Home News Reviews Forums Shop


NEWS ALERT: President Reagan Has Died

General discussion. Come introduce yourself. Talk about whataver you want!

Postby XXXXX on Thu Jun 10, 2004 11:46 pm

aviationwiz wrote:I'm tired, so I'll respond to a few points, and go to bed.


XXXXX wrote:
leg4li2ed0pe wrote:I don't care what most people think. That has no connection with the truth. Most people voted for ronald reagan. They were wrong.


Most would say that you were wrong. That is the beauty of our system. Your view is swept aside by the majority.


The true beauty of our system is that the minority has a chance to stand up for itself, the majority is not always correct, although a lot of people often consider majority and correct to be the same.


The fact of the matter is that there is "No Truth" and "No Absolute Right." There are rather a diversity of opinions, and in a democracy, the majority chooses. Of course, there are exceptions such as the electoral college which obviously was devised to pick the better man in a close election where the popular majority may have been wrong, such as in 2000 ! LOL!

XXXXX wrote:I guarantee that most Americans don't even read their local paper every day. They may catch the evening news, and not question the liberal bias of CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN which is desparately trying to elect Kerry.


I'm sure they don't either, but you seem to mention every news station except FOX as "liberal bias" do you not admit that FOX is "conservative bias"? Of the stations listed, I'd have to say that CNN is the least biased, and you'll see more of what I mean in thier crossfire program. CNN does a very good job of presenting the news as it is, I have yet to see another station or company do that.


I will admit that Fox news is biased towards conservativism....HOWEVER, similar to affirmative action's intention to restore the long standing abuses towards blacks, the same is true in television and newspapers. We have a lot to make up for...and the ratings are showing that Americans are thirsting for the balance that Fox News provides.

So you are in favor of negative ads from one canidate but not the other?


XXXXX wrote:I didn't say that. I said that the network media is 70-80% liberal by their own admission, and do not give a fair play to either Bush or the Republicans in general. The Repubicans are painted as only favoring the rich, and raising enormous amounts of campaign funds. But nothing is said by the liberal media about George Soros giving tens of millions in an attempt to buy the election. Nothing is said about the enormous amount of union/labor contributions to the democrats in untracked categories of campaign contributions.


That sure is what it sounded like what you stated earlier, as legalizedopehead pointed out earlier. Go on and watch CNN or MSNBC some nights, they absolutely praise the Bush Tax Cuts on how it helps all Americans, and they praise the Bush Administration at times, at other times, they will speak out against the Bush administration. As per "buying an election" I'm sorry, but the Republicans, and particularly Bush have become the kings at that over time. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that it doesn't or didn't happen in my own party, but just look at one company, Enron, we all know the story, in 2000 alone, they gave $2.5 mil. to political campaigns, of which 71% went to Republicans, and the remaining 29% went to Democrats.

Those stats are from OpenSecrets


I agree there are some stories that are fair, or even pro-republican on CNN, and less often on CBS/NBC/ABC, but I am talking about overall statistics and trends. The surveys if you read my link show quite clearly that there is a lopsided majority of liberals running all of the media except Fox. Every one of the major network anchors is a self-avowed democratic. Even Tim Russert, who I think does the best job on the networks is a self-described democrat who worked in various political offices, and was raised by his father "Big Russ" who was also a devout Democrat.

If you are naive enough to think their personal beliefs do not affect their news content, then you are pathetically naive.

XXXXX wrote:The most effective response for the money is to do the type of negative ads, which also are ringing true because Kerry is the most liberal US Senator, trying to flip-flop his way back to the middle. Everyone knows he is doing that, and the ad's just crystalize it. It is him doing that type of false positioning which will lead to his defeat.


So basically, as legalizedopehead said it before, it seems you think it's OK for Bush to put out negative ad's, but not Kerry.

Why not let both have their negative ads and let people decide which they think are true. but to say that bush should be able to have negative ads and kerry shouldn't because you think bush's are more true is absurd.


XXXXX wrote:There is nothing stopping the democrats from running however many negative or positive type of ads as they see fit. The problem they have is that Bush does not flip flop, and on many important issues, Kerry and Bush are not far apart, so they have not yet been able to find an effective negative ad.


Bush doesn't flip flop? OK:

A. BUSH PROMISES TO FORCE OPEC TO LOWER PRICES
B. ...BUSH REFUSES TO LOBBY OPEC LEADERS

A. BUSH PLEDGES TO ISSUE REGULATIONS BASED ON SCIENCE
B. ...BUSH ADMINISTRATION REGULATIONS IGNORE SCIENCE

A. BUSH OPPOSES THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
B. ...BUSH SUPPORTS THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

A. BUSH SAYS WE FOUND THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION...
B. ...BUSH SAYS WE HAVEN'T FOUND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION

A. BUSH WANTS OSAMA DEAD OR ALIVE...
B. ...BUSH DOESN'T CARE ABOUT OSAMA

And the list goes on, and on, and on, American Progress


I wish I could stop repeating myself, and have you respond to what I actually say. I said quite clearly that I could care less if the democrats do negative ads. They have tried, but they have not been effective, whereas Kerry's flip-flopping has stung him badly because he has demonstrated it personally, and repeatedly. The main flip-flop is that he is the most liberal US Senator, but now is pretending to be a moderate. This is pissing off the liberal faction of the democrats, and the rest see that he is phony. That's why he is not going to win.

I justified Bush doing powerful negative advertising because the onslaught of the media in TV and Newspaper, and periodicals is dramatically run by self-avowed liberals. So the only choice Bush has is to buy his media coverage in the form of ads. Unfortunately, negative ads give the most effective bang for the buck.

Like it or not, Bush's ads have already defined Kerry to the American People. You gotta give the Republican Ad agencies credit for that.

I never said that Bush has not flip-flopped. I said that Kerry has. Also, the flip-flops you mention are not all even accurate. He is and has been talking to OPEC to lower oil, which they are doing. I have no idea what the issues on science is about.

I'll concede his flip-flop on Homeland Security, but that was a very complex decision needing to coordinate many departments. It is the single largest change in the federal beauracracy that has ever happened. I'm glad he was cautious, and later changed to embrace it.

The WMD listing is not correct. He said that world intelligence sources told everyone that Iraq had WMD's, and we have not yet found them where we were told they should have been. That does not rule out that they may be hidden, moved to Syria, or other possibilities.

I'll concede that he said that we will find Osama, and we have not...and that he stopped saying that. The odds are still in our favor that we will find him eventually.

XXXXX wrote:never mind who Kerry is married to, and the fact that Kerry has 5 mansions, a private jet, and a fleet of SUV and other vehicles that are not representative of what he preaches.


The current holdings of Teresa Heinz Kerry in Heinz company is a mere 4% of company stock, Heinz Statement

Also, the jet which he is using for the campaign now is a chartered plane, more can be read on a thread here at our very own CDRLabs:
http://www.cdrlabs.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=16466

It also goes into financials a bit down, and the fact that he is spending $7,000 per hour less than he previously was.

Alright, I'm off to bed soon.


You must have been getting tired. I'm talking about Kerry preaching conservation, and protecting the environment, and being a champion of the poor.....all the while, driving his fleet of SUV gas guzzelers, flying in his private Gulf Stream jet, heating and air conditioning 5 mansions around the country. I am not talking about his campaign jet.

I am talking about the hypocrisy of his personal lifestyle. He says one thing about owning SUV's in Detroit, and denies them at an environmental meeting. While the issue is petty, his repeated flip-flopping on such inane issues is indicative of his weak character. That is why he will lose..
Kerry is the most liberal US Senator in Washington, who has more of a sourpuss disposition than Lieberman.

He sucks the way he flips and then flops...which is why he will be defeated!

Where do they get these guys?
User avatar
XXXXX
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 11:03 am

Postby XXXXX on Thu Jun 10, 2004 11:59 pm

aviationwiz wrote:
leg4li2ed0pe wrote:enough about florida. Its over.


XXXXX wrote:See, I told you. They cannot let it go.


It appears you are the one that isn't letting FL go...

XXXXX wrote:They keep dwelling on the past, and complain and bitch about the current president who will be re-elected. Then they will rant and rave and scream even more....but they still won't have what they want.


George W. Bush is our president, OK, we all know that, no one's going to argue that, no one can change that, look, I strongly disagree with the guy on most, if not all issues, but he is the president.


OK, congratulations. You are showing progress.

XXXXX wrote:Now, Mr. Aviation (btw, as a sincere side note....what do you fly?), you now have gone to the extreme of looking up my various adjectives, and buying a DVD to show you how you must be right....but you have not provided one shred of proof to back up your allegation that the election was illegal, nor is there any court decisions to support your fantasy, except the U.S. Supreme Court which put the election in the hands of the rightful winner.


I don't fly anything, but I would be very interested in being a pilot as my career later on, I closely follow civil aviation. I didn't buy a DVD to proove I was right, I happened to have recently rented the movie last week.

XXXXX wrote:I assume if you have gone to the trouble of buying a DVD to backup your Kooky conspiracy theories, that you must have some sort of evidence on this DVD? I am sure it is non-Partisan. Let me guess, Michael Moore filmed and produced it. Where are the Links? Where's your Proof? Show me the Money! Keep living in the Florida Orange groves. That will get your man elected! LMAO!


The DVD is titled "Unprecedented" and you can find it on Amazon by the ASIN, B000096I8G. I rented it from netflix myself. It is filmed by Joan Sekler, and Richard Ray Perez.

As I said, I'm not living the Florida Orange Groves, you are the one who can't seem to put Florida down.

XXXXX wrote:Or do you just prefer doing what Democrats love to do.....sit back and Bush Bash, snipe, complain, whine, feel sorry for yourself, and hope that one day your political views will once again be supported by a majority of the people?


:lol: =D> Bush Bash, funny, as President Bush has become the king of bashing, and negative ads. Not sure where your coming on the feeling sorry for yourself shit, as I sure as hell do not. Also, as an American citizen, I have every damned right to complain about my government, no matter who is in charge.


So let me get this straight, you just stumbled onto the Netflix website and accidentally typed out "Unprecedented" in the search window, and let's see....what did you say again....."I happened to have recently rented the movie last week".....LMAO....at least have the balls to admit your need to fuel your obsession. Suffice it to say that I am not going to look up or rent said DVD.

No, again I have to repeat myself for your benefit. I said that Bush HIMSELF does not do the PERSONAL BASHING. Yes, his ads do it, but in contrast to Kerry who does the bashing himself with his own words, Bush stays above the fray in the eyes of most Americans by not uttering the words as personal attacks himself. I know it is a fine point, but it is working in Bush's favor, and the Democrats do not understand this concept.

Again, I feel sorry for them because they do not realize that their direct and mean-spirited attacks are sinking their own ship. Americans hate hearing the Democratic leaders saying that Bush planned 9/11 from his Texas Ranch (Kennedy). Americans hate hearing Pelosi call the President of the U.S. incompetent, and "The emperor has no clothes."

There are many more examples of these type of attacks, and they backfire. They have a different tone and viciousness when contrasted with Bush's ads. Americans will not tolerate this type of bitterness. That is why Kerry will lose.
Kerry is the most liberal US Senator in Washington, who has more of a sourpuss disposition than Lieberman.

He sucks the way he flips and then flops...which is why he will be defeated!

Where do they get these guys?
User avatar
XXXXX
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 11:03 am

Postby aviationwiz on Fri Jun 11, 2004 12:25 am

XXXXX wrote:The fact of the matter is that there is "No Truth" and "No Absolute Right." There are rather a diversity of opinions, and in a democracy, the majority chooses. Of course, there are exceptions such as the electoral college which obviously was devised to pick the better man in a close election where the popular majority may have been wrong, such as in 2000 ! LOL!


I wouldn't say that, I'd say the electoral college was designed so that instead of having the candidates always campaigning in New York, and Los Angeles, they have to pay attention to smaller states, like Iowa, Minnesota, Colorado, Oklahoma, New Mexico, etc.

XXXXX wrote:I agree there are some stories that are fair, or even pro-republican on CNN, and less often on CBS/NBC/ABC, but I am talking about overall statistics and trends. The surveys if you read my link show quite clearly that there is a lopsided majority of liberals running all of the media except Fox. Every one of the major network anchors is a self-avowed democratic. Even Tim Russert, who I think does the best job on the networks is a self-described democrat who worked in various political offices, and was raised by his father "Big Russ" who was also a devout Democrat.

If you are naive enough to think their personal beliefs do not affect their news content, then you are pathetically naive.


I would say the CNN is well balanced between the two parties, the way they work, and analyze all the news the 2 different ways. CBS/NBC/ABC are more leaning towards the liberal side, but no where near as much as FOX is conservative. In fact, to be honest, I don't watch CBS, NBC, or ABC, well, of course I watch them for the local news with the local anchors and such, and they say many things that are more pro-republican, but that all depends on what area you are in, the national anchors tend to lean for liberal. It also goes without saying that I don't watch FOX, ever, :lol: I think you also figured out by now that I watch CNN the most.

Of course thier own beliefs does affect the way they report things to an extent, but many anchors out there are good at hiding thier beliefs for the interest of getting the news out there, not thier opinions.

XXXXX wrote:I justified Bush doing powerful negative advertising because the onslaught of the media in TV and Newspaper, and periodicals is dramatically run by self-avowed liberals. So the only choice Bush has is to buy his media coverage in the form of ads. Unfortunately, negative ads give the most effective bang for the buck.


To me, nothing justifies the campaigning that the President is doing, *NOTHING*. I respect Rep. Mark Kennedy from Minnesota's 6th (GOP) because of the way I noticed he ran his latest campaign in 2002. Instead of throwing out negative ads like his opponent (some DFL idiot) he simply stated what he was going to do if he was elected to Congress, well, guess what, he was elected, and by a large majority, he got 57% of the vote, the DFL idiot he was running against got 35% of the vote. That is an honorable way to run a campaign, by not putting out negative, and often misleading attack ads.

Also, you say that the ratings for FOX News, the most conservative news source in the country are very high, because people want a taste of what the conservatives have to say because of what you call a liberal media onslaught, or something similar. That is airtime right there, and a whole lot of it if I understand the ratings on FOX are high, as I believe they are.

XXXXX wrote:Like it or not, Bush's ads have already defined Kerry to the American People. You gotta give the Republican Ad agencies credit for that.


I would agree with that 100%. Just re-phrase it a little, Bush's ads have already *TRIED* to define kerry to the American People. There are many many like me who find that these negative attack ads are very dishonorable, and yes, putting out negative attack ads can, and will loose you votes.

XXXXX wrote:I never said that Bush has not flip-flopped. I said that Kerry has.


Yes you did. Here's the quote: "The problem they have is that Bush does not flip flop."


XXXXX wrote:I'll concede that he said that we will find Osama, and we have not...and that he stopped saying that. The odds are still in our favor that we will find him eventually.


I really don't know why he said we would find Usama, he never was a very valuable target, I never really cared if we caught him or not, and it appears that the President shares me view that Usama just isn't a high value target. As for us finding him, yes, I'm sure we will, either confirmed dead or captured, you know, right around the End of October, :lol: I don't want to get into an arguement over that, just a joke I thought I'd throw out.
User avatar
aviationwiz
Plextor Fan(atic)
 
Posts: 4069
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2002 2:55 am
Location: Home of the Red Tail

Postby XXXXX on Fri Jun 11, 2004 12:37 am

leg4li2ed0pe wrote:
That is the beauty of our system. Your view is swept aside by the majority.


Alexis de Tocqueville would disagree with you. He wrote extensivly on how the "tyranny of the majority" could become a huge problem in a democracy. He would say that is not beauty in our system but flaw.


I understand, and respect his intellect and right to express what he believes in. It is still just his opinion...and decisions have to be made that benefit the most people....hence the majority rules, and hopefully respects the minority.

Nor are you the Pope to be able to determine if he was wrong. He was a leader of the people, and was doing what they wanted him to do...based upon those approval ratings. That is his job...to represent the will of the people. It is not his job to find out what some dude promoting legalizing drugs thinks is right, and then do it.


George Bush's obligation is to do what is right, not what most people think is right. When it comes time for him to be re-elected, if most people argee that what he did was right, he gets re-elected. Thats how a representitive democracy works. That's why presidents shouldn't base policy on polls. Now I am saying in my opinion he was wrong. As Henry David Thorough would say each person has a responsiblily to push for what they personally see as right. When we get to much into worrying about the polls and the majority we get into a mob psycology and make bad decisions.


And my opinion, and majority of those re-electing Bush are saying that what he is doing is right. I have no problem with you saying that you think he is wrong. I am very clear that unlike our last President, Bush does not in fact govern by polls. He has risked his entire presidency on his decisions to invade Afganistan, and Iraq. That is called leadership. Gorbachev exhibited the same leadership when he presided over the disolution of the Soviet Union, and sacrificed his career in the process. I admire that about Bush like I did with Gorbachev and Reagan.

This new pre-emptive doctrine is something that I totally agree with, given that these Islamic terrorists have stated clearly that they are dedicated to the destruction of the West, and have performed repeated attacks before and after 9/11. Think of how to deal with the Klingons...and you'll begin to see the error of your ways of pacificsm.


Well let me start off by saying i've never seen an episode of star trek in my life, so I know nothing about klingons. I think you oversimplify the intentions of the terrorists. The terrorists are didicated to destroying the west only while the west is trying to force themselves on the world in which the terrorists live. They want US bases out of saudi arabia. They want the us to stop covertly supporting oppresive dictators. They want the us to stop supporting israel at the expense of palistinian civilians. What we must do to significantly decrease terrorism is to do these things. Get out of saudi arabia. Stop supporting the saudi royal family. Get out of iraq. get out of afghanistan as soon as possible. Tell israel that they won't be getting any more weapons from us if they don't pull out fully from the west bank and gaza strip. These steps would help a great degree more than any military action we could take. On north korea our relations with them were getting better before bush came in and decided to call them part of the axis of evil. This scared them into starting up their nuclear program (which, interestingly enough was technically legal under our 1994 agreement with them as it used a different procedure than before).


First, you need to get out more, and at the very least watch enough episodes of Star Trek to understand the noble warrior nature of the Klingons, since it is inculcated in the fabric of this great country. They seem to combine the honor of the Japanese Samarai with the viciousness of the Vikings.

I agree with many of the specific issues that fuel many of the terrorists, however you must understand that it is not likely or practical to think that the US will remove strategic military bases at the invitation of the Saudis, or forcing Israel to retreat adequately, etc. etc. These events will not happen for many reasons, some of them very good reasons....but each of those issues is very complex.

Beyond the entire list of terrorism fueled issues, you are ignoring the fact that they are dedicated to the destruction of the western way of life. They consider capitalism, Christianity, Judaism, sexual expression, technical advances, women's rights, and most of the tenets of western societies to be an affront to Islam. If you actually read their teachings, they never say that they will stop terrorism if certain demands are met. You must face the fact that we will not be leaving Afganistan or Iraq, or Kuwait, or Saudi Arabia, etc. etc. any time soon.

In part, it is because we are still dependent on their oil, because Americans are selfish f*cking pigs, driving their fleet of SUV's, flying their private Gulfstream jets, heating their five mansions, our swimming pools, and all the other obnoxious stuff we all do....and all while the environmental zealots block Alaskan and additonal US oil exploration. You figure out how else we are going get out of the middle east.

the network media is 70-80% liberal by their own admission


Both those links you gave me point to the same article. It is an article from the weekly standard, which by the way by its own admission has a conservative bias ironically enough. CBS news just reprinted it. So no it does not surprise me that a source like that would say those things.


Don't be so damn lazy. Go to google and search for the issue. It is well documented, and easy to find and prove.

As far as Iraq, if you watch Fox News, which all of the military will now only watch while in Iraq, you see every day both good and bad news. You see the happy children, the schools, the women involved, the improvement of their economy and infrastructure, the positive developments in the government over the last few weeks, the surrender of the militias, the unanimous approval of the UN resolution, the dedication of our soldiers, etc. etc. etc. etc.


This quote is somewhat telling. You will note that you said fox news shows both the good and the bad, "fair and balanced" you might say, but then you only list good things. This is very similar to fox news it self.


That is all I listed because those balanced sides of the issues do not get into the other news organizations. Without question, the negative side of the daily news is also presented on Fox. You need to watch it for a few days to see for yourself, rather than assuming Fox is only conservative.

The fact that Fox News' ratings have now eclipsed CNN and MSNBC combined should tell you something about what they are providing. Don't be so close minded.

No, you are grossly mis-informed. He is an ultra liberal, that even his own democratic party realized was too far left to get elected. His voting and VT governor record are clearly indicative of this fact. You need to read more facts before you make claims.


I'd like to see this voting record you speak of. Howard dean has no voting record that I know of. He never held an office in which he voted. I will say this however. Howard Dean was known in his state for being a moderate. He was so moderate in fact that there was a thriving progressive party their and as we talked about earlier, this is a sign of liberals not being happy with a moderate.


I'm not going to spoon feed you every link, when you can easily find out the verification of these issues with Google. I did post the links about Kerry being the most liberal US Senator either in this thread or the one about Kerry getting a new plane.

I also know that Dean is a liberal, so much so, that the Democratic leaders wanted to dump him, knowing that he could not get elected. Where they failed was in not picking Edwards as a southern moderate, or Lieberman...but he also looks as sourpuss as a ripe lemon.

All you have to do is use google to find the studies of Kerry's voting record to see that he is clearly more liberal than Kennedy. It is something the democrats are trying to keep hidden, but the republican attack ads, and shows like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Fox News stories are exposing him.


I do think liberals sould stop hiding and stand up for what they really believe. Whether kerry was ever that liberal is another question as he voted for the war, etc, but i'll even give you that he is and i would have no problem with it if he would stand up and say what he really believes. However, I don't think a serious person should be getting their news from Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity or any of those kinds of people just as I don't thing anyone should get their news from air america. Those stations and people are for people who want to confirm what they already believe, not be open to new information, just like you said about aviationwiz.


There is no question about Kerry being a liberal...why you have a problem finding this is a mystery to me. His problem now is not standing tall as a liberal, and it is why he will lose the election.

I don't depend on Limbaugh, or Hannity...and am intelligent enough to hear their spin. I read 5 newspapers every day, and use many other sources of information on both sides of an issue. I also take the time to read source material such as the Declaration, US Constitution, Kyoto Accords, UN 1441, and many other relevant actual documents, including most of the Patriot Act, which I know no one else on this forum does.

That is why they are losing these arguments.

real liberals like Kerry or Dean


Again, as a liberal these people do not really represent my views, and im definatly an extreme liberal. The people that are the real liberals are denis kucinich, or howard zinn, or noam chomsky, or even Ralph Nader, if he didn't have such a big god damn ego.


I agree there is a scale of true liberal idealism.

as Ram Das once said.


ok you quoted Ram Das, your definatly not the extremist I thought you were. You have your own mind. The mushrooms go to proving that too. That and of course your openness to debate.


I am the yin which you need to be the yang.

Namaste.
Kerry is the most liberal US Senator in Washington, who has more of a sourpuss disposition than Lieberman.

He sucks the way he flips and then flops...which is why he will be defeated!

Where do they get these guys?
User avatar
XXXXX
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 11:03 am

Postby XXXXX on Fri Jun 11, 2004 12:43 am

leg4li2ed0pe wrote:
Now you need to move towards building a foundation for some of the things you say. For example, why should someone support the legalization of drugs....Pot is not that controversial anymore....I mean the good ones like Shrooms! OMG...I loved those f*ckers when I was in college....been a long time.


Pot is so obvious I won't go much into it. Basically its reletivly harmless, at least alot less harmful than alcohol, and its stupid to have it be illegal. The bigger issue is the legalization of all of the major drugs. American drug policy has failed. The drug war is a never ending war. When you make something illegal you drive it underground and you can't tax it or regulate it. And an industry like the drug industry is certainly one that requires some regulation, but when there is prohibition its completly deregulated. People that are addicted to smack need treatment not to be locked up for years in prisons overcrowded by drug offenders. This applies to all the harder drugs. People addicted to these should be allowed to go to their doctor and say, "im addicted" and then be given their supply and an environment in which they can try to recover. This was tried a little during the carter administration but was then undone. As for lighter drugs like shrooms, LSD, Payote, etc. These should be completly legalized without restriction. Anybody should be able to walk into a gas station and buy a sheet of blotter acid, or go to a cart on the street (like in the UK) and buy a bag of shrooms. The world would be much happier.


I'm not strongly opposed to some drug legalization...but knowing the distortion of shrooms, I could not support hallucinagenic drug legalization....it is too risky to public safety. I'm also concerned about the sedative effect and other health risks of many drugs such as PCP, opiates, ecstasy, ketamine, etc.

For most drugs beyond Pot, I would rather watch the Amsterdam experiment for a generation to see how it turns out. There is no way to watch Canada in a similar experiment, because they were already so f*cked up before drugs were introduced, it would be meaningless. :D
Kerry is the most liberal US Senator in Washington, who has more of a sourpuss disposition than Lieberman.

He sucks the way he flips and then flops...which is why he will be defeated!

Where do they get these guys?
User avatar
XXXXX
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 11:03 am

Postby aviationwiz on Fri Jun 11, 2004 12:53 am

XXXXX wrote:So let me get this straight, you just stumbled onto the Netflix website and accidentally typed out "Unprecedented" in the search window, and let's see....what did you say again....."I happened to have recently rented the movie last week".....LMAO....at least have the balls to admit your need to fuel your obsession. Suffice it to say that I am not going to look up or rent said DVD.


I was looking at DVD's recomended to me on Amazon, and I then threw the title into my Netflix queue. I have a number of political documentaries ranging from D-Day to various Presidents to Israel on my queue also.

XXXXX wrote:Americans hate hearing the Democratic leaders saying that Bush planned 9/11 from his Texas Ranch (Kennedy). Americans hate hearing Pelosi call the President of the U.S. incompetent, and "The emperor has no clothes."


First off, Kennedy never said that "Bush planned 9/11 from his Texas Ranch" As for "Americans hate hearing" "Americans hate hearing" your basically saying that they hate hearing bad news.


XXXXX wrote:There are many more examples of these type of attacks, and they backfire. They have a different tone and viciousness when contrasted with Bush's ads. Americans will not tolerate this type of bitterness. That is why Kerry will lose.


To take the title I gave to this thread,

NEWS ALERT: It is Bush with 75% of his ads are negative attack ads. The 25% attack ads that Kerry puts out are not nearly as bad as the Bush attack ads. Bush is saying that Kerry is wrong on defense and wrong on tax's they are also saying that Kerry will be bad for Homeland Security.

On the other hand, Kerry is pointing out where Bush has lost accountability when he made campaign promises in 2000, and saying what he has done during the past 3 years, negatively though. Those never should have been made, and they aren't good, but when compared to the Bush attacks, in both strength and volume, the Bush one's outweigh the Kerry ones by which are worse. Of the negative Kerry ad's I spotted on his site, I only recall a mere 3 or 4 of those being broadcast on TV, the rest were just Online ads, which are bad, as I said, they never should have been made.
User avatar
aviationwiz
Plextor Fan(atic)
 
Posts: 4069
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2002 2:55 am
Location: Home of the Red Tail

Postby XXXXX on Fri Jun 11, 2004 1:00 am

dodecahedron wrote:i have been reading this topic with much interest.

but i feel compelled to respond on a couple of remarks.

XXXXX wrote:We also need to make sure the Palestineans are taken care of, and stop putting up with the one sided, selfish Israelis.

whould you care to explain that?
"selfish" Israelis ?


LOL....a little anti-semitic antennae sprung up huh? I'm not anti-semetic...as a Christian, I was shocked at how anti-semitic "The Passion" was. LOL!

Anyway, what I meant is that Israel primarily only thinks of itself. They do not contribute significantly to the world as a whole, because the rest of us lowly Goya are not the Chosen People. LOL!

The Jews were very smart at intertwining themselves and their interests throughout American society, so that now we have no way to be fair to both sides in the Israel and Palestine crisis. However, compared to the oil which our country requires, there is no tangible benefit for the hundreds of billions that the USA has poured into Israel, other than knowing that we are supporting a nation of Jewish people who had been previously abused under Hitler.

When was the last time you saw prominent Jewish Hollywood do a Holocaust movie about the 20 million murdered Russians, or about the Pol Pot Cambodians, or Idi Amin's Uganda atrocities? They don't bother because it doesn't directly benefit their own people. Personally, given the enormous Hollywood talent, I think that sucks. We don't need another annual Jewish Holocaust movie, while all the other horrors are ignored.

The state of Israel was created very recently, and without any consultation with Arab/Persian countries. There are many concessions and things that they could do to help resolve the Palestinian issue, but they take a very hard line, selfish position....keeping their settlements, building walls that cutoff Palestinean familes. Obviously it is a very complex issue that I am not interested in getting into on this thread, but that is a quick "in a nutshell" view of what I am trying to say clumsily in a few paragraphs.

leg4li2ed0pe wrote:The terrorists are didicated to destroying the west only while the west is trying to force themselves on the world in which the terrorists live.

you are mistaken.


You are correct in letting him know that he was mistaken.
Kerry is the most liberal US Senator in Washington, who has more of a sourpuss disposition than Lieberman.

He sucks the way he flips and then flops...which is why he will be defeated!

Where do they get these guys?
User avatar
XXXXX
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 11:03 am

Postby XXXXX on Fri Jun 11, 2004 1:03 am

wicked1 wrote:my only comments are I am glad to hear Reagan is gone. Feel free to be offended but it was he who started the war on drugs,the union breakups,86 machine gun laws and a few other things that I very much disliked him for.


You are a worthless douche bag. No further comment is warranted.
Kerry is the most liberal US Senator in Washington, who has more of a sourpuss disposition than Lieberman.

He sucks the way he flips and then flops...which is why he will be defeated!

Where do they get these guys?
User avatar
XXXXX
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 11:03 am

Postby XXXXX on Fri Jun 11, 2004 1:04 am

JamieW wrote:Jesus, this is still going on? Its good to see that XXXXX has finally mixed in discussion with his "omg, if you disagree with Bush you are a liberal democratic lunatic." If you aren't with us, you're against us? Nice.


Don't put words in my mouth. I said no such thing....that is your own ignorant preconceived ideas speaking.
Kerry is the most liberal US Senator in Washington, who has more of a sourpuss disposition than Lieberman.

He sucks the way he flips and then flops...which is why he will be defeated!

Where do they get these guys?
User avatar
XXXXX
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 11:03 am

Postby leg4li2ed0pe on Fri Jun 11, 2004 1:05 am

Beyond the entire list of terrorism fueled issues, you are ignoring the fact that they are dedicated to the destruction of the western way of life. They consider capitalism, Christianity, Judaism, sexual expression, technical advances, women's rights, and most of the tenets of western societies to be an affront to Islam. If you actually read their teachings, they never say that they will stop terrorism if certain demands are met. You must face the fact that we will not be leaving Afganistan or Iraq, or Kuwait, or Saudi Arabia, etc. etc. any time soon.


I think a distinction must be made between Osama Bin Laden and his top advisors, and the society in which he is allowed to recruite and who simpithize with his ideas. Osama isn't goig to go away on his own. However, without that societal acceptance he could not really operate. He would have no base from which to recruit. It is the society that we don't want to be against us. Even Osama would never have become who he is today without the societal simpithies because at one time he was still only in that catagory of the society and not a leader. But that society allowed him to become the leader he is today. So I think when you make this distintion you see what I mean about getting rid of the root causes and not just trying to "swat flies" as they come up.

and all while the environmental zealots block Alaskan and additonal US oil exploration. You figure out how else we are going get out of the middle east.


If you look at the facts alaska doesn't have enough oil for more than 5 or 10 years. Thats not enough to change anything. We need to start funding alternitave fual sources. But besides that we can still buy oil from the middle east without having to be there. Let them run their own economy and just export like we do when we export things. Americans buy alot of cars from japan but japanese companies still run the car industry there.

Don't be so damn lazy. Go to google and search for the issue. It is well documented, and easy to find and prove.


Thats something you can say when you don't have any proof close at hand. Really I don't think liberal bias or any bias for that matter is something you can "prove" anyway. Its not so black and white. I will say that the media tends to lean towards the intests of large corperations because the media is owned by large corperations and the media's custumer is not the view but its advertisers. Its advertisers are also large corperations. This would make me tend to think thats where the bias would be. But I am not going to label that liberal or conservative.

I'm not going to spoon feed you every link, when you can easily find out the verification of these issues with Google. I did post the links about Kerry being the most liberal US Senator either in this thread or the one about Kerry getting a new plane.


I was just pointing out that Howard Dean never had a voting record because he never held a voting office.

I am the yin which you need to be the yang.


Yes but at the same time you must remember that I am the yang that you need to be the yin. :D
User avatar
leg4li2ed0pe
CD-RW Thug
 
Posts: 57
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2004 8:29 pm

Postby XXXXX on Fri Jun 11, 2004 1:08 am

leg4li2ed0pe wrote:
You need to spend some time read what Gorby has actually said, rather than what you think he said or thought.


I got much of what I said from an interview with him. Coincidentally an article was printed today by the globe and mail about this very topic.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040610/COMARTIN10/TPComment/TopStories


That was yet another spectator in the peanut gallery who wrote his opinion about what he thought really happened. It is not a quote or words spoken directly by Gorbachev himself. Nice try, but that link is worthless at addressing my above statement.
Kerry is the most liberal US Senator in Washington, who has more of a sourpuss disposition than Lieberman.

He sucks the way he flips and then flops...which is why he will be defeated!

Where do they get these guys?
User avatar
XXXXX
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 11:03 am

Postby leg4li2ed0pe on Fri Jun 11, 2004 1:12 am

I'm not strongly opposed to some drug legalization...but knowing the distortion of shrooms, I could not support hallucinagenic drug legalization....it is too risky to public safety. I'm also concerned about the sedative effect and other health risks of many drugs such as PCP, opiates, ecstasy, ketamine, etc.


I think Hallucinagens definatly have to be legalized because those are the ones most likely to seriously benefit the universe if enough people try them. But really I don't think drug prohibition works. People always will go around the laws. Better to have some control and regulation. You can regulate opiates and PCP and all of those but thats much better than prohibition, which just drives it all underground.
User avatar
leg4li2ed0pe
CD-RW Thug
 
Posts: 57
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2004 8:29 pm

Postby XXXXX on Fri Jun 11, 2004 1:13 am

leg4li2ed0pe wrote: The really selfish person in the whole thing is sharon. He doesn't want peace because if their was peace he wouldn't get elected. He plays the terrorism card just as bush does, and just as bush doesn't want want the "war on terrrorism" to end, neither does sharon.


Bush is no Sharon. The rest of your statement is just more of your Bush bashing opinion. You are not correct however.

you are mistaken [about the terrorists].


Why do you think they hate us then? Do you think its because they are jealous? That arguement is something used by people that don't understand the situation at all. Its not like they hate us just for the hell of it.


They hate us, our beliefs, our non-Islamic religions, our capitalism, our women's rights, our support of Israel, our freedom....in addition to some of the specific issues you mentioned earlier. You are too naive because you have not yet watched episodes of Star Trek to understand the Klingon Distinction. These people are like the Klingons.
Kerry is the most liberal US Senator in Washington, who has more of a sourpuss disposition than Lieberman.

He sucks the way he flips and then flops...which is why he will be defeated!

Where do they get these guys?
User avatar
XXXXX
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 11:03 am

Postby aviationwiz on Fri Jun 11, 2004 1:13 am

XXXXX wrote:
wicked1 wrote:my only comments are I am glad to hear Reagan is gone. Feel free to be offended but it was he who started the war on drugs,the union breakups,86 machine gun laws and a few other things that I very much disliked him for.


You are a worthless douche bag. No further comment is warranted.


In wicked1's defense, which if you go back months in various threads, you'll know I very rarely agree with him. What he said is an opinion, are you saying that his opinions are wrong? It's the same as someone saying that Reagan was the best president because of X, Y & Z.

In this country, we all have the right to our opinion, popular or unpopular, don't call him a "worthless douche bag" for him having an opinion that you disagree with.
User avatar
aviationwiz
Plextor Fan(atic)
 
Posts: 4069
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2002 2:55 am
Location: Home of the Red Tail

Postby aviationwiz on Fri Jun 11, 2004 1:21 am

XXXXX wrote:
JamieW wrote:Jesus, this is still going on? Its good to see that XXXXX has finally mixed in discussion with his "omg, if you disagree with Bush you are a liberal democratic lunatic." If you aren't with us, you're against us? Nice.


Don't put words in my mouth. I said no such thing....that is your own ignorant preconceived ideas speaking.


Again, here I am coming to JamieW's defense, which we all know is something I would *NEVER* do, I often times disagee with him, but here it goes:

No offense, but you are just about saying that, not directly, but when you look at what you have said often times on the last few pages, it all fits into JamieW's comment.
User avatar
aviationwiz
Plextor Fan(atic)
 
Posts: 4069
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2002 2:55 am
Location: Home of the Red Tail

Postby XXXXX on Fri Jun 11, 2004 1:21 am

leg4li2ed0pe wrote:Yes, I understand that you think I am mistaken. I want to know why you think that. I want to know what your theory about why they hate us is.


You are correct about the specific "trigger issues" that you mentioned earlier, but their hatred of everything western is deep and profound.

You could say that their anti-western ideologies are what fuels their very existence. Destroying non Islamic cultures and peoples is their fanatical dogma.

They brainwash the suicidal bombers by saying that you will go to heaven and share 72 virgins with Allah if you destroy the infidels.

They do not tell them they are doing this to get the USA out of the middle east. You need to read more analysis on Islamic Terrorism, and espoused Al Queda dogma. You can use google, or start with their training manual.
Kerry is the most liberal US Senator in Washington, who has more of a sourpuss disposition than Lieberman.

He sucks the way he flips and then flops...which is why he will be defeated!

Where do they get these guys?
User avatar
XXXXX
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 11:03 am

Postby leg4li2ed0pe on Fri Jun 11, 2004 1:22 am

That was yet another spectator in the peanut gallery who wrote his opinion about what he thought really happened. It is not a quote or words spoken directly by Gorbachev himself. Nice try, but that link is worthless at addressing my above statement.


There was an interview with him in the progressive magazine a few months ago in which he said much of the same things as that article. Unfortunatly they didn't post it to their website so I can't give you a link to it.
User avatar
leg4li2ed0pe
CD-RW Thug
 
Posts: 57
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2004 8:29 pm

Postby XXXXX on Fri Jun 11, 2004 1:35 am

aviationwiz wrote:
XXXXX wrote:The fact of the matter is that there is "No Truth" and "No Absolute Right." There are rather a diversity of opinions, and in a democracy, the majority chooses. Of course, there are exceptions such as the electoral college which obviously was devised to pick the better man in a close election where the popular majority may have been wrong, such as in 2000 ! LOL!


I wouldn't say that, I'd say the electoral college was designed so that instead of having the candidates always campaigning in New York, and Los Angeles, they have to pay attention to smaller states, like Iowa, Minnesota, Colorado, Oklahoma, New Mexico, etc.


It was a joke, for Christ's sake. I know full well why the electoral college was created, and why it will never be removed.

XXXXX wrote:I agree there are some stories that are fair, or even pro-republican on CNN, and less often on CBS/NBC/ABC, but I am talking about overall statistics and trends. The surveys if you read my link show quite clearly that there is a lopsided majority of liberals running all of the media except Fox. Every one of the major network anchors is a self-avowed democratic. Even Tim Russert, who I think does the best job on the networks is a self-described democrat who worked in various political offices, and was raised by his father "Big Russ" who was also a devout Democrat.

If you are naive enough to think their personal beliefs do not affect their news content, then you are pathetically naive.


I would say the CNN is well balanced between the two parties, the way they work, and analyze all the news the 2 different ways. CBS/NBC/ABC are more leaning towards the liberal side, but no where near as much as FOX is conservative. In fact, to be honest, I don't watch CBS, NBC, or ABC, well, of course I watch them for the local news with the local anchors and such, and they say many things that are more pro-republican, but that all depends on what area you are in, the national anchors tend to lean for liberal. It also goes without saying that I don't watch FOX, ever, :lol: I think you also figured out by now that I watch CNN the most.

Of course thier own beliefs does affect the way they report things to an extent, but many anchors out there are good at hiding thier beliefs for the interest of getting the news out there, not thier opinions.


As a republican, I completely disagree. I have also noticed that liberals and Democrats do not understand what we are talking about with the liberal media.

XXXXX wrote:I justified Bush doing powerful negative advertising because the onslaught of the media in TV and Newspaper, and periodicals is dramatically run by self-avowed liberals. So the only choice Bush has is to buy his media coverage in the form of ads. Unfortunately, negative ads give the most effective bang for the buck.


To me, nothing justifies the campaigning that the President is doing, *NOTHING*. I respect Rep. Mark Kennedy from Minnesota's 6th (GOP) because of the way I noticed he ran his latest campaign in 2002. Instead of throwing out negative ads like his opponent (some DFL idiot) he simply stated what he was going to do if he was elected to Congress, well, guess what, he was elected, and by a large majority, he got 57% of the vote, the DFL idiot he was running against got 35% of the vote. That is an honorable way to run a campaign, by not putting out negative, and often misleading attack ads.

Also, you say that the ratings for FOX News, the most conservative news source in the country are very high, because people want a taste of what the conservatives have to say because of what you call a liberal media onslaught, or something similar. That is airtime right there, and a whole lot of it if I understand the ratings on FOX are high, as I believe they are.


I completely disagree again. For the 5th time (Please try to read it this time)....Bush is entitled to running his "playful" negative ads because the mainstream media is so liberal and dedicated to getting him out of office. As such, he has to strike back with ads, and strike in a way that gives him the most bang for the buck. I would not say this if the press was not liberal.

Neither of us know for sure why the Fox ratings are so high, but my suggestion is that people are sick and tired of getting censored news. It is not perfect, and leans towards conservative (which is fine, since it's the only one doing it)...but it does make a sincere attempt to be "fair and balanced" on many occasions. They have Juan Williams (Mr. Liberal PBS), for balance on a panel. Alan Combs to balance Hannity, etc. None of that happens on CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC.

XXXXX wrote:Like it or not, Bush's ads have already defined Kerry to the American People. You gotta give the Republican Ad agencies credit for that.


I would agree with that 100%. Just re-phrase it a little, Bush's ads have already *TRIED* to define kerry to the American People. There are many many like me who find that these negative attack ads are very dishonorable, and yes, putting out negative attack ads can, and will loose you votes.


No, they actually have already defined him...beyond trying.....in part because they make fun of things like his flip-flopping that he has so aptly and repeatedly demonstrated....so they hit home.

XXXXX wrote:I never said that Bush has not flip-flopped. I said that Kerry has.


Yes you did. Here's the quote: "The problem they have is that Bush does not flip flop."


OK, I sit corrected. I made a mistake saying that, and should have said that Bush does not flip-flop on important issues as does Kerry. That's why it is not sticking to Bush.

XXXXX wrote:I'll concede that he said that we will find Osama, and we have not...and that he stopped saying that. The odds are still in our favor that we will find him eventually.


I really don't know why he said we would find Usama, he never was a very valuable target, I never really cared if we caught him or not, and it appears that the President shares me view that Usama just isn't a high value target. As for us finding him, yes, I'm sure we will, either confirmed dead or captured, you know, right around the End of October, :lol: I don't want to get into an arguement over that, just a joke I thought I'd throw out.


I hope we do turn up Osama dead as a 3 month old decomposed rotting corpse on October 31st. That will give the democrats another issue like losing even though Gore won the popular vote, to keep Michael Moore and his fringe groups making more DVD's for the next 4 years. LMAO
Kerry is the most liberal US Senator in Washington, who has more of a sourpuss disposition than Lieberman.

He sucks the way he flips and then flops...which is why he will be defeated!

Where do they get these guys?
User avatar
XXXXX
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 11:03 am

Postby leg4li2ed0pe on Fri Jun 11, 2004 1:38 am

You need to read more analysis on Islamic Terrorism, and espoused Al Queda dogma.


That does sound a little condecending like I don't agree with you so obviously im just unimformed. I would challenge YOU to read some of Noam Chomsky's analysis of the root causes of terrorism. For a start listen to this talk he gave and tell me what you think of it.

http://65.27.65.24/Noam.Chomsky_The.New ... rorism.rar
User avatar
leg4li2ed0pe
CD-RW Thug
 
Posts: 57
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2004 8:29 pm

Postby XXXXX on Fri Jun 11, 2004 1:53 am

leg4li2ed0pe wrote:
Beyond the entire list of terrorism fueled issues, you are ignoring the fact that they are dedicated to the destruction of the western way of life. They consider capitalism, Christianity, Judaism, sexual expression, technical advances, women's rights, and most of the tenets of western societies to be an affront to Islam. If you actually read their teachings, they never say that they will stop terrorism if certain demands are met. You must face the fact that we will not be leaving Afganistan or Iraq, or Kuwait, or Saudi Arabia, etc. etc. any time soon.


I think a distinction must be made between Osama Bin Laden and his top advisors, and the society in which he is allowed to recruite and who simpithize with his ideas. Osama isn't goig to go away on his own. However, without that societal acceptance he could not really operate. He would have no base from which to recruit. It is the society that we don't want to be against us. Even Osama would never have become who he is today without the societal simpithies because at one time he was still only in that catagory of the society and not a leader. But that society allowed him to become the leader he is today. So I think when you make this distintion you see what I mean about getting rid of the root causes and not just trying to "swat flies" as they come up.


Yes, I understand the pacifistic idea that you have, and however noble, it is naive because of the propaganda that has been fed to the young Islamic fanatics. They are fed a constant diet not of the USA being in the Middle East, or supporting Israel, but that every facet of our decadent society is evil and a threat to the very existence of Islam.

To think that it is only a function of specific USA led actions is to not understand these people. They are a relatively small percentage of the local populations. You also don't understand the concept because you don't watch Star Trek, and you cannot fathom the reality of a Klingon Warrior Empire.

and all while the environmental zealots block Alaskan and additonal US oil exploration. You figure out how else we are going get out of the middle east.


If you look at the facts alaska doesn't have enough oil for more than 5 or 10 years. Thats not enough to change anything. We need to start funding alternitave fual sources. But besides that we can still buy oil from the middle east without having to be there. Let them run their own economy and just export like we do when we export things. Americans buy alot of cars from japan but japanese companies still run the car industry there.


The reports I have read forcast a much larger supply of oil in Alaska than you have been led to believe by your liberal friends. In any case if it was combined with serious energy conservation measures, it would be just what the doctor ordered...but the liberal environmentalists won't have any part of it....so now we pay $2.25/gallon, and watch the horrible forest fires in California that were a result of blocked deforestation. GG Tree Huggers! Now they are all dead.

Don't be so damn lazy. Go to google and search for the issue. It is well documented, and easy to find and prove.


Thats something you can say when you don't have any proof close at hand. Really I don't think liberal bias or any bias for that matter is something you can "prove" anyway. Its not so black and white. I will say that the media tends to lean towards the intests of large corperations because the media is owned by large corperations and the media's custumer is not the view but its advertisers. Its advertisers are also large corperations. This would make me tend to think thats where the bias would be. But I am not going to label that liberal or conservative.


There are ample resources that have actually reported the independant polls of network media staff.

Jesus, you are a lazy f*cking bastard. Do you need me to hold your dick when you pee also?

Washington Post

Media Reality Center with direct quote examples

Google Page of Links. You do the math

I'm not going to spoon feed you every link, when you can easily find out the verification of these issues with Google. I did post the links about Kerry being the most liberal US Senator either in this thread or the one about Kerry getting a new plane.


I was just pointing out that Howard Dean never had a voting record because he never held a voting office.


He has a record of proposed legislation and vetoes.

I am the yin which you need to be the yang.


Yes but at the same time you must remember that I am the yang that you need to be the yin. :D


Much to my consternation, I understand. It is some small consolation that my being right occurs in direct proportion to your being wrong! LOL!
Kerry is the most liberal US Senator in Washington, who has more of a sourpuss disposition than Lieberman.

He sucks the way he flips and then flops...which is why he will be defeated!

Where do they get these guys?
User avatar
XXXXX
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 11:03 am

Postby XXXXX on Fri Jun 11, 2004 1:56 am

leg4li2ed0pe wrote:
I'm not strongly opposed to some drug legalization...but knowing the distortion of shrooms, I could not support hallucinagenic drug legalization....it is too risky to public safety. I'm also concerned about the sedative effect and other health risks of many drugs such as PCP, opiates, ecstasy, ketamine, etc.


I think Hallucinagens definatly have to be legalized because those are the ones most likely to seriously benefit the universe if enough people try them. But really I don't think drug prohibition works. People always will go around the laws. Better to have some control and regulation. You can regulate opiates and PCP and all of those but thats much better than prohibition, which just drives it all underground.


Well I'm not willing to open up the idiots of society to start popping acid as they drive down highway 59 with my family in the back seat. It's bad enough with alcohol. I don't care how much you might like that idea.

There is no question that all the red neck idiot morons would be even more out of control. I can hear all the legal defenses in murder cases already. It was the drugs....and you made them legal...how can it be my clients fault that he killed a family of 6?
Kerry is the most liberal US Senator in Washington, who has more of a sourpuss disposition than Lieberman.

He sucks the way he flips and then flops...which is why he will be defeated!

Where do they get these guys?
User avatar
XXXXX
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 11:03 am

Postby XXXXX on Fri Jun 11, 2004 1:59 am

aviationwiz wrote:
XXXXX wrote:
wicked1 wrote:my only comments are I am glad to hear Reagan is gone. Feel free to be offended but it was he who started the war on drugs,the union breakups,86 machine gun laws and a few other things that I very much disliked him for.


You are a worthless douche bag. No further comment is warranted.


In wicked1's defense, which if you go back months in various threads, you'll know I very rarely agree with him. What he said is an opinion, are you saying that his opinions are wrong? It's the same as someone saying that Reagan was the best president because of X, Y & Z.

In this country, we all have the right to our opinion, popular or unpopular, don't call him a "worthless douche bag" for him having an opinion that you disagree with.


This has nothing to do with you. He invited us to feel free to be offended, and I was on the eve of his funeral. My assessment of him being a worthless douche bag stands. You would have to have me banned from the forum or a moderator to edit and censor it.
Kerry is the most liberal US Senator in Washington, who has more of a sourpuss disposition than Lieberman.

He sucks the way he flips and then flops...which is why he will be defeated!

Where do they get these guys?
User avatar
XXXXX
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 11:03 am

Postby XXXXX on Fri Jun 11, 2004 2:01 am

aviationwiz wrote:
XXXXX wrote:
JamieW wrote:Jesus, this is still going on? Its good to see that XXXXX has finally mixed in discussion with his "omg, if you disagree with Bush you are a liberal democratic lunatic." If you aren't with us, you're against us? Nice.


Don't put words in my mouth. I said no such thing....that is your own ignorant preconceived ideas speaking.


Again, here I am coming to JamieW's defense, which we all know is something I would *NEVER* do, I often times disagee with him, but here it goes:

No offense, but you are just about saying that, not directly, but when you look at what you have said often times on the last few pages, it all fits into JamieW's comment.


I think we can all benefit from you only giving us the benefit of your infinite wisdom in regards to posts that involve you. Do you always poke your nose into everyone's private bedrooms too?
Kerry is the most liberal US Senator in Washington, who has more of a sourpuss disposition than Lieberman.

He sucks the way he flips and then flops...which is why he will be defeated!

Where do they get these guys?
User avatar
XXXXX
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 11:03 am

Postby XXXXX on Fri Jun 11, 2004 2:03 am

leg4li2ed0pe wrote:
That was yet another spectator in the peanut gallery who wrote his opinion about what he thought really happened. It is not a quote or words spoken directly by Gorbachev himself. Nice try, but that link is worthless at addressing my above statement.


There was an interview with him in the progressive magazine a few months ago in which he said much of the same things as that article. Unfortunatly they didn't post it to their website so I can't give you a link to it.


I understand....but don't then give me post of some more regurgitated peanut gallery opinions, and try to pass them off for what Gorby ACTUALLY said...which was what I originally requested you examine. And, no I am not going to do your google for you again.
Kerry is the most liberal US Senator in Washington, who has more of a sourpuss disposition than Lieberman.

He sucks the way he flips and then flops...which is why he will be defeated!

Where do they get these guys?
User avatar
XXXXX
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 11:03 am

Postby XXXXX on Fri Jun 11, 2004 2:06 am

leg4li2ed0pe wrote:
You need to read more analysis on Islamic Terrorism, and espoused Al Queda dogma.


That does sound a little condecending like I don't agree with you so obviously im just unimformed. I would challenge YOU to read some of Noam Chomsky's analysis of the root causes of terrorism. For a start listen to this talk he gave and tell me what you think of it.

http://65.27.65.24/Noam.Chomsky_The.New ... rorism.rar


Unlike you, I prefer to get my information directly from the horse's mouths. Once it goes into someone's personal agenda, you will then only get their analysis of it. Chomsky is an avowed fringe personality, so I could not expect any of his comments to be the least be objective, or to represent in this case what the actual Al Queda foundations say.

That is the issue here...not what someone's spin about it is. My link was the actual source documentation and Al Queda training manual. I'm trying to teach you how to think for yourself, and not the way Chomsky wants you to think.

If you see me telling you to actually find out what the terrorists hate us about from their own words as condescending, then so be it.
Kerry is the most liberal US Senator in Washington, who has more of a sourpuss disposition than Lieberman.

He sucks the way he flips and then flops...which is why he will be defeated!

Where do they get these guys?
User avatar
XXXXX
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 11:03 am

PreviousNext

Return to The Beer Garden

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

All Content is Copyright (c) 2001-2017 CDRLabs Inc.