John Edwards announces his run for Office by piratejenny

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Context is irrelevant. If you've ever said in any thread (and I bet you have) that Saddam is a symbol of oppression, you're a hypocrite.

Why don't you just have this discussion w/ yourself? You seem quite comfortable at making up positions that others haven't taken to make your arguments. Context is imparitive, and not irrelevent. If Saddam murdered 10,000's of innocent Iraqis, then yes, HE is the focus those crimes. If you're talking about who should walk or wheel their way through life, then YOU are playing God. Because you feel Chris Reeves was an 'icon', you'd play favorites with him over anyone else ? You truly are delusional.

Quote:

And nowhere did they say that he would magically walk from the chair. That was your twist. They said that voting for them would be a big push for that issue. You don't like Edwards so you twisted the meaning of his words.

That's bullshit, and you know it! You're intentionally twisting MY words and then saying I'm the one who twisted Edward's words! Unfuckingbelievable! I never claimed THEY said anyone would 'magically' walk, but Edwards DID promise that which he knew he could not offer. THEY were the ones who were pandering here, you fucking moron, NOT ME!!

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 4, 2007 5:02 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Maybe he thought they could deliver - not in a year, or four, but seven or ten. How do you know what he was thinking?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 4, 2007 5:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
The difference is I'm smart enough to realize that Islamic terrorists weren't in Iraq before we got there.

Iraq was such a wonderful place back in those days. No one was ever terrorized in Iraq.

But on the embryonic stem cell stuff: I like embryonic stem cell research. It doesn’t seem to be panning out at the moment, but it might some day. And there are ways to get new embryos. Fetuses die or abort naturally, what if a would-be mother felt that the tragic and natural demise of her fetus should be used for research? I could probably imagine that most women would not want that, but some might, and it would only take a few to fuel the research. The problem with that is that I get the feeling some abortion advocates are just drooling over harvesting of human embryos, and that just makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand up.

Contrary to the fantasies of people who think there were no Islamic terrorist in Iraq there is, in fact, embryonic stem cell research being conducted in the United States. A lot of it, actually. Embryonic stem cell research is not banned in the US, and to my knowledge never has been, but because of lies and intentionally misleading statements by some in the media and some politicians, people seem to believe Bush banned stem cell research in 2001. Stem cell research, even embryonic stem cell research, unregulated, with private and state funding, furthermore Stem cell research, even embryonic stem cell research, continues with federal funding, but limited to the existing 72 lines. So, embryonic stem cell research is continuing unregulated. The so-called “ban” didn’t affect private or state-funding and federally funding research hasn’t run out of stem cell lines yet, so their going just fine too.

The reason why no miracle cures have come out of embryonic stem cell research is because that’s fantasy: there is no such thing as a miracle cure. Research takes time, and it’s probably just way too soon to see any results. But it’s also true that embryonic stem cell research doesn’t look as promising as adult stem cell research. So there may never be the kind of benefit emerging from embryonic stem cells that has already been found with adult stem cell research.

So what’s the issue with embryonic stem cell research? Part of it is Abortion! It’s driven, to some degree, by abortion advocacy and the desire to give abortion some moral legitimization by equating it with crazy medical miracles, in the hopes that it will make the Pro-choice argument more acceptable. The other part has to do with scientists promoting their research to get funding, and I think the public has interpreted this as a far greater affirmation of embryonic stem cell research then is probably realistic.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 4, 2007 9:41 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"It’s driven, to some degree, by abortion advocacy and the desire to give abortion some moral legitimization by equating it with crazy medical miracles, in the hopes that it will make the Pro-choice argument more acceptable."

How strange of you to think that. And what a strange idea that is.

I have a fairly young family member whose brain was seriously damaged by a stroke. Lots of neurons were wiped out. And neurons (as you know) don't generally replace themselves. So looking around for future potential, nothing seems like it will fix that except stem cell research - transplanting cells to replace the dead ones and have them grow into place and function. Validating abortion isn't even a consideration.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 5, 2007 2:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
But the fact that you didn't find a quote from Bush or ANY OTHER politician which sank to the level of Edward's and his pandering only shows I was right after all.

But I did, the fact that you are too partisan to admit that, or indeed objectively analyse a quote from the man you love is hardly my problem, and does, indeed, prove me right. I've won, you admitting that fact is hardly required, but would stop you looking like the petty minded child you manage to portray yourself as so often.

Quote:
And yes, you did offer up a Bush quote, one which I admitted to having missed.

Because you didn't read my post because you are not interested in anything anyone has to say, indeed you are only interested in silencing anyone who doesn't have a carbon copy of your own opinions. Trolling seems to be the way you go about that.

Quote:
But that quote was so inane and meaningless w/ respect to the discussion we were having, it simply doesn't count.

You asked for a quote where Bush was exaggerating or lying, I provided one, you can't handle the fact you are wrong, I get that.

Quote:
As for me 'lying' , that's an even farther reach than the Bush quote equating to what Edwards said.

Not really, you did lie, so did Bush. As for the Edwards quote all you've managed to show is that you judge the other side far more harshly than your own and that when exposed you'll lie and personally attack people in a transparent attempt to wriggle out of it.

Quote:
Please, learn the difference between being wrong and intentionally lying. I doubt you're so dense that you can't comprehend such a basic difference between the two.

I know the difference, Bush was lying, Edwards may very well have been wrong. But because you are the biggest partisan it has ever been my misfortune to meet you'll never admit it. As someone else said, you'd have no problem with Bush lying while clubbing baby seals, as long as it was Bush doing it.

Also you let Bush off the hook because 'other people said it too'. Since other people besides John Edwards have said that ESC research will make people walk again it is merely your partisanship, dirty debating tactics, double standards and idiocy that allows you to apply lopsided standards.

Quote:
That might stand as the most ridiculous and inane quote of yours for the entire year. And that's saying a lot.

Just because you say it doesn't make it true. And in fact you saying it probably makes it false, that's just how things work with you. I'd hate to make this assertion about you though, we're just five days into 2007, so there's lots of time for you to make a bigger twat of yourself.

Fact is what I said is very true, your inability to recognise or admit to it are your own problems.

Quote:
I wasn't aware I needed to answer anything from 7%. Guess I'll go look up his last post. What does knowing the US political system have anything to do w/this discussion? Oh, nothing.

Well obviously you thought it meant something to the discussion, which is why you brought it up. Funny how when it suits you you change tack huh, guess you don't have much problem lying.

Quote:
That's right. If 7% does know more about the political system, then jolly good for him. But that doesn't make him more informed or 'right' on this issie.

But then it doesn't mean I can't tell when you're blatantly twisting a quote through partisanship, you attempted to silence me because I apparently "know nothing about the US political system", remember, or do you only remember those facts that are convenient?

It is far from surprising that your verbal attacks aren't even internally consistent.

Quote:
THEY were the ones who were pandering here, you fucking moron, NOT ME!!

And 7% wins too. Now if you could go away and have your temper tantrum elsewhere that would be oh so nice.

Have you ever wondered why even those who share your political affiliation distance themselves from your arguments? Why the only people who ever 'rally' to your 'cause' are the board trolls? It's not because you are an enlightened truth sayer you know, that should be something for you to think about, not that you would, even if you were capable of such a thing as independent thought.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 5, 2007 3:18 AM

Yes, of course, and then there is the late Christopher Reeve and Michael J. Fox, etc. There are lots of people for which it is believed that treatments from embryonic stem cell could hypothetical cure or help treat, and I tend to also believe that that’s a possibility. The reality however is different from what we believe and what we hope to be true. The reality is that we can’t even make use of the plupotency of embryonic stem cells yet, to my knowledge, and it’s not clear to me that we ever will. So we can all sit around and dream for the future, but as it stands right now maybe adult and child stem cells may be the best hope for your family member.

However, none of that explains to me the craze behind embryonic stem cells, and the only thing that seems to make sense to me is that it has somehow been tied into the abortion debate. Some of the people who tend to be the most irrational on this issue also tend to be those who are very pro-abortion. That is those who insist that there is a “ban” on embryonic stem cells, or that insist upon pleas to emotion or petty. While I’m not without sympathy for people who suffer from conditions that could hypothetically be helped by embryonic stem cells, I’m also leery of creating a society where viable human life is cannibalized. I’m not against cannibalizing embryos that have been naturally rejected for pregnancy, but we need to go forward with this carefully, understanding that there are political and legal issues that must be dealt with.

And in all honesty, I’m not sure how to do that. And for what it’s worth, my heart and prayers go out to your family member as well as others who might hypothetically be helped by embryonic stem cells, and I really do hope that embryonic stem cells becomes all that some claim it will or might be, but none of that means anything to me, if we can’t work out the legal and political issues. What if embryonic stem cells do pan out? What happens when there is actually a real reason for all this wild politics? That probably doesn’t bother people who think an embryo is no more important then a scab or a toenail clipping, but to others, there is a serious moral conflict in the exchanging of one human life for another.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 5, 2007 3:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
That probably doesn’t bother people who think an embryo is no more important then a scab or a toenail clipping, but to those with a higher degree of compassion for human life, there is a serious moral conflict in the exchanging of one human life for another.

As I'm sure you are the most moral person here and undoubtedly have the moral high ground, maybe you can tell us how using an embryo that is to be thrown away, such as the ones used in IVF treatments, is a worse use than just disposing of it?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 5, 2007 3:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
As I'm sure you are the most moral person here and undoubtedly have the moral high ground, maybe you can tell us how using an embryo that is to be thrown away, such as the ones used in IVF treatments, is a worse use than just disposing of it?

Well, I certainly agree with you on the moral high ground part, considering the callous disregard you’ve displayed for a human embryo.

As for the rest of it, maybe I didn’t make myself clear, I don’t think I would have any problem using “an embryo that is to be thrown away” for medical research or treatment. The problem I have is in how we decide what constitutes an “embryo that is to be thrown away,” and I don’t think people who have no compassion for the conception of human life or it’s prenatal byproduct are really in a moral position to make that decision.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 5, 2007 3:58 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
I have a fairly young family member whose brain was seriously damaged by a stroke. Lots of neurons were wiped out. And neurons (as you know) don't generally replace themselves. So looking around for future potential, nothing seems like it will fix that except stem cell research - transplanting cells to replace the dead ones and have them grow into place and function. Validating abortion isn't even a consideration.

The best hope for medical advances which may yield benfitial to those suffering from similar type situations as your family member are adult stem cell research. All indications are that stem cells from the patient themselves will provide the best treatment/ cure.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 5, 2007 4:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Well, I certainly agree with you on the moral high ground part, considering the callous disregard you’ve displayed for a human embryo.

You obviously missed the sarcasm. I don't think someone who has no problem with people dying after they are born as morally superior. Nor do I find that people who have to make a big thing of their own moral superiority over anyone who doesn't share their opinions tend to be particularly 'morally superior' in any way.

Quote:
The problem I have is in how we decide what constitutes an “embryo that is to be thrown away,”

Looking in the bin at an IVF clinic is a good start. We don't need to decide anything, they're already being thrown away, use those embryos.

Quote:
I don’t think people who have no compassion for the conception of human life or it’s prenatal byproduct are really in a moral position to make that decision.

Neither should people who think a single cell that may, some day possibly be a baby, is more important than a living breathing human being.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 5, 2007 4:13 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
You asked for a quote where Bush was exaggerating or lying, I provided one, you can't handle the fact you are wrong, I get that.

Nope, that's not what I asked for at all. Try learning how to read before you respond. Sure, all politicians stretch the truth and bend the facts, but to the degree that Edwards did ,and the amount of shameless pandering he added...it's the worst I've ever seen by a legitimate national candidate. All you did was give a quote where Bush said the about the same thing that dozens of other politicians have said, both Dem and GOP, and many even before Bush was in office. Pretty lame attempt on your part.

And no, I didn't lie. Sorry. You keep repeating this nonsenses like a 5 yr old because that's all you have. But inside, you know I'm right.

I know the difference, Bush was lying, Edwards may very well have been wrong. But because you are the biggest partisan it has ever been my misfortune to meet you'll never admit it. As someone else said, you'd have no problem with Bush lying while clubbing baby seals, as long as it was Bush doing it.

Quote:
Also you let Bush off the hook because 'other people said it too'. Since other people besides John Edwards have said that ESC research will make people walk again it is merely your partisanship, dirty debating tactics, double standards and idiocy that allows you to apply lopsided standards.

No others have said what Edwards has said. None of used a topic and so completely pandered to those looking for hope and been given nothing but empty lies and false hopes. I can give you dozens of quotes which match what Bush said per Iraq. I challenge you to do the same per Edwards.

To sum up your petty reply, all you've done is claim I'm lying when you can't back up YOUR claims or when you can't offer up a logical rebuttle. Whether you know nothing of our political system or not is irrelevent. Edward's quote is the issue, and not one that I had to do any twisting what so ever. His quote alone is far better than I could ever craft if I wanted to make him look bad.

Until you prove that I'm wrong on an issue, I don't care how many trolls come along and take your side. Being right doesn't always mean standing with the sheep. I'm fine w/ that here, in fact, I'm proud of it.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 5, 2007 4:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
The best hope for medical advances which may yield benfitial to those suffering from similar type situations as your family member are adult stem cell research. All indications are that stem cells from the patient themselves will provide the best treatment/ cure.

That’s my understanding as well. Adult stem cells already seem to be achieving the high-hoped hypothetical promises of embryonic stem cells.

“June 24, 2004 -- An experimental surgery using stem cells from adult organs is showing promise in helping patients paralyzed with spinal cord injuries.

Two patients paralyzed in automobile accidents in 2001 say the experimental procedure has helped them gain use of muscles they were told by doctors would never function again. Both say they are now able to walk with the use of leg braces.”
http://www.webmd.com/content/article/89/100250.htm

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 5, 2007 5:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by PirateRaptor:
Nope, that's not what I asked for at all. Try learning how to read before you respond.

That's exactly what you asked for, a quote to back up what I had said, lying about that now won't help you. If I were Rumsfield I'd say "I know you know I know you know, so don't tell me I don't know you know you don't know, you know".

Try remembering what actually happened before replying. Also learn some basic spelling before taking 'issie'[[]sic[]] with other peoples literacy.

Least I actually read your posts rather than skim them for trolling material I mean.

Quote:
it's the worst I've ever seen by a legitimate national candidate.

Of course it is, he's a democrat and you are incapable of impartially evaluating anything, we've been over this already.

Suffice to say John Edwards quote bears no relation to Bush's, it is, after all, nowhere near as bad.

Quote:
Pretty lame attempt on your part.

Not really, but even if this was so it would be nowhere near as lame as your 'point' and debating skills, which are, and lets be fair to you, non-existent.

Quote:
And no, I didn't lie. Sorry.

Yeah ya did, you know you did, inside, just a shame you can't admit it.

Quote:
You keep repeating this nonsenses like a 5 yr old because that's all you have. But inside, you know I'm right.

Can't you come up with a come back of your own? Why do you keep using mine? Are you slow or something?

Inside I know you're far too fanatical and stupid to evaluate anything yourself or entertain the idea you may be wrong. Which is why you so often are.

Quote:
No others have said what Edwards has said. None of used a topic and so completely pandered to those looking for hope and been given nothing but empty lies and false hopes. I can give you dozens of quotes which match what Bush said per Iraq. I challenge you to do the same per Edwards.

Well if I were you I'd say something like:
You've never seen anything like what Bush said, "or you'd have offered it up as evidence."

But since I'm thankfully not you:
You challenge me to say I can come up dozens of quotes? Because that's easy, or do you challenge me to actually come up with them? I assume the latter because you have a proven track record of holding everyone else to higher standards than yourself, probably because you could never hope to live up to them.

I'll go one step better and give lists of articles:
Embryonic Stem Cell Research
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/stem-cell-research/
Ask a Geneticist
http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=163

There's lots there, just throw an inane personal insult my way if you want some more.

Quote:
To sum up your petty reply, all you've done is claim I'm lying when you can't back up YOUR claims or when you can't offer up a logical rebuttle.

I've shown quite conclusively you were lying, your childish inability to admit it is not my problem. I have also backed up my claims, you however have not backed up yours, nor even tried, preferring to make childish personal insults and national slights than a logical reasoned argument. Though that is pretty much your MO so I wasn't expecting much else.

At best your entire sentence is an exercise in gross hypocrisy, it's also a shame you can't come up with your own material, not that I expect you are capable.

Quote:
Whether you know nothing of our political system or not is irrelevent.

Except you bought it up, so you are just shouting at yourself, but whatever.

Quote:
Edward's quote is the issue, and not one that I had to do any twisting what so ever.

I think this was my line, once again, get your own material.

Quote:
His quote alone is far better than I could ever craft if I wanted to make him look bad.

Sums up my feelings whenever you post quite succinctly.

Quote:
Until you prove that I'm wrong on an issue, I don't care how many trolls come along and take your side.

Already done, as I keep saying because you are incapable of understanding this incredibly simple point, your inability to admit that you are wrong is your problem, not mine.

I merely said that the fact that you and the trolls are near always on the same side should tell you something, hardly surprising that it doesn't. I would think most posters here don't have your handicap though.

Quote:
Being right doesn't always mean standing with the sheep.

No it doesn't, it tends to mean disagreeing with you, since agreeing with you is usually a good barometer for when one is most probably wrong.

Quote:
I'm fine w/ that here, in fact, I'm proud of it.

I believe the point of trolling is being proud of it, feeling vindicated because of peoples disdain for your trollish ways, so this is hardly a surprising statement.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 5, 2007 8:49 AM

RAZZA

Citizen:

I hope you share equal contempt for these politicians who:

Quote:
Originally posted by Citizen:
...brought the US and other into war with Iraq, a war that has ended tens, hundreds of thousands of lives....

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | http://web.archive.org/web/20040204225854/www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/
speeches/spc_2003_0123.html

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | http://web.archive.org/web/20040206224935/johnkerry.com/pressroom/spee
ches/spc_2002_1009.html

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
http://www.cnn.com/US/9802/04/us.un.iraq/

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/18/iraq.political.analysis/

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9802/01/iraq/

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/iraq/iraq172.htm

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/17/wh.critics/

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
http://www.miami.com/mld/miami/4136328.htm

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/transcripts/gore_text092
302.html

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/transcripts/gore_text092
302.html

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 http://www.senate.gov/~rockefeller/news/2002/flrstmt0102002.html

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/DL12Ak02.html

-----------------
"There is not such a cradle of democracy upon the earth as the Free Public Library, this republic of letters, where neither rank, office, nor wealth receives the slightest consideration."
---Andrew Carnegie

"Doing research on the Web is like using a library assembled piecemeal by pack rats and vandalized nightly."
---Roger Ebert

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 5, 2007 9:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Razza:
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | http://web.archive.org/web/20040204225854/www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/
speeches/spc_2003_0123.html

Not exactly the same thing, he's not saying he has got weapons of mass destruction, but that he's trying to get them. Different sentiment.

Quote:
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | http://web.archive.org/web/20040206224935/johnkerry.com/pressroom/spee
ches/spc_2002_1009.html

Not so great, but I hardly think saying "I believe" is in the same league as "there is no doubt".

Quote:
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
http://www.cnn.com/US/9802/04/us.un.iraq/

Hows saying "we want to stop Saddam getting WMDs" the same as saying "Saddam definatly has WMD"?

Quote:
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/18/iraq.political.analysis/

Program rather than weapons themselves, not the same thing but possibly an exaggeration.

Quote:
"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9802/01/iraq/

Isn't she talking about the period prior to the first Gulf War where he did have and use chemical weapons?

Quote:
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/iraq/iraq172.htm

At best poorly worded, at worse a lie by implication.

Quote:
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/17/wh.critics/

Still programs than weapons themselves, but most likely an exaggeration.

Quote:
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
http://www.miami.com/mld/miami/4136328.htm

I can't defend that. If there was that level of evidence for that certainty we'd have found something by now.

Quote:
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/transcripts/gore_text092
302.html

Pure unmitigated Bullshit.

Quote:
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/transcripts/gore_text092
302.html

Says he wants weapons, not that he has them.

Quote:
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 http://www.senate.gov/~rockefeller/news/2002/flrstmt0102002.html

Started well, ended up crap.

Quote:
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

Perhaps he helped Al Qaeda because he was having a homosexual relationship with Osama Bin Laden. One lie after the next.

Quote:
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/DL12Ak02.html

The I think elevates this somewhat from the "no doubt" stance.

Some of these are on a Par with Bush's comments, some are worse the Edwards.

I'm still at a loss to see how comments that at best exaggerated the known threat from Iraq in order to bring people behind a war that killed thousands can be seen as fine while comments that at worse were an exaggeration that gave a bit of false hope can be seen as the worse thing uttered by a Human being without massive partisanship.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 5, 2007 11:45 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

Quote:
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/iraq/iraq172.htm
At best poorly worded, at worse a lie by implication.

Saddam did use WMD, in the form of chemical weapons, at least ten times starting in 1983. See the chart about a third of the way down this report.
https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm#05

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 5, 2007 11:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

Quote:
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/iraq/iraq172.htm
At best poorly worded, at worse a lie by implication.

Saddam did use WMD, in the form of chemical weapons, at least ten times starting in 1983. See the chart about a third of the way down this report.
https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm#05

"Keep the Shiny side up"

I was more thinking of the time it was made, yes he used chemical weapons from '83. I wasn't questioning that. The lie by implication is "he's used them in the past and he will use them again". I have no doubt he would, if he had them.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 5, 2007 11:52 AM

SEVENPERCENT

Razza,

Most (if not all) of those quotes have been thoroughly debunked as out of context.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 5, 2007 12:07 PM

SEVENPERCENT

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
That's bullshit, and you know it! You're intentionally twisting MY words and then saying I'm the one who twisted Edward's words! Unfuckingbelievable! I never claimed THEY said anyone would 'magically' walk, but Edwards DID promise that which he knew he could not offer. THEY were the ones who were pandering here, you fucking moron, NOT ME!!

Aaaaaaannnnnnddd with this snap I believe we've come full circle. Temper, temper. You're like a 5-year old who can't figure out why he lost an argument with his parents on whether or not to buy a puppy.

Edwards wanted to clear paths for that research. He wanted to see people cured. He gave an inspirational speech. You state (in this post, again) that he was being cynical and not idealistic. That he was pandering, not making a real promise. There's your twist. Because of that, I called you a partisan hack, and took you to the woodshed in every post.

If the reason you got your panties in a wad was because Citi thought I knew more than you, get over it. I never said I did, and don't care if I do or don't. On the other hand, your arguing skills?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 5, 2007 12:12 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Except you bought it up, so you are just shouting at yourself, but whatever.

Wrong again. It was you who brought up the irrelvency of the 'political process' here in the U.S. Try reading your OWN post before you try to lay blame on me or anyone else for your incompetence.

You're nothing more than a child, and it shows. Every time you disagree w/ me, you claim I'm 'lying', or some such nonsense. Could it be that Churchill was right when he said we are 2 peoples divided by a common language? A lie must mean something quite different over there than it does here in the states. I kinda doubt that's what he meant, though. You're just being a troll because you know I have far more honor and dignity than you, and to be accused of lying is pretty powerful stuff. And since you've never been able to back up any of your claims, it's clear that your intent is purely to troll here. But at least we're all in agreement on that.

You are quite literally everything you accuse me of being. The pathology of one such as yourself is a text book example of a petty, juvenile, insecure loner. I pity you.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 5, 2007 12:22 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:

Edwards wanted to clear paths for that research. He wanted to see people cured. He gave an inspirational speech. You state (in this post, again) that he was being cynical and not idealistic. That he was pandering, not making a real promise. There's your twist. Because of that, I called you a partisan hack, and took you to the woodshed in every post.

You took yourself to the woodshed, and lost miserably. No one with an above room temp IQ was conned by Edwards and his phony plea and pandering routine. It was horrific, and it was roundly called for what it was. Tacky, in poor taste and beyond the pale.

Quote:
If the reason you got your panties in a wad was because Citi thought I knew more than you, get over it. I never said I did, and don't care if I do or don't. On the other hand, your arguing skills?

The reason I got annoyed is that you twisted my words and then claim I'M the one who was twisting words. It's impossible for me to have a rational discussion w/ one like you who is so utterly irrational. ( citizen is just a wanna be, and his comments should be dismissed by the both of us )

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 5, 2007 12:34 PM

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 5, 2007 12:34 PM

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 5, 2007 12:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Wrong again. It was you who brought up the irrelvency of the 'political process' here in the U.S. Try reading your OWN post before you try to lay blame on me or anyone else for your incompetence.

The first time that someone questioned someone's understanding of US politics and how that meant they had no right to post was you, when you said this:

Quote:
The next time you want to venture into talking about US politics when you know nothing about it, do us a favor and DON'T.

A lie or are you just too stupid to remember what you posted just two days ago?

The 'irrelevancy' thing was my response to this. Try reading your OWN post lest you continue to prove your gross inadequacies, you sad pathetic little child.

Quote:
You're nothing more than a child, and it shows. Every time you disagree w/ me, you claim I'm 'lying', or some such nonsense.

Not every time at all, just every time you obviously lie. It's not at all childish or nonsense if it's true, and it is, I've proven another one of your lies above. I don't just say you lie and leave it at that, I prove it, and you fail consistently to disprove it.

Quote:
You're just being a troll because you know I have far more honor and dignity than you

You haven't got more honour or dignity than anyone, least of all me. You don't even know the meaning of honour, and you only have dignity in your own mind, because it's painfully obvious to all here how stupid and pathetic you really are.

Quote:
And since you've never been able to back up any of your claims, it's clear that your intent is purely to troll here. But at least we're all in agreement on that.

No, I've backed up all of mine, you've backed up none of yours. Low and behold when I challenge you to back up one of your claims you post nothing but a stream of moronic ad hominems.

I have no problem with saying that few if any agree that I am a troll, adversely few if any agree that you are not.

Quote:
You are quite literally everything you accuse me of being. The pathology of one such as yourself is a text book example of a petty, juvenile, insecure loner. I pity you.

My line, you're just too stupid to think up you're own material, as per usual.

Go back to your 'mature' ad hominems questioning peoples sexuality, and please don't talk about text books as if you ever have, or ever have been capable of, reading one.

Sad little moron who has to start flame wars in the RWED because he hasn't the courage to stand up for himself in the real world, you really are pathetic. I'd pity you, but you really don't deserve it.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 5, 2007 12:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
( citizen is just a wanna be, and his comments should be dismissed by the both of us )

Am I really? Well since reality is always a complete 180 from anything you say I guess I must be a real winner who both you and 7% should listen too. Such a shame you lack the intelligence to listen to anyone but the man you love, huh.

Funny you say this, because most people do actually ignore you because you're nothing but a foul mouthed moronic partisan fool who can't have a discussion for more than two posts before resorting to childish insults.

It's funny that everything you say is ussually more correct about yourself, that is all.

Frankly I don't want you as an enemy, though I rather suspect you do, you seem to think it validates you in some way, neither do I enjoy these little tête - à - tête. I find them quite boring and annoying actually, but neither will I take your abuse with good humour nor admit it's my fault you can't keep the ad Hominems to yourself. It's your call.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 6, 2007 3:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
That's why they started printing our bills all sort of fruity Monopoly money colors, instead of our tried and true Greenbacks.... They're priming us for the one world currency.
The old American money was toy money anyway, hardly a great change.

Why are you such a git?

I don't think I ever said anything about the US dollar not being toy money before. I'm well aware of the fact that we don't have a damn thing backing our currency other than a shakey promise and it's been that way for far longer than we've had orange $10.00 bills. I'm quite suprised that our economy hasn't collapsed yet and that we all aren't just working for room and board yet. This is no different than anywhere else. The FED owns all of our countries and their currencies. They constantly print more money, which is an equivilant of stock splitting and you not getting the split. The value of our currency is diminished every day and there isn't a damn thing any of us can do about it.

I simply brought up the colored currency issue because it is being used as a primer to take us from the old way America was and prepare us for our colorful one-world currency.

Believe it or not, America is not your problem man. Plenty of people over there in Monty Python Land aren't to happy with that ass-hat Blair and his RFID identification either. Bush was invisible when he signed the Real ID act over here 2 years ago and nobody noticed because there was a big "war" going on. Ah, the power of misdirection. Soon, all of our identifying characteristics and information, fingerprints, DNA samples, medical, credit, job and criminal historys will all be available in one little ID that we will be forced to have on our person at all times, or face being labeled a terrorist if we can't prove our identity.

This is much larger than our respective governments. One day we will all be speaking the same language and spending the same worthless currency and our every purchase will be tracked because eventually all paper and coin money will be discarded in favor of credit. We've already got VISA commercials over here trying to shame us out of using paper currency.

So keep being a hater man. Let the idiots in here that call Brits fags get under your skin. Personally, I wouldn't even respond to them, but you seem to really enjoy joining in and throwing crap right back at them. I guess if it makes you feel better you can blame big bad America for all of your problems. Everybody else does. It's a lot easier than say, coming up with any solutions. I bet the Queen's pride is just flowing through your veins when you post here.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 6, 2007 8:44 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I did some looking into 'why use embryonic stem cells'.

I don't want to reproduce all the results here - but what I did was Google on "heart stem cells" source, "brain stem cells" source, and "muscle stem cells" source.

The idea was that there are some tissues with cells that constantly reproduce and they should be a good source of stem cells for that kind of tissue - external skin; internal skin; liver; and 'bone marrow' (marrow for red blood cells, platelets, and the various types of white blood cells).

For the basics of adult stem cell v embryonic stem cells see: http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics5.asp

But there are other tissues that notoriously don't seem to regenerate much like kidney, pancreas, heart, muscle and brain; and those are the tissues that would be most helped by implanting stem cells. But since they don't reproduce much they would also be the type of tissue most deficient in stem cells. And if they were deficient in stem cells you might need a lot of tissue to isolate those cells. And that therefore might be counterproductive in that you might have to remove large portions of a person’s heart, brain or muscle to get the stem cells to repair that very organ.

Apparently the search to find these stem cells in non-embryonic tissue or find stem cell substitutes has been quite extensive but not all that fruitful. Recent finds have been heart stem cells in newborn atrial tissue (the top portion of the heart) which would be a time-limited source; and potential brain stem cells in hair follicles, which needs to be confirmed. (Good news for people with hair !)

However, these cells only go through a limited number of divisions so they would also only be available in low numbers. And whether these cells are immature enough to do specific things – make up the specific kind of dopamine cell to repair Parkinson’s disease for example – or if they are too far along to adapt – remains to be seen.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 7, 2007 12:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Why are you such a git?

I don't know, why can't you take a joke without getting your knickers in a twist and throwing out personal insults?

Quote:
The value of our currency is diminished every day and there isn't a damn thing any of us can do about it.

Yeah, it's called inflation. There's actually economic reasons for it, but I'm sure they're all engenieered by British-Commie-Nazi-Alien-Jews controlled through Mind Kontrollen by her Britannic Majesty the German Alien Jew Queen of England.

Quote:
I simply brought up the colored currency issue because it is being used as a primer to take us from the old way America was and prepare us for our colorful one-world currency.

Or maybe it's an attempt to make American money harder to forge, who knows.

Quote:
Believe it or not, America is not your problem man.

No I rather think America is Iraqs problem at the moment, but that's all by the by, I never have said America has caused all the problems of the universe since time began. Please don't confuse your conveniently created Strawmen with me.

Quote:
Plenty of people over there in Monty Python Land aren't to happy with that ass-hat Blair and his RFID identification either.

Where as you know I don't based on your complete lack of knowledge on me, right.

Quote:
We've already got VISA commercials over here trying to shame us out of using paper currency.

Credit card companies make no money out of people who don't use credit. Just throwing that out there.

Quote:
So keep being a hater man. Let the idiots in here that call Brits fags get under your skin. Personally, I wouldn't even respond to them, but you seem to really enjoy joining in and throwing crap right back at them.

Not really, I just find it very difficult to scroll past out and out lies. I'll take your advice on board though, I can ignore PirateNews perfectly well, but it did take his arguments and 'evidence' falling apart on several seperate occassions to get to that stage.

Quote:
I guess if it makes you feel better you can blame big bad America for all of your problems.

Is there a strawman standing behind me.

Quote:
It's a lot easier than say, coming up with any solutions.

So's blaming the Government and some shadowy uber-evil organisations, but then, you already know that

Quote:
I bet the Queen's pride is just flowing through your veins when you post here.

You're damn straight. Whenever I go an a mission to silence the truth, attempting to wipe out our great enemy PirateNews (who is just too clever for us to stop), I have a blood transfusion from her Britannic Majesty the German Alien Jew Queen of England, which helps her keep better control over me with her Mind Kontrollen.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 7, 2007 1:10 AM

You're just never wrong Citizen. You've got a response for everything. You remind me of me when I was 16.

Pretty funny though.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 7, 2007 1:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
You're just never wrong Citizen. You've got a response for everything.

Actually I am wrong plenty of times, and throw my hands up. I'm not the one throwing my toys out of the pram, maybe you should check yourself?

Quote:
You remind me of me when I was 16.

Really got any more personal insults for me dreamtrove.

Quote:
Pretty funny though.

Sometimes I prefer a bit of humour to just saying no, but I suspect you didn't actually mean that.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 7, 2007 1:17 AM

I'd respond, but I honestly didn't get the dreamtrove reference or throwing toys out of a pram. Not sure what a pram is. It's hard enough keeping up with American slang at 27. Wanna explain that to me like I'm 2 years old?

And yeah... I meant it. I think your posts are pretty funny. Even if I think you don't know what you're talking about sometimes, you still make it entertaining.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 7, 2007 1:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I'd respond, but I honestly didn't get the dreamtrove reference or throwing toys out of a pram. Not sure what a pram is. It's hard enough keeping up with American slang at 27. Wanna explain that to me like I'm 2 years old?

The Dreamtrove refrence was because the poster Dreamtrove used to say "you remind me when I was a stupid kid" whenever his argument fell apart.

A pram is something you push a baby around in, throwing toys out of it tends to happen when you can't get your own way.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 7, 2007 1:26 AM

Ahhhhh. We call that a stroller here. Man, those were the days. I don't remember but I'm sure I threw a ton of shit outta my pram.

Soon the kids won't be able to throw things out of their prams because the built in cameras will catch em and rat em out.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 7, 2007 1:39 AM

Surviellance of preschoolers isn't a great concern, better to put subliminal messages in Barney, get 'em on side while they're young.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 7, 2007 1:45 AM

The surviellence of preschoolers isn't as critical as providing a world where the preschooler knows and accepts that they're always being watched as they grow into adulthood and ask no questions when their own children's every move is being monitored.

I think the Teletubbies got Barney beat on the subliminal message thing. Probably some new shows I don't even know that push that envelope even further.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 7, 2007 2:15 AM

BABYWITHTHEPOWER

I'd prefer to see a Libertarian in office, or even an Independent, though I know that will never happen with the current state of leftist/rightist extremism we have in this country.

If I had to see a Dem in office though, I'd like to see Rudy Giuliani, and all of those others can, in my opinion, go to Hell. My biggest fear with a Dem in the hot seat now that they own the House and Senate, is having anti-gun lobyists in every position of power. We'll have another assault-weapon ban on our hands like we did with Clinton 1.0 and they will push it handguns if they can.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'll be in my bunk.
XO of the 76th Battalion http://76thbattalion.homestead.com/index.html
http://www.myspace.com/babywiththepower

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 7, 2007 3:27 AM

JONGSSTRAW

Quote:
Originally posted by babywiththepower:

If I had to see a Dem in office though, I'd like to see Rudy Giuliani

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I believe Guliani is a Republican, although true conservative Republicans would call him a RINO. I too think he would make a great President.

It may well come down to Guiliani versus Hillary...what a bloody campaign that will be.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 7, 2007 3:41 AM

America loves a winner!

As usual, you're wrong again.

Quote:
The first time that someone questioned someone's understanding of US politics and how that meant they had no right to post was you, when you said this: The next time you want to venture into talking about US politics when you know nothing about it, do us a favor and DON'T.

There's a difference in understanding US politics ( issues and candidates ) and understanding the political PROCESS ( primary / general elections ) . You admitted yourself you didn't know Edwards, and yet you keep on his jihad of yours simply because of your hatred for me. Screw the facts, you won't relent on your tirade vs me, no matter what. If I'm for something, you must be against it, huh? You are even more simple that I thought. Which is why I shouldn't waste my time with responding to your idiocy.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 7, 2007 5:31 AM

BABYWITHTHEPOWER

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
It may well come down to Guiliani versus Hillary...what a bloody campaign that will be.

If it came down to a race between Hillary and anyone, I see anyone winning. Not because people disagree with her politics per se (there are those that do, I'm one of them) but because this nation is not ready for a woman President. Not saying it's right, just calling it like I see it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'll be in my bunk.
XO of the 76th Battalion http://76thbattalion.homestead.com/index.html
http://www.myspace.com/babywiththepower

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 7, 2007 8:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
There's a difference in understanding US politics ( issues and candidates ) and understanding the political PROCESS ( primary / general elections ) . You admitted yourself you didn't know Edwards, and yet you keep on his jihad of yours simply because of your hatred for me. Screw the facts, you won't relent on your tirade vs me, no matter what. If I'm for something, you must be against it, huh? You are even more simple that I thought. Which is why I shouldn't waste my time with responding to your idiocy.

*yawn* Your words speak for themselves, you can't spin your way out of it. You brought up knowledge of US politics as a factor, then denied doing so, saying it was me.

Either this is a lie or you can't remember what you said two days ago. I used exactly the same words in response to you, there is absolutely no way you could have thought I was talking about something else. You're fairly transparent and pathetic attempt at spin has fooled only yourself.

And actually it's far from my triad, 7% has said the same things, so wrong, as usual. Also I think you'll find that it is you who started getting personal, because you're too stupid to accept that people don't have to think what you tell them too. Which is why I responded, actually. You gave a quote, which I read, and then started off on a rant about how it was saying things it very obviously wasn't, because you had evaluated the sentence based on who was saying it, not what was being said. There's no need to know Edwards to see what you did with the quote, the fact you think there is just proves eloquently what I've been saying. You then threw a temper tantrum, because no one could ever argue against you because they think you are wrong, could they.

I get it already, I got it a long time ago, in your mind you are actually incapable of being wrong, so everyone must, deep down, recognise that you are right and only ever disagree for some nefarious purpose. I have little time for your ignorance, idiocy and unconscionable arrogance.

Perhaps not replying to me would help you out, after all every time you do you end up looking like a tit.

As I said, it's your choice, and you've made it.

Quote:
You are even more simple that I thought.

Would 'that' be the definition of irony?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 7, 2007 8:59 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Perhaps not replying to me would help you out, after all every time you do you end up looking like a tit.

You'd like for me to not reply , because every time I do, I annihilate you and your warped logic. Fact is, you have to spin and lie in order to deflect attention away from the issues, all while you add in an ample supply of petty ad hominems, just to make yourself feel better.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 7, 2007 9:23 AM

JONGSSTRAW

Baby.....Hillary will be a formidable candidate for sure. She has an incredible national organization, huge war chest with abilitly to raise whatever money she needs, and the ex-Clintonista team of Carville, Begalia, etc etc.

As far as America being ready or not being ready for a lady President I believe we are, but it may be a moot point. There are more potential female voters than males, and the sheer numbers she could possibly turn out might whip any man.

Also..America has matured "a bit" in 230 years in terms of sexism as evidenced by :
Pelosi...first lady Speaker of the House
Albright..first lady Secretary of State
Reno ....first lady Attorney General
Ferraro...first lady Vice-Presidentai candidate
Rice...first lady National Security Advisor...

and more and more we see females rising to the top CEO positions of Fortune 500 companies in the business world.

I would vote for a woman for President if I felt she could do the job, and had a track record of consistency of voting positions.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 7, 2007 10:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
You'd like for me to not reply , because every time I do, I annihilate you and your warped logic. Fact is, you have to spin and lie in order to deflect attention away from the issues, all while you add in an ample supply of petty ad hominems, just to make yourself feel better.

Well since that fits your mo far better than mine I'm perfectly happy to merely laugh at your desperate straw grabbing. You're just boring me now AURaptor, I have no time for your idiotic inabillity to accept reality.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 7, 2007 3:17 PM