Text 13391, 169 rader
Skriven 2008-03-23 11:58:52 av Björn Forsström (2:203/614.61)
  Kommentar till text 13361 av Jeff Bowman (1:229/500)
Ärende: 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.

 JB> Polls schmolls.  Wonder what Frank Luntz is up to these days?

Who's Frank Luntz?

RW>> Can you say Geroldine Ferraro?

 JB> Not really, she pulled the "out of context" card.  I mean, if you can use
 JB> it...

Using their own tactics isn't allowed.

 JB> African-American is stupid.  They're black Americans.  We don't call
 JB> Chinese people Chinese-Americans.  Or Iraqi-American.  Or
 JB> British-American.  And the reason is that relations with those races
 JB> hasn't become such taboo to even speak of that we had to invent new
 JB> terminology for them.  Hyphenating the two nationalities makes it sound
 JB> like they're joint citizens.  They're not.

Sounds reasonable.

 JB> Negro has been so distorted that even I can't say I care for it.  I just
 JB> say "white" and "black".  Black people don't call us caucasians, or
 JB> European-Americans, they call us white.  So I dunno how America ever
 JB> developed a problem with calling them the opposite.  If you ever wanted to
 JB> blame something on liberal pandering, there you go.

Before we had a cookie called Negro Balls but now we have to say Chocolate
Balls.

 JB> Unless you're going to accuse Wikipedia of liberal bias too, here's a list
 JB> of the major legislation passed:

 JB> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/104th_United_States_Congress

If I had a real Internet connection instead of this with my cell as a slow
modem
I would heve checked them out but don't expect him to do it.

 JB> All easily findable and confirmable information, both on Wikipedia's
 JB> modification history pages, and standard whois-style lookups. Lots of
 JB> people got caught with their hands in the cookie jar from that.
 JB> Particularly editing their own stuff, or stuff of their opponents/critics.

If my memory serves Roy have been editing the Wiki himself.

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.

 JB> Debating global warming is probably about as pointless as convincing you
 JB> of the O'Reilly stuff,

You bet.

 JB> but the Earth's natural warming and cooling cycles
 JB> have never gone as high as we've pushed it over the course of the
 JB> industrial revolution onward. Of course, it entirely depends on where one
 JB> wants to get information, so you can believe yours and I'll believe mine.

I can see that the climate have changed over the centuries but why help it over
the limit so there will be no turning back.

 JB> Then let's see him make a documentary disproving global warming.  I would
 JB> in fact watch it, just like I watched Al Gore's.  His was really
 JB> interesting, in case you've never seen it.  If you haven't, then I'm
 JB> betting you won't.

I don't bet against you.

RW>> There's nothing unusual about the Aartic regions freezing...that's what
RW>> they've done for millinium.

 JB> You just said record lows, of over 20 degrees difference.  That is
 JB> unusual.

The weather in Thailand was very unusual too at this time of year with rain
that
normally shouldn't happend and now is the first time this season we have snow
that usually should be here in dec. When New Year Eve have the same temp as
Midsummer there really is something wrong.

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 of
RW>> night process" of quietly tucking expensive pet projects into spending
RW>> bills. - January, 3, 2007

 JB> What, that Bush is somehow misguided enough to think our budget can be
 JB> fixed in five years?  Does he plan to end the war early after all?

LOL.

RW>>JB> Bush did the right thing going into Afghanistan.  Going into Iraq JB>
RW>>was obviously a dumb move though.

RW>> It was the right move...

 JB> Right move, for all the wrong reasons.  Hence a dumb move.

That's what I've been saying since it started too.
Right move for the wrong reason.

RW>>JB> Bush estimated we'd only have 30,000 troops not long after the JB>
RW>>invasion, and now that number is almost 6x higher.

RW>> It only took that many to defeat Saddam's unwilling army...what came after
RW>> was a surprise.

 JB> Shouldn't have been a surprise to people who know the middle east and the
 JB> factions involved.

Or learned something from Vietnam.

RW>> Both countries actually promoted those immigrants to come there. They were
RW>> 'invited'...France deserves everything they get. Britain? They're not the
RW>> sharpest knife in the drawer either.

At least they have won some wars.

 JB> Invited or not, when all you have to do is pretty much walk across the
 JB> border, you aren't keeping them out.  No more than we're keeping Mexicans
 JB> out.

And you never will.

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.

 JB> I seriously laughed out loud on that one.  Sometimes I think you're just
 JB> trying to mess with me!

He is. After having learned from O'Reilly how to push buttons....

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.
 JB> You mean like this story I came across by accident on CNN earlier when
 JB> looking for something else?  The headline is "Poll: Bush, Democratic
 JB> Congress both failures".  Sounds pretty biased to me...

JB>> Or at least learn of the story, and then research it yourself at various
JB>> other places. I've done that many times.

If it isn't on Fox it has never happend and if it is on Fox everyone else is
wrong. Haven't you learned anything?

RW>> One shouldn't have to do that...one should be able to trust what they're
RW>> hearing.

 JB> Yet you trust Fox News implicitly, regardless of all the negative press it
 JB> gets elsewhere, even from some conservatives.  They're just another member
 JB> of the alphabet soup you keep refer, since no news is unbiased, regardless
 JB> of what you try to convince me of.

Even I have learned that there are left biased media and right biased media
and with the American medias I don't trust any of them.

RW>> Because I trust that O'Reilly isn't telling tall tales like Olbermann
RW>> does.

JB> Then unfortunately your trust is misplaced.

And then he says he's independant.....

---
 * Origin: . (2:203/614.61)