quote:
Check out the big brain on Trillee!
*shoves Delphi in a cuisinart and hits puree*
*chugs*
quote:
I want some of what Lee Taxx0r was smoking when they wrote this:
*chugs*
*recruits a bending robot, a lobster-like monster, a martian, and a cyclops to beat the shit out of Lee so he cries out ..uh, me.*
Bitch. *kicks Lee*
quote:
Abbikat came out of the closet to say:
Finding two shells filled with WMD (Sarin gas and Mustard gas) are NOT definate proof that Saddam lied about having destroyed all of his WMD??
Two shells. Two shells. Two shells. Two shells.
Two shells, which even the Pentagon thinks might not be Iraq's -- considering that Al Queda and other terrorist groups have been flooding into Iraq through Syria (we threatened them and told them to stop allowing it) to give the U.S. a hard time.
That's why you don't see the conservative media making a big deal about the shells. Not even NewsMax or Bill O'Reilly. Drysart fucked around with this message on 06-08-2004 at 01:40 AM.
As to the supplemental vote, if he's so concerned about the troops, sometimes you have to suck it in and vote for things that you normally woudn't. I'm sure everyone in Congress has that experience, some more than others. And because he has a beef with the President about taxes, he's gonna leave guys hanging while they're under fire? Nice. I'm sure the guys in Iraq appreciated that. Oh wait a minute, these are guys in the military that he claims at one time routinely committed war crimes.
And even if you disregard his 2003 Senate voting record his LONGTERM score still puts him in some rather liberal company and still leaves him with the problem of selling himself to a mostly moderate/conservative electorate.
And even the (supposedly liberal) media has remarked on how in his willingness to appear to be all things to all people, he tends to stake out different positions depending on the audience he's speaking to. Hell, read any of Joe Klein's columns in Time about it.
quote:
Check out the big brain on Drysart!
Two shells, which even the Pentagon thinks might not be Iraq's.
Had not heard that...
quote:
That's why you don't see the conservative media making a big deal about the shells. Not even NewsMax or Bill O'Reilly.
Give me some time I'm sure I can dig up some of the articles here that are STILL preaching about it being proof of WMD in Iraq...
I guess our journalists have even less credibility than out politicians....
quote:
Callalron came out of the closet to say:
We'd STILL have "strict economic sanctions" in place and the Iraqis would still be dug in in Kurwait and thousands of our troops would still being sitting around in Saudi Arabia waiting to do something.
You realize that Iraq invaded Kuwait because Kuwait was crossdrilling into Iraqi land to steal their oil, right? The first Gulf War was not a black and white Iraq is Evil and Kuwait is Good matter. It's arguable as to whether it was something the U.S. should have gotten involved in. Economic sanctions would have been just as viable of a foreign policy decision than an invasion.
The fact you disagree on this point doesn't make Kerry a flip-flopper. It gives him a stance you disagree with. You're a conservative, so of course you're going to disagree with the liberal viewpoint. You're not who he's campaigning to. You're also happily overlooking the fact that Bush's campaign is basically lying to you about Kerry's stance on it.
quote:
Callalron came out of the closet to say:
And because he has a beef with the President about taxes, he's gonna leave guys hanging while they're under fire? Nice. I'm sure the guys in Iraq appreciated that. Oh wait a minute, these are guys in the military that he claims at one time routinely committed war crimes.
What about all the Republicans who voted against the first $87 billion bill? I bet the guys in Iraq appreciated that. They took the bill and turned it into a political thing by making a tax issue out of it, and Kerry is the bad guy? No flip-flopping here either, and you're still happily ignoring the Bush campaign's lies.
And if you want to start talking about service records --- we'll look into Bush's. If anyone can ever find them, that is.
quote:
Callalron came out of the closet to say:
And even if you disregard his 2003 Senate voting record his LONGTERM score still puts him in some rather liberal company and still leaves him with the problem of selling himself to a mostly moderate/conservative electorate.
Seems like he's doing a good job so far.... or, well, more accurately, Bush is doing a bad enough job that more people still want to vote for Kerry despite the fact that the only real public things said about his views so far are the lies being spewed out by the Bush campaign. As I said before, Kerry is showing stronger numbers against an incumbent president than any modern candidate has ever shown. Bush's campaign is fighting an uphill battle and they know it, that's why they're going dirty. Unfortunately it's not working as well as they'd hoped yet. The only way Kerry is going to lose in November is if he botches up or if Bush manages to stage a massive event before the election to give himself a temporary popularity spike.
quote:
Callalron came out of the closet to say:
And even the (supposedly liberal) media has remarked on how in his willingness to appear to be all things to all people, he tends to stake out different positions depending on the audience he's speaking to. Hell, read any of Joe Klein's columns in Time about it.
The media is not liberal. We've covered this before. The media is for ratings, and their incompetence provides plenty of anecdotal evidence to both sides when they mishandle a story that makes their side look bad.
A point I wager we'd both agree on; I wish it was more difficult if not impossible, to attach non-related ammendments to bills in Congress. If you want to put something through the process, it should be able to stand or fall based on it's own merits, not becuase it's attached to something else deemed too important to vote down. Both parties have done it, both are guilty of exploiting it.
One important point I think that a lot of people are missing on the whole service record point. While it's nice that candidates have served in the military, it's no indicator of what sort of president they'll be. If that were so, then the two greatest presidents in the history of the United States would be Ulysses S. Grant and Dwight D. Eisenhower, and we all know that just ain't so. With the end of the draft 30+ years ago, the military is no longer the great common social experience it once was. More and more people in Congress and Presidents now lack that experience. Eventually a president who was in the military will be more the exception than the rule.
So Kerry's pulling great poll numbers right now? You know what? It means dick unless the election were held today. No doubt he'll get another bump in numbers after the convention. And so will Bush. The only time the numbers count is Nov 2. As I recall, Mondale looked competitive right up to Election Day in '84. And then he got crushed by the greatest electoral landslide in history. It's a long time until the election and a lot can happen. Callalron fucked around with this message on 06-08-2004 at 03:23 AM.
Klansman: Hi, I represent the Klu Klux Klan. I hate Jews, grandmas, and Fags, but I love George Bush!
Osama bin Laden: Hello, my name is Osama bin Laden. I hate America, but I love George Bush!
quote:
From the book of Ja'Deth Issar Ka'bael, chapter 3, verse 16:
Point 1:Gydyon continues to be the perfect example of the flaw in any "religious people are all fucked up/suspicion-worthy/evil/wrong" arguments, and one that, in the usual rabid fervor demonstrated by Zaza (who gets his facts by remote viewing via the lens of the online media rather than by living in the country of issue on a day to day basis), tends to get intentionally overlooked. Hopefully I don't have to restate my point about religious belief being the source of all evil again.
Point 2:
Callalron, ever eloquent and given to good analogy, pointed out the cold hard facts of the national political party conventions. Thankfully, I therefore don't have to repeat all my arguments and comments here again.
Point 3:
If it hasn't been made clear yet, Zaza, you seldom bring new arguments to the table. Wrap it up however you like, you're rapidly turning into the "Anti-Conservative" whiner on a level equal to Maradon's old necromancer whining. And the parallels are staggering. From a certain perspective your views could be correct, just as Maradon's necromancer whining was accurate if you took certain paradigms into account. But just as Maradon was lacking in a few crucial common sense places, so also are you.
Likewise, you so rabidly attack when there's even a hint of blood in the water, whenever there's a hint of a cheap shot to be made, that it's getting tedious. There's plenty of Liberals (Drysart, namely) who tend to make liberal arguments a lot more accurately and efficiently without the rabidity you tend to show. There's also several liberal crackpots (who I won't name because this isn't a flame thread) who balance out the conservative crackpots (going unnamed for the same reason as the liberal crackpots) without needing you being the vanguard.
Likewise, sarcasm or not, you started a discussion thread. If you didn't want the counterpoint to your overstated point to be voiced, start a webpage where you can post your manifestos. Don't get snippy and snipe or flame people when they point out either the glaringly obvious or argue the opposite side to what you're on.
It's getting to the point where Zaza "Politics" threads should be "Flame" threads, because heaven (ha ha I use a religious reference, I must be an EVIL CONSERVATIVE BASTARD) help you if you post a dissenting point of view.
This was such an amazing exhaggeration that I think you just decided to post without reading the thread.
quote:
Snoota obviously shouldn't have said:
no you're not
At least my URL was a real one 
quote:
Kegwen had this to say about Cuba:
At least my URL was a real one
REAL DUMB
quote:
Drysart had this to say about Knight Rider:
The media is not liberal. We've covered this before. The media is for ratings, and their incompetence provides plenty of anecdotal evidence to both sides when they mishandle a story that makes their side look bad.
Ohh, yay I get to use a stat I found a couple of days ago how fun.
quote:
William Schneider and I.A. Lewis, "Views on the News," Public Opinion
55% of Journalists describe themselves as liberal where only 23% of the general public do so. 17% of Journalists describe themselves as concservative where only 29% of the public consider themselves conservative.
Seems like a liberal learning to me. Or maybe I'm reading the numbers wrong.
quote:
Ja'Deth Issar Ka'bael impressed everyone with:
Point 1:Gydyon continues to be the perfect example of the flaw in any "religious people are all fucked up/suspicion-worthy/evil/wrong" arguments, and one that, in the usual rabid fervor demonstrated by Zaza (who gets his facts by remote viewing via the lens of the online media rather than by living in the country of issue on a day to day basis), tends to get intentionally overlooked. Hopefully I don't have to restate my point about religious belief being the source of all evil again.
Point 2:
Callalron, ever eloquent and given to good analogy, pointed out the cold hard facts of the national political party conventions. Thankfully, I therefore don't have to repeat all my arguments and comments here again.
Point 3:
If it hasn't been made clear yet, Zaza, you seldom bring new arguments to the table. Wrap it up however you like, you're rapidly turning into the "Anti-Conservative" whiner on a level equal to Maradon's old necromancer whining. And the parallels are staggering. From a certain perspective your views could be correct, just as Maradon's necromancer whining was accurate if you took certain paradigms into account. But just as Maradon was lacking in a few crucial common sense places, so also are you.
Likewise, you so rabidly attack when there's even a hint of blood in the water, whenever there's a hint of a cheap shot to be made, that it's getting tedious. There's plenty of Liberals (Drysart, namely) who tend to make liberal arguments a lot more accurately and efficiently without the rabidity you tend to show. There's also several liberal crackpots (who I won't name because this isn't a flame thread) who balance out the conservative crackpots (going unnamed for the same reason as the liberal crackpots) without needing you being the vanguard.
Likewise, sarcasm or not, you started a discussion thread. If you didn't want the counterpoint to your overstated point to be voiced, start a webpage where you can post your manifestos. Don't get snippy and snipe or flame people when they point out either the glaringly obvious or argue the opposite side to what you're on.
It's getting to the point where Zaza "Politics" threads should be "Flame" threads, because heaven (ha ha I use a religious reference, I must be an EVIL CONSERVATIVE BASTARD) help you if you post a dissenting point of view.
quote:
Tarquinn wrote, obviously thinking too hard:
What? The? Fuck?
Indeed.
Personally I find Zaza one of the more sensible people in politics threads. Problem being that no one seems to read what he actually says.
No more fond of Bush on any special level either, but he has more pressence and feels more presidenty to me! I wouldn't even know how to decide if I was liberal or conservative. I still, to this day even after years of school on the subject, and being surrounded by politics, know jack shit about whats different between one candidate and the next that makes them one party or another, and what particuclar it is that I follow. To me they all sound and act the same, they all promise and try to sway you the same even if it's in different ways, the all try to tell you the things you want to hear so you'll vote for em. So for me, charisma, pressence, and feel, are the only things I even notice.
Hell, if the Govenator was running for President, I'd probably vote for him... 
quote:
And coming in at #1 is Niklas with "Reply." I'm Casey Casem.
Indeed.Personally I find Zaza one of the more sensible people in politics threads. Problem being that no one seems to read what he actually says.
Like I said, style continues to reign over substance. No one cares what Zaza said, because he said it sarcastically.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
Callalron, ever eloquent and given to good analogy, pointed out the cold hard facts of the national political party conventions. Thankfully, I therefore don't have to repeat all my arguments and comments here again.
-AND-
quote:
If it hasn't been made clear yet, Zaza, you seldom bring new arguments to the table.
To be mildly funny.
EDIT: Not to even mention...
quote:
Likewise, you so rabidly attack when there's even a hint of blood in the water, whenever there's a hint of a cheap shot to be made, that it's getting tedious.
-AND-
quote:
(ha ha I use a religious reference, I must be an EVIL CONSERVATIVE BASTARD)
You use a sarcastic crack in a post where you attack me for making a sarcastic crack.
Hilarious.
If I post an eight-page essay where I rag on your long-windedness in arguments, do I get to be as cool and level-headed an arguer as you? Zaza fucked around with this message on 06-08-2004 at 10:18 AM.
quote:
Naimah had this to say about dark elf butts:
Seems like a liberal learning to me. Or maybe I'm reading the numbers wrong.
I've seen several surveys that show that most reporters are actually much more centrist than you try to portray them. The majority of reporters indeed tend to be left leaning. On social issues. On economic issues the majority of them tend to take the conservative viewpoint. This ends up giving them a pretty centrist view overall.
Also, you are making the assumption that the reporters personal political views will significantly color how they report. This assumption hasn't been proven, to my knowledge.
Another thing you overlooked is the fact that that the majority of the owners of these television stations, newspapers, etc, are conservative. This should come as no surprise that big business owners are conservative. Guess who gets to decide what stories are published or shown on TV? Here is a hint, its usually not the reporters.
Here is a decent paper on the subject. I've only skimmed it, but it seems to cover what you overlooked: http://www.fair.org/reports/journalist-survey.html
So, no, you aren't reading the numbers wrong. You are just selectivly interpreting them. Zair fucked around with this message on 06-08-2004 at 02:14 PM.
quote:
Mavos had this to say about Captain Planet:
My belief: Religion and Politics should not be mixed. Look at all the wars, and all the attrocities done in the "name of religion". If you are religious, stay out of politics; if you are political, stay out of religion. That's what I say.
I think it's fine for religious people to be politicians, as long as they don't try to push their religion into a legal form.
Not every religious person is a bigot.
quote:
I want some of what Zaza was smoking when they wrote this:
I think it's fine for religious people to be politicians, as long as they don't try to push their religion into a legal form.Not every religious person is a bigot.
That's the central point here; Za's not saying "OMFG U SUX RELIGION MAN", he's saying "Don't force religion in legislation".
Or something.
quote:
Callalron's unholy Backstreet Boys obsession manifested in:
If you want to apply some sort of moral purity litmus test we couldn't even help out the Swiss or the Swedes, seeing as how they cozied up to the Nazis and did their banking and sold them iron ore.
Or Finland and the Soviets as another example..
quote:
So Kerry's pulling great poll numbers right now? You know what? It means dick unless the election were held today. No doubt he'll get another bump in numbers after the convention. And so will Bush. The only time the numbers count is Nov 2. As I recall, Mondale looked competitive right up to Election Day in '84. And then he got crushed by the greatest electoral landslide in history. It's a long time until the election and a lot can happen.
How about Truman v Dewey (I think it was those two..) All the newspapers and polls had Dewey leading by so much it was pointless for Truman supporters to even vote. (A Gallup poll in 1948 reported that only 36% of the people thought that Truman was doing a good job as President.)
November 3 saw a massive banner hanging outside the Washington Post: "Mr. President, we are ready to eat crow whenever you are ready to serve it." (Truman won by a MASSIVE margin as I recall from my HS American History lessons..)
Perhaps also an interesting sub-fact to the above: Truman was invited to a banquet of political reporters, editors, pollsters, radio commentators, and columnists a few weeks after the election. The main course was to consist of breast of crow glace. The Democratic National Committee responded by offering to furnish toothpicks.
