Law School Discussion

Off-Topic Area => General Off-Topic Board => Topic started by: Julie Fern on May 16, 2005, 03:53:39 PM

Title: wisdom of dubya
Post by: Julie Fern on May 16, 2005, 03:53:39 PM
.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubyah
Post by: Julie Fern on May 16, 2005, 03:54:17 PM
just sayin'.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubyah
Post by: Abevigoda on May 16, 2005, 04:08:14 PM
Clever.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubyah
Post by: maka nani on May 16, 2005, 04:08:53 PM
well said
Title: Re: wisdom of dubyah
Post by: smuorbust on May 16, 2005, 04:50:43 PM
.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: wisdom of dubyah
Post by: LaneSwerver on May 16, 2005, 06:07:46 PM
(http://www.tshirthell.com/shirts/products/a374/a374.gif)
Title: Re: wisdom of dubyah
Post by: PresClay_00 on May 16, 2005, 06:09:32 PM
i thought that was Clinton's moral fiber
Title: Re: wisdom of dubyah
Post by: InVinoVeritas on May 16, 2005, 07:05:15 PM
very clever julie.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubyah
Post by: hilljack on May 16, 2005, 10:29:23 PM
Actually this is really stupid, don't you have anything better to do?
Title: Re: wisdom of dubyah
Post by: Julie Fern on May 17, 2005, 06:01:28 AM
.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubyah
Post by: PresClay_00 on May 17, 2005, 06:10:57 AM
Actually this is really stupid, don't you have anything better to do?

no, they're too small in numbers to do anything but try and pick fights
Title: Re: wisdom of dubyah
Post by: Julie Fern on May 17, 2005, 06:12:23 AM
.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubyah
Post by: PresClay_00 on May 17, 2005, 06:13:42 AM
.

see
Title: Re: wisdom of dubyah
Post by: Julie Fern on May 17, 2005, 06:14:11 AM
.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubyah
Post by: PresClay_00 on May 17, 2005, 06:15:36 AM
they're also highly repetitious
Title: Re: wisdom of dubyah
Post by: Julie Fern on May 17, 2005, 06:16:49 AM
.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubyah
Post by: maka nani on May 17, 2005, 06:25:56 AM
..
Title: Re: wisdom of dubyah
Post by: Abevigoda on May 17, 2005, 09:38:02 AM
...
Title: Re: wisdom of dubyah
Post by: LaneSwerver on May 17, 2005, 09:40:09 AM
(http://www.thisoldsoul.com/tops.jpg)
Title: Re: wisdom of dubyah
Post by: InVinoVeritas on May 17, 2005, 11:01:18 AM
Actually this is really stupid, don't you have anything better to do?

where'd your sense of humor go?  you seem to like to tell jokes.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubyah
Post by: St. Shaun on May 17, 2005, 11:07:49 AM
Well at least she's offering no real conclusions to her lack of arguments.

Title: Re: wisdom of dubyah
Post by: Julie Fern on May 17, 2005, 01:04:37 PM
.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubyah
Post by: Abevigoda on May 17, 2005, 01:16:20 PM
Julie has plenty of arguments on other threads; I think she's trying to make a point. 

Bush is stupid, vapid, stubburn, and clueless, or something else along those lines.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubyah
Post by: PresClay_00 on May 17, 2005, 01:57:35 PM
no, her arguments are just so light on facts they float away
Title: Re: wisdom of dubyah
Post by: Abevigoda on May 17, 2005, 02:47:02 PM
I think alot get lost in the translation.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubyah
Post by: sunset1021 on May 17, 2005, 03:07:52 PM
I think you're giving Dubya way too much credit...
Title: Re: wisdom of dubyah
Post by: hilljack on May 17, 2005, 03:28:18 PM
I think that a lot of people misunderestimate Bush.  There is a test given to senators and the president and others that tests knowledge of foreign policy or whatever.  Bush scored a 99, Kerry got a 90.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubyah
Post by: hey not you hey on May 17, 2005, 03:40:31 PM
that sounds credible.  did they take it at thespark.com?
Title: Re: wisdom of dubyah
Post by: Abevigoda on May 17, 2005, 03:42:30 PM
What test?  I need evidence.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubyah
Post by: smuorbust on May 17, 2005, 03:49:41 PM
I think that a lot of people misunderestimate Bush.  There is a test given to senators and the president and others that tests knowledge of foreign policy or whatever.  Bush scored a 99, Kerry got a 90.



I saw this test.  Bush did extremely well on the whatever section.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubyah
Post by: Abevigoda on May 17, 2005, 03:55:25 PM
Seriously, hilljack, provide evidence.  What is this test you speak of?
Title: Re: wisdom of dubyah
Post by: sunset1021 on May 17, 2005, 03:58:23 PM
that sounds credible.  did they take it at thespark.com?

 :D LOL
Title: Re: wisdom of dubyah
Post by: smuorbust on May 17, 2005, 04:00:18 PM
The only test in which Bush would score higher than Kerry would be on a drug screen test for cocaine.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubyah
Post by: smuorbust on May 17, 2005, 04:05:53 PM
Actually this is really stupid, don't you have anything better to do?


One shouldn't call something, or somebody, stupid.  Moreover, one shouldn't do it in the middle of a run-on.  thank you    :o
Title: Re: wisdom of dubyah
Post by: smuorbust on May 17, 2005, 04:08:19 PM
somebody better STOP me! 
Title: Re: wisdom of dubyah
Post by: brotha on May 17, 2005, 04:24:04 PM
It is DUBYA.  There is no "h".

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/24/politics/campaign/24points.html?oref=login
Title: Re: wisdom of dubyah
Post by: Abevigoda on May 17, 2005, 04:39:56 PM
I didn't get the whole article but that sounds like a military IQ test, not a foreign policy test.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubyah
Post by: brotha on May 17, 2005, 04:43:11 PM
Secret Weapon for Bush?
By JOHN TIERNEY
 
Published: October 24, 2004

To Bush-bashers, it may be the most infuriating revelation yet from the military records of the two presidential candidates: the young George W. Bush probably had a higher I.Q. than did the young John Kerry.
That, at least, is the conclusion of Steve Sailer, a conservative columnist at the Web magazine Vdare.com and a veteran student of presidential I.Q.'s. During the last presidential campaign Mr. Sailer estimated from Mr. Bush's SAT score (1206) that his I.Q. was in the mid-120's, about 10 points lower than Al Gore's.
Mr. Kerry's SAT score is not known, but now Mr. Sailer has done a comparison of the intelligence tests in the candidates' military records. They are not formal I.Q. tests, but Mr. Sailer says they are similar enough to make reasonable extrapolations.
Mr. Bush's score on the Air Force Officer Qualifying Test at age 22 again suggests that his I.Q was the mid-120's, putting Mr. Bush in about the 95th percentile of the population, according to Mr. Sailer. Mr. Kerry's I.Q. was about 120, in the 91st percentile, according to Mr. Sailer's extrapolation of his score at age 22 on the Navy Officer Qualification Test.
Linda Gottfredson, an I.Q. expert at the University of Delaware, called it a creditable analysis said she was not surprised at the results or that so many people had assumed that Mr. Kerry was smarter. "People will often be misled into thinking someone is brighter if he says something complicated they can't understand," Professor Gottfredson said.
Many Americans still believe a report that began circulating on the Internet three years ago, and was quoted in "Doonesbury," that Mr. Bush's I.Q. was 91, the lowest of any modern American president. But that report from the non-existent Lovenstein Institute turned out to be a hoax.
You might expect Kerry campaign officials, who have worried that their candidate's intellectual image turns off voters, to quickly rush out a commercial trumpeting these new results, but for some reason they seem to be resisting the temptation.
Upon hearing of their candidate's score, Michael Meehan, a spokesman for the senator, said merely: "The true test is not where you start out in life, but what you do with those God-given talents. John Kerry's 40 years of public service puts him in the top percentile on that measure."
Title: Re: wisdom of dubyah
Post by: angelus on May 17, 2005, 04:47:32 PM
"The true test is not where you start out in life, but what you do with those God-given talents. John Kerry's 40 years of public service puts him in the top percentile on that measure."


ROFLMAO!!
Title: Re: wisdom of dubyah
Post by: brotha on May 17, 2005, 04:55:40 PM
Here are the original links:

http://www.vdare.com/sailer/041114_iq.htm

http://vdare.com/sailer/kerry_iq_lower.htm

Title: Re: wisdom of dubyah
Post by: St. Shaun on May 17, 2005, 06:29:06 PM
I can't believe you people actually think the president is stupid.  I always thought it was just a big joke, but I've begun to see that people actually think there smarter then him.  Just another point that you should consider since your all law school apps.  Though Bush and Kerry both went to Yale, Bush got accepted to Harvard for his MBA, Kerry went to BC for law school, and that was before admission standards were so high.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubyah
Post by: St. Shaun on May 17, 2005, 06:45:48 PM
No, I'm not talking to you.  Mostly to Julie, but if she thinks he stupid because of how he talks I don't think the irony will be lost on anyone.

I'm not saying he's a great speaker.  I actually don't think he's that bad, if you watch his entire speeches they aren't that bad, he just messes up some words and thats what the media shows.  He's had alot going on in his presidency and he gives alot of speeches, so this is understandable (especially since the days of presedents writing their own speeches is long gone, it's hard to give someone else's speech, even if it is tailored for you).
Title: Re: wisdom of dubyah
Post by: St. Shaun on May 17, 2005, 06:52:14 PM
Yeah, I think that's more of his real personality.  Especially since he was a partier when he was younger.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubyah
Post by: PresClay_00 on May 17, 2005, 06:56:10 PM
By County-
(http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/countymapredblue.png)

beautiful
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: St. Shaun on May 17, 2005, 07:10:04 PM
That map doesn't seem right.  Rural Iowa should be all blue (that's where I grew up).  Gotta love the conservative democrats.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: St. Shaun on May 17, 2005, 07:21:18 PM
actually Iowa had a large shift Republican this last election.  Remember the "swing states"?

Yeah, I know, didn't swing my district though.  My brother is a history teacher at a small school in north Iowa.  The day before the election the Enlgish teacher shows Farnehiet 911 as a documentary in class and tells the class that it's all true.  It was a senior class so they could all vote.  My brother said about 10 kids changed their vote because of it.  He complained because, well, how is it an English documentary.  Now all the other teachers hate him.  And to think of all the fuss the democrats put up about vote tampering.  I can guarentee you that if he showed the much of a republican biased film he would have been fired and it would have made the news.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: St. Shaun on May 17, 2005, 07:33:53 PM
It took close to a week for Iowa to report the votes.  Of course my area wasn't that close to going republican (too many farmers, the only ones who are truly benefitted from democrats)
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: PresClay_00 on May 17, 2005, 07:49:19 PM
actually Iowa had a large shift Republican this last election.  Remember the "swing states"?

Yeah, I know, didn't swing my district though.  My brother is a history teacher at a small school in north Iowa.  The day before the election the Enlgish teacher shows Farnehiet 911 as a documentary in class and tells the class that it's all true.  It was a senior class so they could all vote.  My brother said about 10 kids changed their vote because of it.  He complained because, well, how is it an English documentary.  Now all the other teachers hate him.  And to think of all the fuss the democrats put up about vote tampering.  I can guarentee you that if he showed the much of a republican biased film he would have been fired and it would have made the news.

i had a teacher like that my senior year for hs but at least she was the govt teacher.  she told everyone to remember and vote for the guy who would make our schools better, and  it certainly wasn't that oil man.  at this point in my life, like i still am, i had no trouble calling bs and it turned into a less than friendly discussion on her position as a state employee as being apolitical while on the job and degenerated from there
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: St. Shaun on May 17, 2005, 08:13:56 PM
I would have loved to have been there.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubyah
Post by: smuorbust on May 17, 2005, 08:50:40 PM
I can't believe you people actually think the president is stupid.  I always thought it was just a big joke, but I've begun to see that people actually think there smarter then him.  Just another point that you should consider since your all law school apps.  Though Bush and Kerry both went to Yale, Bush got accepted to Harvard for his MBA, Kerry went to BC for law school, and that was before admission standards were so high.

Does there = they're, then = than (we'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that one), your = you're?

The president must really seem like a genius to you!
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: maka nani on May 17, 2005, 09:21:25 PM
I can't believe you people actually think the president is stupid.  I always thought it was just a big joke, but I've begun to see that people actually think there smarter then him.  Just another point that you should consider since your all law school apps.  Though Bush and Kerry both went to Yale, Bush got accepted to Harvard for his MBA, Kerry went to BC for law school, and that was before admission standards were so high.

Does there = they're, then = than (we'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that one), your = you're?

The president must really seem like a genius to you!

 ;D
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: hey not you hey on May 17, 2005, 09:22:26 PM
that's exactly what I was going to type.  I'm not usually a typing Nazi, but that struck me as pretty funny.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: Paperback Writer on May 17, 2005, 09:37:20 PM
FWIW, it's been determined that Bush probably has a higher IQ than Kerry.  Really, does anyone think that Kerry was that bright?

http://www.amconmag.com/2004_12_06/feature.html
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: hey not you hey on May 17, 2005, 09:46:08 PM
FWIW, it's been determined that Bush probably has a higher IQ than Kerry.  Really, does anyone think that Kerry was that bright?

http://www.amconmag.com/2004_12_06/feature.html

yeah, I always count on the American Conservative for an objective approach to politics.  it's like citing the Socialist Worker.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubyah
Post by: St. Shaun on May 17, 2005, 09:55:39 PM
Does there = they're, then = than (we'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that one), your = you're?

The president must really seem like a genius to you!

Hey, I'll be the first to say that can't spell.  I also type fast on these posts and don't check my posts.  In response to you last statement, yes the president does seem like a genius to me.  Did Kerry seem like a genius to you?
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: DodgerLaw on May 17, 2005, 10:01:03 PM
Just as the stupid libs failed to see the genius of Reagan, so they fail to appreciate the wisdom of "W". In twenty years they'll be comparing him favorably to another conservative president and pretending they helped defeat Islamic fundamentalist terrorism.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: St. Shaun on May 17, 2005, 10:04:03 PM
Yeah, don't forget how much the true liberals (read liberals of today) hated Reagan and his "trickle down" economics.  He's probably the president most in touch with sound economic principles.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: InVinoVeritas on May 17, 2005, 10:12:04 PM
Yeah, don't forget how much the true liberals (read liberals of today) hated Reagan and his "trickle down" economics.  He's probably the president most in touch with sound economic principles.

you're joking, right?
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: St. Shaun on May 17, 2005, 10:13:01 PM
No, what part do you disagree with.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: InVinoVeritas on May 17, 2005, 10:15:53 PM
the part about him being the president most in touch with sound economic princples
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: PresClay_00 on May 17, 2005, 10:16:09 PM
what's so funny about Reagan actually knowing the policies he supported?  so we should accept that Hillary somehow knew enough to overhaul the entire healthcare system but not think that Reagan understood economic theories?
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: Paperback Writer on May 17, 2005, 10:16:20 PM
I hate to admit it, but Clinton's economic policies made more sense than W's or even Reagan's.  I know that Reagan was fighting the commies, and I give him credit for that.  But, his notion that deficits don't matter, which the neo-cons embrace, is going to be ruinous for this country.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: DodgerLaw on May 17, 2005, 10:18:31 PM
I hate to admit it, but Clinton's economic policies made more sense than W's or even Reagan's.  I know that Reagan was fighting the commies, and I give him credit for that.  But, his notion that deficits don't matter, which the neo-cons embrace, is going to be ruinous for this country.

I'm not going to pretend I know enough about the current debt situation to comment on its current state. I do know that when the deficit was high in the Reagan years, dems said it would take decades to pay it off. Needless to say this proved false.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: Paperback Writer on May 17, 2005, 10:20:19 PM
I hate to admit it, but Clinton's economic policies made more sense than W's or even Reagan's.  I know that Reagan was fighting the commies, and I give him credit for that.  But, his notion that deficits don't matter, which the neo-cons embrace, is going to be ruinous for this country.

I'm not going to pretend I know enough about the current debt situation to comment on its current state. I do know that when the deficit was high in the Reagan years, dems said it would take decades to pay it off. Needless to say this proved false.

We still haven't paid it, have we?
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: InVinoVeritas on May 17, 2005, 10:20:51 PM
don't confuse a fiscal budget deficit with the public debt. 
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: DodgerLaw on May 17, 2005, 10:21:17 PM
I hate to admit it, but Clinton's economic policies made more sense than W's or even Reagan's.  I know that Reagan was fighting the commies, and I give him credit for that.  But, his notion that deficits don't matter, which the neo-cons embrace, is going to be ruinous for this country.

I'm not going to pretend I know enough about the current debt situation to comment on its current state. I do know that when the deficit was high in the Reagan years, dems said it would take decades to pay it off. Needless to say this proved false.

We still haven't paid it, have we?

Yes. It was pretty much all paid off. The current deficit is a new one.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: PresClay_00 on May 17, 2005, 10:21:40 PM
I hate to admit it, but Clinton's economic policies made more sense than W's or even Reagan's.  I know that Reagan was fighting the commies, and I give him credit for that.  But, his notion that deficits don't matter, which the neo-cons embrace, is going to be ruinous for this country.

i don't think Reagan or any neo-con would have ever or to this day tell you deficits don't matter.  they will, however, tell you that certain deficits are necessary in times of war or when you're handed an economy with slack sails (or one that soon would be)
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: PresClay_00 on May 17, 2005, 10:24:17 PM
I hate to admit it, but Clinton's economic policies made more sense than W's or even Reagan's.  I know that Reagan was fighting the commies, and I give him credit for that.  But, his notion that deficits don't matter, which the neo-cons embrace, is going to be ruinous for this country.

I'm not going to pretend I know enough about the current debt situation to comment on its current state. I do know that when the deficit was high in the Reagan years, dems said it would take decades to pay it off. Needless to say this proved false.

We still haven't paid it, have we?

Yes. It was pretty much all paid off. The current deficit is a new one.

no, it was slated to be paid off if everything worked out perfectly w/o any downturn in the economy.  unfortunately, that didn't quite happen
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: InVinoVeritas on May 17, 2005, 10:25:45 PM
Yes. It was pretty much all paid off. The current deficit is a new one.

the older deficits were merely rolled into the current public debt.  they have not been paid off.  the current deficit will also be rolled into the public debt and hence, will not be paid off for some time.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: Paperback Writer on May 17, 2005, 10:28:21 PM
During Bush the father, and Bush the son's presidencies, I've always felt like I'd either starve or suffer a huge drop in my standard of living if I was to lose my job.  During Clinton's two terms, I felt like I could tell my boss to shove a stick up her ass, set all the cars on fire in the parking lot as I left, and still have ten job offers before I got home.

Oh, for those days again!!!
Title: Re: wisdom of dubyah
Post by: __ on May 17, 2005, 10:29:27 PM
Barf
let's remove the augmentation of the electoral college.

By County-
(http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/countymapredblue.png)
Title: Re: wisdom of dubyah
Post by: PresClay_00 on May 17, 2005, 10:30:41 PM
Barf
let's remove the augmentation of the electoral college.

By County-
(http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/countymapredblue.png)

so you'd rather not have the electoral college?
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: InVinoVeritas on May 17, 2005, 10:32:16 PM
no, it was slated to be paid off if everything worked out perfectly w/o any downturn in the economy.  unfortunately, that didn't quite h

that's not quite right either, i think.  as far as i understand, there was only a projection for the budget to finally be out of deficit some years in the future.  however, this doesn't mean that any accrued debt up to that point will have been paid back.  that accrued debt will have been sold off to the folks who stock up on US government bonds, namely the japanese and chinese.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: __ on May 17, 2005, 10:33:46 PM
no... I'm just saying that the supposed mandate is not as strong as perceived.

I'm not quite sure how to reform the college.  nebraska and maine(is it maine... or NH... or VT) are an interesting test... but they kinda have never exercized that ability
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: PresClay_00 on May 17, 2005, 10:34:09 PM
During Bush the father, and Bush the son's presidencies, I've always felt like I'd either starve or suffer a huge drop in my standard of living if I was to lose my job.  During Clinton's two terms, I felt like I could tell my boss to shove a stick up her ass, set all the cars on fire in the parking lot as I left, and still have ten job offers before I got home.

Oh, for those days again!!!

so you think that jobs immediately became available when Clinton took office and immediately unavailable when clinton left?  fat chance.  he was just lucky the bubble didn't pop a bit sooner or the attack didn't come on his watch (although the lack/inaccuracies of intelligence gathering during this period certainly contributed thereto)
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: PresClay_00 on May 17, 2005, 10:35:20 PM
no, it was slated to be paid off if everything worked out perfectly w/o any downturn in the economy.  unfortunately, that didn't quite h

that's not quite right either, i think.  as far as i understand, there was only a projection for the budget to finally be out of deficit some years in the future.  however, this doesn't mean that any accrued debt up to that point will have been paid back.  that accrued debt will have been sold off to the folks who stock up on US government bonds, namely the japanese and chinese.

right, but under clinton's plan of a perfect economy, the surplus after that point could then be used to pay off the debt. 
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: Paperback Writer on May 17, 2005, 10:35:41 PM
no, it was slated to be paid off if everything worked out perfectly w/o any downturn in the economy.  unfortunately, that didn't quite h

that's not quite right either, i think.  as far as i understand, there was only a projection for the budget to finally be out of deficit some years in the future.  however, this doesn't mean that any accrued debt up to that point will have been paid back.  that accrued debt will have been sold off to the folks who stock up on US government bonds, namely the japanese and chinese.

During the Clinton boom years, when the budget was hopelessly propped up by a bubble stock market, it was projected the nation's debt -- all of it -- to be paid off by something like 2020.  During Clinton, the yearly budget was in the black.  We were actually paying principle on the national debt.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: PresClay_00 on May 17, 2005, 10:38:06 PM
no... I'm just saying that the supposed mandate is not as strong as perceived.

I'm not quite sure how to reform the college.  nebraska and maine(is it maine... or NH... or VT) are an interesting test... but they kinda have never exercized that ability

but it's certainly greater than any mandate in recent history (as represented by the size of the win and the gains in the legislature)

Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: Paperback Writer on May 17, 2005, 10:38:50 PM
During Bush the father, and Bush the son's presidencies, I've always felt like I'd either starve or suffer a huge drop in my standard of living if I was to lose my job.  During Clinton's two terms, I felt like I could tell my boss to shove a stick up her ass, set all the cars on fire in the parking lot as I left, and still have ten job offers before I got home.

Oh, for those days again!!!

so you think that jobs immediately became available when Clinton took office and immediately unavailable when clinton left?  fat chance.  he was just lucky the bubble didn't pop a bit sooner or the attack didn't come on his watch (although the lack/inaccuracies of intelligence gathering during this period certainly contributed thereto)

There's no question that the Bush's favor big business over the American worker.  Not that Clinton didn't either, but he wasn't nearly as bad.  I'm not saying that Clinton was perfect, he wasn't, but it's hard to deny the power that American workers had during those years.  The economy was really humming.  Something like 22 million jobs were created during Clinton's years.  I think Bush is just now getting past even.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: PresClay_00 on May 17, 2005, 10:41:30 PM
During Bush the father, and Bush the son's presidencies, I've always felt like I'd either starve or suffer a huge drop in my standard of living if I was to lose my job.  During Clinton's two terms, I felt like I could tell my boss to shove a stick up her ass, set all the cars on fire in the parking lot as I left, and still have ten job offers before I got home.

Oh, for those days again!!!

so you think that jobs immediately became available when Clinton took office and immediately unavailable when clinton left?  fat chance.  he was just lucky the bubble didn't pop a bit sooner or the attack didn't come on his watch (although the lack/inaccuracies of intelligence gathering during this period certainly contributed thereto)

There's no question that the Bush's favor big business over the American worker.  Not that Clinton didn't either, but he wasn't nearly as bad.  I'm not saying that Clinton was perfect, he wasn't, but it's hard to deny the power that American workers had during those years.  The economy was really humming.  Something like 22 million jobs were created during Clinton's years.  I think Bush is just now getting past even.

yeah, when idiots walking out of college could demand 80k for nothing and get away with it.  also when VC would go with any plan, regardless of its actual ability to make money.    The Tech Bubble is what made all of that possible, and like i said, clinton got lucky to not have it end during his admin
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: St. Shaun on May 17, 2005, 10:43:39 PM
so you think that jobs immediately became available when Clinton took office and immediately unavailable when clinton left?  fat chance.  he was just lucky the bubble didn't pop a bit sooner or the attack didn't come on his watch (although the lack/inaccuracies of intelligence gathering during this period certainly contributed thereto)

There's no question that the Bush's favor big business over the American worker.  Not that Clinton didn't either, but he wasn't nearly as bad.  I'm not saying that Clinton was perfect, he wasn't, but it's hard to deny the power that American workers had during those years.  The economy was really humming.  Something like 22 million jobs were created during Clinton's years.  I think Bush is just now getting past even.
Quote

You need to remember that this recession started under Clinton.  Your not comparing apples to apples.  Big business is the American worker.  I'm not going to defend all of Bush or Clintons policys.  They both have put restraints on the free market, which isn't good for anyone. 
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: __ on May 17, 2005, 10:47:15 PM
quite possibly, I was just poking at the map... which does not reflect proportions of voters.  so you praise this map that show's upwards of 80%, where is is nowhere near that.  that's all I'm saying.

and I also think mandate is a dumb word.  It doesn't make sense to me.  It's as if you're gleening more information from the results of the election than just the result.  I think that's messed up.

no... I'm just saying that the supposed mandate is not as strong as perceived.

I'm not quite sure how to reform the college.  nebraska and maine(is it maine... or NH... or VT) are an interesting test... but they kinda have never exercized that ability

but it's certainly greater than any mandate in recent history (as represented by the size of the win and the gains in the legislature)


Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: J D on May 17, 2005, 10:50:00 PM
so you think that jobs immediately became available when Clinton took office and immediately unavailable when clinton left?  fat chance.  he was just lucky the bubble didn't pop a bit sooner or the attack didn't come on his watch (although the lack/inaccuracies of intelligence gathering during this period certainly contributed thereto)

There's no question that the Bush's favor big business over the American worker.  Not that Clinton didn't either, but he wasn't nearly as bad.  I'm not saying that Clinton was perfect, he wasn't, but it's hard to deny the power that American workers had during those years.  The economy was really humming.  Something like 22 million jobs were created during Clinton's years.  I think Bush is just now getting past even.
Quote

You need to remember that this recession started under Clinton.  Your not comparing apples to apples.  Big business is the American worker.  I'm not going to defend all of Bush or Clintons policys.  They both have put restraints on the free market, which isn't good for anyone. 

Call me crazy. but I remember this recession officially starting (as indicated by the observation of two consecutive quarters of decline) around April 2001, well after January 20 of that year.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: InVinoVeritas on May 17, 2005, 10:51:01 PM
but it's certainly greater than any mandate in recent history (as represented by the size of the win and the gains in the legislature)

the size of the win wasn't that large.  in fact, all in all, it rested in the hands of a relatively small portion of the population of ohio.

and as to gains in the legislature, particularly in the house, keep in mind many of those gains were wrought through some of the worse political gerrymandering in history.  that's not so much as sign of a mandate that it is a sign of political manipulation.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: PresClay_00 on May 17, 2005, 10:51:15 PM
quite possibly, I was just poking at the map... which does not reflect proportions of voters.  so you praise this map that show's upwards of 80%, where is is nowhere near that.  that's all I'm saying.

and I also think mandate is a dumb word.  It doesn't make sense to me.  It's as if you're gleening more information from the results of the election than just the result.  I think that's messed up.


i think the best thing about that map is how it depicts the concentration of liberal voters in comparison to the rest of the country. granted, it's also important to know that those are also densely populated areas. 

as for mandate, it's prob a bit strong, but besides looking at the results and saying "we won, we won big, our party won big = the people on a whole agree with us" what can you take from it?
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: St. Shaun on May 17, 2005, 10:52:34 PM
but it's certainly greater than any mandate in recent history (as represented by the size of the win and the gains in the legislature)

the size of the win wasn't that large.  in fact, all in all, it rested in the hands of a relatively small portion of the population of ohio.

and as to gains in the legislature, particularly in the house, keep in mind many of those gains were wrought through some of the worse political gerrymandering in history.  that's not so much as sign of a mandate that it is a sign of political manipulation.

Oh please.  Don't get me started.  The Gerrymanering goes both ways.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: Paperback Writer on May 17, 2005, 10:53:11 PM
The recession did begin under Clinton.  But, the cruel joke that is the labor market, which has not really rebounded under Bush, can be laid at the feet of Prez. Bush.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: brotha on May 17, 2005, 10:56:12 PM
Let us not forget that Clinton had a Republican Congress for 6 of his 8 years.  There was good reform including Welfare Reform in those years.  We need to cut out the pork and make sure we get more tax cuts.  Taxes suck!  Look at the growth in lower taxed regions like the South and the shift away from the Northeast Region like New York.

And no matter what people say Bush started his term with a recession and luckily with his three major tax cuts for EVERYONE we are getting back to normal.  It was a bubble just waiting to bust. 
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: PresClay_00 on May 17, 2005, 10:58:13 PM
but it's certainly greater than any mandate in recent history (as represented by the size of the win and the gains in the legislature)

the size of the win wasn't that large.  in fact, all in all, it rested in the hands of a relatively small portion of the population of ohio.

and as to gains in the legislature, particularly in the house, keep in mind many of those gains were wrought through some of the worse political gerrymandering in history.  that's not so much as sign of a mandate that it is a sign of political manipulation.

what about the few in PA that could have gone the other way, etc etc.  He won, clear and fair.  as for gerrymandering, it's def a two way street
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: __ on May 17, 2005, 10:59:57 PM
granted, it's also important to know that those are also densely populated areas. 

hell yeah
it's hard to see this map but this is real

(http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~sara/html/mapping/election/election04/wins.jpg)
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: brotha on May 17, 2005, 11:01:24 PM
Oh there was a net gain in Congress and Senate for Republicans.  Getting closer to the filibuster-free Senate.  Republicans took out Daschle (key victory). 

Oh yeah, New Jersey was a surprise at only a 5% victory for Kerry.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: PresClay_00 on May 17, 2005, 11:01:32 PM
granted, it's also important to know that those are also densely populated areas. 

hell yeah
it's hard to see this map but this is real

(http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~sara/html/mapping/election/election04/wins.jpg)

but as the results show, cold water success isn't all it takes any more. 
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: __ on May 17, 2005, 11:05:12 PM
granted, it's also important to know that those are also densely populated areas. 

hell yeah
it's hard to see this map but this is real

(http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~sara/html/mapping/election/election04/wins.jpg)

but as the results show, cold water success isn't all it takes any more. 

dude, I wasn't trying to trump you... I'm not under the minsipression of the results of the election... I was just trying to place some perspective on it. ;) g'night buddy
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: InVinoVeritas on May 17, 2005, 11:05:53 PM
what about the few in PA that could have gone the other way, etc etc.  He won, clear and fair.  as for gerrymandering, it's def a two way street

but they didn't go either way.  the difference, in the end, was made in ohio.

i'm not saying he didn't win fair and square.  i, personally, have few problems with the mechanics of the election.  however, to say his victory resulted in a mandate is a bit of a stretch.

and yes, gerrymandering goes both ways, but tom delay took it to a whole new level when he managed to redraw texan congressional districts halfway between the normal timespan of congressional redistricting.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: St. Shaun on May 17, 2005, 11:08:10 PM
The decision was made in Pensylvania, Minnesota, Iowa, New Jersey, and Florida.  You can't just look at the close call for the democrats, they all could have gone both ways.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: brotha on May 17, 2005, 11:09:05 PM
Well Florida was over 300,000 votes.  A lot more than the 500 or so from 2000
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: brotha on May 17, 2005, 11:12:04 PM
Here is my favorite fact about the election and Bush Supporters:

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/10/tax_foundations.html

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2005/05/median_income_d.html

More rich people in the blue states and they are not friendly to businesses.  Such a shame!

Oh yeah, since we are going to law school for those interested, this website is great for papers and information on tax law.  Not sure if people are interested but it makes for good statistics and empirical data on taxes and tax policy. 
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: J D on May 17, 2005, 11:16:00 PM
Let us not forget that Clinton had a Republican Congress for 6 of his 8 years.  There was good reform including Welfare Reform in those years.  We need to cut out the pork and make sure we get more tax cuts.  Taxes suck!  Look at the growth in lower taxed regions like the South and the shift away from the Northeast Region like New York.

And no matter what people say Bush started his term with a recession and luckily with his three major tax cuts for EVERYONE we are getting back to normal.  It was a bubble just waiting to bust. 

Welfare Reform (specifically TANF, Temporary Aid to Needy Families) has been one of the biggest disasters of the last 10 years.  Rather than encouraging people to lift themselves up out of dependence on public assistance and into independence, it has done quite the opposite.  Because TANF makes little--if any allowance--for one to educatate oneself (say by attending classes at community college part time) and acquire more marketable job skills, it has led to alarge number of people being trapped in woring poverty, able neither to free themselves from dependence upon TANF benefits nor to use those benfeits to escape poverty.  The biggest problem with the reform, I think, was its rigidity; it didn't account that most people need a transition period, whereby as the poor take steps to lift themselves up out of poverty (which has to include education and training) they would gradually lose the safety net that they would no longer need.  Instead they opted for a sudden shock type of approach, whereby they receive benefits (to make ends meet--barely) while they slave away at a full-time job at McDonalds (that's the only type of job many of these people can get because they lack skills), but lose the entire safety net the minute they enroll at community college to secure a better future for themselves.  That's messed up, in my humble opinion.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on May 17, 2005, 11:17:11 PM
someone tell ms. julie that "W" or "dubya" is the greatest vowel of our day!!!!

there is wisdom in that :-*


px.o.rsta
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: InVinoVeritas on May 17, 2005, 11:17:54 PM
The decision was made in Pensylvania, Minnesota, Iowa, New Jersey, and Florida.  You can't just look at the close call for the democrats, they all could have gone both ways.

fair enough, but that still doesn't not equate to a mandate.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: St. Shaun on May 17, 2005, 11:22:19 PM
I definately agree.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: DodgerLaw on May 17, 2005, 11:31:16 PM
This is a little off-topic, but I remember predicting in the early '90s that Clinton's liberal policies (HilaryCare, etc.) would lead to a backlash resulting in a conservative Republican being swept into office in '96. What I failed to anticipate was that Clinton's liberal policies would be so rapidly denounced that Republicans led by Newt Gingrich would take control of the House of Representatives in '94. Clinton heeded the warning and moved to the center in time to save his bacon in '96. Of course running against Bob Dole (a moderate) didn't hurt either.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on May 17, 2005, 11:31:55 PM
it is suspicious that some still dwell on the past presidential election...

americans have a president...he is the democrat's president...and the republican's president...and the independent's president...like it or not...

"W" is president...right?

stop licking old wounds...let them heal...move on!
get over it!

sounds like children still harping on losing a championship baseball game...

people are STILL suspiciously harping.

 :'(...here.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on May 17, 2005, 11:35:42 PM
god forbid, but if chaney runs against hillary in 2008...chaney WILL win.
no crying in politics...please!
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: PresClay_00 on May 18, 2005, 04:51:34 AM
Cheney has said on numerous occasions he is not running for office.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: PresClay_00 on May 18, 2005, 07:06:17 AM
President's have VERY LITTLE, if any, control over jobs and the economy.  This is a huge misnomer.

yeah, much more blame or credit can go to the fed res chmn as a result of their actions
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: St. Shaun on May 18, 2005, 10:15:11 AM
I really doubt the Dems will put Hillary up for election, even though she has made steps to appearing less liberal since the election.  I think the party that can find the most moderate canidate will win the next election.  Given that person actually has theories how to get things done.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: smuorbust on May 18, 2005, 10:30:36 AM
god forbid, but if chaney runs against hillary in 2008...chaney WILL win.
no crying in politics...please!

Who is this "Chaney" and what does he do?  Why can't conservatives learn to spell?
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: DodgerLaw on May 18, 2005, 10:35:39 AM
god forbid, but if chaney runs against hillary in 2008...chaney WILL win.
no crying in politics...please!

Who is this "Chaney" and what does he do?  Why can't conservatives learn to spell?

Absolootly. I'm boting as libral as i can nekst time sew my speling wil improov get more gooder.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: DodgerLaw on May 18, 2005, 10:41:27 AM
No. This guy.

(http://www.videorarities.net/chaney-web.jpg)
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: smuorbust on May 18, 2005, 11:18:21 AM
god forbid, but if chaney runs against hillary in 2008...chaney WILL win.
no crying in politics...please!

Who is this "Chaney" and what does he do?  Why can't conservatives learn to spell?

Absolootly. I'm boting as libral as i can nekst time sew my speling wil improov get more gooder.

Forget law school, you should take that act on the road.   
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on May 18, 2005, 12:36:26 PM
lon chaney jr. actually...

glad some of u understand the amBIGuity of my writing...

and aye know the elipseez piss some of u off...u should see what they do to the brains on court st.

legalease is so fun when u write to make a buck. ;)
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: hey not you hey on May 18, 2005, 01:30:42 PM
Yeah, don't forget how much the true liberals (read liberals of today) hated Reagan and his "trickle down" economics.  He's probably the president most in touch with sound economic principles.

Come on, now you're just being obtuse.  You don't actually believe this, do you?

as far as that map that Phanatic loves so much...the popular vote was pretty damn close this last election.  the blue areas are far more populated than the red areas. a 3 million person descrepancy does not a mandate make.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: smuorbust on May 18, 2005, 01:35:29 PM
some say ambiguity...some say ignorance
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: ASNetlenov on May 18, 2005, 01:41:07 PM
Yeah, don't forget how much the true liberals (read liberals of today) hated Reagan and his "trickle down" economics.  He's probably the president most in touch with sound economic principles.

Come on, now you're just being obtuse.  You don't actually believe this, do you?

as far as that map that Phanatic loves so much...the popular vote was pretty damn close this last election.  the blue areas are far more populated than the red areas. a 3 million person descrepancy does not a mandate make.
Phan beat me to it. At least W has the majority of voters behind him, which is something Clinton never had.

BTW, I did not vote for W because his economic policies were way too liberal for me. I am not supporting "my guy" here.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: ASNetlenov on May 18, 2005, 01:51:29 PM
Pretty much. I am not a strict Libertarian because I believe government has a basic role in things such as infastructure. But mostly I just want the government out of my way so that I can do what I will.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on May 18, 2005, 01:54:51 PM
some say ambiguity...some say ignorance

some "write" amBIGuity...
some "know" ignorance is easy.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: fooseball22 on May 18, 2005, 01:58:58 PM
phanatic...any way you spin it, blue states are smarter than red states.

"When  a true genius arrives on the scene, you will know him by this sign, the dunces are all in confederacy against him"
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: LaneSwerver on May 18, 2005, 01:59:25 PM
some say ambiguity...some say ignorance

some "write" amBIGuity...
some "know" ignorance is easy.

That...rhymes, sort of.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: St. Shaun on May 18, 2005, 02:03:23 PM

BTW, I did not vote for W because his economic policies were way too liberal for me. I am not supporting "my guy" here.

I voted for W, but definately not for his economic policies.  He grown the government, what kind of republican is that.  I voted for him basically because he was the lesser of the two evils.  I would have hate to have seen where Kerry would have taken us.

Economically I'm a libertarian, definately unlike the president.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: St. Shaun on May 18, 2005, 02:05:39 PM
phanatic...any way you spin it, blue states are smarter than red states.

Talk about begging the question.  Are we going off of IQ (in which case remember which candidate had the higher IQ), or something different?  Definately not sound economic principles (Are you really going to argue that California knows how to run an economy).
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: Abevigoda on May 18, 2005, 02:06:31 PM
There is a map floating around the internet that adjust for population by county, showing a pretty even blue red split (I'm too lazy to look for it).
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: fooseball22 on May 18, 2005, 02:07:53 PM
actually there are 50 states that are either red or blue...maybe we should invest more money into education?
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: St. Shaun on May 18, 2005, 02:08:06 PM
We seen the population adjusted by state.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: St. Shaun on May 18, 2005, 02:08:33 PM
actually there are 50 states that are either red or blue...maybe we should invest more money into education?

Just as long as it's not by voucher, right.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: ASNetlenov on May 18, 2005, 02:09:17 PM
I want a link to your avatar!

I am sure you've read Ayn Rand, but if not.....
I have read some Ayn Rand. But these days I'm reading about the interaction between the immigrant Arabs and native Europeans.

As for my avatar, it comes from the top of the following link:
http://www.livejournal.com/community/ucberkeley/916538.html?thread=8495418#t8495418
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: fooseball22 on May 18, 2005, 02:12:36 PM
I can summarize Ayn Rand's books for anyone who has not read them....ME MEME MEMEMEMEME ME MEE MEME
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: ASNetlenov on May 18, 2005, 02:13:00 PM
You are welcome.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on May 18, 2005, 02:29:31 PM
here is one for u...

is the wisdom of dubya...like the enigmatic vowel "w"?

so intelligent it evades "future mouthpieces"
yet so dippy it answers the "how" and preseeds the "why"?

which takes precedence?

 



Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on May 18, 2005, 02:39:16 PM
.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: Slothrop on May 18, 2005, 03:12:48 PM
Yeah, don't forget how much the true liberals (read liberals of today) hated Reagan and his "trickle down" economics.  He's probably the president most in touch with sound economic principles.

Come on, now you're just being obtuse.  You don't actually believe this, do you?

as far as that map that Phanatic loves so much...the popular vote was pretty damn close this last election.  the blue areas are far more populated than the red areas. a 3 million person descrepancy does not a mandate make.

I believe it.

That map is what it is.  You can skew it for population all you want.  Fact is, there is a Republican majority population in an overwhelmingly large # of counties.

And last I checked, 3 MILLION people was quite a significant number.  More than Clinton won by either time.

Phanatic,

Are you just bad at math, or do you intentionally lie to support your side?

1992
Clinton - 42.93% - 44,908,254
HW Bush - 37.38% - 39,102,343

1996
Clinton - 49.24% - 47,402,357
Dole    - 40.71% - 39,198,755
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: hey not you hey on May 18, 2005, 04:56:33 PM
^^^^^^^^^

EXACTLY what I was going to post. what a ridiculous statement.  I don't mind a little mudslinging, but geez man, were you asleep the past several elections?  besides, Bush didn't even win the popular vote in the 2000 election even though he became president, which only happened a hand full of times in U.S. history.
Title: Bush is crazy
Post by: goldenchild on May 18, 2005, 05:33:42 PM
I offer this as proof. Old proof, but proof nonetheless.

http://www.intrepidmedia.com/column.asp?id=1412
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on May 18, 2005, 06:18:56 PM
^^^^^^^^^

EXACTLY what I was going to post. what a ridiculous statement.  I don't mind a little mudslinging, but geez man, were you asleep the past several elections?  besides, Bush didn't even win the popular vote in the 2000 election even though he became president, which only happened a hand full of times in U.S. history.


so bitter and so young...keep licking those old wounds...oh, there is another prison in antarctica where the u.s. has been freezing the inmates...it is a dark secret.
such harsh treatment...

wait til lon chaney jr. is president ;)
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: Slothrop on May 18, 2005, 08:14:42 PM
Yeah, don't forget how much the true liberals (read liberals of today) hated Reagan and his "trickle down" economics.  He's probably the president most in touch with sound economic principles.

Come on, now you're just being obtuse.  You don't actually believe this, do you?

as far as that map that Phanatic loves so much...the popular vote was pretty damn close this last election.  the blue areas are far more populated than the red areas. a 3 million person descrepancy does not a mandate make.

I believe it.

That map is what it is.  You can skew it for population all you want.  Fact is, there is a Republican majority population in an overwhelmingly large # of counties.

And last I checked, 3 MILLION people was quite a significant number.  More than Clinton won by either time.

Phanatic,

Are you just bad at math, or do you intentionally lie to support your side?

1992
Clinton - 42.93% - 44,908,254
HW Bush - 37.38% - 39,102,343

1996
Clinton - 49.24% - 47,402,357
Dole    - 40.71% - 39,198,755


I NEED TO CLARIFY:  You will notice from your above post that Clinton DID NOT receive even 50% of the popular vote either time.  GW Bush was the first President to receive MORE than 50% of the popular vote.  I apologize for my sloppiness.  Thanks for putting up those statistics to prove that Clinton didn't do it though.

Phanatic,

Funny stuff, not only did you lie once, but then you lied again to cover up your first lie.  W Bush was FIRST to receive more than 50% of the popular vote?  Even his father did that against Dukakis, not to mention Reagan, would you like to go back further, MOST Presidents had more than 50%...

1988
HW Bush - 48,882,808 - 53.4%
Dukakis - 41,807,430 - 45.6%

Would you like to clarify again, or just keep on lying?

Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: J D on May 18, 2005, 08:47:08 PM
You also have to remember that minor party candidates played a far more significant role in those elections than they did in 2004 (virtually nobody in the past election voted for someone who lacked an R or a D next to their name on the ballot; it was a sign of just how incredibly polarized the voting population was).  The fact that Clinton did not break fifty percent of the vote is not a reflection of any fault or inadequacy on his part; it is a reflection of the contemporary political landscape that existed.  I think one could make the argument that if it reflected badly on anyone, it reflected badly on the Republican Party more than the Democrats, for the major minor party candidates that emerged in 1992 and 1996 showed a splintering of the right (perhaps, so the argument might go, a sign that the right was not doing as good a job at keeping its voters happy as the left was doing).
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: St. Shaun on May 18, 2005, 09:11:52 PM
So are you saying that the left isn't doing as good a job keeping it's voters happy this time, since this election the third party was splintered to the left? 
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: DodgerLaw on May 18, 2005, 09:21:24 PM
You also have to remember that minor party candidates played a far more significant role in those elections than they did in 2004 (virtually nobody in the past election voted for someone who lacked an R or a D next to their name on the ballot; it was a sign of just how incredibly polarized the voting population was).  The fact that Clinton did not break fifty percent of the vote is not a reflection of any fault or inadequacy on his part; it is a reflection of the contemporary political landscape that existed.  I think one could make the argument that if it reflected badly on anyone, it reflected badly on the Republican Party more than the Democrats, for the major minor party candidates that emerged in 1992 and 1996 showed a splintering of the right (perhaps, so the argument might go, a sign that the right was not doing as good a job at keeping its voters happy as the left was doing).

Interesting conclusion. Completely wrong, of course. The real conclusion to be drawn from the '92 election is that the elder Bush probably would have won if not for Perot. By the way, I voted for Perot, and I don't particularly regret it. I did not like the elder Bush (for President that is). I like "W" much better.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: St. Shaun on May 18, 2005, 09:24:51 PM
Both the Bush's aren't conservative enough economically for my taste.  One raised taxes and the other one made the government bigger.  I like W better though.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on May 18, 2005, 09:25:46 PM
You also have to remember that minor party candidates played a far more significant role in those elections than they did in 2004 (virtually nobody in the past election voted for someone who lacked an R or a D next to their name on the ballot; it was a sign of just how incredibly polarized the voting population was).  The fact that Clinton did not break fifty percent of the vote is not a reflection of any fault or inadequacy on his part; it is a reflection of the contemporary political landscape that existed.  I think one could make the argument that if it reflected badly on anyone, it reflected badly on the Republican Party more than the Democrats, for the major minor party candidates that emerged in 1992 and 1996 showed a splintering of the right (perhaps, so the argument might go, a sign that the right was not doing as good a job at keeping its voters happy as the left was doing).

Interesting conclusion. Completely wrong, of course. The real conclusion to be drawn from the '92 election is that the elder Bush probably would have won if not for Perot. By the way, I voted for Perot, and I don't particularly regret it. I did not like the elder Bush (for President that is). I like "W" much better.

perot was the deciding factor in that election...and aye think it was perot who said, "the past is the past. isn't it?"
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: St. Shaun on May 18, 2005, 09:28:21 PM

perot was the deciding factor in that election...and aye think it was perot who said, "the past is the past. isn't it?"

Pretty sure that wasn't Perot, that was Hillary.  Just another example of how much of a push over she it.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on May 18, 2005, 09:35:20 PM
Both the Bush's aren't conservative enough economically for my taste.  One raised taxes and the other one made the government bigger.  I like W better though.

aye prefer the vowel, "w" much better too. ;)

it is sooo...um....ah...presidentia lly enigmatic.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: J D on May 18, 2005, 09:42:44 PM
You also have to remember that minor party candidates played a far more significant role in those elections than they did in 2004 (virtually nobody in the past election voted for someone who lacked an R or a D next to their name on the ballot; it was a sign of just how incredibly polarized the voting population was).  The fact that Clinton did not break fifty percent of the vote is not a reflection of any fault or inadequacy on his part; it is a reflection of the contemporary political landscape that existed.  I think one could make the argument that if it reflected badly on anyone, it reflected badly on the Republican Party more than the Democrats, for the major minor party candidates that emerged in 1992 and 1996 showed a splintering of the right (perhaps, so the argument might go, a sign that the right was not doing as good a job at keeping its voters happy as the left was doing).

Interesting conclusion. Completely wrong, of course. The real conclusion to be drawn from the '92 election is that the elder Bush probably would have won if not for Perot. By the way, I voted for Perot, and I don't particularly regret it. I did not like the elder Bush (for President that is). I like "W" much better.

That was exactly my point.  Bush lost in 1992 mostly because of Perot, who probably wouldn't have had so much appeal among otherwise likely Bush voters had he and his party done a better job of keeping them happy.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: Paperback Writer on May 18, 2005, 09:45:35 PM
It's up in the air what effect Perot had on the 1992 election.  I do know that Nader threw the 2000 election to Bush.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: St. Shaun on May 18, 2005, 09:52:43 PM
It's up in the air what effect Perot had on the 1992 election.  I do know that Nader threw the 2000 election to Bush.

Exactly.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on May 18, 2005, 09:55:53 PM
It's up in the air what effect Perot had on the 1992 election.  I do know that Nader threw the 2000 election to Bush.


well bush wouldn't have had so much of an appeal among otherwise likely dean or kerry voters had they and their party done a better job of keeping them happy.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: St. Shaun on May 18, 2005, 09:57:26 PM
He's talking about 2000, not 2004.  It wouldn't make a strong argument that Nader had an effect on the 2000 election since Bush got over 50% of the votes.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on May 18, 2005, 10:00:23 PM
He's talking about 2000, not 2004.  It wouldn't make a strong argument that Nader had an effect on the 2000 election since Bush got over 50% of the votes.

please...guys, aye am trying to bring this up to date...
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: St. Shaun on May 18, 2005, 10:02:17 PM
I appreciate that.  Really.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on May 18, 2005, 10:07:42 PM
come on everybody knows that bush won in 2000 because of corruption...and tampered voting machines in florida...isn't that what the democrats have been telling us...even today...

for supposedly a younger grassroots, hip, party...they sure harp like "depends wearing old women trying to use all their coupons during the earlybird hour at howard johnsons."



lets speed this along...

who is president now anyway???

d.i.c.k. chaney?
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: St. Shaun on May 18, 2005, 10:10:01 PM
Chaney?

I would say it's probably more Laura Bush.

Can't you just see W asking her every night for advise.

"Honey, the dems in the senate keep picking on me"
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: hey not you hey on May 19, 2005, 02:39:27 AM
He's talking about 2000, not 2004.  It wouldn't make a strong argument that Nader had an effect on the 2000 election since Bush got over 50% of the votes.

are you serious?  this is absolutely ridiculous.  you dudes need to quit skewing history to your liking.  Bush LOST the popular vote in the 2000 election. 2000 election results:


Bush: 50,461,092 (47.9%)
Gore: 50,994,086 (48.4%)
Nader: 2,882,728 (2.7%)

Nader clearly had an effect.  I don't remember exactly, but break it down state by state and if Nader and no other significant 3rd party candidate had been running, Gore would have probably won several "Bush" states and been the undisputed winner.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: hey not you hey on May 19, 2005, 02:46:23 AM
^^^^^^^^^

EXACTLY what I was going to post. what a ridiculous statement.  I don't mind a little mudslinging, but geez man, were you asleep the past several elections?  besides, Bush didn't even win the popular vote in the 2000 election even though he became president, which only happened a hand full of times in U.S. history.


so bitter and so young...keep licking those old wounds...oh, there is another prison in antarctica where the u.s. has been freezing the inmates...it is a dark secret.
such harsh treatment...

wait til lon chaney jr. is president ;)

Are you going to law school?  I have no idea what you're saying.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on May 19, 2005, 02:51:00 AM
He's talking about 2000, not 2004.  It wouldn't make a strong argument that Nader had an effect on the 2000 election since Bush got over 50% of the votes.

are you serious?  this is absolutely ridiculous.  you dudes need to quit skewing history to your liking.  Bush LOST the popular vote in the 2000 election. 2000 election results:


Bush: 50,461,092 (47.9%)
Gore: 50,994,086 (48.4%)
Nader: 2,882,728 (2.7%)

Nader clearly had an effect.  I don't remember exactly, but break it down state by state and if Nader and no other significant 3rd party candidate had been running, Gore would have probably won several "Bush" states and been the undisputed winner.

"probably"...succinct and to the point...aye like it.

well that is good enough for me...

what about corruption...didn't that have a hand in it?






what do you think about the wisdom of the vowel "w"?

"come awhn? (as al franken and bill mahr would say)...isn't that what we're really talkin' about?" ;)
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: Julie Fern on May 19, 2005, 05:07:07 AM
Chaney?

I would say it's probably more Laura Bush.

Can't you just see W asking her every night for advise.

"Honey, the dems in the senate keep picking on me"


"this cocaine look good to you, sweetums?  yes?  now can we play 'the president and the countess'?"
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: hammer101 on May 19, 2005, 07:25:11 AM
He's talking about 2000, not 2004.  It wouldn't make a strong argument that Nader had an effect on the 2000 election since Bush got over 50% of the votes.

are you serious?  this is absolutely ridiculous.  you dudes need to quit skewing history to your liking.  Bush LOST the popular vote in the 2000 election. 2000 election results:


Bush: 50,461,092 (47.9%)
Gore: 50,994,086 (48.4%)
Nader: 2,882,728 (2.7%)

Nader clearly had an effect.  I don't remember exactly, but break it down state by state and if Nader and no other significant 3rd party candidate had been running, Gore would have probably won several "Bush" states and been the undisputed winner.

I had nothing to do with that one, I swear.

Bush Sr. would have won in a landslide if it weren't for Perot.  Similiarly, I will concede that Gore would have beat W in 2000 without Nader.

I'm not sure I'd agree about Perot's impact -- he attracted disaffected Democrats as well as Republicans, but definitely more of the latter. I think a number of those voters probably would've stayed home if his name hadn't been on the ballot (but I think you're right about Nader -- that election was so close it's likely at least 600 or so of the ~90,000 who voted for him in Florida would've voted for Gore).

But either way, Clinton still won with one of the smallest pluralities in decades...
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: fooseball22 on May 19, 2005, 07:53:11 AM
...stop trying to steal clinton's thunder
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: fooseball22 on May 19, 2005, 08:10:11 AM
...hopefully we can have another president who can lead us to such prosperity.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: Paperback Writer on May 19, 2005, 09:59:13 AM
I disagreed with a lot of Clinton's personality issues, and policy issues, but I'd love to have another run at the 90's.  A lot of opportunity was available, and I didn't take advantage.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: fooseball22 on May 19, 2005, 10:07:17 AM
I wish every president was as 'loose' as clinton.  Think about how much more cooler we'd seem to the rest of the world with a president who is constantly shagging arse.   
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: PresClay_00 on May 19, 2005, 10:19:01 AM
yeah, i'm sure the muslims absolutely loved his lack of morals
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: Abevigoda on May 19, 2005, 10:20:49 AM
Why just Muslims?  I'm not sure what that's suppossed to mean.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: fooseball22 on May 19, 2005, 10:22:11 AM
It means Pres needs to be sexified.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: PresClay_00 on May 19, 2005, 10:31:38 AM
Why just Muslims?  I'm not sure what that's suppossed to mean.

that's where a large source of contention is coming from and the reasons given by Europeans, etc.

yeah, that's what it means. 
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: fooseball22 on May 19, 2005, 10:35:31 AM
the fact is, everybody likes sex...even muslims you racist bastard
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: PresClay_00 on May 19, 2005, 10:36:52 AM
who said they didn't??  they already equate the US with heathenistic practices.  a president who can't keep his pecker in his pants doesn't help that image a whole lot
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: fooseball22 on May 19, 2005, 10:40:44 AM
hedenistic? or studly?  I'm thinking the later.  Besides, why do you think muslims wear those sexy orgy robes?  Because they're prudes?   
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: PresClay_00 on May 19, 2005, 10:43:36 AM
i think you're asking about hedonistic, but i meant heathenistic (an uncivilized or irreligious person).  prob for the same reason they wear those veils - for concealment
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: fooseball22 on May 19, 2005, 10:47:51 AM
heathenistic, hedonistic, whats the difference?  Not much...and those veils are special orgy veils by the way, do your research.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: PresClay_00 on May 19, 2005, 10:51:52 AM
lacking religion/culture, sole purpose of life is physical pleasure, no big diff.  oh, those veils.  yeah.  right
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: Abevigoda on May 19, 2005, 10:54:51 AM
You clearly no little about the differences amongst the cultures of the worlds 1.2 billion Muslims.  
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: fooseball22 on May 19, 2005, 11:00:44 AM
the fact is muslims love orgies and presidents who cant keep the snake in the pants.  Agreed?
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: PresClay_00 on May 19, 2005, 11:03:48 AM
You clearly no little about the differences amongst the cultures of the worlds 1.2 billion Muslims.  

prob so, but you no what i'm talking about - the muslims that hate the US.  i'm sure they no as little about me as i do about them, but they, being the ones that hate us, still hate us
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: fooseball22 on May 19, 2005, 11:08:45 AM
what do you think muslims do with those 72 virgins in heaven?  watch sleepless in seatle for all of eternity?  Of course not, theyre having orgies.  Thus, if we want to really connect with muslims, we need an overtly sexual president.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: PresClay_00 on May 19, 2005, 11:09:49 AM
and i'm the racist bastard??
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: Abevigoda on May 19, 2005, 11:12:38 AM
Yes, and I think you KNOW that.

(Sorry, about the misspell, I was typing fast)
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: fooseball22 on May 19, 2005, 11:18:03 AM
whoa, what happened to orgies and slick willie?
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: PresClay_00 on May 19, 2005, 11:22:01 AM
so their (same, US hating they) appraisal of all Americans (and even Westerners) is accurate?  i may be ignorant to the intricacies of differences b/w the many sects of Islam, but i don't advocate the destruction of their society/culture by suicide bombings, nor do i advocate it just to make a point that i disagree with their beliefs or way of life
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: Abevigoda on May 19, 2005, 11:28:22 AM
Neither does Islam, just a drop in the proverbial bucket of the overall population.  Comparing terrorists to Islam is like comparing the KKK to Christianity; it just isn't accurate.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: fooseball22 on May 19, 2005, 11:30:20 AM
but its convenient to just pretend theyre all bad guys.  Who cares if theyre sunni or shi'ite
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: Abevigoda on May 19, 2005, 11:31:36 AM
I guess it makes things alot simpler to understand-and now we've come full circle to the topic of the thread.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: __ on May 19, 2005, 11:31:44 AM
what do you think muslims do with those 72 virgins in heaven?  watch sleepless in seatle for all of eternity?  Of course not, theyre having orgies.  Thus, if we want to really connect with muslims, we need an overtly sexual president.

wouldn't then they quickly run out of virgins?
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: fooseball22 on May 19, 2005, 11:33:01 AM
they have surgeries to replace hymens...c'mon, get with the program, we're talking heaven here.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: Abevigoda on May 19, 2005, 11:33:57 AM
Oh, that's a heaven I can get used to.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: __ on May 19, 2005, 11:34:32 AM
yeah, i'm sure the muslims absolutely loved his lack of morals

but I think they prefer that to one who bombs their children.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: PresClay_00 on May 19, 2005, 11:35:08 AM
but the vocal Muslims of the world lump all Americans together, no?
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: Abevigoda on May 19, 2005, 11:35:39 AM
Yeah, but does that make it right for anyone to do that?
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: fooseball22 on May 19, 2005, 11:37:02 AM
of course it does...if ur an idiot
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: __ on May 19, 2005, 11:38:13 AM
sweeping generalizations about any groups of people are bad.

I'm gonna take a stand
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: PresClay_00 on May 19, 2005, 11:41:07 AM
yeah, i'm sure the muslims absolutely loved his lack of morals

but I think they prefer that to one who bombs their children.

b/c Clinton never sent missiles indiscriminately
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: kbp on May 19, 2005, 11:41:49 AM
sweeping generalizations about any groups of people are bad.

I'm gonna take a stand

reason 867 why I lurv T


you may continue your argument now
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: fooseball22 on May 19, 2005, 11:42:32 AM
hear that?  sounds like a conservative flailing around trying to grab something to run with
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: PresClay_00 on May 19, 2005, 11:43:01 AM
Yeah, but does that make it right for anyone to do that?

no, it doesn't.  but did you not know who i was talking about the whole time?  i'll agree that my clarification should have been made sooner, but it has been made
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: fooseball22 on May 19, 2005, 11:44:31 AM
yeah, i'm sure the muslims absolutely loved his lack of morals

but I think they prefer that to one who bombs their children.

b/c Clinton never sent missiles indiscriminately

i thought only liberals attempted to do this?
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on May 19, 2005, 11:45:22 AM
yeah, i'm sure the muslims absolutely loved his lack of morals

but I think they prefer that to one who bombs their children.

b/c Clinton never sent missiles indiscriminately

clinton had trouble playing poker...much better at black-jack...he was a good card counter..
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: PresClay_00 on May 19, 2005, 11:47:03 AM
yeah, i'm sure the muslims absolutely loved his lack of morals

but I think they prefer that to one who bombs their children.

b/c Clinton never sent missiles indiscriminately

i thought only liberals attempted to do this?

what?
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on May 19, 2005, 11:48:41 AM
clinton had good presidential name...

hope this doesn't confuse anyone.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: Abevigoda on May 19, 2005, 11:48:55 AM
Bush's war is to poker because there was alot of bluffing involved.  Clinton's Bosnian war was all about missle accuracy and the greater good.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: PresClay_00 on May 19, 2005, 11:52:40 AM
so it's ok to eliminate one dictator that killed many people but not another?
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on May 19, 2005, 11:54:39 AM
Bush's war is to poker because there was alot of bluffing involved.  Clinton's Bosnian war was all about missle accuracy and the greater good.

like aye said...good card counter...and strong presidential name...

bush is a kool "new-age"..."name ya just want to repeat" presidential name...like "adams"...
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: ASNetlenov on May 19, 2005, 11:56:52 AM
yeah, i'm sure the muslims absolutely loved his lack of morals

but I think they prefer that to one who bombs their children.

b/c Clinton never sent missiles indiscriminately
Tony Zinni, who was the general in charge of US Operations in Africa/Asia at the time (the region was something like this if not exactly what I listed), stated that before Clinton launched the missles, which was during the middle of the Monica thing, that Clinton understood the chances of hitting bin Laden with a missle was "one in a million." It was a purely political.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on May 19, 2005, 12:00:21 PM
so it's ok to eliminate one dictator that killed many people but not another?


let us not forget the other reason we went into iraq...

the dead hussein boys...that was the smartest reason.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: PresClay_00 on May 19, 2005, 12:01:36 PM
yeah, i'm sure the muslims absolutely loved his lack of morals

but I think they prefer that to one who bombs their children.

b/c Clinton never sent missiles indiscriminately
Tony Zinni, who was the general in charge of US Operations in Africa/Asia at the time (the region was something like this if not exactly what I listed), stated that before Clinton launched the missles, which was during the middle of the Monica thing, that Clinton understood the chances of hitting bin Laden with a missle was "one in a million." It was a purely political.

exactly
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: __ on May 19, 2005, 12:03:46 PM
so it's ok to eliminate one dictator that killed many people but not another?

remember... we didn't go into Iraq to eliminate the dictator until AFTER we failed to find any goodie-bags there.  I hate when conservatives say how Iraq was such a good idea 'cause we liberated all of those oppressed people.  If that had been touted as the reason for war there would have been no public support.  So let's freak out the baby boomers who grew up with "duck and cover" 'cause that'll get the country behind this "oil dig".
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: PresClay_00 on May 19, 2005, 12:07:22 PM
it's still not for sure if they weren't sent elsewhere prior to the invasion
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: ASNetlenov on May 19, 2005, 12:08:09 PM
There is a liberal media and there is a conservative media. Those who are in denial about how liberal the media is should consider my previous post. The liberal tendencies are not shown through the actual reporting so much as what is not reported. Look what happens every time a government official comes out with a story that is anti-Bush- the media cannot get enough.

Another great example of how the media is just poor: during the Florida election in 2000, the media focused on silly things like the butterfly ballot. The real story is that because the idiots called the election BEFORE the polls were closed in the panhandle, that turnout was severly depressed in that region, which happens to vote heavily Republican. Had the election not been called too early and turnout been what it would have otherwise, the nation would not have been paralyzed for several months while the courts sorted the mess.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: __ on May 19, 2005, 12:13:00 PM
it's still not for sure if they weren't sent elsewhere prior to the invasion

that seems pretty weak...  the way condi was talking cirqe 2002 there was a boilogical weapons van on every streetcorner... so unless they cannonball-runned it to syria or iran or wherever 'W' chooses to invade next, I'm not buying it.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on May 19, 2005, 12:16:04 PM
government censorship in media.

and the wisdom of the vowel "w".
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: PresClay_00 on May 19, 2005, 12:25:09 PM
it's still not for sure if they weren't sent elsewhere prior to the invasion

that seems pretty weak...  the way condi was talking cirqe 2002 there was a boilogical weapons van on every streetcorner... so unless they cannonball-runned it to syria or iran or wherever 'W' chooses to invade next, I'm not buying it.

Colin said the same thing to the UN, but no one blasts him for it.  that's also the problem.  if they are on wheels, they're easily disguised and easily moved
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: Slothrop on May 19, 2005, 12:34:28 PM
There is a liberal media and there is a conservative media. Those who are in denial about how liberal the media is should consider my previous post. The liberal tendencies are not shown through the actual reporting so much as what is not reported. Look what happens every time a government official comes out with a story that is anti-Bush- the media cannot get enough.

Another great example of how the media is just poor: during the Florida election in 2000, the media focused on silly things like the butterfly ballot. The real story is that because the idiots called the election BEFORE the polls were closed in the panhandle, that turnout was severly depressed in that region, which happens to vote heavily Republican. Had the election not been called too early and turnout been what it would have otherwise, the nation would not have been paralyzed for several months while the courts sorted the mess.

Where do you get this information?  Even with the networks infinite wisdom of the 2000 Election, they NEVER called a state before the polls closed, NEVER!  Just for the reason you said, try again though...
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: hammer101 on May 19, 2005, 12:36:31 PM
There is a liberal media and there is a conservative media. Those who are in denial about how liberal the media is should consider my previous post. The liberal tendencies are not shown through the actual reporting so much as what is not reported. Look what happens every time a government official comes out with a story that is anti-Bush- the media cannot get enough.

Another great example of how the media is just poor: during the Florida election in 2000, the media focused on silly things like the butterfly ballot. The real story is that because the idiots called the election BEFORE the polls were closed in the panhandle, that turnout was severly depressed in that region, which happens to vote heavily Republican. Had the election not been called too early and turnout been what it would have otherwise, the nation would not have been paralyzed for several months while the courts sorted the mess.

Where do you get this information?  Even with the networks infinite wisdom of the 2000 Election, they NEVER called a state before the polls closed, NEVER!  Just for the reason you said, try again though...

You're flat out wrong. The florida panhandle is in central time and they called the state for Gore BEFORE the polls closed on the panhandle (well, pretty much every network but Fox, that is).
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on May 19, 2005, 12:40:23 PM
Liberals are just bitter they lost again. ::)  Give it up, he's your president for the next 3 years whether you like it or not!

hoW come these people are all crying?

al franken

michael moore

janine garafalo

barbara boxer

george soras...rich and "cursed"...but very bitter

dan rather not check his source

gweneth paltrow...she just bitter brad thought she had bad breathe...ewww

susan surround "career done"

susan's husband..."whats his name"

bill "slowly becomeing a pansy" mahr "because he is sooooo insecure"

michael isikof "aka...john the baptist"

adrianna huffington

cnn's british "in the field" female private reporter.


wow...what do they have in common?????


they don't understand the "W"isdom of the enigmatic and bombastic "W"!



 
 
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: ASNetlenov on May 19, 2005, 12:40:41 PM
There is a liberal media and there is a conservative media. Those who are in denial about how liberal the media is should consider my previous post. The liberal tendencies are not shown through the actual reporting so much as what is not reported. Look what happens every time a government official comes out with a story that is anti-Bush- the media cannot get enough.

Another great example of how the media is just poor: during the Florida election in 2000, the media focused on silly things like the butterfly ballot. The real story is that because the idiots called the election BEFORE the polls were closed in the panhandle, that turnout was severly depressed in that region, which happens to vote heavily Republican. Had the election not been called too early and turnout been what it would have otherwise, the nation would not have been paralyzed for several months while the courts sorted the mess.

Where do you get this information?  Even with the networks infinite wisdom of the 2000 Election, they NEVER called a state before the polls closed, NEVER!  Just for the reason you said, try again though...
The Zinni quote came from an article in the WSJ years ago. The panhandle is in a different time zone, which the networks failed to consider. It's a fact.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: Slothrop on May 19, 2005, 12:42:27 PM
My apologies, upon further inspection I am wrong...
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on May 19, 2005, 12:51:15 PM
Liberals are just bitter they lost again. ::)  Give it up, he's your president for the next 3 years whether you like it or not!

aye think aye have heard this before...and aye still like it...

now if aye could just remember where???
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: __ on May 19, 2005, 01:03:05 PM
dude... it's spelled "I"

did I miss something?
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: fooseball22 on May 19, 2005, 01:12:08 PM
damn internet savy techies and their new slang...
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: DodgerLaw on May 19, 2005, 05:30:02 PM
Unfortunately, we give the Muslim world good reason to call us "The Great Satan" because of the culture we export. Most nations do not see the bulk of America and our everyday culture, much of which is praiseworthy, but rather the sleaze put out by Hollywood and the rest of the American entertainerment business. It's no wonder they think we're all a bunch of heathens. Certainly, the antics of Mr. Clinton didn't do anything to enhance our nation's reputation in this area.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: Julie Fern on May 19, 2005, 06:35:35 PM
.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: maka nani on May 19, 2005, 06:38:00 PM
reddy want prius...julie buy
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on May 19, 2005, 07:51:56 PM
.

why does ms. julie think "W" is stupidest letter...is that because ms. julie not know it's a vowel? :-*

Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on May 19, 2005, 07:58:08 PM
reddy want prius...julie buy

what is prius? can it also be spelled pri"w"s?

sorry pr.eyz,

ms. julie doesn't know that "w" is the most powerful and enigmatic vowel in the english language...and won't bother to read a little or do any of his homework...

no red sox games for ms. julie...

no yankees v. mets games for ms. julie either until he does his homework...

last time aye checked english is still written with words and letters...julie won't accept this.

anyway...

what is a prius?

oh...its a kind of car isn't it?


Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on May 19, 2005, 08:00:38 PM
dude... it's spelled "I"

did I miss something?
;)...bombastically funny...aye laughed hard and long...

good question...
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: St. Shaun on May 19, 2005, 11:39:53 PM
so it's ok to eliminate one dictator that killed many people but not another?

remember... we didn't go into Iraq to eliminate the dictator until AFTER we failed to find any goodie-bags there.  I hate when conservatives say how Iraq was such a good idea 'cause we liberated all of those oppressed people.  If that had been touted as the reason for war there would have been no public support.  So let's freak out the baby boomers who grew up with "duck and cover" 'cause that'll get the country behind this "oil dig".

We went into Iraq because we told Sadam we would if he didn't let us inspect his weapons.  Why do people think we went in there because of WMD, nobody in the administration said that.  They simply used it as a reason why we should go ahead and keep our word.

Also we could have gotten oil cheaper from Sadam (like the french did) then we get it now.  The whole oil thing makes no sense. 
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: InVinoVeritas on May 19, 2005, 11:52:32 PM
We went into Iraq because we told Sadam we would if he didn't let us inspect his weapons.  Why do people think we went in there because of WMD, nobody in the administration said that.  They simply used it as a reason why we should go ahead and keep our word.

i'm not quite getting the distinction you're trying to make here.  so we didn't go to iraq because of WMDs?  what?

also, re: iraqi oil.  didn't we refuse iraqi oil because of our own embargo against iraqi goods?
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: DodgerLaw on May 20, 2005, 12:02:17 AM
The distinction is that Saddam agreed to let inspections happen as part of the deal that ended the '91 Gulf War. The deal was not merely that he would not produce or obtain WMDs, but that he would allow for inspections. This he refused to do.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: shai on May 20, 2005, 12:04:49 AM
Quote
Why do people think we went in there because of WMD, nobody in the administration said that.

umm...what crack have you been smoking the past 2 years? where were you when this administration sent colin powell to the U.N to present that bogus 'evidence' for the security council? [my lil' sister could have easily replicated what he had with powerpoint. that was ludicrous]
where were you when bush was sending out his mignons to preach "eminent threat", "mushroom cloud", "grave and gathering threat"? And that's not even including the yellow cake and alluminium-tube lies.

Quote
We went into Iraq because we told Sadam we would if he didn't let us inspect his weapons.


No, sonny, Iraq did allow Hans Blix and his team of inspector to every single facility the U.S. claimed had w.m.d, and this included saddam's palaces. And not only did Blix report that he didn't find and evidence, or 'smoking gun' to support war, but all the so-called "dual-use" factories were not being used to produce any weapons [nuclear or biological]- none. He also reported TWICE to the security council, and not once did he ever produce evidence supporting the bush administration's claim.  If saddam didn't let in inspectors, how then did we manage to destroy all his midrange missiles? I guess Blix's report was fabricated out of thin air too, eh?


Quote
Also we could have gotten oil cheaper from Sadam (like the french did) then we get it now.  The whole oil thing makes no sense.

Last I checked, the U.S. was the only western power that's getting cheap oil from the middle east. Have you ever been to europe? Try comparing our petroleum prices to theirs, then come back and tell us if France [or others] is getting cheap oil from saddam.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: DodgerLaw on May 20, 2005, 12:09:28 AM
Quote
Why do people think we went in there because of WMD, nobody in the administration said that.

umm...what crack have you been smoking the past 2 years? where were you when this administration sent colin powell to the U.N to present that bogus 'evidence' for the security council? [my lil' sister could have easily replicated what he had with powerpoint. that was ludicrous]
where were you when bush was sending out his mignons to preach "eminent threat", "mushroom cloud", "grave and gathering threat"? And that's not even including the yellow cake and alluminium-tube lies.

Quote
We went into Iraq because we told Sadam we would if he didn't let us inspect his weapons.


No, sonny, Iraq did allow Hans Blix and his team of inspector to every single facility the U.S. claimed had w.m.d, and this included saddam's palaces. And not only did Blix report that he didn't find and evidence, or 'smoking gun' to support war, but all the so-called "dual-use" factories were not being used to produce any weapons [nuclear or biological]- none. He also reported TWICE to the security council, and not once did he ever produce evidence supporting the bush administration's claim.  If saddam didn't let in inspectors, how then did we manage to destroy all his midrange missiles? I guess Blix's report was fabricated out of thin air too, eh?


Saddam did not fully comply with weapons inspectors including the putz Blix. I'm pretty sure even Blix would admit this. A$$hole.

Quote
Also we could have gotten oil cheaper from Sadam (like the french did) then we get it now.  The whole oil thing makes no sense.

Last I checked, the U.S. was the only western power that's getting cheap oil from the middle east. Have you ever been to europe? Try comparing our petroleum prices to theirs, then come back and tell us if France [or others] is getting cheap oil from saddam.

I would be willing to bet that the reason France and others have higher gas prices has little if anything to do with sweetheart deals for the U.S. Any proof otherwise?
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: DodgerLaw on May 20, 2005, 12:30:41 AM
A short perusal of this article will explain why European gas prices are higher than U.S. prices. Not surprisingly, the culprit is taxes.

http://www.saltspring.com/bobmcginn/gas_tax.htm
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: shai on May 20, 2005, 12:44:02 AM
Quote
Saddam did not fully comply with weapons inspectors including the putz Blix. I'm pretty sure even Blix would admit this. A$$hole.

you can't counter with a convincing argument, so insults are the best you can do?
Saddam may not have fully complied before unscom went into iraq the final time. He did infact invite them to search anywhere they wanted. I could care less about saddam, but don't come on here to repeat that tired republican diatribe.

As for
Quote
I would be willing to bet that the reason France and others have higher gas prices has little if anything to do with sweetheart deals for the U.S. Any proof otherwise?

you're right. we consume a greater majority of the crude produced by OPEC countries each year, yet our gas prices are the lowest in the industrial world, and this has nothing to do with...how do you say it again ...ah..."sweetheart deals".
hmm...you make a whole lot of sense there. I should hang around you, maybe I'll learn a lot from myopically moronic assertions like that.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: DodgerLaw on May 20, 2005, 12:52:17 AM
Quote
Saddam did not fully comply with weapons inspectors including the putz Blix. I'm pretty sure even Blix would admit this. A$$hole.

you can't counter with a convincing argument, so insults are the best you can do?
Saddam may not have fully complied before unscom went into iraq the final time. He did infact invite them to search anywhere they wanted. I could care less about saddam, but don't come on here to repeat that tired republican diatribe.

Hey, moron, you called me "Sonny" so I don't know why you're surprised you got an insult in return.
Quote
I would be willing to bet that the reason France and others have higher gas prices has little if anything to do with sweetheart deals for the U.S. Any proof otherwise?

you're right. we consume a greater majority of the crude produced by OPEC countries each year, yet our gas prices are the lowest in the industrial world, and this has nothing to do with...how do you say it again ...ah..."sweetheart deals".
hmm...you make a whole lot of sense there. I should hang around you, maybe I'll learn a lot from myopically moronic assertions like that.

Check out my last post where it is explained why European countries have higher gas prices. Talk about not being able to make an argument. At least present some kind of facts that actually explain the discrepancy. Until you do so, the only facts thus far presented indicate that the reason we have lower gas prices is because we have lower taxes.  
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: shai on May 20, 2005, 01:05:08 AM

Quote
Hey, moron, you called me "Sonny" so I don't know why you're surprised you got an insult in return.

if you weren't any dumber, you'd realize that my intial response was to quotes from "St Shaun"
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: DodgerLaw on May 20, 2005, 01:16:46 AM
As you've pointed out that it is St. Shaun you originally insulted I would be prepared to apologize. But since you chose to insult me while explaining that, you apparently are an A$$hole, so my original insult stands. Also, you still haven't presented any evidence to back up your claim that the U.S. has lower gas prices than Europe because of some kind of deal we're getting to refute my EVIDENCE that the reason for the discrepancy is taxes. I wouldn't be surprised to find out other governmental interference also serves to raise gas prices in Europe.

Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: InVinoVeritas on May 20, 2005, 07:40:10 AM
ok, so we went to iraq because they wouldn't let weapons inspectors in?  come on.  the rationale was that saddam was hiding WMDs from the weapons inspectors, and this was a violation of UN resolutions; and we needed to go in there and rid saddam of his ability to use those WMDs or give them to terrorist organizations to use.  so we did invade iraq because of WMDs.  the "freedom" rationale got little to no play until the WMDs failed to materialize.

re high gas prices: yes, european countries tax gasoline highly.  so what?  for a long time, europe had few indigenous petroleum sources, so european countries decided, as a matter of policy, that they didn't want to be put in a position to have to be overly reliant on petroleum imports.  sounds pretty smart to me, particularly in light of current petroleum prices.

moreover, it's probably not worthwhile to argue who, between european and american companies, gets lower oil prices.  there are both huge european and american multinational oil companies who handle their own oil exploration and extraction.  in the end, there's probably not a meaning difference in the cost of crude oil for europeans and americans.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: hammer101 on May 20, 2005, 07:45:54 AM
This is ridiculous (criticizing the US for having lower oil prices)  Yes, taxes definitly make European oil more expensive.  And Yes, the US has strategically allied itself with oil producers to get good deals.  SO WHAT?  The fact that the US can successfully negotiate itself lower oil prices and keep taxes lower is a bad thing for us?  C'mon, liberals need to get a platform......

Phanatic

And unlike Europe, the US supplies about 20% of its own oil needs...Europe has NO naturally occurring sources of oil I know of other than in the North Sea.

This is kinda off on a tangent, but I always laugh when I hear politicians (Ds or Rs--they're both guilty of it) talk about independence from high-priced Middle Eastern oil...OK -- so basically that means instead of getting oil from the Saudis, we'll get it from Nigeria or Indonesia...As if those countries wouldn't gouge us as well.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: hammer101 on May 20, 2005, 07:52:55 AM
ANWR baby!!!  Let's get some more of our own BLACK GOLD!!!

-hopefully some day we won't need that sh*t anymore.

Yea let's hope. I never saw the problem with drilling there anyway, given that we've gotten oil extraction down to a science and it likely won't hurt the environment, but that's for another thread.....
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: ASNetlenov on May 20, 2005, 07:54:43 AM
Energy independence will probably not happen for some time. Even if we reduce our oil consumption we still in trouble because world demand is rising drastically- prices are going keep going up. Conservation won't save us and it won't be a factor until the prices are much higher; the market will correct itself.

As for Iraq, the White House erred when it made its case solely on the idea that WMDs were there. They seemed to have believed that fact honestly and reacted accordingly. They were wrong. Fine. The point is that the world is still a better place because Saddam is no longer in power. All of us are safer because of this. You may not agree with my statements, but this is the real debate to have. Yes, the White House made a narrow argument, but they do not get to define the debate so narrowly. Before the invasion, many discussed other reasons why we should go into Iraq, and these reasons were merited based on the results of the war.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: InVinoVeritas on May 20, 2005, 07:57:32 AM
phan -- i'm talking about the cost of raw crude.  not the cost of refined petroleum.  there's a difference, which to me, seems to be the crux of the discussion here.  (or at least it was before we went off on another tangent.)
also, how on earth is additional extraction from ANWR going to really help the situation?  there's likely not enough crude there to make a meaningful long term difference.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: ASNetlenov on May 20, 2005, 08:26:49 AM
ANWR would make a small difference. But it's in a barren area that resembles the moon. And the drilling area would not be that large or affect wildlife, so why not take even the minor help?
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: fooseball22 on May 20, 2005, 08:49:16 AM
the introduction of humans to any area is devastating.  From roads to diesel using machines to candy wrappers, our impact is felt heavily.  All the environmental propoganda aside, wouldnt it make more sense to invest more time and energy into developing new energy sources?  I mean, oil IS finite, right?  temporary drilling solutions are just that, temporary.  its just plain bad capitalism at work.  A few oil companies have their greedy meat hooks in america and theyre effectively stagnating the economy and our ability to seek alternate, possibly more efficient, energy sources.   
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: fooseball22 on May 20, 2005, 08:57:02 AM
is it really a free market if the oil companies pay for all the governmental candidates to get elected, lobby groups and effectively control the EPA? 

hence, bad capitalism
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: fooseball22 on May 20, 2005, 09:04:28 AM
That is totally not a different subject and for the reason of above said post about bad capitalism.

Also, as for your cost benefit analysis, wouldnt it make more sense to drive away from petroleum?  Politically...environmentally ...economically...right?
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: PresClay_00 on May 20, 2005, 09:05:16 AM
is it really a free market if the oil companies pay for all the governmental candidates to get elected, lobby groups and effectively control the EPA? 

hence, bad capitalism

wrong - maybe bad politics or govt in your opinion, but not bad capitalism

and no, it wouldn't b/c it's the cheapest way to get the most, portable power as of right now
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: fooseball22 on May 20, 2005, 09:11:34 AM
Business governed by the laws of supply and demand, not restrained by government interference, regulation or subsidy.
...
..
.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: fooseball22 on May 20, 2005, 09:12:24 AM
what is, government interference?

That is correct johnny, that puts you in the lead.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: fooseball22 on May 20, 2005, 09:17:41 AM
oil company interferes with government...government in turn favors oil companies in market economy?  seems plausible.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: fooseball22 on May 20, 2005, 09:26:16 AM
Oh, I don’t know, say trade embargos to lower gas prices…
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: PresClay_00 on May 20, 2005, 09:28:47 AM
Oh, I don’t know, say trade embargos to lower gas prices…

trade embargos rarely lower prices - they just turn into a tit for tat argument
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: fooseball22 on May 20, 2005, 09:39:36 AM
God why do i have to work when there is such an interesting topic...anyway, ever here of the chiquita banana wars?  Very interesting you have such a naive view of our government, particularly being a red. 
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: fooseball22 on May 20, 2005, 09:51:16 AM
Nice try spinmeister...or what happened was that i brought out a relevant point about how the government has a history of backing well established private companies who are well represented in the government...In the chiquita banana war example, clearly the impact was not as great as the backing of oil companies, but it does illustrate the point that the government can and does favor oil companies in the American market, thus hindering the free market, thus making for bad freaking capitalism.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: fooseball22 on May 20, 2005, 09:58:18 AM
actually its funny you guys say that, because NO ONE SAID THAT...this whole messy tangent was started by you guys humping my leg after i said 'bad capitalism'...funny how we forget.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: fooseball22 on May 20, 2005, 10:00:47 AM
thank you for not putting words in my mouth.



yes, i expect a witty retort.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: fooseball22 on May 20, 2005, 10:04:21 AM
that was not a point being argued.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: fooseball22 on May 20, 2005, 10:25:19 AM
i'm not sure that really undermines my argument, but hey, ur the guys who are flailing now, so go at it.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: fooseball22 on May 20, 2005, 10:36:22 AM
did you know that they protest 3 mile island every year...fortunately the cancer is killing them off.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: fooseball22 on May 20, 2005, 10:40:09 AM
i think its ridiculous...i mean, we're talking 10 out of 200+ judicial nominations being blocked...damn partisan BS
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: fooseball22 on May 20, 2005, 10:43:57 AM
NO...stop buying every tom delay says...they've already passed over 200 judicial condidates, clearly they arent passing these 10 candidates for ample reason.  Although dems do like to spite people, i do not htink this is the case.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: fooseball22 on May 20, 2005, 10:47:53 AM
apparently theyre conservative and will take that to heart in their decision making.  That is NOT what you want out of a judge.  But they keep hiding this under the cloak of, 'but they won a large vote to get there'.  That should have no relevance, nor should the fact that they 'write majority opinions' be completely relevant.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: fooseball22 on May 20, 2005, 10:56:56 AM
dems arent going to fight the switch from a conservative to a conservative
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: fooseball22 on May 20, 2005, 11:08:33 AM
i thought we were talking about the nuclear option?

Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: fooseball22 on May 20, 2005, 11:23:24 AM
i actually think you are dead wrong...like i said, over 200 candidates have been passed....thats right, over 200...i believe that speaks for itself and is often underemphasized in the right wing rhetoric...i wonder why?
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: ASNetlenov on May 20, 2005, 11:32:28 AM
The nuclear option is not the best. There will be consequences that we cannot predict yet. The Republicans just need to crank up the pressure against the Dems.

The Dems should just put the nominees up for a vote. The Constitution was not written so that the minority party could hold up even a few judges because they did not like them. Vote against them and move on. This country needs more federal judges anyway, and if the majority of the elected officials in the Senate approve, then let it come to a vote.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: fooseball22 on May 20, 2005, 11:39:55 AM
i wonder if we'd be saying the same thing if the situation was reversed?
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: ASNetlenov on May 20, 2005, 11:44:36 AM
"I never thought I'd see the day when preservation of the filibuster became a grass-roots liberal cause, but that day seems to have arrived. College students are staging mock filibusters at universities across the country. Once upon a time, student activists decried the immorality of the Vietnam War and U.S. investment in the apartheid regime in South Africa. Their protests helped change the world. Today student activists are defending a parliamentary rule that enabled southern bigots to block civil rights legislation for nearly a century! They're defending demosclerosis! They're defending the right of the minority to thwart the will of the majority! Oh sure, it all has something to do with bad judicial nominations, too. But the street theater isn't about bad judges. It's about Robert's Rules of Order.

Count me out."

-Timothy Noah

I would say the same thing if the positions were reversed. And then I'd start ranting about the stupidity of the American people for electing someone who would appoint liberal judges/bench legislators. I do have respect for the process above all else.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: ASNetlenov on May 20, 2005, 11:54:58 AM
I'm a homer for a lot of things, just not this one. I believe the filibuster has a small role in politics. I could be convinced that it needs to go.

I respect the process so that I can maintain the moral high ground against the hippies when they flip flop on the next issue. It's much more fun that way.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: fooseball22 on May 20, 2005, 12:55:25 PM
stalling is an integral part of our legislative system...the dismantling of such would lead to less time for electioneering and more time for decision making...the republicans must be stopped.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: ASNetlenov on May 20, 2005, 01:03:51 PM
The Republicans are wasting money almost as poorly as Democrats would. This is unacceptable and must be stopped. Go Libertarians!
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: fooseball22 on May 20, 2005, 01:06:10 PM
isnt that a WNBA team?
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: PresClay_00 on May 20, 2005, 01:07:54 PM
stalling is an integral part of our legislative system...the dismantling of such would lead to less time for electioneering and more time for decision making...the republicans must be stopped.

this is a bad thing?
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: fooseball22 on May 20, 2005, 01:12:22 PM
do you know how dangerous congress would be if they actually got things done?
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: fooseball22 on May 20, 2005, 01:15:50 PM
I'm not a liberal...just call them as i see them.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: fooseball22 on May 20, 2005, 01:22:35 PM
if i alligned myself with some ideology i might end up voting for some politician who'll end up completely butt f*cking me on a pertinent issue...no thanks.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: hey not you hey on May 20, 2005, 01:24:29 PM
yeah, somehow I don't think a nihilist would take the time to debate on an internet web board.  I'm an anarchist, but not in the sense that most people probably think of anarchy.

mostly I'm with foose, and just call 'em like I see 'em.  

that said, I think some of you are forgetting how nasty some of these nominees really are.  I'm not sure I agree with filibustering, but, c'mon, some of these nominees are just, I don't know how else to put it, just "really bad people."  sometimes the ends justify the means.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: fooseball22 on May 20, 2005, 01:30:40 PM
uhhh theyre women...helloooooooo
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: PresClay_00 on May 20, 2005, 01:32:02 PM
do you know how dangerous congress would be if they actually got things done?

do you ever find anything that an elected or appointed individual does right?
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: fooseball22 on May 20, 2005, 01:34:26 PM
yes...monica lewinsky...and social security...
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: ASNetlenov on May 20, 2005, 01:44:09 PM
How is doing Monica right? She's as big as Sally Struthers and as easy as Tara Reid on a binge. Hi-O!
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: hey not you hey on May 20, 2005, 01:47:51 PM
 I'm not sure I agree with filibustering, but, c'mon, some of these nominees are just, I don't know how else to put it, just "really bad people."

who's feeding you propaganda?  What's wrong with Janice Brown and Priscilla Owen?

ahem, like I said, SOME of the nominees.  

I don't know much about Priscilla Owen, but Janice Brown is an extreme righty.  not saying she's a bad person like the type I alluded to above, but I do take personal issue with a lot of her stances.  lots of people are saying she's to the right of Thomas and Scalia.  she's anti social security, civil rights, labor protections....she doesn't think corporations can do any wrong.  I know that most of you will say this isn't a big deal, and is partisan politics at it's worst....but I don't care.  you'd be kicking and screaming too if someone like Barbara Boxer were being appointed...same deal here.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: hammer101 on May 20, 2005, 01:53:23 PM
 I'm not sure I agree with filibustering, but, c'mon, some of these nominees are just, I don't know how else to put it, just "really bad people."

who's feeding you propaganda?  What's wrong with Janice Brown and Priscilla Owen?

ahem, like I said, SOME of the nominees.  

I don't know much about Priscilla Owen, but Janice Brown is an extreme righty.  not saying she's a bad person like the type I alluded to above, but I do take personal issue with a lot of her stances.  lots of people are saying she's to the right of Thomas and Scalia.  she's anti social security, civil rights, labor protections....she doesn't think corporations can do any wrong.  I know that most of you will say this isn't a big deal, and is partisan politics at it's worst....but I don't care.  you'd be kicking and screaming too if someone like Barbara Boxer were being appointed...same deal here.

Please elaborate. Which nominees are "bad people?" Certainly I don't see anything wrong with the above mentioned...they're accomplished jurists whether one agrees with them or not. I think unless the nominee is clearly incompetent, he/she should receive an up-or-down vote.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: ASNetlenov on May 20, 2005, 01:53:41 PM
How is she anti-civil rights? That sounds ridiculous. And is she anti-social security, or does she think there is a better way, which is something many reasonable people believe. Just because some people are saying this you are agreeing with their stance?
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: fooseball22 on May 20, 2005, 01:56:52 PM
people shouldnt be given the opportunity to inject the law with politics...thats the danger here...i thought we already established this?
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: hammer101 on May 20, 2005, 01:57:15 PM
How is she anti-civil rights? That sounds ridiculous. And is she anti-social security, or does she think there is a better way, which is something many reasonable people believe. Just because some people are saying this you are agreeing with their stance?

And there's no evidence that, based on her record, she would supplant the law with her own ideology (which many liberal jurists do, of course).
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: St. Shaun on May 20, 2005, 02:02:08 PM
How is she anti-civil rights? That sounds ridiculous. And is she anti-social security, or does she think there is a better way, which is something many reasonable people believe. Just because some people are saying this you are agreeing with their stance?

Social-security?  I think now it's more like social-insecurity.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: fooseball22 on May 20, 2005, 02:14:19 PM
Look, like i've said over and over and over again, over 200 nominees have been PASSED by congress as judges fit for the job in this cycle…10 have not because of their political ties.  All rhetoric aside, do you think these judges were picked out by the democrats by accident?  No, there is ample suspicion that they will politic in court.  They’re not martyrs, they affiliated themselves with party lines and are now, rightfully, paying the price.     
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: fooseball22 on May 20, 2005, 02:18:34 PM
aahahahhaha

look, i think the bigger issue here is that title 9 has gotten out of hand. 
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: DodgerLaw on May 20, 2005, 02:57:40 PM
ok, so we went to iraq because they wouldn't let weapons inspectors in?  come on.  the rationale was that saddam was hiding WMDs from the weapons inspectors, and this was a violation of UN resolutions; and we needed to go in there and rid saddam of his ability to use those WMDs or give them to terrorist organizations to use.  so we did invade iraq because of WMDs.  the "freedom" rationale got little to no play until the WMDs failed to materialize.

I just want to point out that I did not take a position here about the war, but merely responded to this point you made:

We went into Iraq because we told Sadam we would if he didn't let us inspect his weapons.  Why do people think we went in there because of WMD, nobody in the administration said that.  They simply used it as a reason why we should go ahead and keep our word.

i'm not quite getting the distinction you're trying to make here. 

re high gas prices: yes, european countries tax gasoline highly.  so what?  for a long time, europe had few indigenous petroleum sources, so european countries decided, as a matter of policy, that they didn't want to be put in a position to have to be overly reliant on petroleum imports.  sounds pretty smart to me, particularly in light of current petroleum prices.


Here again, I wasn't arguing whether or not Europeans should tax gas, but simply refuting shai's claim that the U.S. has lower gas prices because we are somehow getting better deals from somewhere in the Middle East. I pointed out the higher European gas taxes to explain the difference in price at the pump, not to argue whether those taxes are good policy or not.

In a broader statement, I just want to say that it is difficult to have discussions about important and controversial topics on internet boards, especially where multiple posters are taking the conversation in various directions. Please don't take this as an insult to anyone. It is not. It is merely a function of the medium.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on May 24, 2005, 01:29:28 AM
we need to put some plentiful good old oil refineriease in the good old usa...aye am going to suggest somewhere in california...near san francisco would be a good spot...or near l.a.


refiner ease would help us out a whole bunch.

long live "W"

enigmatic and wise!!!
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: St. Shaun on May 24, 2005, 11:06:28 AM
We could turn Alkatraz into an oil refinery. 

Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: PresClay_00 on May 24, 2005, 11:08:03 AM
LA would improve with a refinery
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: ASNetlenov on May 24, 2005, 12:10:37 PM
LA would improve with a toxic dump too, but it might melt the plastic people.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: St. Shaun on May 24, 2005, 12:15:05 PM
Maybe it would melt off their melenoma
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: thefaceman on May 24, 2005, 12:37:54 PM
we need to put some plentiful good old oil refineriease in the good old usa...aye am going to suggest somewhere in california...near san francisco would be a good spot...or near l.a.


refiner ease would help us out a whole bunch.

long live "W"

enigmatic and wise!!!

and misunderestimated!!!
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on May 24, 2005, 11:54:37 PM
we need to put some plentiful good old oil refineriease in the good old usa...aye am going to suggest somewhere in california...near san francisco would be a good spot...or near l.a.


refiner ease would help us out a whole bunch.

long live "W"

enigmatic and wise!!!

and misunderestimated!!!


m i s u n d e r e s t i m a t e d . . . e x c e l l e n t     w o r d ! ! ! ! !
[/size][/color]
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: ASNetlenov on May 25, 2005, 08:20:56 AM
At least Bush has an idea of what he wants to do. He's not just sitting there criticizing the actions of others.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: St. Shaun on May 25, 2005, 09:33:34 AM
The all to familiar fallacy of the left ,Ad Hominen.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: PresClay_00 on May 25, 2005, 09:45:35 AM
The all to familiar fallacy of the left ,Ad Hominen.

it's what they're best at
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: Abevigoda on May 25, 2005, 09:46:57 AM
No one on the right ever does ad hominems either?  Ted Kennedy has never been called a drunk on the talking head shows?  On Limbaugh?  Please.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: St. Shaun on May 25, 2005, 09:48:54 AM
True, but I would argue that Ted Kennedy being a drunk is something that is a little more then a value judgement (it can be quantified) and effects his ability to hold office.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: St. Shaun on May 25, 2005, 09:49:38 AM
However, I will concede that it is often used irrelevently.  But, honestly, as much as the left picks on W?
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: St. Shaun on May 25, 2005, 09:50:39 AM
Besides, that whole point falls under the fallacy of Tu Quoque.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: PresClay_00 on May 25, 2005, 09:51:43 AM
No one on the right ever does ad hominems either?  Ted Kennedy has never been called a drunk on the talking head shows?  On Limbaugh?  Please.

it's a statement of the facts
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: Abevigoda on May 25, 2005, 10:28:17 AM
Blah, blah, blah...the mudslinging is horrible on all sides, just because W. is getting it now doesn't mean Republicans were any better during Clinton.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: PresClay_00 on May 25, 2005, 10:30:49 AM
for stating the facts that he was a philandering liar
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: Abevigoda on May 25, 2005, 10:31:26 AM
Yeah, so?
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: PresClay_00 on May 25, 2005, 10:31:47 AM
i don't call that mudslinging
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: Abevigoda on May 25, 2005, 10:33:39 AM
It is to drag one's personal life into the public realm.

(God, you're gonna have a field day with that one).
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: PresClay_00 on May 25, 2005, 10:43:32 AM
i won't even bring it up
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: J D on May 25, 2005, 11:11:26 AM
No one on the right ever does ad hominems either?  Ted Kennedy has never been called a drunk on the talking head shows?  On Limbaugh?  Please.

it's a statement of the facts

Which conveniently obviates the need to actually address or refute any of Sen. Kennedy's statements.  That is the reason why ad hominem is a fallacy; the fact that the arguer is a lousy SOB does not necessarily make his argument weak.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: PresClay_00 on May 25, 2005, 11:16:32 AM

Which conveniently obviates the need to actually address or refute any of Sen. Kennedy's statements.  That is the reason why ad hominem is a fallacy; the fact that the arguer is a lousy SOB does not necessarily make his argument weak.

no, he does that for us - seeing him on CSPAN could get the same response that Adam Sandler did in Billy Madison "what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul. "
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: St. Shaun on May 25, 2005, 11:28:32 AM
Big difference between calling W stupid and Clinton a liar.  Personal life aside, he lied to the American people.  Can you think of any other job where you get caught by your boss having an affair with in intern in your office, lie about it to her face and not get fired.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: Abevigoda on May 25, 2005, 11:36:04 AM
Yeah, that was a pretty despicable act to take advantage of his office to score with women interns.  But, Clinton's big lie was about an affair between two consenting adults, arguably a private matter.  I believe (you will probably disagree) that Bush lied about the reasons for war in Iraq, a far more serious matter than a hummer in the Oval Office.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: St. Shaun on May 25, 2005, 11:39:38 AM
Really, and I suppose you have evidence that he lied somewhere.  How many times do we have to go over this.  We went into Iraq because Sadam was a punk and wouldn't let us inspect his weapons, and we said we would if he refused.  No one said with certanty that there were WMD's (excpet maybe some outlets of the media, and we all have seen how reliable they are), it was a side issue of the war, not the main point of it.

Show me one quote from Bush that, in the context, says that we knew there were WMD's or that this was the overall justification for the war.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: PresClay_00 on May 25, 2005, 11:40:08 AM
which takes us back to square one - your belief that he willingly lied to the Am. people to take us to war and my belief that he acted on extended duration information that later proved to be inaccurate
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: St. Shaun on May 25, 2005, 11:41:37 AM
We can conclusively prove Clinton lied.  Your acusation is speculative at best.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: ASNetlenov on May 25, 2005, 11:42:43 AM
Yeah, that was a pretty despicable act to take advantage of his office to score with women interns.  But, Clinton's big lie was about an affair between two consenting adults, arguably a private matter.  I believe (you will probably disagree) that Bush lied about the reasons for war in Iraq, a far more serious matter than a hummer in the Oval Office.
Bush did not lie because he stated facts that he believed were true. He was wrong though.

Clinton's private life, which should have remained private, was made public because he was being sued for sexual harassment. He committed perjury and lost his license to practice law for 5 (?) years.

All leaders make mistakes. Bush's was big and public. Clinton committed a crime.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: Abevigoda on May 25, 2005, 11:45:02 AM
I have argued about this before in several other threads...it is getting boring.

For the sake of argument-all right whatever, you win.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: St. Shaun on May 25, 2005, 11:46:53 AM
But there is also a differance between stating that you believe the facts, as opposed to just blindly stating them as true (what I mean is that Bush let us know that he could be wrong).
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: St. Shaun on May 25, 2005, 11:47:22 AM
I have argued about this before in several other threads...it is getting boring.

For the sake of argument-all right whatever, you win.

More like, for the sake of no argument.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: Abevigoda on May 25, 2005, 11:48:09 AM
Yeah...What is the definition of "is"?
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: St. Shaun on May 25, 2005, 11:49:29 AM
Yeah...What is the definition of "is"?

Isn't that a course at Clinton law.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: Abevigoda on May 25, 2005, 11:50:24 AM
I hope so.  That comes after the lecture on the difference between oral sex and sex (There is one, he didn't lie!!!)
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: Abevigoda on May 25, 2005, 11:52:19 AM
Nope.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: ASNetlenov on May 25, 2005, 11:53:29 AM
But there is also a differance between stating that you believe the facts, as opposed to just blindly stating them as true (what I mean is that Bush let us know that he could be wrong).
Bush was wrong, but no politician will ever admit that kind of mistake because doing so would render him politically impotent. Every President makes mistakes. I think Bush made the right decision but for the wrong reasons. And making the case for a worthy cause should not be based on one thing. It's the same idea as diversifying your investments. It was a gamble and he has paid dearly in terms of the public's trust. Our being there is done and is no longer the point.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: Abevigoda on May 25, 2005, 11:54:31 AM
Here is some cake....have it and eat.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: St. Shaun on May 25, 2005, 11:55:11 AM
I totally agree that Bush was wrong.  I'm just saying that there is a diference from being wrong and lying.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: Abevigoda on May 25, 2005, 11:58:45 AM
She's out in Vegas with her friends...definitely not having sexual relations; many blowjobs, some hard petting, but definitely no sexual relations.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: St. Shaun on May 25, 2005, 12:04:47 PM
(http://www.nbc.com/nbc/The_Tonight_Show_with_Jay_Leno/headlines/H_2871/H_2871_13.jpg)
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: Abevigoda on May 25, 2005, 12:21:04 PM
Where did you find that?  Besides, Al Gore is fat now and has a beard.  Like those gay lumberjacks from Monty Python.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: St. Shaun on May 25, 2005, 12:23:05 PM
It's a LateShow headline.

Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: jassulli on May 25, 2005, 12:27:26 PM
No one said with certanty that there were WMD's (excpet maybe some outlets of the media, and we all have seen how reliable they are)

Before the war, male private part Cheney said Saddam Hussein "is an imminent threat" because of WMDs.  If he wasn't sure that Saddam did, in fact, have WMDs, then why was the threat described as "imminent?"
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: J D on May 25, 2005, 12:45:26 PM
No one said with certanty that there were WMD's (excpet maybe some outlets of the media, and we all have seen how reliable they are)

Before the war, male private part Cheney said Saddam Hussein "is an imminent threat" because of WMDs.  If he wasn't sure that Saddam did, in fact, have WMDs, then why was the threat described as "imminent?"

I would also add that Saddam WAS allowing inspections; they were combing much of the country, including those places that our government identified as likely storage sites.  The problem was (from the administration's point of view) that the inspectors were not finding a whole lot (some empty warheads from the 80s left here, some other old junk left there).  I would also dispute the assertion that the WMD issue was only a side argument and not the main casus bellum; until about mid-March 2003, it was pretty much the ONLY rationale.  It was certainly the only thing that members of the Bush administration seemed to talk about.  And certainly Rumsfeld seemed to think he had a pretty good idea where these caches of WMDs were; see here:

"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/t03302003_t0330sdabcsteph.html
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: _BP_ on May 25, 2005, 12:50:02 PM
You guys really think Bush stated facts that he thought were true, and that's it?  :D

It's one thing to say: We have evidence that there was an earthquake off the coast of California and our instruments (thought outdated and subject to error) show that there is a tsunami on the way.

It's an entire different thing to say: We have the best intelligence in the world.  We know that there is a tsunami coming.  It will bring certain death and destruction unless we act now by moving 500 miles in land.  Furthermore, this tsunami was generated from the same fault that caused the previous tsunami that killed 3,000 of our people.  Act now or there will be certain death.

Honestly, which one is closer to the type of information we received in the lead up to the war?
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: jassulli on May 25, 2005, 12:55:26 PM
appealing to other authorities doesn't change the fact that Bush was wrong also, Phanatic.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: PresClay_00 on May 25, 2005, 01:00:17 PM
exactly.  bush  was wrong, but so were all the people now railing against him now.  you can't have it both ways
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: jassulli on May 25, 2005, 01:04:01 PM
is there any dispute that the US was under false pretenses about WMDs.  This is not reflective of Bush's leadership or cabinet however.  As we can see, the bad information goes way back.

the evidence itself is not under dispute.  the actions of the administration based on evidence that they stated was conclusive (go back to Cheney/Rumsfeld quotes) does say something. 
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: jassulli on May 25, 2005, 01:05:07 PM
exactly.  bush  was wrong, but so were all the people now railing against him now.  you can't have it both ways

who said anything about "both ways?"  you're mistaken if you think that disagreeing with Bush means agreeing with Kerry, Lieberman, etc.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: PresClay_00 on May 25, 2005, 01:05:47 PM
oh, that's right, Nader and Co are rather influential, as is michael moore - for evidence of this, look to the last election
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: fooseball22 on May 25, 2005, 01:07:15 PM
Howcome we didnt invade N. Korea?  I mean, we KNEW for SURE that they had nukes.  Its almost as though there was some sort of hidden agenda behind the bush administration to invade iraq.  

Selective hearing maybe?
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: ASNetlenov on May 25, 2005, 01:08:22 PM
is there any dispute that the US was under false pretenses about WMDs.  This is not reflective of Bush's leadership or cabinet however.  As we can see, the bad information goes way back.

the evidence itself is not under dispute.  the actions of the administration based on evidence that they stated was conclusive (go back to Cheney/Rumsfeld quotes) does say something. 
What does it say? That Bush made the same mistake that everyone else made who had access to security briefings? I'm not sure what that says though.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: J D on May 25, 2005, 01:10:06 PM
exactly.  bush  was wrong, but so were all the people now railing against him now.  you can't have it both ways

Not all.  Some.  There were many (both in this country and internationally) who at that time discerned--quite rightly, it turns out-- that the decision to go to war with Iraq was probably imprudent and unwise.  The truth of the matter is that most of the Democrats in Congress were cowed; they chose not to stand in the way of the President's clear intention to take on Iraq for fear of getting trounced in the congressional elections, which were right around the corner.  It was rather cowardly, if you ask me.  But the fact that they capitulated does not absolve the Bush administration of fault.  They rushed into Iraq head first, not knowing (and maybe not even caring) what they were getting themselves and the US into.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: ASNetlenov on May 25, 2005, 01:11:45 PM
Howcome we didnt invade N. Korea?  I mean, we KNEW for SURE that they had nukes.  Its almost as though there was some sort of hidden agenda behind the bush administration to invade iraq.  

Selective hearing maybe?
North Korea's regime, though headed by another madman, has not invaded another country in 50 years. North Korea does not give money to terrorists. And finally, China controls a good bit of North Korean policy, and will not let that country do anything too stupid. Is it possible that North Korea is/was a bigger threat? Yes but it was less likely that North Korea was going to do something that posed a direct security threats.

If anything Bush showed that he can react to different situations with unique responses, which is something he is not given credit for doing.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: fooseball22 on May 25, 2005, 01:13:01 PM
they knew exactly what they were getting into...re-election...pretty smart strategy if you ask me...just not for those who have fought and died.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: St. Shaun on May 25, 2005, 01:15:02 PM
That's quite a leap.  I believe we were talking about Bush being wrong about WMD's, not about going into Iraq.  Personally I think we made the right decision going into Iraq.  We can't let peole like Sadaam get away with pushing the world around.  I think the UN was wrong not to go in with us, and now we have more insurgance then we probably would have because it is seen as a war on the US instead of the UN.

Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: ASNetlenov on May 25, 2005, 01:15:16 PM
exactly.  bush  was wrong, but so were all the people now railing against him now.  you can't have it both ways

Not all.  Some.  There were many (both in this country and internationally) who at that time discerned--quite rightly, it turns out-- that the decision to go to war with Iraq was probably imprudent and unwise.  The truth of the matter is that most of the Democrats in Congress were cowed; they chose not to stand in the way of the President's clear intention to take on Iraq for fear of getting trounced in the congressional elections, which were right around the corner.  It was rather cowardly, if you ask me.  But the fact that they capitulated does not absolve the Bush administration of fault.  They rushed into Iraq head first, not knowing (and maybe not even caring) what they were getting themselves and the US into.
The Democrats supported the action and are culpable for that support. It does not absolve Bush. But to say that he lied is ridiculous because that means the leading Democrats lied too.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: fooseball22 on May 25, 2005, 01:17:47 PM
actually, saddam was not giving substantive amounts of money to terrorists.  In fact, Saddam was sunni muslim and his religious beliefs were generally oppositely alligned with terrorist related muslim religious sects, MEANING, groups didnt like him, and he most likely didnt like them (why do you think we put a sunni muslim in charge in the first place?).  

N. Korea would have been a better target...but not for reelection pruposes.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: St. Shaun on May 25, 2005, 01:18:18 PM
Howcome we didnt invade N. Korea?  I mean, we KNEW for SURE that they had nukes.  Its almost as though there was some sort of hidden agenda behind the bush administration to invade iraq.  

Selective hearing maybe?

Give me a break.  How many times do we have to go over this.  WE DID NOT GO INTO IRAQ BECAUSE OF WMD'S.  If the UN had an agreement with N. Korea to inspect there weapons because they kept bombing our Allies, and they didn't let us inspect, you bet we would go in there.

Your not comparing Apple to Apples.  Not even really fruit to fruit.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: fooseball22 on May 25, 2005, 01:23:19 PM
its funny you say that, b/c bush seemed to bring it up again and again and again in his state of the union speeches...even after we invaded and didnt find any WMD (before they had tons and tons of WMD...afterwards when we found none, he still insisted on finding WMD).  Sounds like electioneering to me.  But you're right, in theory we went in because of sanctions.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: St. Shaun on May 25, 2005, 01:28:25 PM
I don't think any of us are naive enough to believe that the most public reasons for an action are the most important reasons.  Bush put all his political chips on the WMD's.  Obviously this was a politcal blunder, but I don't think it undermines our reason for being there.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: ASNetlenov on May 25, 2005, 01:30:19 PM
actually, saddam was not giving substantive amounts of money to terrorists.  In fact, Saddam was sunni muslim and his religious beliefs were generally oppositely alligned with terrorist related muslim religious sects, MEANING, groups didnt like him, and he most likely didnt like them (why do you think we put a sunni muslim in charge in the first place?).  

N. Korea would have been a better target...but not for reelection pruposes.

Sadaam and the terrorists did not like each other but they hated us more. And the $25,000.00 he would give to the families of terrorists is a lot of money, especially in their world.

And why would North Korea have been a better target? How do you make that assessment?

St. Shaun has a good point above. The mission is still sound.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: jassulli on May 25, 2005, 01:32:11 PM

Give me a break.  How many times do we have to go over this.  WE DID NOT GO INTO IRAQ BECAUSE OF WMD'S.  If the UN had an agreement with N. Korea to inspect there weapons because they kept bombing our Allies, and they didn't let us inspect, you bet we would go in there.

Your not comparing Apple to Apples.  Not even really fruit to fruit.

there were inspectors before we went to war.  they found nothing.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: ASNetlenov on May 25, 2005, 01:33:54 PM

Give me a break.  How many times do we have to go over this.  WE DID NOT GO INTO IRAQ BECAUSE OF WMD'S.  If the UN had an agreement with N. Korea to inspect there weapons because they kept bombing our Allies, and they didn't let us inspect, you bet we would go in there.

Your not comparing Apple to Apples.  Not even really fruit to fruit.

there were inspectors before we went to war.  they found nothing.
The problem was that the inspectors were not credible because Sadaam had pulled too many tricks in the previous DECADE of inspections.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: fooseball22 on May 25, 2005, 01:58:11 PM
I'm obviously not going to argue that having a sadam-less iraq is a bad thing, but, crazy dictator with nukes isnt that big of a deal!  Now THAT is crazy.

What is even more crazy is that the supposed terrorist money you were talking about was really going to the families of palestinian suicide bombers, not al-queda groups.  While that is a disgusting display of humanity, I'd say thats more of a threat to israel than the US and there was NO funding to terrorist groups targeting the US.

So basically the Bush administration chose iraq to get re-elected.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: fooseball22 on May 25, 2005, 02:05:31 PM
actually, saddam was not giving substantive amounts of money to terrorists. 


he most certainly was funding suicide bombers families in palestine. that doesn't count?

when was the last time a US citizen was hit by a palestinian suicide bomber when in the US?
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: St. Shaun on May 25, 2005, 02:10:49 PM
I'm obviously not going to argue that having a sadam-less iraq is a bad thing, but, crazy dictator with nukes isnt that big of a deal!  Now THAT is crazy.

What is even more crazy is that the supposed terrorist money you were talking about was really going to the families of palestinian suicide bombers, not al-queda groups.  While that is a disgusting display of humanity, I'd say thats more of a threat to israel than the US and there was NO funding to terrorist groups targeting the US.

So basically the Bush administration chose iraq to get re-elected.

Once again, Sadaam is bombing, and funding the bombing of our Allies.  This seems like a good reason to go to war, though it wasn't extreme enough to support war on it's own.  Even the French went to war for our freedom.  The Koreans, though crazy, mind there own business.  Your not comparing like cases.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubyah
Post by: iloveme on May 25, 2005, 02:18:57 PM
LOL!  I noticed that too and was thinking the exact same thing!  :)

I can't believe you people actually think the president is stupid.  I always thought it was just a big joke, but I've begun to see that people actually think there smarter then him.  Just another point that you should consider since your all law school apps.  Though Bush and Kerry both went to Yale, Bush got accepted to Harvard for his MBA, Kerry went to BC for law school, and that was before admission standards were so high.

Does there = they're, then = than (we'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that one), your = you're?

The president must really seem like a genius to you!
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: fooseball22 on May 25, 2005, 02:22:51 PM
proliferation of nuclear weapons=very dangerous

I dont think you're correctly looking at the gravity of having a crazy dictator with a potentially devastating nuclear weapon.

For example didnt N. Korea sell uranium to libya?

Hmmmmmm...which sounds more deadly to the US?
 

Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: iloveme on May 25, 2005, 02:26:49 PM
I heard that your mother (whore) was very popular around here.  ??? My mistake.
grammar whores aren't too popular in these parts.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: St. Shaun on May 25, 2005, 02:27:10 PM
That's irrelevant.  We don't just invade people because they could be dangerous.  I think we can all agree that China could be far more dangerous then anyone else.  

You keep side stepping the central issue.  We said if he did A we would invade.  He did A.  Therefore...
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: Abevigoda on May 25, 2005, 02:27:33 PM
Yeah Saddam wanted nuclear weapons, everybody wants the leverage associate with them.  It's just that he didn't as the US has concluded, the inspectors did do their job well.  It's a no-brainer for the neo-cons, if we found weapons than it is a justifcation for war (obviously), if we don't find weapons he had the capabilities to produce weapons and therefor another justification for war.  

My question, don't most industrialized countries have the capabilities to produce WMD?
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: St. Shaun on May 25, 2005, 02:27:42 PM
I heard that your mother (whore) was very popular around here.  ??? My mistake.
grammar whores aren't too popular in these parts.

Does anyone else feel like there back in high school?
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: fooseball22 on May 25, 2005, 02:32:35 PM
isnt selling uranium to libya a direct threat to US security?  Maybe i just should be such a pessimist
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: J D on May 25, 2005, 02:34:20 PM
proliferation of nuclear weapons=very dangerous

I dont think you're correctly looking at the gravity of having a crazy dictator with a potentially devastating nuclear weapon.

For example didnt N. Korea sell uranium to libya?

Hmmmmmm...which sounds more deadly to the US?
 



I think I also remember reading that the DPRK has also been involved in a number of deals (including weapons) with Iran.  Is that enough of a threat?  And as far as a threat to allies is concerned, the DPRK has been kidnapping Japanese citizens off the shores of Kyushu and Honshu and forcing them to work in labor camps.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: fooseball22 on May 25, 2005, 02:47:26 PM
why would we want to meddle with countries that ACTUALLY deal with nuclear weapons? 

I prefer the electioneering route.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: fooseball22 on May 25, 2005, 03:03:27 PM
http://www.heritage.org/Research/AsiaandthePacific/BG1503.cfm#pgfId=1182995

...hmmm maybe N. Korea can be dangerous... or maybe they just 'keep to themselves'.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: iloveme on May 25, 2005, 03:08:27 PM
I heard that your mother (whore) was very popular around here.  ??? My mistake.
grammar whores aren't too popular in these parts.

Does anyone else feel like there back in high school?

They're=They are. There is incorrect. ;)
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: St. Shaun on May 25, 2005, 08:04:40 PM
I heard that your mother (whore) was very popular around here.  ??? My mistake.
grammar whores aren't too popular in these parts.

Does anyone else feel like there back in high school?



They're=They are. There is incorrect. ;)

Yep... definately back in high school.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: jassulli on May 25, 2005, 08:10:05 PM

Yep... definately back in high school.

"definately" ... ha, good one.

(you are doing this on purpose now, yes?)
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: J D on May 25, 2005, 08:15:55 PM
I heard that your mother (whore) was very popular around here.  ??? My mistake.
grammar whores aren't too popular in these parts.

Does anyone else feel like there back in high school?

They're=They are. There is incorrect. ;)

Yep... definately back in high school.

Well, maybe while we're here we can revisit English class?  (just kidding!)  ;)
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: St. Shaun on May 25, 2005, 09:11:43 PM

Yep... definately back in high school.

"definately" ... ha, good one.

(you are doing this on purpose now, yes?)

I'll guess we'll never no.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: ASNetlenov on May 26, 2005, 01:31:11 PM
North Korea is dangerous, but China will not let them get out of line because it is not in Chinese interests. China can just cut the food and supplies off that it sends and North Korea is in even worse shape.

As far as the Chinese go, they are problematic. Their culture looks at itself as being ineherently superior to the rest of the world, thus they should dominate the world. Combine with this notion the idea of not losing face and the general lack of respect for human life, and you get a potential mess if something funny happens in Taiwan. Now that is scary (and unlikely).
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: fooseball22 on May 26, 2005, 01:40:02 PM
You are aware that N. Korea already starves its people so as to have an 'adequate' military budget right?  As long as there is enough food to support soldiers, they could care less what they get from china.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: J D on May 26, 2005, 01:52:42 PM
Also, I think one could (and many did, quite successfully) make the argument that Saddam Hussein had already been pretty effectively fenced in.  He had a US-British enforced no-fly zone over most of his country since about 1991, effectively rendering the air force useless.  Notwithstanding oil-for-food money, the sanctions took a heavy economic toll on Iraq (which was only exacerbated by Saddam's greedy and self-centered priorities regarding how to allocate his country's scarce resources).  His ability to project military power in the region was severely limited not only by the inadequacies of his own military (we saw that not only in this war but in the first Gulf War; several veterans of that conflict told me that Saddams's troops had dropped their weapons and fled at the sight of unmanned drones), but also by the presence of several other military forces around him: the USAF-RAF enforcing the no-fly zone, the US troops stationed in nearby Saudi Arabia, Israel to the west (which possesses one of the strongest if not the strongest military in the Near East), and Iran (Iraq's major strategic competitor for at least the last few decades) to the east.  Even if you argue that the DPRK was not/is not that big of a threat, I think, considering all of these factors, you might have some trouble establishing that Iraq in March 2003 was any more of a threat than the DPRK.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: fooseball22 on May 26, 2005, 02:09:00 PM
NO NO NO NO..stop saying stuff that doesnt fit into my ideology!
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: St. Shaun on May 26, 2005, 02:15:22 PM
The point isn't who is the bigger threat.  The point is who is disobeying sanctions that we said we would enforce.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: fooseball22 on May 26, 2005, 02:17:34 PM
...because that makes sense for a foreign policy...
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: St. Shaun on May 26, 2005, 02:18:35 PM
You address what you can.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: fooseball22 on May 26, 2005, 02:20:15 PM
egad man!  you realize how silly that sounds, right?
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: St. Shaun on May 26, 2005, 02:24:51 PM
You tell someone they need to do something or else.  That's means that you have follow through, regardless of whether there the biggest threat.  Why is that hard to understand.  You need to keep your word or else people don't respect your word.  It's people who don't follow through with their word who have middle school kids who are impossible to control (my previous job was a middle school ministries director).
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: ASNetlenov on May 26, 2005, 02:28:26 PM
You tell someone they need to do something or else.  That's means that you have follow through, regardless of whether there the biggest threat.  Why is that hard to understand.  You need to keep your word or else people don't respect your word.  It's people unlike this who have middle school kids who are impossible to control (my previous job was a middle school ministries director).
This is sadly true. People will not respect your authoridad if you do not follow through. Look at the UN.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: fooseball22 on May 26, 2005, 02:43:32 PM
they wouldnt respect our authority if they see the US kicking the crap out of N. Korea?  I highly doubt that.

I mean, you do see the correlation between re-election and iraq though, right?  This isnt about 'preserving our word'.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: J D on May 26, 2005, 02:50:00 PM
Nevertheless, I doubt very much that the US government's reputation has benefited all that much from the decision to invade Iraq based on the reasons that were provided in support of that decision.  And besides, Saddam appeared to be in compliance with 1441; he did allow UNSCOM inspectors into the country, allowed them to travel on their own, to inspect pretty much any site they wished, without notice.  He turned over tens of thousands of pages of documents.  Though incomplete, the discrepancy was as likely to be the result of bad recordeeping as it was the result of a positive intent to deceive.  But we'll probably never know which it was.  The point is, the inspectors had to end their mission prematurely.  Why?  Because of the invasion by the United States, which had decided (by all indications) that they no longer cared what the inspectors' final conclusions would be.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: St. Shaun on May 26, 2005, 02:50:32 PM
Bush's approval rating was already through the roof before the war.  So, no, I don't see the correlation.  He could have coasted of his handling of 9/11 without taking any risks and won more easily (because as we can see the war did not help him get re-elected).  Bush didn't need to start a war for popularity.

I don't think anyone would respect us for invading N. Korea.  They haven't done anything to provoke us or disobeyed our sanctions.  I think we would lose credibility.  Again your not comparing like situations.  There's a difference between being respected for being a strong military force, and being respected for keeping your word.  The respect in on different levels.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: Abevigoda on May 26, 2005, 02:56:17 PM
http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

As you can see, I would hardly call his pre-war approval rating "through the roof!!"  Although it was following the invasion.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: fooseball22 on May 26, 2005, 02:57:47 PM
actually his approval rating was consistantly going down after sept. 11 until the administration started their war with iraq.  Man, google is such a b*tch.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/graphics/bushApproval_031305.html
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: fooseball22 on May 26, 2005, 03:00:01 PM
the data actually suggests that the war helped keep his approval afloat before sinking even farther.  But hey...who says the war was for election purposes?
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: Abevigoda on May 26, 2005, 03:03:28 PM
It went much lower because people started realizing how colossal of a mistake it was, that doesn't negate what I beleive his prior intentions were.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: fooseball22 on May 26, 2005, 03:05:11 PM
I'm just saying...data seems to suggest that the war helped keep his approval rating from dipping even farther...almost like the war helped him get re-elected.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: Abevigoda on May 26, 2005, 03:11:16 PM
Oh, we agree then.  Fantastic.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: St. Shaun on May 26, 2005, 03:11:44 PM
Through the roof is a bit of a stretch, but it's not much of one.  It was never below 60% before the war.  That's really good.  Better then Clinton had in his election years.  In fact it's better than any election year approval rating since before Kennedy, excluding his father (I know, 2003 was the year before the election, but my point is that it was still really high).  

http://wampum.wabanaki.net/archives/000537.html

Foosman you've illuded to the war being about the election quite heavily.  Don't try to play like your suprised I infered that from your posts.

Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: Abevigoda on May 26, 2005, 03:33:17 PM
You're right, fooze also thinks the Cubans and the Mafia jointly killed Kennedy.  The Iraq war helped in the election among his base and was based on a misguided foreign policy, not on election concerns.

Even I don't he could be that cavalier over war.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: fooseball22 on May 26, 2005, 03:38:26 PM
say what you will...but you have to admit...this is one fantastically handsome bulge.(think will ferrel in american flag hot pants)
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: Abevigoda on May 26, 2005, 03:49:35 PM
All the blood that would be going to his brain has to go somewhere.

(Sorry, St. Shaun, it was an easy shot)
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: St. Shaun on May 26, 2005, 08:33:36 PM
Say what you will about W, but at least we all agree he's got balls.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: hey not you hey on May 30, 2005, 12:07:13 AM
I don't think anyone would respect us for invading N. Korea.  They haven't done anything to provoke us or disobeyed our sanctions.  I think we would lose credibility.

yeah, why invade a country that doesn't have any weapons of mass destruction that we know about through intelligence gathering (especially not recent aerial photos showing testing sites) and that completely and utterly denies having them?  that would be absolutely ridiculous.  people gave us far more respect for invading Iraq than they would have for invading North Korea.  at least we found weapons in Iraq.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: _BP_ on May 30, 2005, 08:57:08 AM
I don't think anyone would respect us for invading N. Korea.  They haven't done anything to provoke us or disobeyed our sanctions.  I think we would lose credibility.

yeah, why invade a country that doesn't have any weapons of mass destruction that we know about through intelligence gathering (especially not recent aerial photos showing testing sites) and that completely and utterly denies having them?  that would be absolutely ridiculous.  people gave us far more respect for invading Iraq than they would have for invading North Korea.  at least we found weapons in Iraq.

I didn't know you could run sarcasm for so long.....unless I'm misreading this..LOL
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: St. Shaun on May 30, 2005, 06:06:23 PM
I don't think anyone would respect us for invading N. Korea.  They haven't done anything to provoke us or disobeyed our sanctions.  I think we would lose credibility.

yeah, why invade a country that doesn't have any weapons of mass destruction that we know about through intelligence gathering (especially not recent aerial photos showing testing sites) and that completely and utterly denies having them?  that would be absolutely ridiculous.  people gave us far more respect for invading Iraq than they would have for invading North Korea.  at least we found weapons in Iraq.

How many times do we have to go over this.  It wasn't ever about WMD's.  I don't care if there biggest weapon is a smurf gun, they disobeyed the rules, we can't let people get away with that.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: _BP_ on May 30, 2005, 06:58:04 PM
I don't think anyone would respect us for invading N. Korea.  They haven't done anything to provoke us or disobeyed our sanctions.  I think we would lose credibility.

yeah, why invade a country that doesn't have any weapons of mass destruction that we know about through intelligence gathering (especially not recent aerial photos showing testing sites) and that completely and utterly denies having them?  that would be absolutely ridiculous.  people gave us far more respect for invading Iraq than they would have for invading North Korea.  at least we found weapons in Iraq.

How many times do we have to go over this.  It wasn't ever about WMD's.  I don't care if there biggest weapon is a smurf gun, they disobeyed the rules, we can't let people get away with that.

It wasn't ever about WMD's

Quote of the Year...LOL
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: hey not you hey on May 30, 2005, 09:08:33 PM
I don't think anyone would respect us for invading N. Korea.  They haven't done anything to provoke us or disobeyed our sanctions.  I think we would lose credibility.

yeah, why invade a country that doesn't have any weapons of mass destruction that we know about through intelligence gathering (especially not recent aerial photos showing testing sites) and that completely and utterly denies having them?  that would be absolutely ridiculous.  people gave us far more respect for invading Iraq than they would have for invading North Korea.  at least we found weapons in Iraq.

How many times do we have to go over this.  It wasn't ever about WMD's.  I don't care if there biggest weapon is a smurf gun, they disobeyed the rules, we can't let people get away with that.

The rules?  There are no rules when it comes to international diplomacy.  And by the way, IT WAS COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY ABOUT WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.  where have you been the last few years?  if you can't at least agree with me that the U.S. went in under the pretense that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction that needed to be taken from him, then I don't even think we can continue here.  it's like Clinton asking what the word 'alone' means.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: DodgerLaw on May 30, 2005, 09:22:49 PM
If there are no rules, why do we sign treaties?

Was it a pretense or a well-founded concern? There is a big difference. Those who call Bush a "liar" are being both meanspirited and ridiculous. He believed the same thing that virtually everyone believed, from Clinton to France.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: Xony on May 30, 2005, 09:26:55 PM
If there are no rules, why do we sign treaties?

Was it a pretense or a well-founded concern? There is a big difference. Those who call Bush a "liar" are being both meanspirited and ridiculous. He believed the same thing that virtually everyone believed, from Clinton to France.

and you think it's right to start wars based on beliefs?  we know for sure iran's cookin' up some storm...why not attack them?

I guess I shouldn't be so pissed.. Bush was only off by 1 letter!
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: DodgerLaw on May 30, 2005, 09:34:54 PM
If there are no rules, why do we sign treaties?

Was it a pretense or a well-founded concern? There is a big difference. Those who call Bush a "liar" are being both meanspirited and ridiculous. He believed the same thing that virtually everyone believed, from Clinton to France.

and you think it's right to start wars based on beliefs?  we know for sure iran's cookin' up some storm...why not attack them?

I guess I shouldn't be so pissed.. Bush was only off by 1 letter!

No. I think it's sometimes necessary to FINISH wars when the loser who agreed to follow certain rules doesn't do so, and creates well-founded concerns that present a serious threat. Some evidence, that should be especially important to those on the Left, that the concerns are well-founded is that the leaders on the Left (such as Bill Clinton and France) agree that there are well-founded concerns that said Loser (Saddam) probably has WMDs.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on May 31, 2005, 11:28:55 AM
w...president of the united states...and one hell of a vowel!!!
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: thefaceman on May 31, 2005, 12:05:36 PM
w...president of the united states...and one hell of a vowel!!!

Excellent point...Take note everyone!
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: St. Shaun on May 31, 2005, 05:18:03 PM
I don't think anyone would respect us for invading N. Korea.  They haven't done anything to provoke us or disobeyed our sanctions.  I think we would lose credibility.

yeah, why invade a country that doesn't have any weapons of mass destruction that we know about through intelligence gathering (especially not recent aerial photos showing testing sites) and that completely and utterly denies having them?  that would be absolutely ridiculous.  people gave us far more respect for invading Iraq than they would have for invading North Korea.  at least we found weapons in Iraq.


No it wasn't about WMD's, that was just used to demonstrate how bad his defying of UN sanctions were.  If you think we went in simply because he had WMD's you need to go back over the events and stop being so influenced by the media (I blame Bush for the media hype about WMD's, a huge mistake).  We went in because he disobeyed UN sanctions.  These sanctions need to be inforced.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: Abevigoda on May 31, 2005, 05:36:44 PM
I just read the transcript of his speech; at least he is getting a little better at those live news conferences, fewer grammatical mistakes, etc...

If only I agreed with what he said.....oh well.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: Julie Fern on May 31, 2005, 07:10:49 PM
.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: _BP_ on May 31, 2005, 08:59:45 PM
.

I second this Julie.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: PresClay_00 on May 31, 2005, 09:00:57 PM
.

like a broken record
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: St. Shaun on May 31, 2005, 09:16:35 PM
I just read the transcript of his speech; at least he is getting a little better at those live news conferences, fewer grammatical mistakes, etc...

If only I agreed with what he said.....oh well.

Totally, at least when it comes to economics and the size of our government.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: DodgerLaw on May 31, 2005, 09:18:01 PM
St. Shaun,

You gotta change that avatar. You're freakin' me out, man. Freakin' ... me ... out.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: St. Shaun on May 31, 2005, 09:21:00 PM
Back off man.  This is really a picture of me... really.  I'll try to find a different one.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: iloveme on June 06, 2005, 04:37:29 PM

Yep... definately back in high school.

"definately" ... ha, good one.

(you are doing this on purpose now, yes?)

I'll guess we'll never no.

I guess you meant to type "know." If I'm in high school, judging from you're grammar,you must be in Middle School. Dumb @ss.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: Julie Fern on June 06, 2005, 05:20:51 PM
umm...
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: PresClay_00 on June 06, 2005, 05:28:42 PM
that's more than you've posted in this thread since its inception

EDIT:  ick, that was glaringly nasty - damn quick typing
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: Julie Fern on June 06, 2005, 05:30:36 PM
that's more than you've posted in this thread since it's inception

yes, "it's."
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: PresClay_00 on June 06, 2005, 05:31:57 PM
that's more than you've posted in this thread since it's inception

yes, "it's."

so you caught a mistake - what's that, 2?
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: St. Shaun on June 06, 2005, 05:49:48 PM
that's more than you've posted in this thread since it's inception

yes, "it's."

Julie correcting English.  This is great.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: Abevigoda on June 06, 2005, 05:51:55 PM
Irony is a great thing.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: Julie Fern on June 06, 2005, 05:52:24 PM
that's more than you've posted in this thread since it's inception

yes, "it's."

so you caught a mistake - what's that, 2?

no, just one in that post.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: Julie Fern on June 06, 2005, 05:53:08 PM
that's more than you've posted in this thread since it's inception

yes, "it's."

Julie correcting English. This is great.

see to what it's come?
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: St. Shaun on June 06, 2005, 05:53:42 PM
I guess you meant to type "know." If I'm in high school, judging from you're grammar,you must be in Middle School. Dumb @ss.

Actually I was a middle school director for my last job.  It was great.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: Julie Fern on June 06, 2005, 05:54:14 PM
Irony is a great thing.

yes.  so is iron, when used properly.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: St. Shaun on June 06, 2005, 05:54:38 PM
that's more than you've posted in this thread since it's inception

yes, "it's."

Julie correcting English. This is great.

I know, I'm sorry it's come to this.  iloveme really should take that responsibility off your shoulders.

see to what it's come?
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: St. Shaun on June 06, 2005, 05:55:15 PM
Irony is a great thing.

yes.  so is iron, when used properly.

And a 5 iron shot, when it's done correctly.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: Julie Fern on June 06, 2005, 05:55:25 PM
I guess you meant to type "know." If I'm in high school, judging from you're grammar,you must be in Middle School. Dumb @ss.

Actually I was a middle school director for my last job.  It was great.

no wonder that your last job.  hope you saved up for your forced retirement.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: St. Shaun on June 06, 2005, 05:56:29 PM
I guess you meant to type "know." If I'm in high school, judging from you're grammar,you must be in Middle School. Dumb @ss.

Actually I was a middle school director for my last job.  It was great.

no wonder that your last job.  hope you saved up for your forced retirement.

I'm not quite sure what your getting at?  I made crappy money.  Is that what your getting at.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: Julie Fern on June 06, 2005, 05:56:50 PM
Irony is a great thing.

yes.  so is iron, when used properly.

And a 5 iron shot, when it's done correctly.

to head of republican, you mean.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: St. Shaun on June 06, 2005, 05:58:13 PM
I thought you were against acts of war?  Isn't it funny that those who are the most against war are the angriest, and sometimes most violent people? 
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: Julie Fern on June 06, 2005, 05:58:29 PM
I guess you meant to type "know." If I'm in high school, judging from you're grammar,you must be in Middle School. Dumb @ss.

Actually I was a middle school director for my last job.  It was great.

no wonder that your last job.  hope you saved up for your forced retirement.

I'm not quite sure what your getting at? I made crappy money. Is that what your getting at.

no, it that you lost job and now no one will hire you (hence, your "last" job).

try to keep up.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: Julie Fern on June 06, 2005, 05:59:18 PM
I thought you were against acts of war? Isn't it funny that those who are the most against war are the angriest, and sometimes most violent people?

hey, we talking about golf here.  calm down.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: St. Shaun on June 06, 2005, 06:00:35 PM
no, it that you lost job and now no one will hire you (hence, your "last" job).

try to keep up.

Since you seem to be the current English queen you should know the many diverse uses of last.  Wouldn't it be nice it that was my last job though.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: St. Shaun on June 06, 2005, 06:01:01 PM
I thought you were against acts of war? Isn't it funny that those who are the most against war are the angriest, and sometimes most violent people?

hey, we talking about golf here.  calm down.

You golf funny then.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: Julie Fern on June 06, 2005, 06:05:28 PM
no, it that you lost job and now no one will hire you (hence, your "last" job).

try to keep up.

Since you seem to be the current English queen you should know the many diverse uses of last.  Wouldn't it be nice it that was my last job though.

on behalf of civilization:  yes.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: Julie Fern on June 06, 2005, 06:06:57 PM
I thought you were against acts of war? Isn't it funny that those who are the most against war are the angriest, and sometimes most violent people?

hey, we talking about golf here.  calm down.

You golf funny then.

you think hitting republican with five-iron funny?  not it case that warmongers like you most inclined to be violent and angry?
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: St. Shaun on June 06, 2005, 06:09:55 PM


you think hitting republican with five-iron funny?  not it case that warmongers like you most inclined to be violent and angry?

As current English queen you should know the many uses of funny.  Warmongers?  I guess if going into a country after we promised we would if they disobeyed sanctions makes us a warmoner.  People like you keep people like hitler in power.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: Julie Fern on June 06, 2005, 06:19:04 PM
that funny, right?
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: karl marx on June 06, 2005, 06:20:51 PM


you think hitting republican with five-iron funny?  not it case that warmongers like you most inclined to be violent and angry?

As current English queen you should know the many uses of funny.  Warmongers?  I guess if going into a country after we promised we would if they disobeyed sanctions makes us a warmoner.  People like you keep people like hitler in power.

What's the probability of you never posting again?  I just want to know what kind of odds I'm dealing with here.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: iloveme on June 06, 2005, 06:37:13 PM
[
Actually I was a middle school director for my last job.  It was great.

no wonder that your last job.  hope you saved up for your forced retirement.
Quote

LOL!  Good one Julie!
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: iloveme on June 06, 2005, 06:40:28 PM
In the above post you stated "Actually I was a middle school director for my last job.  It was great."  WTF??? ???

[
Quote

Since you seem to be the current English queen you should know the many diverse uses of last.  Wouldn't it be nice it that was my last job though.
Quote
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: PresClay_00 on June 06, 2005, 06:42:47 PM
that's more than you've posted in this thread since it's inception

yes, "it's."
so you caught a mistake - what's that, 2?
no, just one in that post.

so two for all time, right?
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: iloveme on June 06, 2005, 06:42:58 PM
I must be very bored to entertain this idiot.  With that said, WTF are you rambling about St. Shaun?



you think hitting republican with five-iron funny?  not it case that warmongers like you most inclined to be violent and angry?

As current English queen you should know the many uses of funny.  Warmongers?  I guess if going into a country after we promised we would if they disobeyed sanctions makes us a warmoner.  People like you keep people like hitler in power.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: Julie Fern on June 06, 2005, 06:53:46 PM
that's more than you've posted in this thread since it's inception

yes, "it's."
so you caught a mistake - what's that, 2?
no, just one in that post.

so two for all time, right?

someone sure is keepping score.

afraid julie not paying nearly that much attention to you.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: Julie Fern on June 06, 2005, 06:54:52 PM
I must be very bored to entertain this idiot.  With that said, WTF are you rambling about St. Shaun?



you think hitting republican with five-iron funny?  not it case that warmongers like you most inclined to be violent and angry?

As current English queen you should know the many uses of funny.  Warmongers?  I guess if going into a country after we promised we would if they disobeyed sanctions makes us a warmoner.  People like you keep people like hitler in power.

never, ever ask question like that of member of lsd's conservative circus.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: PresClay_00 on June 06, 2005, 06:55:18 PM
someone sure is keepping score.
afraid julie not paying nearly that much attention to you.

i think stalking qualifies as attention
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: Julie Fern on June 07, 2005, 05:45:16 AM
not compliment self.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: St. Shaun on June 07, 2005, 06:04:06 AM
I must be very bored to entertain this idiot.  With that said, WTF are you rambling about St. Shaun?


I'm talking to Julie, if you'd read the thread for more then grammer you'd figure that out.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: Julie Fern on June 07, 2005, 06:18:24 AM
it not just "grammer," but also spelling.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: iloveme on June 07, 2005, 08:10:01 AM
I never said who you were talking to.  I was talking to you though.  If you read the thread properly, you would figure that out.

I must be very bored to entertain this idiot.  With that said, WTF are you rambling about St. Shaun?


I'm talking to Julie, if you'd read the thread for more then grammer you'd figure that out.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: hey not you hey on June 07, 2005, 12:00:32 PM
I must be very bored to entertain this idiot.  With that said, WTF are you rambling about St. Shaun?


I'm talking to Julie, if you'd read the thread for more then grammer you'd figure that out.

If you really have this much of an issue with "grammer," you're going to have a harder time in law school "then" I thought.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: iloveme on June 07, 2005, 03:10:10 PM
Who are you? Do I know you?

I must be very bored to entertain this idiot.  With that said, WTF are you rambling about St. Shaun?


I'm talking to Julie, if you'd read the thread for more then grammer you'd figure that out.

If you really have this much of an issue with "grammer," you're going to have a harder time in law school "then" I thought.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: hey not you hey on June 07, 2005, 05:31:24 PM
who?  me?
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: St. Shaun on June 07, 2005, 08:13:34 PM
I must be very bored to entertain this idiot.  With that said, WTF are you rambling about St. Shaun?


I'm talking to Julie, if you'd read the thread for more then grammer you'd figure that out.

If you really have this much of an issue with "grammer," you're going to have a harder time in law school "then" I thought.

In case you haven't noticed, this isn't a law school exam or a law school class.  I sincerely hope neither of you are this way in other casual social settings.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: J D on June 07, 2005, 08:32:07 PM
Since when is competence a fault?
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: iloveme on June 07, 2005, 10:57:33 PM
Wow! You consider this a "social setting"?  That's pretty sad.

I must be very bored to entertain this idiot.  With that said, WTF are you rambling about St. Shaun?


I'm talking to Julie, if you'd read the thread for more then grammer you'd figure that out.

If you really have this much of an issue with "grammer," you're going to have a harder time in law school "then" I thought.

In case you haven't noticed, this isn't a law school exam or a law school class.  I sincerely hope neither of you are this way in other casual social settings.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: iloveme on June 08, 2005, 08:20:16 AM
Sorry, I was getting you confused with another poster.

who?  me?
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: hey not you hey on June 08, 2005, 01:34:56 PM
I must be very bored to entertain this idiot.  With that said, WTF are you rambling about St. Shaun?


I'm talking to Julie, if you'd read the thread for more then grammer you'd figure that out.

If you really have this much of an issue with "grammer," you're going to have a harder time in law school "then" I thought.

In case you haven't noticed, this isn't a law school exam or a law school class.  I sincerely hope neither of you are this way in other casual social settings.

Wait, this isn't a law....wait a minute...where am I?
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: elemnopee on June 08, 2005, 01:38:24 PM
Anyone see the article in the Express (Free Washington Post mini paper in DC) today about Dubya actually having better grades than John Frankenstein Kerry at Yale?
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: Slothrop on June 08, 2005, 01:40:24 PM
Anyone see the article in the Express (Free Washington Post mini paper in DC) today about Dubya actually having better grades than John Frankenstein Kerry at Yale?

Yeah, but we all know that gpa doesn't reflect intelligence, your LSAT score does!!!! ;)  Now, I wonder what each of them got on that???
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: elemnopee on June 08, 2005, 01:56:33 PM
Kerry went to BC
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: hammer101 on June 08, 2005, 01:57:53 PM
Anyone see the article in the Express (Free Washington Post mini paper in DC) today about Dubya actually having better grades than John Frankenstein Kerry at Yale?

Yeah, but we all know that gpa doesn't reflect intelligence, your LSAT score does!!!! ;)  Now, I wonder what each of them got on that???

Too bad dubya didn't take it (but I guess he took the GMAT or whatever they required for business school back then).
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: Slothrop on June 08, 2005, 01:58:29 PM
Kerry went to BC

and Bush was rejected by UT.  (so he probably took it)

Edit:  Anyone got the USNews rankings for the early 70s to see how hard those schools were to get into?
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: Julie Fern on June 08, 2005, 02:22:25 PM
Anyone see the article in the Express (Free Washington Post mini paper in DC) today about Dubya actually having better grades than John Frankenstein Kerry at Yale?

Yeah, but we all know that gpa doesn't reflect intelligence, your LSAT score does!!!! ;)  Now, I wonder what each of them got on that???

Too bad dubya didn't take it (but I guess he took the GMAT or whatever they required for business school back then).

bush went to harvard business school at time they not require gmat.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: elemnopee on June 08, 2005, 02:28:00 PM
Kerry went to BC

and Bush was rejected by UT.  (so he probably took it)

Edit:  Anyone got the USNews rankings for the early 70s to see how hard those schools were to get into?

They didn't do rankings back then
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: Slothrop on June 08, 2005, 02:32:57 PM
Kerry went to BC

and Bush was rejected by UT.  (so he probably took it)

Edit:  Anyone got the USNews rankings for the early 70s to see how hard those schools were to get into?

They didn't do rankings back then

I know, maybe I should have put a ;) or something...
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: hammer101 on June 08, 2005, 02:35:34 PM
Kerry went to BC

and Bush was rejected by UT.  (so he probably took it)

Edit:  Anyone got the USNews rankings for the early 70s to see how hard those schools were to get into?

I did not know that ... interesting.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: elemnopee on June 08, 2005, 02:36:32 PM
I know, maybe I should have put a ;) or something...

I know he showed up for his Buisness School interview drunk
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: Julie Fern on June 08, 2005, 03:47:37 PM
can't go just by his pronunciation, you know.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: St. Shaun on June 08, 2005, 04:05:45 PM

Wait, this isn't a law....wait a minute...where am I?

That's funny  ;D ... my life is in that perpetual state.  You'll all be there too, once your classes start.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: St. Shaun on June 08, 2005, 04:07:28 PM
Yeah, but we all know that gpa doesn't reflect intelligence, your LSAT score does!!!! ;)  Now, I wonder what each of them got on that???

By standardized IQ's Bush is smarter then Kerry, and neither of them are that intelligent.  Can't we establish this and move on.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: Julie Fern on June 09, 2005, 07:15:10 AM

Wait, this isn't a law....wait a minute...where am I?

That's funny ;D ... my life is in that perpetual state. You'll all be there too, once your classes start.

maybe, but you'll still look like that.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: Julie Fern on June 09, 2005, 07:16:01 AM
Yeah, but we all know that gpa doesn't reflect intelligence, your LSAT score does!!!! ;)  Now, I wonder what each of them got on that???

By standardized IQ's Bush is smarter then Kerry, and neither of them are that intelligent. Can't we establish this and move on.

kerry has better hair.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: Slothrop on June 09, 2005, 08:14:06 AM
Yeah, but we all know that gpa doesn't reflect intelligence, your LSAT score does!!!! ;)  Now, I wonder what each of them got on that???

By standardized IQ's Bush is smarter then Kerry, and neither of them are that intelligent.  Can't we establish this and move on.

Wow, thanks Mr. Serious, I guess sense of humor isn't a membership requirement to the Bush fan club...  Um, Kerry's Yale records came out like two days ago, supporting the fact that Bush did slightly better in school than Kerry...  and considering both have "standardized IQs" in the 120s, that makes them considerably more intelligent than Joe Schmo.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: ASNetlenov on June 09, 2005, 08:17:11 AM
When did a 120-something IQ become not good enough?
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: Slothrop on June 09, 2005, 08:23:38 AM
When did a 120-something IQ become not good enough?

I don't know, that's what I'm saying...

I'm just trying to dis-a-ssemble the facts here!!! ;D
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: ASNetlenov on June 09, 2005, 08:36:33 AM
I wonder too because a friend of mine just flipped out after getting a 127 on an IQ test. WTF.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: fooseball22 on June 09, 2005, 08:39:01 AM
i think you should be scoring in the 130's by the time you graduate college.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: PresClay_00 on June 09, 2005, 08:41:16 AM
i didnt' think your IQ really changed all that much over time
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: ASNetlenov on June 09, 2005, 08:41:59 AM
i think you should be scoring in the 130's by the time you graduate college.

Hasn't the level for genius been raised to 133? Not everyone can be a genius by definition. I guess to be in that range you need to clear the mid-1300s on the SAT. Thoughts?
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: fooseball22 on June 09, 2005, 08:43:01 AM
i thought people generally scored higher as they got older.  I could be wrong.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: PresClay_00 on June 09, 2005, 08:46:44 AM
to my understanding, it doesn't really change.  damn, i'm one short according to the school records.  is there a ratio for converting your SAT into IQ?
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: ASNetlenov on June 09, 2005, 08:49:01 AM
I think Pres is right. I think your IQ is pretty well fixed when you are in grade school.

15. Members of the same family also tend to differ substantially in intelligence (by an average of about 12 IQ points) for both genetic and environmental reasons. They differ genetically because biological brothers and sisters share exactly half their genes with each parent and, on the average, only half with each other. They also differ in IQ because they experience different environments within the same family.

16. That IQ may be highly heritable does not mean that it is not affected by the environment. Individuals are not born with fixed, unchangeable levels of intelligence (no one claims they are). IQs do gradually stabilize during childhood, however, and generally change little thereafter.

17. Although the environment is important in creating IQ differences, we do not know yet how to manipulate it to raise low IQs permanently. Whether recent attempts show promise is still a matter of considerable scientific debate.

This is part of a statement signed by many experts from different universities.

edit- I know that the high 1300s correlates to a 130-140 IQ and that is about it.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: PresClay_00 on June 09, 2005, 09:02:01 AM
true for me, i'll take it
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: fooseball22 on June 09, 2005, 09:15:50 AM
my IQ was higher than my SAT score if thats the criteria...but i also put little effort into the SATs so i may be an outlier.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: elemnopee on June 09, 2005, 09:46:09 AM
Where's a good Mexican resturaunt with carne asada tacos in DC?
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: ASNetlenov on June 09, 2005, 09:49:16 AM
I think the SAT is a fair predictor of IQ in my case even though I did no work for it, which was not the case for the LSAT.

It's too bad everyone studies for the LSAT now. We have to run just to stay in place. Wouldn't it be better if no one studied because we should get basically the same percentile regardless? When everyone studies it just creates more work for the result.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: ASNetlenov on June 09, 2005, 09:50:51 AM
Where's a good Mexican resturaunt with carne asada tacos in DC?

If you are from California you will probably find most of the Mexican food in DC to be disappointing. There is a decent place across the river in Arlington called the Blue Moon (or something like that).

Check the Washingtonian's restaurant reviews for an idea about what is good.

And the Cantina in Georgetown used to be decent as well.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: elemnopee on June 09, 2005, 09:53:44 AM
Where's a good Mexican resturaunt with carne asada tacos in DC?

If you are from California you will probably find most of the Mexican food in DC to be disappointing. There is a decent place across the river in Arlington called the Blue Moon (or something like that).

Check the Washingtonian's restaurant reviews for an idea about what is good.

And the Cantina in Georgetown used to be decent as well.

Thanks.  I got 7 minutes till lunch time and that gross Mexican resturaunt in Union Station isn't going to cut it today.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: ASNetlenov on June 09, 2005, 09:54:35 AM
Is the annoying Borboun chicken guy still down there yelling in Union Station?
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: elemnopee on June 09, 2005, 11:21:34 AM
Is the annoying Borboun chicken guy still down there yelling in Union Station?

No, but they finally fixed the escalator, after 6 months.

Is it that difficult to fix an escalator?  Or is metro really that bad?
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: ASNetlenov on June 09, 2005, 11:32:41 AM
LMNOP:

How long have you been in DC that you actually expect Metro might fix an escalator? They are always broken. And I hope you don't have to take the red line because it flooded around Union Station last summer after some heavy storms.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: elemnopee on June 09, 2005, 12:44:12 PM
LMNOP:

How long have you been in DC that you actually expect Metro might fix an escalator?

I've been in DC since August, and I think they might have made the escalator worse because it wasn't even on during lunch.

And I hope you don't have to take the red line because it flooded around Union Station last summer after some heavy storms.

I take it everyday, and I'm really looking forward to that.

Also, I use to always give my change to homeless people back home, but the panhandlers in DC are ridiculous.  This one guy by freedom plaza tried to tell me he was a drug and alchohal counselor, and he was clearly a crack head.  He handed me lunch menus and said these resturaunts supported some "DC Homeless Shelter and Counseling Center."  The audacity of these people is ridiculous.

Sorry to drag on, but at Smithsonian metro stop have you ever watched the guys handing out maps?  They give you a map, tell you where to go then hit you up for a donation to some Battered Women's Shelter.  I sat there waiting for a friend once and the guy probably made $50 in 30 minutes, unbelievable.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: ASNetlenov on June 09, 2005, 01:29:07 PM
You should have seen it fifteen years ago before they cleaned it up. They used to follow you down the street.

I've only given to one of those bums before. Last summer I was walking down Prospect one morning and a drunk was asking for money saying he was trying to get a fresh start. I lauged from a distance as I was heading towards him. He started singing, "Need money for beer. Honesty is the best policy. Need money for beer. Want to get drunk." I went into the store and bought him an OE 40.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: elemnopee on June 09, 2005, 01:41:15 PM
I went into the store and bought him an OE 40.

You are quite the Samaritan
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: ASNetlenov on June 09, 2005, 01:47:56 PM
He earned it. I have one friend who makes them do ten pushups for $1.00.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on June 09, 2005, 02:24:46 PM
great to see what this thread has become...

showing....the true wisdom of the enigmatic and powerful vowel "w" ;)
 
{{{{{{{{-------|


laughing very loud and hard...muuuuhuuuuhaaaaa!
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: maka nani on June 09, 2005, 02:31:35 PM
.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: karl marx on June 09, 2005, 05:56:49 PM
SAT doesn't translate into IQ.  IQ is supposed to measure someone's god-given ability to problem-solve, think critically, etc.  The SAT is designed to test one's knowledge of specific facts, more or less.

it's all a bunch of *&^% anyway.  IQ correlates to someone's overall intelligence pretty well, but just because one scores poorly on it doesn't mean that they are stupid, just as a high score doesn't necessarily mean that someone's really smart.  after all, it's a multiple choice test usually....
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: Julie Fern on June 09, 2005, 07:03:58 PM
.

well-said, our little floridian tart.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: maka nani on June 09, 2005, 07:06:28 PM
 :D really, i'm from a 99.99% blue state but shhhh
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: Julie Fern on June 09, 2005, 07:08:08 PM
it be our little secret.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: maka nani on June 09, 2005, 07:11:50 PM
k good
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: Julie Fern on June 10, 2005, 06:16:21 AM
thread...must...not...die.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: LaneSwerver on June 10, 2005, 06:56:40 AM
thread...must...not...die.

Beam me up, Mr. Speaker.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: PresClay_00 on June 11, 2005, 07:30:19 PM
SAT doesn't translate into IQ.  IQ is supposed to measure someone's god-given ability to problem-solve, think critically, etc.  The SAT is designed to test one's knowledge of specific facts, more or less.

it's all a bunch of sh*t anyway.  IQ correlates to someone's overall intelligence pretty well, but just because one scores poorly on it doesn't mean that they are stupid, just as a high score doesn't necessarily mean that someone's really smart.  after all, it's a multiple choice test usually....

i thought the Scholastic Aptitude (ability to learn) Test measured what you could learn, not what you know much as the IQ did. 

remember Saved By the Bell where Zack got higher than Jessie ...
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: Merc on June 11, 2005, 07:35:18 PM
SAT doesn't translate into IQ.  IQ is supposed to measure someone's god-given ability to problem-solve, think critically, etc.  The SAT is designed to test one's knowledge of specific facts, more or less.

it's all a bunch of sh*t anyway.  IQ correlates to someone's overall intelligence pretty well, but just because one scores poorly on it doesn't mean that they are stupid, just as a high score doesn't necessarily mean that someone's really smart.  after all, it's a multiple choice test usually....

i thought the Scholastic Aptitude (ability to learn) Test measured what you could learn, not what you know much as the IQ did.

remember Saved By the Bell where Zack got higher than Jessie ...

"I'm soooo excited!!  I'm soooo excited!!  I'm sooo.......scared1  *sob*"

wrong episode, but still classic SBTB.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: PresClay_00 on June 11, 2005, 08:15:55 PM
Zack Attack
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: Merc on June 11, 2005, 08:17:00 PM
c'mon.....preppie!
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: PresClay_00 on June 11, 2005, 08:25:20 PM
macho pig
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: Merc on June 11, 2005, 08:27:28 PM
AC Slater

Kelly Kapowski

Zach Morris

Jessie Spanno

Lisa Turtle

Samuel "Screech" Powers





I DO REMEMBER!!
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: PresClay_00 on June 11, 2005, 08:30:58 PM
you forgot Mr. Belding

how could a show that was so good get so bad when it went to college
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: Merc on June 11, 2005, 08:35:25 PM
Archie Belding, muhfukkah!!!
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on June 20, 2005, 12:38:21 AM
If there are no rules, why do we sign treaties?

Was it a pretense or a well-founded concern? There is a big difference. Those who call Bush a "liar" are being both meanspirited and ridiculous. He believed the same thing that virtually everyone believed, from Clinton to France.

and you think it's right to start wars based on beliefs?  we know for sure iran's cookin' up some storm...why not attack them?

I guess I shouldn't be so pissed.. Bush was only off by 1 letter!

aye think ms. xony is gone...maybe she discovered what the great rabbi, jesus' true message was...

hopefully she is not as jaded and angry as she was before.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: Julie Fern on June 20, 2005, 06:09:21 AM
hey, julie saw star wars yesterday.  she see just how bright is your future.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: Julie Fern on June 20, 2005, 07:29:11 AM
that you talkin', or your president?
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: Merc on June 21, 2005, 07:36:47 AM
don't do it Phanny!

I saw a video of her killing Younglings!
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: Julie Fern on June 21, 2005, 09:50:36 AM
messing with dark side really messes up complexion.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: angelus on June 21, 2005, 10:47:36 AM
messing with dark side really messes up complexion.

That would explain John Kerry's sagging skin and wrinkles. Botox couldn't even fix it.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on June 21, 2005, 02:30:16 PM
hey, julie saw star wars yesterday.  she see just how bright is your future.

kool character huh?...never thought a light sabre could be used like a circular saw...
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: Julie Fern on June 21, 2005, 02:31:40 PM
julie especially liked his ending.  better give up carpentry.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on June 21, 2005, 02:38:56 PM
SAT doesn't translate into IQ.  IQ is supposed to measure someone's god-given ability to problem-solve, think critically, etc.  The SAT is designed to test one's knowledge of specific facts, more or less.

it's all a bunch of sh*t anyway.  IQ correlates to someone's overall intelligence pretty well, but just because one scores poorly on it doesn't mean that they are stupid, just as a high score doesn't necessarily mean that someone's really smart.  after all, it's a multiple choice test usually....

just want to keep this thread bordering on the absurd.

results from an iq test does not hint at an individual's intelligence...it hints at an individual's achievement.
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on June 21, 2005, 11:07:49 PM
julie especially liked his ending.  better give up carpentry.

many battles won along the way...much victory...not much of a carpenter...but some good slaughters...what imagination to do that with a few light sabres...and aye believe he was an expert fisherman in his spare time. ;)
Title: Re: wisdom of dubya
Post by: NathanB on June 29, 2005, 05:18:19 PM
bump

I missed this thread.