On 1/31/07, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The problem with this conversation is you have an extreme bias. If you > truly believe President Bush is possessed by the devil than you will > always see evil in his actions. > Pretend it was Clinton your writing about and read you're comments. > You would think they're ridiculous. Yet you're positive they are spot > on with Bush.
I'm biased. I like it, 'specially with you, Sam! I especially like how I'm not unpatriotic anymore when I bitch about the prez. That got to me too. You were never unpatriotic if you bitched about Clinton, neh? Why is that, Sambo? Why did his private life get pulled into the spot light? He must have been, like, the first president to pull a stunt... bah. But Bush Jr. does all this highly suspect stuff-- don't forget the whole energy commission thing, or whatever-- have they released who was on that board yet? Oh, was that Cheney? Whatever. They're all quite a team, Rove y todo. Anyways, it just pisses me off. The stuff Bush2 has pulled really directly effects our liberties-- and I mean you and me seriously-- this ain't about some chicks feelings, a marriage, whatever. I'm being horribly insensitive, and I'm sorry. It looks cool without this tho and Clinton was the fucknut who started Patriot, neh? Weeeaaaak! > On 1/31/07, Denshtizzy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > The Democrats in Congress are not yes men/women. > > > > Now? or what? I guess more of the blame falls on the Republicans, > > as they had the majority. But they all kowtowed(neat werd). Lilly > livered > > basteds. > > Filibusters, gang of 14, any of that ring a bell? Oh yeah. Filibuster. The Nuke. That whole thing. Slipped my mind. > And thus my point about "it was already a skeleton", I guess. > > Bush Jr. took it to the next level. Should I bring up lowering EPA > > standards? > > So Clinton did something that you blamed on Bush and in response you > threaten to really find something to pin on Bush. Whatever :) Heh. That is pretty funny. Guess Clinton's term wasn't that earth friendly. > > That's not funny. > > > Oh, my bad. You seriously think good and evil are that clear cut? > > We're not terrorists. We don't go around trying to kill as many women > and children as possible. And to imply that we are equal to the > terrorist is hurtful. oh. I didn't know you meant terrorists, and doing it on purpose, you know. I was just saying that we are nice people who blow up kids and stuff. > Or so long as we kill in the name of "good", it's ok? I bet you also > don't > > mind sending a couple of innocents to the electric chair, so long as > > more "bad" people "get it" than good/innocent people? Where do you > > draw the line, and what does it take to be justified? > > I only support the death penalty when there's absolute proof. Most There's a funny saying in the scientific community about proof. =] cases are based on hearsay or circumstantial evidence and I say life > in prison unless were positive they did it. But I never told anyone > that so I'm not sure why you think you know how I feel about it. I was just betting. Wondering (with bias) where you were on the issue. So as long as we're really, really sure-- it's justified. Gotcha. =] Nice charts but Israel is number 9: > http://www.globalissues.org/images/USAid20032004.gif The other charts seemed to have more interesting data. Eh. And what about the "hidden costs" stuff? And military aid? I bet one jet costs more than a few pallets of grub, neh? Low, low prices! > *Bush:* We're now in the 41st month of uninterrupted job growth, in a > > recovery that has *created 7.2 million new jobs* -- so far. > > What part of that is a lie? I don't remember. The number, I guess. That was from factcheck. > Actual Bush quote: "We do not monitor calls from America, we monitor calls > > > coming in from foreign countries and vice versa." > > ^--- not really a lie, I guess. This sentence is false. > > Source please. What does it matter? I picked it because it was funny, and I'm biased, but the idea is what bugs me. He said he talked to his lawyer and since his lawyer said it was o.k. he is in the clear. Guess it's not a lie, per se- he might not really know how it works, I guess. Skipped 5th grade perhaps. > > Since I don't chat with al Qaeda my phone isn't tapped. However, if > > > they called me I would hope someone would listen in. > > > > Ah. The good old, "if you're doing nothing wrong, you've nothing to > fear" > > argument, eh? That's a load of BS, and hopefully you know it. > > I guess you weren't following along. Did you ever wonder why the press > stopped talking about it? It's not because the NY Times loves Bush. What? The press talking about something makes it, what, true? Or not talking, as the case may be. I mean, didn't I post a rant about Usama's family getting flown out, yet nobody covered it? I hear it from Moore first!?!? Perhaps we're alternating between claps and silence, as liberty flies... > Besides the fact that: is it every call from the middle east, or just ones > > > from suspected terrorists? Wait, don't answer that-- some professors > > are taking these jokers to court, maybe some real data will come out. > > Yes we pay millions of people to sit around and listen to every phone > call from the Mid-East. We use computers, mostly, but yeah. Every phone call from everywhere. Everywhere we can get our hands on. Of course! You must know that. Justification is an interesting thing. Whoops. > Because it's there, duh! That's the whole problem with having this stuff. > > You missed the point, if the gman is bad wiretaps will have no effect. > Unless you're claiming wiretapping al Qaeda corrupts government > workers. You have faith that gman is good? I think the whole reason we have checks and balances is because we acknowledged that we inherently don't know good from bad. Or power corrupts. Or with power comes responsibility, and it's sorta that "let's all three throw the switch at once so none of us actually knows who kilt 'em", hehe. I like the idea of more than a single point of failure, or whathaveyou. :-/ That, and spying on people used to be considered bad. > And it looks like it's getting pretty hard to get an illegal wire tap, and > > > thus > > my major malfunction. It's horrible, and more people should be upset. > > This is a targeted program by top professionals that are saving our > lives. You seem to think anyone working for the government can tap any > phone. No wonder your upset. I disagree. Of course, I've always been interested in the phone company, and communication, and whatnot. I bet you think ICKYLON is BS, neh? People don't need oversight because they're inherently good? I guess it makes sense from a certain viewpoint. I too think most people are pretty darn good, ya know? Most the time. neh? Mommy can I trust the gub? > > Worse than say having the IRS audit you? Worse than having hundreds of > > > personal republican FBI files on Clintons desk? > > > > Yes. Hands down. Way worse. You're advocating institutionalizing the > > practice. You really think it's a good way to run things? > > I'm not worried about the guys in the room looking for known terrorist > calling from al Qaeda. I am of course worried about the IRS calling me > in because of what they read on this list. It's the same thing, neh? You're worried about the IRS calling you because of your taxes, I'm worried about the FBI calling me because I bash the prez. You do know that there are terrorists subscribed to a list, that is subscribed to a list, that has a member who's subscribed to this list, right? That alone justifies the tap, and luckily, they don't even have to ask anyone anymore. But I too have such a strong faith-- I mean, I'm never alone, you know, so I don't have a problem with someone watching me all the time. Like when I pee. Hell, take a gander. I don't mind. I hope the spying doesn't work like vampires "but you said it was ok!" heh. It's called history. Look into it. Reagan all the way and there's no > disputing it. Woot woot! Heck, he was in Back to the Future, so I guess he's cool. Plus -- remember that one claymation video-- genesis, perhaps? Good stuff. Superman, where are you now? > I was implying that China is getting in the mix, and I wonder how > > much of it is related to Clinton. > > Yeah, the make the fashionable crap we tell them to make. What's the > point? Yeowzers dude! Hard core. Never mind. Bad example. .... > Reagan set it up and Bush 41 called it voodoo economics and lost it. > Clinton got luck with the WWW. Plus he raided the SS fund which you > keep failing to respond to. I guess I coulda swore we were in the black and bush2 messed it up so quick he made the Onion look prophetic. Bush2 dug into stuff pretty quick, IIRC. What does Clinton digging into SS have to do with bush2 increasing spending while cutting taxes? Imagine where we could be, compared to where we are. > Yes, I'm holding the Republican party responsible as well. Those > > fools stuck together, all the way over the cliff-- and took our great > > country with 'em. > > Fiscally Bush screwed us with all the spending but he did magic with > the economy and wanted to fix SS. So far I've heard it called "luck", and I believe it. I used to drive drunk all the time, but that doesn't mean it's a good thing to do. Again, imagine where we could be. And again, look at our debt. > Guess it really is about rich getting richer, etc.. *sniff* > > I'm thinking the Dems are more into big business while the GOP is for > all businesses. Look at the minimum wage fight the Dems are doing for > the big corps. Like the pharmasootical companies. And the energy stuff. Give me a break, I've never seen more "good old boy" type behavior in my life. 'cept that time with the aids and the hemophiliacs or whatever. Dispicable! The GOP doesn't seem to have done too much for the little guy. Oh, wait, there was that tax cut! What's the deficit at again? It doesn't fit on that Death and Taxes poster so it's hard to really imagine it. http://thebudgetgraph.com/view/ That's a cool freaking poster. Interesting stuff, that. Anyways, Sam, these guys are knuckleheads. At a time when we really needed to be united, the Cheney&Co are duking it out with the CIA?!?! And tell me again why, even if Saddam had been packing WMDs, he was an "immediate threat"? Meanwhile, fishermen are selling nuckle-lear material... and that takes us back to global warming. Somehow. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Upgrade to Adobe ColdFusion MX7 Experience Flex 2 & MX7 integration & create powerful cross-platform RIAs http:http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;56760587;14748456;a?http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion/flex2/?sdid=LVNU Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:226534 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
