us is not thinking. Is that about the same number who also fall for e-mails from Nigerian princes? Curious. Some people will do most anything they are told - and call that thinking.
Before anyone believes the bullshit that in someway people vote anything other than their mind please note this well researched study:
http://www.princeton.edu/~bartels/kansas.pdf
It is a small but representative example.
The people who cry for impeachment are bulls' hind ends, emitting what bulls' hind ends usually emit.
Wake up: actual attempts to win a war started by somebody else do not rise to the level of high crimes nor misdemeanors. But try telling the cryptofascist somnambulants that.
These calls for impeachment are lies, nothing more. Unless under "more" you include the utterances of dupes. I am neither a liar nor a dupe and I dislike reading the outpourings of those who are.
This morning I was called a W. Bush apologist. The woman that called me this is under 30, and thinks that King Bill is the best thing that ever happened. When I asked her what she thought about JFK, and FDR, she said that they were war mongering Republicans. When I informed her that both were Democrats she had a fit and informed me that I was wrong. I cant wait to show her that she is wrong and the teacher she worships is an idiot for saying this.
She was also upset when I told her that both men were very rich.
With all due respect, if anyone actually followed this advice they would be idiots. Vote because of what you believe and in a person who at least shares in values that you think are important in a person who is going to represent what you think is important. It is a complete falsehood to think that "poor masses" vote because their church tells them how to vote. Most people are smarter than that. To vote one way because of someone you are not is just stupid.
a) It was just an example opinion. I didn't pick the worst or best.
b) well he was wrong about the 'poor masses' It's called the religious right and the Catholic church. They tell them how to vote rich and poor. They are called SHEEP after all.:sheep:
b) well he was wrong about the 'poor masses' It's called the religious right and the Catholic church. They tell them how to vote rich and poor. They are called SHEEP after all.:sheep:
You have no data to prove your assertions. You are repeating the manta of the left-wingnuts. If you do, show it, I would like to read it. My reference was original research with data.
it's not that serious or important. I can't drum up the energy to care.
You can look up data if YOU WANT. Vote for who you want too.
My thread was totally silly bs to me. lol
it's not that serious or important. I can't drum up the energy to care.
You can look up data if YOU WANT. Vote for who you want too.
My thread was totally silly bs to me. lol
Oh, ok, my bad. I was looking for an exchange of ideas on the subject. My bad.:headshake
Nothing to see here... moving right along.
Oh, ok, my bad. I was looking for an exchange of ideas on the subject.
I am not the sharpest tool in the shed so I'll take that as a compliment that you would think I had many to share of any depth. :)
When Al Gore lost I wept. ( I really did ) and swore my head was going to stay under that perverbial pillow until 'you know who' is out of office.
I have nothing of substance to contribute that would make a lick of difference. Thanks tho!
When Al Gore lost I wept. ( I really did ) and swore my head was going to stay under that perverbial pillow until 'you know who' is out of office.
Unfortunately, I'm more worried about 'duck and cover' than 'head under pillow'.
The US has now publicly embraced a policy of 'preemptive war'. If our rivals and enemies followed suit, then things could get very ugly. For years we've held onto weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, chemical, and biological) and convinced the world we could be trusted to do so by maintaining a defensive posture.
Now everything has changed, and maybe 1/3 of the US and almost noone in the world trusts the current the current administration in terms of honesty, competence, and restraint.
In a sense the 9/11 attacks were a preemptive strike by Al Qaeda and Co. It just back fired on them. Al Gore may have tried some kind of appeasement, or he may have grown a pair and got medieval on there asses.
... or he may have grown a pair and got medieval on there asses.
I seriously doubt that. The majority of people doubted it too. And that is why Micheal Moore and Al "I invented the internet" Gore now make movies.:D
Unfortunately, I'm more worried about 'duck and cover' than 'head under pillow'.
The US has now publicly embraced a policy of 'preemptive war'. If our rivals and enemies followed suit, then things could get very ugly. For years we've held onto weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, chemical, and biological) and convinced the world we could be trusted to do so by maintaining a defensive posture.
Now everything has changed, and maybe 1/3 of the US and almost noone in the world trusts the current the current administration in terms of honesty, competence, and restraint.
oh believe me. I am only trusting that the next administration is more sensitive to different ideologies than this one has been. Obviously preemtive striking dosn't work.
I am not sure how some people can keep smiling after knowing that this administration has destabilized the middle east.
I read this article yesterday. I thought I'd share it here.
The truth keeps eeking out but some refuse to believe what is right before their eyes.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19378776/In a sense the 9/11 attacks were a preemptive strike by Al Qaeda and Co. It just back fired on them.
It didn't backfire on Al Qaeda. They got exactly what they wanted. It backfired a bit on their allies of the moment, the Taleban, but I doubt they care all that much about that.
In a sense the 9/11 attacks were a preemptive strike by Al Qaeda and Co. It just back fired on them.
The 9/11 attacks were a stick to the hornet's nest, designed to get us to launch a knee-jerk Holy War.
They've gotten miles of propoganda out of this;
we're reacting as if they have actual puppet strings attached to us.
The 9/11 attacks were a stick to the hornet's nest, designed to get us to launch a knee-jerk Holy War.
They've gotten miles of propoganda out of this; we're reacting as if they have actual puppet strings attached to us.
Extremists will do things so that it becomes difficult for intelligent people to remain moderates. It is what Sharon did with his march to desecrate a mosque on Temple Mount; to create Intafada II. It is what the IRA did to promote so much unnecessary violence by all sides in N Ireland. It is what Chavez is doing in Venezuela to promote himself. It is what Hitler did to disparage the bourgeois and intelligencia. The resulting emotion makes intelligent thought difficult. We need only return to the Cellar of 2002 to see that among the many who insisted Saddam was a 'clear and present danger' when no facts existed. Logic was not where support for "Mission Accomplished" came from. That emotion is the extremist's objective.
Same bottom line point made using a completely different perspective.
Allah Akbar!
What else is new?:whofart:
When Al Gore lost I wept. ( I really did ) and swore my head was going to stay under that perverbial pillow until 'you know who' is out of office.
I can totally relate to that y'know. In 1992, in the depths of a deep recession, with unemployment figures going through the roof and Conservative politicians showing absolute lack of any kind of compassion for the newly unemployed (often whole towns died as their industry collapsed); with long roads filled with ForSale signs, and shops gone out of business, it was looking like a Labour win right up til the bitter end.
Only as the exit polls started to come in did it become clear that somehow, despite how badly they'd hurt the country, despite how broken our economy was and how battered our sense of national identity....Conservatives had won again.
Put me off politics for a good couple of years that. Just didn't want to know. Even in '97 when evervybody was predicting a Labour win, I didn't believe it. Was absolutely convinced the country would vote the bastards back in again when it came to the crunch. Total shock when Labour won by a landslide.
Imagining that Sharon went to do anything to desecrate a mosque takes a lot of imagination, and an absolute rejection of any common sense. Also, it takes acute and pernicious antisemitism, tw, which prefries your frontal lobes both left and right. I'd suggest you stop reading Communist, Nazi, and Palestinian websites; they are all too similar.
And right winged sources are diverse?
So far, the right-of-center seem to me the more accurate sources. Accuracy is all that's needed. Everything else is frosting.
Do not reject rightwing sources for being rightwing -- that is the error of the ideologue who has only wet sawdust between the ears (and no diploma). Do not confuse "right of center" for the Wrong Right.
And as I was commenting on Palestinian webpages among others, what is this "right winged sources" BS? Take your time about responding and think, Pierce, rather than contenting yourself with looking stupid. I mean, if you really are stupid, okay -- on several levels. But will that ever persuade anyone to adopt your points of view?
I am not the sharpest tool in the shed so . . . When Al Gore lost I wept. ( I really did ) . . .
Well, that would amount to Q.E.D.
I am not persuaded Al Gore's values would be aimed at keeping the Republic, and I hold similar views of his party's values, which is why I don't vote for Democrats.
I think the Republic dodged a bullet when Gore lost. I thought it then, and I think so now. We have a war to win, one that would have come regardless of which party was in the White House, and started by others as has been the case for the past hundred years, and the Democrats
simply don't know how. Until the Democrats can show me they can win the war better than the Republicans can, they have nothing I'm interested in. Successful war is successful foreign policy, questions of its disadvantages and wastefulness aside.
So far, the right-of-center seem to me the more accurate sources.
Why do you listen to WXYZ?
Because they play all the best music!!
How do you know it's the best music?
Because that's the music they play on WXYZ!!How do you know that right-of-center sources are the most accurate UG?
Edit- UT asked in a better way than me.
Take your time about responding and think, Pierce, rather than contenting yourself with looking stupid. I mean, if you really are stupid, okay -- on several levels. But will that ever persuade anyone to adopt your points of view?
Same person who would accuse Pierce of being stupid could not even read simple military political concepts in Thomas Barnett's book.
So far, I'm fascinated. I'll probably be talking about this book's ideas from time to time.
And then he discovered Barnett discusses how to, for example, secure oil by doing NOT what George Jr, wacko extremists, and UG recommend. Suddenly UG could not read that book? Or are simple concepts that contradict his poltical agenda too toxic? Either way, UG is the last person to know who is stupid.
UG - you do yourself a big favor by not judging others as stupid. Your intellectual standing is not sufficient to make such judgements. You began here by knowing why the Vietnam war was lost But you never even read the Pentagon Papers. You have a bad habit of 'knowing' without first 'learning'. Therefore you are the last person able to judge who is stupid.
--snip--
Either way, UG is the last person to know who is stupid.
UG - you do yourself a big favor by not judging others as stupid. Your intellectual standing is not sufficient to make such judgements. You began here by knowing why the Vietnam war was lost But you never even read the Pentagon Papers. You have a bad habit of 'knowing' without first 'learning'. Therefore you are the last person able to judge who is stupid.
Good luck brother.
Others have tried and failed.Don't be any too sure of that, V -- tw is living in a fool's paradise. He can't stand that I can wipe the floor with him on matters of politics and history each and every single time I choose to. While I doubt I could manage so well on the topic of the electrical engineering of power sources -- someone finally mentioned this was tw's engineering specialty, and it wasn't tw, who perhaps could have tooted his own horn -- on history and on politics, I am the more skilled. I am also a far more emotionally mature man, not given to his sort of ranting and screeching in the crudest, most ill-founded attempt at clawing after some advantage I'm likely to see this decade. It is ill-founded because to date I have said absolutely nothing on Barnett's work beyond the bare mention that I am reading it with great interest -- and tw, in a complete absence of evidence and an access of dare I say fevered imaginings, is the one claiming as loudly as he can that I do not understand Barnett's book.
One is rather put in mind of an angry chimpanzee.
Barnett does calculate that military action has its place in the kind of foreign policy endeavors he lays out.
Tw, you are not a sage, and as long as you are constituted as you are, unable to form an adult relationship (a hint: adults do not sound like tw), and unable to learn history other than as may be taught by the Gosudarstvennyi Universitet Moskvy, you never shall be.
Tw, you are not a sage, and as long as you are constituted as you are, unable to form an adult relationship (a hint: adults do not sound like tw),
That's an extremely personal insult Urbane. That sort of thing makes your arguments a lot harder to take seriously.
@ dana...that quote you quoted is quite ironic if you think about it.
It dosn't make sense. It's like empaling oneself on on ones own sword.
One is rather put in mind of an angry chimpanzee.
UG - you even miss the simplest of points. You are criticized for attacking a person - calling him stupid - rather than addressing the topic. You don't even understand that basic point. You insult people as proof of superiority and righteousness. That tactic is common among extremists. It just does not play well in The Cellar.
You don't even understand you are being criticized for doing it. Calling Pierce stupid to prove your point? How is that logical?
Why do I listen to WXYZ, Because they play the music I like!!!
Nobody need to tell me what I like I all ready know what i like.
Their was a lot of wailing when Al Gore lost after 9/11 all that stopped.
There was lots of speculating going on. I shuffled that off with the conspiracy theorists the ignore file if you will, I will make up my own mind.
That's an extremely personal insult Urbane. That sort of thing makes your arguments a lot harder to take seriously.
The truth hurts.:)
And the truth about his personality hurts tw beyond all endurance, as far as I can see. When a guy is really a four-letter man, it behooves the rest of us to know that. When a guy is as willing to think in delusion as tw is, it behooves us to know that. When a guy is simply incapable of behaving in any manner but to induce disgust at his antidemocracy sympathies -- for he has none visible for democracy and too much for something other -- then disgust is the only right thing to feel.
Tw's entire personality or onscreen persona (given the way he goes at things I do not believe they are separate) is designed to repulse the free, adult human being. In repulsion, he succeeds. That this... presence should anger me hardly constitutes a deficiency on my part. The man's a walking shame.
And you, you walking shame, cannot gainsay me. You remain forever without political acumen or people skills, which are in some degree the same thing. Nor will you understand that the stupid people are the kind of people least likely to agree with me, simply because they can't get it -- and thus the mediocre ones rise in that confederacy of dunces. Hardly a shock, but yes, it's an annoyance. So they get out-thought and out-punched; I can manhandle schmucks head-down into the dumpster of garbage ideas where they belong.
Why don't you just ignore him UG?
Because David Hume and I are in close agreement here. I too want to "thunder them, and crush them, and pound them, and reduce them to dust and ashes." -- D. Hume, in a letter dated 10 July 1769, to Abbe Andre Morellet.
The man is a communist and an undemocrat -- the degree of inhumanity required to be these things is unforgiveable. I do not avoid conflict with such animals in human form.
"I will not cease from mental fight
Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand..."
This is what I'm on Earth to do -- annihilate undemocracy, and emasculate, make sterile, its practitioners. Fellow-traveling sympathizers get a like treatment, until their agony at picking the road to oppression becomes insupportable.
UG...it's the internet mate. lol
Good a place as any to slap a commie around like a hockey puck. They've got a hell of a lot to answer for; let them be pilloried until vultures come pluck out their eyes and livers.
UG...are you giving yourself a boner? ;)
What, to fuck the commies with? Or if commies are on one's Won't-Bang List, perhaps one should get them to autosodomize and then nail their pricks permanently into that orifice with sixteen-penny nails.
wow. I mean that, just wow.
And yet again I find myself wondering.....is UG really the person he presents on here? Or is he just a parody, well and consistently played?
What, to fuck the commies with? Or if commies are on one's Won't-Bang List, perhaps one should get them to autosodomize and then nail their pricks permanently into that orifice with sixteen-penny nails.
UG is still fighting the Cold War. That post must be a quote from some comic book character. Maybe Sgt Rock in Korea?
UG is still fighting the Cold War. That post must be a quote from some comic book character. Maybe Sgt Rock in Korea?
Naw, he is a real person. With the experience to back it up. Your credentials are????
Naw, he is a real person. With the experience to back it up.
I would imagine most of us have the experience to back up being a real person.
Naw, he is a real person. With the experience to back it up. Your credentials are????
What a shitload of biologically toxic waste reasoning complete with speculation based in wacko right wing 'screw all women' reasoning.
Experience without fundamental knowledge makes one his own worst enemy. Urbane Guerrilla's experience? He was an expert on Vietnam and yet he never even read nor understood facts in The Pentagon Papers.
Experience found in his posts is about as credible as TheMercenary's posts on military matters. Fully based in a political agenda while devoid even of basic knowledge of a high school education.
UG's posts based in insufficient knowledge and his biased political agenda are demonstrated by another stunning
example:
So far, I'm fascinated. I'll probably be talking about this book's ideas from time to time.
Then he discovered either how complex Thomas Barnett's book was or discovered that Barnett completely invalidated UG's political agenda. Either way, he could not read it until
challenged.
Tw, shut your yap. I checked Barnett back out of the library
Well its been 9 month now since he so politely responded to a request for that discussion - and still no discussion.
Where is his credibility? At minimum, his posts only lied to us with contempt. However, I suspect his post's credibility lie in a political agenda where routinely rewriting history justifies his beliefs. I have suggested this often in response to inaccuracies in UG posts complete with pontiff tone. UG's posts continue to demonstrate the validity of my premise.
Serving as a soldier never justified support for the troops. Credibility in those posts so tarnished as to repeatedly advocate contempt for the troops - especially by advocating and defending "Mission Accomplished"- a war that even violates numerous and fundamentally simple military science 101 principles.
At no time does this discredit the integrity of UG. According to UT, anything that demonstrates his conclusions as excrement is neither an attack on UG nor insulting. The fact that his posts are often exposed as lies says nothing about UG; just exposes the credibility of everything in his posts. UG's posts simply expose a repeated lack of intelligent grasp complete with outright contempt for the American soldier by advocating their massacre. Meanwhile UG is a nice guy. Nothing here insults his intelligence - only the pompous, naive arrogance found in his pathetically 'poorly worded' posts. Some of those posts even beg for anal intercourse. But again, that says nothing about UG the person. It simply replies to the questionable validity of everything he posts - implies nothing about a penile nature in his character - which clearly does not exist.
UT - this is perfectly acceptable posting based upon your standards for civil and acceptable behavior defined in
Violent crime up again in USA, more murders, robberies . Only UG's posts and the integrity of TheMercenary's clearly discredited, biased, unreasonable, and insulting posts are discussed. This new tone for the Cellar is refreshing? Screw the motherfucking posts from TheMercenary. Those diarrhea profusion posts represent simplistic 'pedophile like' agendas based in conclusions of mental infortitude. But TheMercenary is a nice guy.
Screw the motherfucking posts from TheMercenary. Those diarrhea profusion posts represent simplistic 'pedophile like' agendas based in conclusions of mental infortitude.
Hah... I love it. tw fails in the argument and resorts to personal attacks. Hello Kettle!:)
Nor has tw ever proven me wrong -- he has alleged I'm wrong, up down and sideways. What he has demonstrated, proven that is, is persistent, obdurate delusive thinking. Allegation, for him, suffices. Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy, and weak of reasoning. Somehow, someday, he's going to get different results from trying the same old thing, over and over.
So and meanwhile, we can expect tw to continue to act like tw: in a couple of adjectives, both immature and anti-American. Direct question to you, tw: Do you want the United States to win? Your entire history of posting for as long as I've been here says No, and in boldface.
And tw does not have credentials in this field. (He's just missed an excellent opportunity to recite some. I doubt he will fill the lack.) He's never even served in the military, and has said so. Nor will someone of tw's temperament be any good at politics in any case, which leaves him in even worse case. But this incapacity does not stop this would-be pundit from shooting his mouth off. Thus, not only is contempt the response called for, it is a perfectly true and applicable response. What you say, tw, is what makes us despise you -- and any of the friends you don't have the people skill to make -- there's never evidence of any healthy adult relationships in your postings. There are not even hints. The man who cannot connect cannot do politics.
He's never even served in the military, and has said so. Nor will someone of tw's temperament be any good at politics in any case,
So. The only people qualified to hold an opinion, make comment , or take a stance on the war are those who have served in the military or in the field of politics?
Thus, not only is contempt the response called for, it is a perfectly true and applicable response. What you say, tw, is what makes us despise you -- and any of the friends you don't have the people skill to make -- there's never evidence of any healthy adult relationships in your postings. There are not even hints.
Again you make assumptions about tw's capacity to form relationships. This stuff is really, really boring and unpleasant. It was funny at first, watching you go off on a rant. Watching tw go off on a rant too. But this is just getting pathetic. Your posts are much more interesting, UG, when you are arguing a political point than when you are playing out a personal feud on the boards.
I took UG's posts to be fairly amusing and I think he realized that and played up for the camera so to speak.
I can't imagine anyone took those particular posts seriously...did they?
I don't take it seriously. I think its a rant and taken in isolation probably funny. I just think the joke's getting tired.
Well maybe so. But I guess I don't take anything UG says very seriously, so I look forward to the times he decides to put on a show. ;)
Well maybe so. But I guess I don't take anything UG says very seriously,
I always considered a UG type as the missing color in a Pat Paulson for President campaign. It would have been the political contrast that Pat need for his platform - the absurdity of politics.
While I am making an assumption, true, it is one extrapolated from certain inclusions and certain absences in what tw writes. Assuming posts of a politico-philosophical nature are windows into a soul, well, I'm telling you what I see there. Any unpleasantness found there, I'd suggest, is tw's and tw's alone. His loud contempt, ill-disguised, for military and former military, in especial those military who fought for this Republic, comes through very clearly, yet he knows not whereof he speaks, not truly, not in depth. And yet he would convince you that he speaks from indepth knowledge? Oh, please.
To some degree, politics is something personal. With tw it is very much so. I've taken tw's measure and found him wanting. Now I get to tell him so, in detail, and watch him freak out at being stripped so naked. He's a very inferior specimen of a man, this tag-end representative of Communism, and as long as tw acts like tw, that will always be so. This is why his feud with me progresses so poorly -- he can't match me for character, but he must if he is to succeed at all.
You've seen the way tw acts -- now try imagining anyone marrying that. Imagine anyone going even far enough to be a girlfriend. Hard, isn't it? Nasty, pettish, petty, can't write, obssessive, inclined to the idee-fixe to the point of delusion, well-nigh humorless (the man never has fun, had you noticed?) and has he any grasp of playing fair or is it only grasping? -- yep, real LTR material he.
So, tw, are you ever going to step up and answer my direct question? You've posted once without doing so -- going to continue down the same road? No wonder you excite contempt.
Step up, you son of a poodle.
Reminds me of Howard Zinn from The Progressive, a real un-American.
My aunt has a poodle. It's name is Paris.
It's a very dopey dog.
Six calendar days later, and the anti-American son of a poodle has not stepped up. What an untermensch. He just can't hack it when better men than himself challenge him. No wonder we look down our noses.
Is this the last best hope of the anti-Americans?
My aunt has a poodle. It's name is Paris.
It's a very dopey dog.
I looked after a friend's poodle for a couple of weeks once. She was the daintiest dog I have ever seen. I don't mean pink fur and ribbons, she was straight-cut without the flourishes. The way she moved, so precise. Like watching a dancer.
One from the not sorry site - I just thought I'd get the thread back on track -
The speech George W. Bush SHOULD give
Normally, I start these things out by saying "My Fellow Americans."
Not doing it this time. If the polls are any indication, I don't know who more than half of you are anymore. I do know something terrible has happened, and that you're really not fellow Americans any longer.
I'll cut right to the chase here: I quit. Now before anyone gets all in a lather about me quitting to avoid impeachment, or to avoid prosecution or something, let me assure you: there's been no breaking of laws or impeachable offenses in this office.
The reason I'm quitting is simple. I'm fed up with you people.
I'm fed up because you have no understanding of what's really going on in the world. Or of what's going on in this once-great nation of ours. And the majority of you are too damned lazy to do your homework and figure it out.
Let's start local. You've been sold a bill of goods by politicians and the news media. Polls show that the majority of you think the economy is in the tank. And that's despite record numbers of homeowners including record numbers of MINORITY homeowners. And while we're mentioning minorities, I'll point out that minority business ownership is at an all-time high. Our unemployment rate is as low as it ever was during the Clinton Administration. I've mentioned all those things before, but it doesn't seem to have sunk in.
Despite the shock to our economy of 9/11, the stock market has rebounded to record levels and more Americans than ever are participating in these markets. Meanwhile, all you can do is whine about gas prices, and most of you are too damn stupid to realize that gas prices are high because there's increased demand in other parts of the world, and because a small handful of noisy idiots are more worried about polar bears and beachfront property than your economic security.
We face real threats in the world. Don't give me this ~blood for oil" thing. If I was trading blood for oil I would've already seized Iraq's oil fields and let the rest of the country go to hell. And don't give me this 'Bush Lied People Died' crap either. If I was the liar you morons take me for, I could've easily had chemical weapons planted in Iraq so they could be 'discovered.' Instead, I owned up to the fact that the intelligence was faulty. Let me remind you that the rest of the world thought Saddam had the goods, same as me. Let me also remind you that regime change in Iraq was official US policy before I came into office. Some guy named 'Clinton' established that policy. Bet you didn't know that, did you?
You idiots need to understand that we face a unique enemy. Back during the cold war, there were two major competing political and economic models squaring off. We won that war, but we did so because fundamentally, the Communists wanted to survive, just as we do. We were simply able to outspend and out-tech them.
That's not the case this time. The soldiers of our new enemy don't care if they survive. In fact, they want to die. That'd be fine, as long as they weren't also committed to taking as many of you with them as they can. But they are. They want to kill you. And the bastards are all over the globe.
You should be grateful that they haven't gotten any more of us here in the United States since September 11. But you're not. That's because you've got no idea how hard a small number of intelligence, military, law enforcement and homeland security people have worked to make sure of that. When this whole mess started, I warned you that this would be a long and difficult fight. I'm disappointed how many of you people think a long and difficult fight amounts to a single season of 'Survivor'.
Instead, you've grown impatient. You're incapable of seeing things through the long lens of history, the way our enemies do. You think that wars should last a few months, a few years, tops.
Making matters worse, you actively support those who help the enemy. Every time you buy the New York Times, every time you send a donation to a cut-and-run Democrat's political campaign, well, dammit, you might just as well Fedex a grenade launcher to a Jihadist.It amounts to the same thing.
In this day and age, it's easy enough to find the truth.
It's all over the Internet. It just isn't on the pages of the New York Times or on NBC News. But even if it were, I doubt you'd be any smarter. Most of you would rather watch American Idol.
I could say more about your expectations that the government will always be there to bailyou out, even if you're too stupid to leave a city that's below sea level and has a hurricane approaching. I could say more about your insane belief that government, not your own wallet, is where the money comes from. But I've come to the conclusion that were I to do so, it would sail right over your heads.
So I quit. I'm going back to Crawford. I've got an energy-efficient house down there (Al Gore could only dream) and the capability to be fully self-sufficient.
No one ever heard of Crawford before I got elected, and as soon as I'm done here pretty much no one will ever hear of it again. Maybe I'll be lucky enough to die of old age before the last pillars of America fall.
Oh, and by the way, Cheney's quitting too. That means Pelosi is your new President. You asked for it.
Watch what she does carefully, because I still have a glimmer of hope that there're just enough of you remaining who are smart enough to turn this thing around in 2008.
So that's it. God bless what's left of America.
Some of you know what I mean.
The rest of you, * off.
I agree with all of it. Every word.
Not because it's right, but because I'll agree with ANYTHING if it'll get rid of him.
Ibbie, that's being overly desperate -- and historically shortsighted. We had to put up with that same kind of crap from the Myopia & Treason lobby when Reagan was in office too -- and from some of the same highly placed Democrats, John Kerry not least. Reagan was right, and the M&T were hosed. Bush will be no different.
I have to disagree with you there UG -I think Bush, primarily because of Cheney, will be very different that Reagan.
Technically, we never really voted him in... so this is an oxymoron.
He stole both elections.
"Sorryabouthimnotbeinginprison.com" would be more like it.
Rkzenrage, can you give a good source about Bush stealing the elections? I've heard it all over the place but I haven't read a good source about it yet.
Thanks.
Rkzenrage, can you give a good source about Bush stealing the elections? I've heard it all over the place but I haven't read a good source about it yet.
Thanks.
Rk was referring to the popular vote, I think.
I've heard stories about how in Florida, a large amount of blacks were denied votes because they were considered ex-convicts when they actually were not and that would have changed the outcome of Florida since the people would have voted democrat.
The second story I have heard deals with electronic voting in Ohio.
I just haven't seen any definite proof of either.
There were issues in FL with "hanging chads" and polls closing before people got to vote and and and. . . It is what it was -
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/16/recount.chads/
http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/
There is a ton of info if you google it. I am not as eloquent a writer as most on here - I am sure tw could post 80 pages on it and confuse you even more - perhaps Bruce could distill it best.
Naw, make him work for it. Bwahahahahahahaha.
Rkzenrage, can you give a good source about Bush stealing the elections? I've heard it all over the place but I haven't read a good source about it yet.
Thanks.
Yes, I can... no I won't.
Why do you always ask me to look shit up for you?
That wasn't an attack on you rkzenrage, I just wanted to know if you had a source since it may be much quicker for you to find it since you may know what you are looking for. I support your opinion but just want definite proof so I can use it later, that was all.
Generally if you make a claim and someone asks for proof, they're asking because they're interested.
It is at this point that you may have the ability to sway someone's opinion.
I guess sometimes it's more fun just to argue though huh?
Poo Poo, if he does the work it will sink in.
The onus is on the person who makes the claim. Not the person asking for proof.
The onus is on the person who makes the claim. Not the person asking for proof.
I thiink he's writing a paper on it for a summer class and he just
wants some free info ;)
OH well...that's different then.
Rkzen was letting a violent antipathy to Bush blind him to the historical truth of the matter: the 2000 election was won in the Electoral College and even the Democratic Party agrees won fair and square, even by the rules THEY tried to set up. 2004 election, won not only by Electoral College but by three and a half million popular votes more than the Democratic contender.
In both elections, the Republic dodged a bullet. The Loser Lobby took it in the shorts, and loud has been their outgribing since. Disgusting, really.
Both elections were won fair and square, as rational people will tell you. For one instance, I'm telling you. You can find about three and a half million more instances.
What percentage of US citizens actually vote at federal elections? (I know I should look it up myself and I probably will in the mean time. I'll share what I find with you.)
Well that was easy. Just look up the
US census.
Sixty-four percent of U.S. citizens age 18 and over voted in the 2004 presidential election, up from 60 percent in 2000, the U.S. Census Bureau reportedWow - I'm such a pessimist - I would have said less than 50%
There are some interesting figures on that page. Particularly this one: The turnout rate for people with a bachelor’s degree or higher (80 percent) was greater than the rate for people whose highest level of educational attainment was a high school diploma (56 percent).
T.P.M. Barnett did comment that "elections in the Core [the industrialized world, full of democracies and the like] are boring" and that elections in the New Core [emergent industrial economies] and Gap [hardly any economies at all], when available, are more life-and-death. With the strong implication that as the Gap develops enough to enter New Core (the Newer Core?) membership, elections will galvanize the populace less and less as they become more and more the stuff of routine.
The onus is on the person who makes the claim. Not the person asking for proof.
Yeah, if they are trying to prove something to someone... true.
Elections purchased fair and square.