Text 13361, 262 rader
Skriven 2008-03-22 03:13:01 av Jeff Bowman (1:229/500)
  Kommentar till text 13322 av Roy Witt (1:397/22)
Ärende: Re: Bush Vetoes Waterboarding Bill
==========================================
 
RW> Apparently no one else agrees with you, as his poll ratings plummeted
RW> after that speech. All that speech did was create more racist hate.
 
Polls schmolls.  Wonder what Frank Luntz is up to these days?
 
 
RW>JB> because everybody's afraid of offending somebody these days.
 
RW> Can you say Geroldine Ferraro?
 
Not really, she pulled the "out of context" card.  I mean, if you can use it...
 
 
RW> Although African-American is politically correct and in this case, closer
RW> to reality than black; the appellation, Negro, is the formal term for the
RW> black race. Negro refers to those of African descent as well as the
RW> non-African blacks, which we have plenty of in the US as well.
 
African-American is stupid.  They're black Americans.  We don't call Chinese
people Chinese-Americans.  Or Iraqi-American.  Or British-American.  And the
reason is that relations with those races hasn't become such taboo to even
speak of that we had to invent new terminology for them.  Hyphenating the two
nationalities makes it sound like they're joint citizens.  They're not.
 
 
RW> When they get back to using Negro, they shouldn't be so embarrassed that
RW> they have to call themselves anything else.
 
Negro has been so distorted that even I can't say I care for it.  I just say
"white" and "black".  Black people don't call us caucasians, or
European-Americans, they call us white.  So I dunno how America ever developed
a problem with calling them the opposite.  If you ever wanted to blame
something on liberal pandering, there you go.
 
 
RW> The Dems who took over in 2006 have done nothing except
RW> complain about how bad the Reps are.
 
Unless you're going to accuse Wikipedia of liberal bias too, here's a list of
the major legislation passed:
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/104th_United_States_Congress
 
For the record, both sides have already been caught with their pants down for
editing entries on Wikipedia. Including your beloved Fox News. Some fellow
wrote software to compile all IP addresses linked to changes made to articles,
and linked the IP addresses back to who owns the net block. All easily findable
and confirmable information, both on Wikipedia's modification history pages,
and standard whois-style lookups. Lots of people got caught with their hands in
the cookie jar from that.  Particularly editing their own stuff, or stuff of
their opponents/critics.
 
The tool is at:
 
http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/
 
A little confusing to figure out at first, but it's neat to play with when you
get the hang of it.  And before you can say it's probably biased, liberal, or
whatever the case may be, Fox News already did a story on their channel about
the whole thing, where even they pointed out themselves getting caught on
there.
 
 
RW> The climate goes through these changes all of the time. When the planet's
RW> temp rises 1/2 degree in 100 years, that's nothing.
 
Debating global warming is probably about as pointless as convincing you of the
O'Reilly stuff, but the Earth's natural warming and cooling cycles have never
gone as high as we've pushed it over the course of the industrial revolution
onward. Of course, it entirely depends on where one wants to get information,
so you can believe yours and I'll believe mine.
 
 
RW>JB> He's not a researcher, he was a meteorologist turned businessman.
RW>JB> His claims are opinions.
 
RW> That's about as wrong as you can get. Coleman has credentials that are on
RW> par with any of the scientists who claim global warming.
 
He's been a weatherman since he was a freshman in college.  What credentials
exactly do you think he has that makes him an expert on climate change?
 
 
RW> Since there's nothing in that book to go by, the dhCs have to call it
RW> like they see it. Fortunately, they're not educated enough to realize
RW> that the book they wish was written by God, was actually written by
RW> fallible man.
 
Worse than being written by man, it was later edited by man.
 
 
RW> There's the rub...Coleman knows more about how it is, while many don't.
 
Then let's see him make a documentary disproving global warming.  I would in
fact watch it, just like I watched Al Gore's.  His was really interesting, in
case you've never seen it.  If you haven't, then I'm betting you won't. 
 
 
RW>RW>> The boys in northern Canada would disagree with you on that. They
RW>RW>> had record low temps this winter, -57 where it's normally around
RW>RW>> -30...
 
RW>JB> Unusual freezing can be an indication of global warming just the
RW>JB> same as melting,
 
RW> There's nothing unusual about the Aartic regions freezing...that's what
RW> they've done for millinium.
 
You just said record lows, of over 20 degrees difference.  That is unusual.
 
 
RW>JB> Bush says it, but we aren't really doing it.
 
RW> Note that you said 'we'...Bush can't do it all by himself. If we had a
RW> Congress, they'd have done something to promote it already. That hasn't
RW> happened.
 
I bet if he had had a rubber stamp congress for the other 6 years he would have
been able to get a lot done for his energy independence initiatives.  Oh
wait...
 
 
RW>JB> And yet during Bush's terms with the Republican congress, pork
RW>JB> barrel spending skyrocketed.
 
RW> It has never exceeded that of any Democrat controlled Congress.
 
I have no numbers to confirm that easily at my disposal.  But it matters not,
because it doesn't justify what the Republicans did over those 12 years.
 
 
RW> Yeah, the first line tells all.
 
RW> WASHINGTON - President Bush said Wednesday he'll submit a proposal to
RW> balance the budget in five years and exhorted Congress to "end the dead
RW> of night process" of quietly tucking expensive pet projects into
RW> spending bills. - January, 3, 2007
 
What, that Bush is somehow misguided enough to think our budget can be fixed in
five years?  Does he plan to end the war early after all?
 
 
RW>JB> Aside from my position that the Bush administration's incompetence
RW>JB> possibly led to 9/11 in the first place,
 
RW> You should actually look at the Clinton admin for the blame there. His
RW> failure to do anything is what probably led to 9/11...bombing empty
RW> aspirin factories doesn't say much for America's ability to retaliate.
 
Hey I've already admitted here elsewhere that I think Clinton did a shabby job
on dealing with Osama with the whole tossing of cruise missiles and coming home
job.  But he had a plan and plenty of intelligence that was passed along to the
Bush administration, which was simply ignored for nine months.  Not only that,
but people like Condoleezza Rice stood up there lying about what evidence that
they did have beforehand, after the fact.
 
 
RW>JB> Bush did the right thing going into Afghanistan.  Going into Iraq
RW>JB> was obviously a dumb move though.
 
RW> It was the right move...
 
Right move, for all the wrong reasons.  Hence a dumb move. 
 
 
RW> I'll bet we wouldn't...Afghanistan got Al Quaida on the run, but they
RW> aren't just in Afghanistan.
 
Nor were they in Iraq.  McCain still seems to think so though, until his aids
nonchalantly whisper in his ear that he's still wrong after all these years.
 
 
RW>JB> Bush estimated we'd only have 30,000 troops not long after the
RW>JB> invasion, and now that number is almost 6x higher.
 
RW> It only took that many to defeat Saddam's unwilling army...what came
RW> after was a surprise.
 
Shouldn't have been a surprise to people who know the middle east and the
factions involved.
 
 
RW>JB> As for Britain and France having so much trouble with extremists,
RW>JB> you have to remember that they're landlocked.
 
RW> Ummmm...really? I had the impression that Britain is an island and France
RW> has a very nice beach that faces the Atlantic Ocean.
 
If they were only so lucky, they'd have less terrorists to worry about.
 
 
 
RW> Both countries actually promoted those immigrants to come there. They
RW> were 'invited'...France deserves everything they get. Britain? They're
RW> not the sharpest knife in the drawer either.
 
Invited or not, when all you have to do is pretty much walk across the border,
you aren't keeping them out.  No more than we're keeping Mexicans out.
 
 
I have no idea what happened here, but D'Bridge decided to not include the rest
of the message.  I'll have to try and manually fish out the rest.
 
 
RW> LOL! Tell that to Helen Thomas. At the July 18, 2006 White House *snip*
 
JB> Had she left out the last statement, she would have been okay
JB> regarding the appearance of being non-bias. 
 
RW> But that's here history...she's never said a kind word about any
RW> conservative Prez...the fact is, we don't have any control over what the
RW> Israelies do...aside from 'encouraging' them to not be as hostile as the
RW> enemies.  
If you want to talk about people who can't keep their mouths shut, how about
Ann Coulter.  This is the woman who can get away with calling a presidential
nominee a fag at a Republican convention, and then get laughs from the crowd. 
Which is kind of telling of the whole bunch, really.
 
 
JB> Considering many conservatives are religious,
 
RW> Yeah, the Christian Right, eh...it really doesn't exist. That's a
RW> fabrication of the liberal press.
 
I seriously laughed out loud on that one.  Sometimes I think you're just trying
to mess with me!
 
 
JB> I find it hard to believe that an average conservative reporter isn't
JB> going to be biased against liberals.
 
RW> But it's ok if the liberals are biased against conservatives.
 
Nope.  It's not okay either way.
 
 
RW> Of course, we don't have to look very far to find a liberal reporter who
RW> embelishes on their stories. They can be found on every alphabet news
RW> channel and in nearly every newspaper and website.  
You mean like this story I came across by accident on CNN earlier when looking
for something else?  The headline is "Poll: Bush, Democratic Congress both
failures".  Sounds pretty biased to me...  
 
JB> Or at least learn of the story, and then research it yourself at
JB> various other places. I've done that many times.
 
RW> One shouldn't have to do that...one should be able to trust what they're
RW> hearing.
 
Yet you trust Fox News implicitly, regardless of all the negative press it gets
elsewhere, even from some conservatives.  They're just another member of the
alphabet soup you keep refer, since no news is unbiased, regardless of what you
try to convince me of.
 
 
RW> Because I trust that O'Reilly isn't telling tall tales like Olbermann
RW> does.  
Then unfortunately your trust is misplaced.

--- D'Bridge 2.99
 * Origin: FyBBS (1:229/500)