PDA

View Full Version : O'Reilly kicking Michael Moore's Arse on NOW!!!!!



Section126
07-27-2004, 08:55 PM
This is priceless!!!!!!!!!!!

This guy Michael Moore is dumber than any of you think!!!!!!!

O'Reilly: "The 9/11 report says that MI6 (British Intelligence), Vladimir Putin, The Mosad, The CIA, and German Intelligence told Bush that Iraq had WMD's...........So is Bush a liar to say that Iraq had WMD's, if he was citing those sources as his evidence?

Moore: "Bush told a bold face lie, that he knew was a lie."

O'Reilly: "Wait a Minute......All these people are telling him this is true....so because he says that Iraq has WMD's because he is being told they do....He is a Liar?

Moore: "Of course."

O'Reilly: "So Bush conrols all of these agencies?"

Moore: "Would you send your child to die to secure Fallujah?"

CAN YOU SAY OWNED???????????????

DolFan31
07-27-2004, 09:33 PM
This is priceless!!!!!!!!!!!

This guy Michael Moore is dumber than any of you think!!!!!!!

O'Reilly: "The 9/11 report says that MI6 (British Intelligence), Vladimir Putin, The Mosad, The CIA, and German Intelligence told Bush that Iraq had WMD's...........So is Bush a liar to say that Iraq had WMD's, if he was citing those sources as his evidence?

Moore: "Bush told a bold face lie, that he knew was a lie."

O'Reilly: "Wait a Minute......All these people are telling him this is true....so because he says that Iraq has WMD's because he is being told they do....He is a Liar?

Moore: "Of course."

O'Reilly: "So Bush conrols all of these agencies?"

Moore: "Would you send your child to die to secure Fallujah?"

CAN YOU SAY OWNED???????????????

What did O'Riley say in responce?

Section126
07-27-2004, 11:14 PM
What did O'Riley say in responce?


The whole point is that he got owned......

As for what O'Reilly said...is that this is a free country and parents are not allowed to send there children to war...he said that he would go, because losing in Iraq would be a disaster.

So in other words....Moore got Owned again....

Think about it......"Send your Kid?"

Get real.

DolFan31
07-27-2004, 11:32 PM
The whole point is that he got owned......

As for what O'Reilly said...is that this is a free country and parents are not allowed to send there children to war...he said that he would go, because losing in Iraq would be a disaster.

So in other words....Moore got Owned again....

Think about it......"Send your Kid?"

Get real.

I know what the point was but I was curious to know what his responce was.

As for this whole thing, how do we know your not paraphrasing?

ohall
07-27-2004, 11:37 PM
The whole point is that he got owned......

As for what O'Reilly said...is that this is a free country and parents are not allowed to send there children to war...he said that he would go, because losing in Iraq would be a disaster.

So in other words....Moore got Owned again....

Think about it......"Send your Kid?"

Get real.

I wish O'Reilly would have made it clear that those soldiers that are fighting in Iraq voluntered to do what they are doing and they knew what they were possibly getting into. No one forced them to do anything, they are there by their own free will, and that is what makes them so damn BRAVE!

Plus how do you make your 18 year old son our daughter sign up for the military, is that legal? I think MM is out of his freaking mind. Reality and facts have nothing to do with his thought process. He is as dettached from reality as Ricky Williams is.

I am very sad for some DEM's who have fallen into his negative hate motivated speech and POV led by MM and Dean. I wish one day the DEM party will regain its sanity and once again become the proud political party they once were. As it stands now, they have been hijacked by extremist and lefty wackos.

Oliver...

DolFan31
07-27-2004, 11:47 PM
I wish O'Reilly would have made it clear that those soldiers that are fighting in Iraq voluntered to do what they are doing and they knew what they were possibly getting into. No one forced them to do anything, they are there by their own free will, and that is what makes them so damn BRAVE!

Plus how do you make your 18 year old son our daughter sign up for the military, is that legal? I think MM is out of his freaking mind. Reality and facts have nothing to do with his thought process. He is as dettached from reality as Ricky Williams is.

I am very sad for some DEM's who have fallen into his negative hate motivated speech and POV led by MM and Dean. I wish one day the DEM party will regain its sanity and once again become the proud political party they once were. As it stands now, they have been hijacked by extremist and lefty wackos.

Oliver...

I am very sad for some REP's who have fallen into his negative hate motivated speech and POV led by Cheney, O'Riley,Michael Savage,Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity. I wish one day the REP party will regain its sanity and once again become the proud political party they once were. As it stands now, they have been hijacked by extremist and righty wackos.

PhinPhan1227
07-27-2004, 11:55 PM
I am very sad for some REP's who have fallen into his negative hate motivated speech and POV led by Cheney, O'Riley,Michael Savage,Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity. I wish one day the REP party will regain its sanity and once again become the proud political party they once were. As it stands now, they have been hijacked by extremist and righty wackos.


Have you heard any of the speeches given recently by the guy you WANTED elected as President?

DolFan31
07-28-2004, 12:02 AM
Have you heard any of the speeches given recently by the guy you WANTED elected as President?

Are you talking about Gore?

PhinPhan1227
07-28-2004, 12:03 AM
Are you talking about Gore?


Yep. The guy is making Howard Dean sound calm and rational.

DolFan31
07-28-2004, 12:14 AM
Yep. The guy is making Howard Dean sound calm and rational.

1. Gore doesnt speak for me. Gore speaks for himself.

2. He shouldve been this passionate in 2000 instead of being wooden.

3.F--- Al Gore. There were many reasons why Gore "lost"/"won" the election, but in many ways he lost it himself. My own personal BELIEF is that the election was stolen, but Gore couldve just as easily lost it himself.

ohall
07-28-2004, 12:15 AM
I am very sad for some REP's who have fallen into his negative hate motivated speech and POV led by Cheney, O'Riley,Michael Savage,Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity. I wish one day the REP party will regain its sanity and once again become the proud political party they once were. As it stands now, they have been hijacked by extremist and righty wackos.

You mean the poltical party who currently controls the White House, the Congress, and the Senate?

Dude honestly what are you talking about.

Coulter nor does any of those other ppl speak for the REP party, George W Bush does. That is not the case within the DEM political party. The very canidate that is running for DEM president canidate does not speak for his party. Like it or not that is reality. People like Gore, Michael Moore, Dean have much louder and heard voices than Kerry ever will within the DEM party.

Again I hope one day the sanity that once ruled the DEM's returns, it was once a GREAT political party before the LIBERALS ruined it.

Oliver...

ohall
07-28-2004, 12:16 AM
1. Gore doesnt speak for me. Gore speaks for himself.

2. He shouldve been this passionate in 2000 instead of being wooden.

3.F--- Al Gore. There were many reasons why Gore "lost"/"won" the election, but in many ways he lost it himself. My own personal BELIEF is that the election was stolen, but Gore couldve just as easily lost it himself.

Gore is speaking for the DEM party. The portion of the DEM party that is energized is the left wing wackos, not the middle of the road guys like Liberman.

Oliver...

PhinPhan1227
07-28-2004, 12:17 AM
1. Gore doesnt speak for me. Gore speaks for himself.

2. He shouldve been this passionate in 2000 instead of being wooden.

3.F--- Al Gore. There were many reasons why Gore "lost"/"won" the election, but in many ways he lost it himself. My own personal BELIEF is that the election was stolen, but Gore couldve just as easily lost it himself.

I agree with everything you just said. But when you make this statement, "As it stands now, they have been hijacked by extremist and righty wackos" about the Repubs, it implies that the Dems aren't just as bad if not worse. So far, I;ve seen a heck of a lot more spit and vitriole coming from elected Dems than elected Reps. And the Reps don't have comediens working for them that compare the other guy to a womans crotch.

DolFan31
07-28-2004, 12:24 AM
I agree with everything you just said. But when you make this statement, "As it stands now, they have been hijacked by extremist and righty wackos" about the Repubs, it implies that the Dems aren't just as bad if not worse. So far, I;ve seen a heck of a lot more spit and vitriole coming from elected Dems than elected Reps. And the Reps don't have comediens working for them that compare the other guy to a womans crotch.

Honestly, if it were possible, Id vote for a 3rd Party, but because they dont have a realistic chance of winning, I feel I have to settle for the Dems. The Reps have Dennis Miller. Not to mention non-comedians like Hannity, Coulter, O'Riley, Savage, Rush(cant believe I left him out before)...

PhinPhan1227
07-28-2004, 12:26 AM
Honestly, if it were possible, Id vote for a 3rd Party, but because they dont have a realistic chance of winning, I feel I have to settle for the Dems. The Reps have Dennis Miller. Not to mention non-comedians like Hannity, Coulter, O'Riley, Savage, Rush(cant believe I left him out before)...


Lol...if Miller makes a crotch joke, most people need a thesaurus to know that he did so. Compare that to Whoopie who pseudo masturbates with a wine bottle while discussing "bush", and tell me who is coming across as more extremist and wacko?

DolFan31
07-28-2004, 12:27 AM
You mean the poltical party who currently controls the White House, the Congress, and the Senate?

Dude honestly what are you talking about.

Coulter nor does any of those other ppl speak for the REP party, George W Bush does. That is not the case within the DEM political party. The very canidate that is running for DEM president canidate does not speak for his party. Like it or not that is reality. People like Gore, Michael Moore, Dean have much louder and heard voices than Kerry ever will within the DEM party.

Again I hope one day the sanity that once ruled the DEM's returns, it was once a GREAT political party before the LIBERALS ruined it.

Oliver...

Michael Moore does not speak for the DEM party, in fact, he bashes DEMs sometimes too for being too weak. Actually, the REPs have Rush who speaks for their party. In short, two can play at this game regaurding what non-elected person speaks for what party. Youre not going to get anywhere with that.

DolFan31
07-28-2004, 12:28 AM
Lol...if Miller makes a crotch joke, most people need a thesaurus to know that he did so. Compare that to Whoopie who pseudo masturbates with a wine bottle while discussing "bush", and tell me who is coming across as more extremist and wacko?

who cares? is whoopie an elected official?

ohall
07-28-2004, 12:32 AM
Michael Moore does not speak for the DEM party, in fact, he bashes DEMs sometimes too for being too weak. Actually, the REPs have Rush who speaks for their party. In short, two can play at this game regaurding what non-elected person speaks for what party. Youre not going to get anywhere with that.

I'll try and be more clear. MM speaks for the DEM party because that is portion of the DEM party that is the most energized right now. That is what I mean. The majority of the REP is not energized by what Rush or Hannity has to say day in day out.

The majority of the REP party is energized by the issues the REP President is making his focal point. The DEM party is not rallying around what Kerry is speaking about. After all Kerry and Bush #43 are step in step when it comes to the war in Iraq.

Oliver...

DolFan31
07-28-2004, 12:39 AM
I'll try and be more clear. MM speaks for the DEM party because that is portion of the DEM party that is the most energized right now. That is what I mean. The majority of the REP is not energized by what Rush or Hannity has to say day in day out.

The majority of the REP party is energized by the issues the REP President is making his focal point. The DEM party is not rallying around what Kerry is speaking about. After all Kerry and Bush #43 are step in step when it comes to the war in Iraq.

Oliver...

Have you watched ANY of the DNC? They ARE ralling around what Kerry wants to do. Their slogan right now for Kerry is "Send Kerry". Not "Beat Bush".

iceblizzard69
07-28-2004, 12:40 AM
Bill O'Reilly is a joke. Check this link out:

http://badnarik.org/PressRoom/archive.php?p=599

PhinPhan1227
07-28-2004, 01:32 AM
who cares? is whoopie an elected official?



Did you care about a person being elected when you mentioned "O'Riley,Michael Savage,Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity"?

PhinPhan1227
07-28-2004, 01:33 AM
Have you watched ANY of the DNC? They ARE ralling around what Kerry wants to do. Their slogan right now for Kerry is "Send Kerry". Not "Beat Bush".


Really? So when Kennedy says "all we have to fear is 4 more years of Bush", he's ACTUALLY saying "send Kerry"?

DolFan31
07-28-2004, 01:41 AM
Did you care about a person being elected when you mentioned "O'Riley,Michael Savage,Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity"?

I dont care about any of them. I was counterpointing what Oliver was saying. I like doing that.


Lol...if Miller makes a crotch joke, most people need a thesaurus to know that he did so. Compare that to Whoopie who pseudo masturbates with a wine bottle while discussing "bush", and tell me who is coming across as more extremist and wacko?

Compare that to Hannity and Coulter calling liberals terrorists and tell me who is coming across as more extremist and wacko.

DolFan31
07-28-2004, 01:43 AM
Really? So when Kennedy says "all we have to fear is 4 more years of Bush", he's ACTUALLY saying "send Kerry"?

The message the DNC is trying to get out is "Send Kerry". Kennedy as you know, is the probably the most partisan DEM in congress, both houses combined. How about I restate my earlier statement(oh no Im FLIP-FLOPPING!) by saying a majority of the DNC is trying to send a message saying "Send Kerry" rather than "Beat Bush".

PhinPhan1227
07-28-2004, 01:50 AM
I dont care about any of them. I was counterpointing what Oliver was saying. I like doing that.



Compare that to Hannity and Coulter calling liberals terrorists and tell me who is coming across as more extremist and wacko.

Well...when the NCAA is describing Conservatives as the Taliban, I'd say that's pretty extrmeist and wacko. And again, I thought we were going to talk about elected officials?

DolFan31
07-28-2004, 02:03 AM
Well...when the NCAA is describing Conservatives as the Taliban, I'd say that's pretty extrmeist and wacko. And again, I thought we were going to talk about elected officials?

The NCAA? I hope your not talking about the college sports organization...

And if you think about, well, some conservatives are like that Taliban. Religious finatics that would like to make religion a central part of the government. Am I right or am an extremist and wacko?

Clumpy
07-28-2004, 05:05 AM
I watched the interview and O'Reilly, by no means, kicked Moore's a$$. I don't think either one "won", it was a draw.

Section126
07-28-2004, 08:17 AM
I watched the interview and O'Reilly, by no means, kicked Moore's a$$. I don't think either one "won", it was a draw.

Take of the DEM colored glasses...it was a wipeout.......

Here is another excerpt:

O'Reilly: So you would have let Hitler stay in power by this argument because he never attacked the US..........

Moore: He did attack us along with Japan....

O'Reilly: From 1933 to 1941, Hitler executed hundreds of thousands........he never attacked the US.....So what do you do about him?

Moore: I would have never let him come into power in the first place......

O'Reilly: Okay, so you are for Preemption....Now we are getting somewhere....

Moore: Uh.....Let me ask you a question now.........

Can you say OWNED?

Here is another example:

O'Reilly: Can you show me one instance where the President said that Iraq was responsible for 9/11, because you have repeated that over and over....

Moore: Oh Yeah, he said it and used it to get support for his war.

O'Reilly: Stop dancing.....give me a date or source that says that Bush said that Iraq was responsible for 9/11.....

Moore: It's everywhere...they repeat it whenever possible....

O'Reilly: Do you know Mr. Moore......That nexus cannot find not one quote from anybody in this administration that says that Iraq was responsible for 9/11....and in fact finds a few dozen quotes from members of this administration syaing that Iraq was not responsible for 9/11.......

Moore: You saw my movie...Bill.....

O'Reilly: Your movie does not produce that either....what are you talking about? Can you answer ONE of my questions?




Not only is Michael Moore a propagandist fraud........But he is quite stupid and unintelligent.....

PhinPhan1227
07-28-2004, 11:05 AM
The NCAA? I hope your not talking about the college sports organization...

And if you think about, well, some conservatives are like that Taliban. Religious finatics that would like to make religion a central part of the government. Am I right or am an extremist and wacko?


Sorry NAACP. My brain goes soft late at night. And actually I'd agree that there ARE Right Wing groups(not those actually related to the government) that are somewhat Talibanesque. None of them are chopping peoples heads or hands off though. But if you are going to make that comparison, are you going to disagree that there are left wing groups who are also along a similar plane to terrorists? Come on man, quit throwing out the double standard. If you are going to label a group as extreme or wacko, take a LONG hard look at the group you are comparing them to. You'll see that there are just as many wacko's on both sides. Here's an idea...how about in the future we stick to elected officials only? That way we don't have to worry about the self appointed wacko's? See, that way we can talk about Al Gore and his recent psychotic episodes... :evil:

DolFan31
07-28-2004, 12:33 PM
Sorry NAACP. My brain goes soft late at night. And actually I'd agree that there ARE Right Wing groups(not those actually related to the government) that are somewhat Talibanesque. None of them are chopping peoples heads or hands off though. But if you are going to make that comparison, are you going to disagree that there are left wing groups who are also along a similar plane to terrorists? Come on man, quit throwing out the double standard. If you are going to label a group as extreme or wacko, take a LONG hard look at the group you are comparing them to. You'll see that there are just as many wacko's on both sides. Here's an idea...how about in the future we stick to elected officials only? That way we don't have to worry about the self appointed wacko's? See, that way we can talk about Al Gore and his recent psychotic episodes... :evil:

I never said there werent any left-wing wackos. An educated person knows both sides have their extremists. LEft-wingers are not on the same plane as terrorists. They havent killed anyone have they? The Taliban thing, I didnt mean the Christian finatics are brutal like the Taliban, but they are finatics and thats the similarity. And we can talk about Cheney's foaming mouth anytime..

ohall
07-28-2004, 01:31 PM
I watched the interview and O'Reilly, by no means, kicked Moore's a$$. I don't think either one "won", it was a draw.

Why because O'Reilly wouldn't offer up one of his children at the alter of MM?

Give me a break, you cannot make your children #1 join the military, and #2 you can't make your children do what you want them to do to begin with. MM's whole rebutal to O'Reilly was as weak as his lies. O'Reilly cornered him, and MM did what he always does when trapped, he just repeats his lies over and over. At least O'Reilly got MM to admit Bush #43 got bad Intel.

MM is a dettached SOB!

Oliver...

ohall
07-28-2004, 01:33 PM
Have you watched ANY of the DNC? They ARE ralling around what Kerry wants to do. Their slogan right now for Kerry is "Send Kerry". Not "Beat Bush".

OK tell me what is Kerry all about?

Oliver...

ohall
07-28-2004, 01:35 PM
Bill O'Reilly is a joke. Check this link out:

http://badnarik.org/PressRoom/archive.php?p=599

badnarik.org? Who have to be kidding right? You're going to give us a libertarian canidates web site to talk about what he thinks of O'Reilly?!

Oliver...

Bling
07-28-2004, 01:49 PM
Honestly, if it were possible, Id vote for a 3rd Party, but because they dont have a realistic chance of winning, I feel I have to settle for the Dems. The Reps have Dennis Miller. Not to mention non-comedians like Hannity, Coulter, O'Riley, Savage, Rush(cant believe I left him out before)...

Savage is an independent.

BigFinFan
07-28-2004, 03:36 PM
Here is the transcript from the meeting

O'Reilly vs Moore (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,127236,00.html)

ohall
07-28-2004, 03:40 PM
Here is the transcript from the meeting

O'Reilly vs Moore (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,127236,00.html)

This is all MM had:

MOORE: You would sacrifice your child?

Ugh, he's so flipping dettached.

Oliver...

BigFinFan
07-28-2004, 03:48 PM
He is ridiculous. My parents did not force me to join th Navy, it was a choice that I made on my own.

Moore states: "Why should Bush sacrifice the children of people across America for this?" What is he talking about?

Every service member that has gone to Iraq has volunteered to go. We are not "sacrificing" service members.

We are in the Military because we believe in something greater than Michael Moore will ever know.

iceblizzard69
07-28-2004, 04:20 PM
badnarik.org? Who have to be kidding right? You're going to give us a libertarian canidates web site to talk about what he thinks of O'Reilly?!

Oliver...

Did you actually click on the link? O'Reilly made an offer to anyone willing to go on his show and debate the Patriot Act with him, and when Badnarik said he would do it, O'Reilly refused to have the debate. He talks a lot of crap but when someone wants to challenge him that he thinks will own him he says no.

iceblizzard69
07-28-2004, 04:21 PM
Savage is an independent.

http://www.homestead.com/prosites-prs/index.html

Go to that website and then say he is an Independent. He is very far right wing and he knows it.

ohall
07-28-2004, 04:23 PM
Did you actually click on the link? O'Reilly made an offer to anyone willing to go on his show and debate the Patriot Act with him, and when Badnarik said he would do it, O'Reilly refused to have the debate. He talks a lot of crap but when someone wants to challenge him that he thinks will own him he says no.

No way. I don't want to spend anytime on a 3rd party web site. What if the NSA is watching?! As it is I spent entirely too much time there!

Oliver...

iceblizzard69
07-28-2004, 04:27 PM
No way. I don't want to spend anytime on a 3rd party web site. What if the NSA is watching?! As it is I spent entirely too much time there!

Oliver...

So you dismiss a link without even looking at it? Talk about close minded. The link had to do with facts and how Bill O'Reilly will not debate Badnarik on the Patriot Act after offering an open challenge to anyone willing to debate it with him. O'Reilly is pathetic. He talks a lot of **** but he won't debate his views with someone who he knows will beat him.

ohall
07-28-2004, 04:27 PM
He is ridiculous. My parents did not force me to join th Navy, it was a choice that I made on my own.

Moore states: "Why should Bush sacrifice the children of people across America for this?" What is he talking about?

Every service member that has gone to Iraq has volunteered to go. We are not "sacrificing" service members.

We are in the Military because we believe in something greater than Michael Moore will ever know.

Outside of a judge giving a youth a choice between jail or the military can you make someone join the military?

You are so right, I think it's clear MM is doing his best to make the military look like nothing more than a bunch of stooges. He obviously has very lil respect for them and the sacrifices they make for this country of their own free will. That is why serving in the military such a brave and honorable thing do. I know I don't have that kind of conviction and guts.

Oliver...

ohall
07-28-2004, 04:28 PM
http://www.homestead.com/prosites-prs/index.html

Go to that website and then say he is an Independent. He is very far right wing and he knows it.

Stop posting URL's to 3rd party sites. I don't want the NSA knocking on my door just because I accidently clicked on one of those sites.

:D

Oliver...

ohall
07-28-2004, 04:31 PM
So you dismiss a link without even looking at it? Talk about close minded. The link had to do with facts and how Bill O'Reilly will not debate Badnarik on the Patriot Act after offering an open challenge to anyone willing to debate it with him. O'Reilly is pathetic. He talks a lot of **** but he won't debate his views with someone who he knows will beat him.

Yes I do dismiss it because IMO it comes from a wacko source. Sorry not trying to insult you but ppl who are looking for answers from a person like that is lost IMO.

We disagree about O'Reilly. There's a reason he's the BIGGEST thing on cable news TV. You are making huge assumptions based on the word from a 3rd party wacko. I don't believe a word he has to say about anything. If he says the sky is blue I'm going outside to make sure the color of the sky hasn't changed.

Oliver...

PhinPhan1227
07-28-2004, 04:46 PM
I never said there werent any left-wing wackos. An educated person knows both sides have their extremists. LEft-wingers are not on the same plane as terrorists. They havent killed anyone have they? The Taliban thing, I didnt mean the Christian finatics are brutal like the Taliban, but they are finatics and thats the similarity. And we can talk about Cheney's foaming mouth anytime..

Come on 31...put the double standard down and back away slowly. There's no real difference between the Taliban and Terrorists. And there's no real difference between Left wing wacko's who want to impose THIER ideologies on everyone, and Right wing wacko's who want to impose their ideologies on everyone. How do you not see the double standard you are imposing? Left wingers can't be called terrorists because they haven't killed anyone, but Right wingers can be called the Taliban because they are religious extremists? How do you TYPE around THAT double standard? For that matter, how do you look at radical left wing athiests, and find them any less wacko than radical right wing Christians? How do you look at a radical left wing Socialist and find him any less wacko than a radical right wing Capitalist(heck, at least the Capitalist can point to something which works)? Are you even AWARE of the double standard you have been putting out?

PhinPhan1227
07-28-2004, 04:52 PM
Did you actually click on the link? O'Reilly made an offer to anyone willing to go on his show and debate the Patriot Act with him, and when Badnarik said he would do it, O'Reilly refused to have the debate. He talks a lot of crap but when someone wants to challenge him that he thinks will own him he says no.


Call me crazy, but isn't it more likely that O'Reilly turned him down because he was looking for someone who has slightly more name recognition? O'Reilly is still about ratings...how much of a share is he going to get when the promos talk about a guy with a name that roughly 12 people will recognize?

caneproud117
07-28-2004, 06:17 PM
I don't know if you guys saw what I saw but Moore made some good points about lying. The President was misinformed yes we all know that, but what he said was found out to be false. "Iraq has weapons of mass descruption and Iraq is an imminant threat" Like for instance if I say something false to the American people unknowingly and then find out later that it was false. Wouldn't you say that's a lie? Even though he had no idea he was lying at the time? Now he does.

On the other note, I'm not faulting Bush for having to make a tough decision, but 30 years from now are we going to look back on this war and say "our soldiers died for a just cause"? I believed at the time this was a good thing to do but after thoroughly analysing the situation I have no idea why I felt this way. Maybe if was that American hot-bloodedness that got into me that made me think "Hell ya, lets go get the guys who did this to our country." But in actuality they weren't the ones who did this to our country.

PhinPhan1227
07-28-2004, 06:41 PM
I don't know if you guys saw what I saw but Moore made some good points about lying. The President was misinformed yes we all know that, but what he said was found out to be false. "Iraq has weapons of mass descruption and Iraq is an imminant threat" Like for instance if I say something false to the American people unknowingly and then find out later that it was false. Wouldn't you say that's a lie? Even though he had no idea he was lying at the time? Now he does.

On the other note, I'm not faulting Bush for having to make a tough decision, but 30 years from now are we going to look back on this war and say "our soldiers died for a just cause"? I believed at the time this was a good thing to do but after thoroughly analysing the situation I have no idea why I felt this way. Maybe if was that American hot-bloodedness that got into me that made me think "Hell ya, lets go get the guys who did this to our country." But in actuality they weren't the ones who did this to our country.


Um...not sure if english is your 2nd language, but...

"lie2 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (l)
n.
A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression. "

In order for something to be a lie, it has to be KNOWINGLY presented. A mistake is NOT a lie.

iceblizzard69
07-28-2004, 06:55 PM
Call me crazy, but isn't it more likely that O'Reilly turned him down because he was looking for someone who has slightly more name recognition? O'Reilly is still about ratings...how much of a share is he going to get when the promos talk about a guy with a name that roughly 12 people will recognize?

Badnarik will probably finish fourth in the presidential election. O'Reilly also took the "challenge" off his website. He won't debate Badnarik because he knows he will do poorly against him, not because of his name. Yeah, he isn't the biggest name out there, but he's running for President. Name recognition has nothing to do with it.

caneproud117
07-28-2004, 06:59 PM
Um...not sure if english is your 2nd language, but...

"lie2 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (l)
n.
A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression. "

In order for something to be a lie, it has to be KNOWINGLY presented. A mistake is NOT a lie.

Now he knows what he says is false, but because he said it back then it's not a lie? But looking at it now he can see it wasn't the truth. What would you call something that's not the truth? Going to call that a mistake too? You're going to place a time context on what's untrue?

Truth:
2 a (1) : the state of being the case : FACT (2) : the body of real things, events, and facts.

So it wasn't the truth right?

iceblizzard69
07-28-2004, 07:01 PM
Yes I do dismiss it because IMO it comes from a wacko source. Sorry not trying to insult you but ppl who are looking for answers from a person like that is lost IMO.

We disagree about O'Reilly. There's a reason he's the BIGGEST thing on cable news TV. You are making huge assumptions based on the word from a 3rd party wacko. I don't believe a word he has to say about anything. If he says the sky is blue I'm going outside to make sure the color of the sky hasn't changed.

Oliver...

Just because Badnarik is from a third party doesn't mean he's a "wacko." He believes in having less government in our lives. You are so closed minded it isn't even funny. You probably think he is a wacko simply because he isn't a Republican. :rolleyes:

O'Reilly is big for many reasons. However, just because he's big doesn't mean I have to respect him. Personally, I think he talks a lot of **** but if he faces a major challenge to his beliefs he won't let him/her on his show. He will only defend his beliefs against debaters he know he will win against.

PhinPhan1227
07-28-2004, 07:07 PM
Now he knows what he says is false, but because he said it back then it's not a lie? But looking at it now he can see it wasn't the truth. What would you call something that's not the truth? Going to call that a mistake too?


I'd call it a freaking mistake!! Do you understand the concept of "intent"? Seriously, is english your 1st language? For a mistruth to be a lie, you must KNOWLINGLY make an untrue statement. If you BELIEVE what you say, than reglardless of it's truth, you are NOT lying. Do you think a lie detector detects TRUTH? It detects INTENT. A mistake is NOT a lie. By freaking DEFINITION, a mistake is not a lie. If a kid who does know he is adopted telss someone that his "father" is his father, is he lying? Do you live in some wacked out hyper-fundamentalist world, or do you really not understand the definition of the word "lie"?

PhinPhan1227
07-28-2004, 07:10 PM
Badnarik will probably finish fourth in the presidential election. O'Reilly also took the "challenge" off his website. He won't debate Badnarik because he knows he will do poorly against him, not because of his name. Yeah, he isn't the biggest name out there, but he's running for President. Name recognition has nothing to do with it.

Lol...4th place in our current political environment probably means you got .04% of the vote. :lol: Seriously, O'Reilly might very well have feared Badnarick, I have no idea. But I do know that his producers aren't going to be excited about him dedicating a show to someone that virtually nobody has heard of. Nor are his advertisers. And in the world of television, only Oprah can ignore her producers and advertisers.

caneproud117
07-28-2004, 07:17 PM
I'd call it a freaking mistake!! Do you understand the concept of "intent"? Seriously, is english your 1st language? For a mistruth to be a lie, you must KNOWLINGLY make an untrue statement. If you BELIEVE what you say, than reglardless of it's truth, you are NOT lying. Do you think a lie detector detects TRUTH? It detects INTENT. A mistake is NOT a lie. By freaking DEFINITION, a mistake is not a lie. If a kid who does know he is adopted telss someone that his "father" is his father, is he lying? Do you live in some wacked out hyper-fundamentalist world, or do you really not understand the definition of the word "lie"?

I'd say if I told the world something I found out to be false I would at least be apologetic about it. I led the world into something that was found out not to be the truth. Basically what you're saying is ignorance is bliss. And if you do not know what you're doing is wrong then you're not wrong? Heck, anybody could be the President then. That's why people can beat the lie detector test, because what they don't think is wrong doesn't hurt them on that test. Does that make everything OK that they did?

Section126
07-28-2004, 08:18 PM
I'd say if I told the world something I found out to be false I would at least be apologetic about it. I led the world into something that was found out not to be the truth. Basically what you're saying is ignorance is bliss. And if you do not know what you're doing is wrong then you're not wrong? Heck, anybody could be the President then. That's why people can beat the lie detector test, because what they don't think is wrong doesn't hurt them on that test. Does that make everything OK that they did?


One problem....the rest of the world believed the WMD story before Bush did........Afterall...British Intelligence, Vladimir Putin and German Intelligence told Bush that he had WMD in early 2002.

Please get informed.

ABrownLamp
07-28-2004, 09:00 PM
But Bush led us to war which was a mistake. Democrats won't admit he wasn't lying and Bush won't admit we should not be there.
Regardless of the information he received, he still made a mistake. A huge one. He and his cabinet made the decision to pull the trigger. There has to be some sort of accountability. This war is wrong inevery aspect No link to 9/11. No WMDs. A Non threat, Osama is still on the loose, there is more terror now than ever before, no exit plan...This was a total failure

caneproud117
07-28-2004, 09:53 PM
One problem....the rest of the world believed the WMD story before Bush did........Afterall...British Intelligence, Vladimir Putin and German Intelligence told Bush that he had WMD in early 2002.

Please get informed.

One problem with that, if their intelligence was so good, how come Russia and Germany didn't go to war with us? And don't even say they're just p*ssies. Maybe they did not believe the intelligence they had?

Section126
07-28-2004, 10:27 PM
One problem with that, if their intelligence was so good, how come Russia and Germany didn't go to war with us? And don't even say they're just p*ssies. Maybe they did not believe the intelligence they had?

MONEY.

caneproud117
07-28-2004, 10:53 PM
MONEY.
Germany and Russia didn't have the money but Tanzania and all these small countries do? Did you know Germany and France are the two richest countries in Europe. And they don't have the money is that what you're trying to say?

PhinPhan1227
07-28-2004, 11:02 PM
Germany and Russia didn't have the money but Tanzania and all these small countries do? Did you know Germany and France are the two richest countries in Europe. And they don't have the money is that what you're trying to say?

Germany, Russia, and France had money invested in the Saddam regime.

caneproud117
07-28-2004, 11:08 PM
Germany, Russia, and France had money invested in the Saddam regime.
So did we. We gave them weapons he used in the Iran-Iraq war. He killed all those people with the weapons we gave him, what's your point?

Section126
07-28-2004, 11:08 PM
Germany, Russia, and France had money invested in the Saddam regime.

About a TRILLION COMBINED.

How do you like them apples?

Section126
07-28-2004, 11:09 PM
So did we. We gave them weapons he used in the Iran-Iraq war. He killed all those people with the weapons we gave him, what's your point?


We gave NO weapons to Iraq....stop repeating this canard.

What american piece of equipment did Iraq ever have?

NONE.

caneproud117
07-28-2004, 11:12 PM
We gave NO weapons to Iraq....stop repeating this canard.

What american piece of equipment did Iraq ever have?

NONE.

Maybe you've been watching FOX NEWS way too much and you should just realize the facts. Take a history class in college and maybe you'll learn something, that's the first thing you learn about the Iran-Iraq War, we supported Iraq and gave them Chemical Weapons that's why we thought they were still there.

PhinPhan1227
07-28-2004, 11:12 PM
I'd say if I told the world something I found out to be false I would at least be apologetic about it. I led the world into something that was found out not to be the truth. Basically what you're saying is ignorance is bliss. And if you do not know what you're doing is wrong then you're not wrong? Heck, anybody could be the President then. That's why people can beat the lie detector test, because what they don't think is wrong doesn't hurt them on that test. Does that make everything OK that they did?


Purposeful ignorance is one thing...but the PResident HAS to rely on other people. He can't be everywhere at once, so other peoples screw ups are going to impact him.

caneproud117
07-28-2004, 11:15 PM
Purposeful ignorance is one thing...but the PResident HAS to rely on other people. He can't be everywhere at once, so other peoples screw ups are going to impact him.
He makes the judgement of who's in his cabinet with him. They are the people "he chose", therefore their screw-ups are his screw-ups.

Section126
07-28-2004, 11:19 PM
Maybe you've been watching FOX NEWS way too much and you should just realize the facts. Take a history class in college and maybe you'll learn something, that's the first thing you learn about the Iran-Iraq War, we supported Iraq and gave them Chemical Weapons that's why we thought they were still there.


You don't know what you are talking about.

The Chemical Weapons that Iraq used in that war were provided by the russians.

The US Governement helped in an advisory capacity, but did not help in the use of Chem/Bio Weapons......It was then and is now illegal under the prolifiration agreements on Chemical Weapons.

Please get informed from other sources than moveon.org

Again....You don't know what you are talking about and anybody that knows these issues will dismiss you immediately.

caneproud117
07-28-2004, 11:25 PM
You don't know what you are talking about.

The Chemical Weapons that Iraq used in that war were provided by the russians.

The US Governement helped in an advisory capacity, but did not help in the use of Chem/Bio Weapons......It was then and is now illegal under the prolifiration agreements on Chemical Weapons.

Please get informed from other sources than moveon.org

Again....You don't know what you are talking about and anybody that knows these issues will dismiss you immediately.

I've never heard of moveon.org. So you're saying the WMD were provided by the Russians and the Russian Intelligence said they had the weapons. Where are the weapons then huh? Let me ask you another question? Do you think raising taxes on the top 2% of the population is a bad idea? You wrote that Kerry and Edwards want to raise taxes, do you have motivational distortion?

PhinPhan1227
07-28-2004, 11:38 PM
He makes the judgement of who's in his cabinet with him. They are the people "he chose", therefore their screw-ups are his screw-ups.


You're starting to raise "clueless" to an art form. The members of Bush's cabinet are NOT the people handling his intelligence. That's a beaurocracy which has been in place for decades. Do you think that every 4-8 years every government worker gets fired/hired with each new President? Come on man, educate yourself before you make these kind of uber-ignorant statements.

PhinPhan1227
07-28-2004, 11:40 PM
So did we. We gave them weapons he used in the Iran-Iraq war. He killed all those people with the weapons we gave him, what's your point?


Russia, France, and Germany all had outstanding unpaid bills with Saddam. They were also active in black market trade in the "oil for food" scam. BTW, the weapons Saddam got from us were used in the Iran/Iraq war. We didn't supply him with the gas he used against the Kurds. Most likely that came from France.

PhinPhan1227
07-28-2004, 11:46 PM
Maybe you've been watching FOX NEWS way too much and you should just realize the facts. Take a history class in college and maybe you'll learn something, that's the first thing you learn about the Iran-Iraq War, we supported Iraq and gave them Chemical Weapons that's why we thought they were still there.


Care to hear what a UN agency has to say bright boy?

"ORIGIN OF THE CHEMICAL WEAPONS

The UN report provides only negative evidence of the origin of the mustard gas sample. The absence in the sample analysed in Sweden and Switzerland of polysulphides and of more than a trace of sulphur indicates that it is not of past US-government manufacture, for all US mustard was made by the Levinstein process from ethylene and mixed sulphur chlorides. That process is also said to have been the one used by the USSR. From similar reasoning, British-made mustard, too, can probably be ruled out, even though substantial stocks were once held at British depots in the Middle East. For more positive evidence other sources of information must be used. Over the years since the mid-1960s quite a lot of information has been published purporting to describe Iraqi chemical weapons, but much of it is contradictory and all of it is of a reliability which SIPRI is in no position to judge. A major caveat must be entered: chemical warfare is such an emotive subject that it lends itself very readily to campaigns of disinformation and black propaganda, campaigns which the politics both of the Gulf War and of the current chemical-weapons negotiations have unquestionably stimulated to no small degree. "

http://projects.sipri.se/cbw/research/factsheet-1984.html

caneproud117
07-28-2004, 11:48 PM
You're starting to raise "clueless" to an art form. The members of Bush's cabinet are NOT the people handling his intelligence. That's a beaurocracy which has been in place for decades. Do you think that every 4-8 years every government worker gets fired/hired with each new President? Come on man, educate yourself before you make these kind of uber-ignorant statements.


You know what sounds really funny to me is when you have to try to make other people feel stupid by saying comments like uber-ignorant statements.In the end it just makes you sound more ignorant then you actually are. So are you telling me that Bush does not get to see the final intelligence briefings and make decisions on that intelligence he sees.If that intelligence is wrong then Bush or someone in the top positions has to take responsibility for the mistakes. And don't try to tell me Tenet retired because of this. He clearly stated it was for family reasons.

caneproud117
07-28-2004, 11:54 PM
Care to hear what a UN agency has to say bright boy?

"ORIGIN OF THE CHEMICAL WEAPONS

The UN report provides only negative evidence of the origin of the mustard gas sample. The absence in the sample analysed in Sweden and Switzerland of polysulphides and of more than a trace of sulphur indicates that it is not of past US-government manufacture, for all US mustard was made by the Levinstein process from ethylene and mixed sulphur chlorides. That process is also said to have been the one used by the USSR. From similar reasoning, British-made mustard, too, can probably be ruled out, even though substantial stocks were once held at British depots in the Middle East. For more positive evidence other sources of information must be used. Over the years since the mid-1960s quite a lot of information has been published purporting to describe Iraqi chemical weapons, but much of it is contradictory and all of it is of a reliability which SIPRI is in no position to judge. A major caveat must be entered: chemical warfare is such an emotive subject that it lends itself very readily to campaigns of disinformation and black propaganda, campaigns which the politics both of the Gulf War and of the current chemical-weapons negotiations have unquestionably stimulated to no small degree. "

http://projects.sipri.se/cbw/research/factsheet-1984.html


That is only a small sample. I'm not saying that the Russians didn't gave them weapons and who is to say that this is the only weapons that they had? So who would you blame in the intelligence? You can't just blame the intelligence as a whole because you're not going to fire everyone in the intelligence. So basically what you're doing is blaming no one for this 'mistake'.

PhinPhan1227
07-28-2004, 11:59 PM
You know what sounds really funny to me is when you have to try to make other people feel stupid by saying comments like uber-ignorant statements.In the end it just makes you sound more ignorant then you actually are. So are you telling me that Bush does not get to see the final intelligence briefings and make decisions on that intelligence he sees.If that intelligence is wrong then Bush or someone in the top positions has to take responsibility for the mistakes. And don't try to tell me Tenet retired because of this. He clearly stated it was for family reasons.

Of course he see's the final intelligence. But the "final" intelligence he sees has already been analyzed, condensed, summarized, and vetted by anywhere from dozens to HUNDREDS of people before it gets to the President. You're talking about data from human assets working for the CIA, NSA, DIA and foreign agencies. Combine that with satelite data, internet data, radio, telephone, and television data, and in a SINGLE day the US intelligence agencies take in more information than is held in the entire library of Congress. And that's just the FOREIGN information. Again, do a LITTLE research on how the government works before you make comments like this. Because it's idiotic to think that the President is personally responsible for a mistake made by a functionary in Denver whose reports go through 35 other people before they get to the President.

caneproud117
07-29-2004, 12:01 AM
Of course he see's the final intelligence. But the "final" intelligence he sees has already been analyzed, condensed, summarized, and vetted by anywhere from dozens to HUNDREDS of people before it gets to the President. You're talking about data from human assets working for the CIA, NSA, DIA and foreign agencies. Combine that with satelite data, internet data, radio, telephone, and television data, and in a SINGLE day the US intelligence agencies take in more information than is held in the entire library of Congress. And that's just the FOREIGN information. Again, do a LITTLE research on how the government works before you make comments like this. Because it's idiotic to think that the President is personally responsible for a mistake made by a functionary in Denver whose reports go through 35 other people before they get to the President.
You avoided the question. Who is responsible then? By saying everyone is responsible you're saying no one is responsible. What you're saying is the President does not mean anything. He makes no decisions? The intelligence decides everything in foreign policy. So it doesn't matter who's president then huh? He's just a puppet for the intelligence agency.

PhinPhan1227
07-29-2004, 12:06 AM
That is only a small sample. I'm not saying that the Russians didn't gave them weapons and who is to say that this is the only weapons that they had? So who would you blame in the intelligence? You can't just blame the intelligence as a whole because you're not going to fire everyone in the intelligence. So basically what you're doing is blaming no one for this 'mistake'.


I'm blaming a beaurocracy which has been designed over the last 60 years to fight the Soviets and Chinese. Do you know how Intelligence works? Do you know how long it takes to get human assets in place? Out Intelligence community could probably tell you what time the Russian Foreign minister had sex last night. But they can't tell you whether Korea has a viable delivery system for it's nukes. Who do I blame? I guess I have to blame Reagan for ending the Cold War. Because without the Soviets, we have had to learn to fight a whole new set of enemies. MAybe I can blame Clinton for not throwing more resources into the Intelligence community to change their mission. I hesitate to do so however because I think Clinton made an honest "mistake" in not realizing that we were fighting a new war. Bottom line, out Intelligence community was asked to do more than they were capable of doing and mistakes were made. I guess I can blame the American people for having no concept of the time certain things take. We live in a microwave age that has no concept of patience. So there you go...who do you blame? Me.

PhinPhan1227
07-29-2004, 12:08 AM
You avoided the question. Who is responsible then? By saying everyone is responsible you're saying no one is responsible. What you're saying is the President does not mean anything. He makes no decisions? The intelligence decides everything in foreign policy. So it doesn't matter who's president then huh? He's just a puppet for the intelligence agency.


No. The President decides what to DO with the intelligence he has. Clinton decided that his response would be cruise missiles. That taught the bad guys a good lesson. It taught them that if they punch us in the nose we wouldn't do a damned thing about it. Bush decided that HIS response would be more direct. Libya, and The Sudan have learned a lesson from THAT response.

BigFinFan
07-29-2004, 12:09 AM
But Bush led us to war which was a mistake. Democrats won't admit he wasn't lying and Bush won't admit we should not be there.
Regardless of the information he received, he still made a mistake. A huge one. He and his cabinet made the decision to pull the trigger. There has to be some sort of accountability. This war is wrong inevery aspect No link to 9/11. No WMDs. A Non threat, Osama is still on the loose, there is more terror now than ever before, no exit plan...This was a total failure


How do you consider this war to be a mistake?

PhinPhan1227
07-29-2004, 12:14 AM
How do you consider this war to be a mistake?


If a stable Iraq results from this war, it will have saved THOUSANDS of American lives in the long run.

ABrownLamp
07-29-2004, 12:19 AM
How do you consider this war to be a mistake?
Found no WMD. No connection to 9/11. Almost 1000 US soldiers dead. More terroist attacks today then ever before. Osamas still on the loose. No exit plan. Billions of dollars spent. Divided the US. Destroyed foreign relations. Iraq was a non threat. Many other countries in the Middle East pose a greater threat than Iraq.

What part of invading Iraq was beneficial to the US?

ABrownLamp
07-29-2004, 12:23 AM
If a stable Iraq results from this war, it will have saved THOUSANDS of American lives in the long run.
find one reason to believe this will happen

BigFinFan
07-29-2004, 12:28 AM
Iraq was a dictatorship under UN embargo and in violation of ceasefire accords signed in 1991.

According to arms inspectors (since expelled) and defectors, Iraq had developed and manufactured chemical and biological weapons, and was trying to build nuclear weapons.

Since Iraq is run by the Sunni minority (about 20 percent of the population), it has used terror and mass murder to stay in power.

ABrownLamp
07-29-2004, 01:02 AM
Iraq was a dictatorship under UN embargo and in violation of ceasefire accords signed in 1991.

According to arms inspectors (since expelled) and defectors, Iraq had developed and manufactured chemical and biological weapons, and was trying to build nuclear weapons.

Since Iraq is run by the Sunni minority (about 20 percent of the population), it has used terror and mass murder to stay in power.
10 years ago he was a threat. who cares about what is going on over there if he is a non threat to the US today? again, how has this war benefitted the US?

BigFinFan
07-29-2004, 01:19 AM
How is he not a threat!

tehMick
07-29-2004, 01:20 AM
http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2004/07/owned-1.jpg
This is priceless!!!!!!!!!!!

This guy Michael Moore is dumber than any of you think!!!!!!!

O'Reilly: "The 9/11 report says that MI6 (British Intelligence), Vladimir Putin, The Mosad, The CIA, and German Intelligence told Bush that Iraq had WMD's...........So is Bush a liar to say that Iraq had WMD's, if he was citing those sources as his evidence?

Moore: "Bush told a bold face lie, that he knew was a lie."

O'Reilly: "Wait a Minute......All these people are telling him this is true....so because he says that Iraq has WMD's because he is being told they do....He is a Liar?

Moore: "Of course."

O'Reilly: "So Bush conrols all of these agencies?"

Moore: "Would you send your child to die to secure Fallujah?"

CAN YOU SAY OWNED???????????????

Clumpy
07-29-2004, 01:52 AM
Over 900 lost and it has cost us $150 billion thus far.

PhinPhan1227
07-29-2004, 02:11 AM
find one reason to believe this will happen

#1-We succeeded in bringing democracy to Japan even though that nation faced as many if not MORE challenges than Iraq.

#2-The current government, even though it is more the product of our efforts than true democracy, has already recieved MASSIVE popular support.

Iraq has the economy and populace to be a stable and stabilizing force in the Middle East. They have already, in a very short time, demonstrated a willingness to do what must be done to maintain a stable government. With the time to train their security forces, there's no reason they can't be successful.

ohall
07-29-2004, 03:52 AM
10 years ago he was a threat. who cares about what is going on over there if he is a non threat to the US today? again, how has this war benefitted the US?

I CANNOT BELIEVE YOU ARE GOING WHERE YOU ARE GOING!

Was Germany and the world a safer place after Adolf Hitler was removed, was Japan and the world a safer place after Hideki Tojo was removed? I swear some of you guys have some freaking nerve. This kind of BS is just out of line IMO. It's offensive to the soldiers who are over their giving their lives. Yeah let's just think it won't ever be worth it, and it won't ever make us safer. Shoot it's a political year, and I want my DEM's to win!

UGH!

Oliver...

Kencoboy
07-29-2004, 04:04 AM
I CANNOT BELIEVE YOU ARE GOING WHERE YOU ARE GOING!

Was Germany and the world a safer place after Adolf Hitler was removed, was Japan and the world a safer place after Hideki Tojo was removed? I swear some of you guys have some freaking nerve. This kind of BS is just out of line IMO. It's offensive to the soldiers who are over their giving their lives. Yeah let's just think it won't ever be worth it, and it won't ever make us safer. Shoot it's a political year, and I want my DEM's to win!

UGH!

Oliver...Uh, Ollie. Germany and Japan threatened the entire freaking world with the power of their militaries and what they were willing to do with them. It only took us about 4 years and half the world's help to defeat them.

Iraq had their military ravaged through the 1st Gulf War and the subsquent sanctions. They screwed around in Kuwait, which was akin to knocking over a 7-11 with a tactical nuke. They haven't had the nads or the power to mess with any other country since the 1st Gulf War. It took us about 2 weeks with no real help from anyone to topple this military powerhouse.

Do you see any difference between the 2 situations??

ohall
07-29-2004, 04:11 AM
Uh, Ollie. Germany and Japan threatened the entire freaking world with the power of their militaries and what they were willing to do with them. It only took us about 4 years and half the world's help to defeat them.

Iraq had their military ravaged through the 1st Gulf War and the subsquent sanctions. They screwed around in Kuwait, which was akin to knocking over a 7-11 with a tactical nuke. They haven't had the nads or the power to mess with any other country since the 1st Gulf War. It took us about 2 weeks with no real help from anyone to topple this military powerhouse.

Do you see any difference between the 2 situations??

Obviously you do, and that's where the problem is. You would rather see Saddam rebuild his strength and make Germany and Japan look like a girl scout troop.

Some of you will just never get it until it's too flipping late!

Oliver...

Kencoboy
07-29-2004, 04:50 AM
Obviously you do, and that's where the problem is. You would rather see Saddam rebuild his strength and make Germany and Japan look like a girl scout troop.

Some of you will just never get it until it's too flipping late!

Oliver...
Lets see. Hitler=Saddam Nazi Germany=Iraq. Argument=Ridiculous.

I'm sure there were nations around the world that were ready to join the coalition because someday in the near future Saddam was going to rule the world. Many were frightened of the harsh Iraqi rule that would follow. I can see it now. Saddam posters flying at the Kremlin. Iraqi soldiers marching through Washington D.C. A giant Saddam bust where the Statue of Liberty used to be.

Maybe you just got overzealous with your typing and meant to say that Saddam was going to rebuild his strength to that of a girl scout troop.

PLEASE!!



I can't take much more!!

:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:

PhinPhan1227
07-29-2004, 09:39 AM
Uh, Ollie. Germany and Japan threatened the entire freaking world with the power of their militaries and what they were willing to do with them. It only took us about 4 years and half the world's help to defeat them.

Iraq had their military ravaged through the 1st Gulf War and the subsquent sanctions. They screwed around in Kuwait, which was akin to knocking over a 7-11 with a tactical nuke. They haven't had the nads or the power to mess with any other country since the 1st Gulf War. It took us about 2 weeks with no real help from anyone to topple this military powerhouse.

Do you see any difference between the 2 situations??

You've obviously done extensive research on WWII. Like, watching Saving Private Ryan or something. Germany and Japan became military powerhouses BECAUSE of their conquests...not the other way around. When Germany took Austria, France, England, or the Soviets could have stopped him WITHOUT the help of any of the other three nations. Germany was still MUCH weaker than any of the other three. But once they had taken the Chechs, the Sudetenland, and Austria, they had a massive slave labor force, and the massive industrial ability of the Chechs. THAT allowed him to build the army/airforce that swept Europe and much of Russia. Saddam was stopped BEFORE he could take Saudi Arabia as well as Kuwait. Tell you what...do a little math. Combine the oil production of Iraq, Kuwait, and the Saudi's. What is that, 75% of the worlds oil production? Now put that in the hands of one man. Even if the US military takes him out in a month, what happens to the worlds economy if he blows all of THOSE oil field like he did in Kuwait. Shut down 75% of the worlds oil for even a MONTH and the world is in the worst depression it has ever SEEN. Remove the restrictions on Saddam, and THAT is the goal he was going to pursue. He said so REPEATEDLY, and he had the oil wealth to do it. Or do you think we should have left the restrictions in place and allowed the Iraqi people to slowly starve to death?

Kencoboy
07-29-2004, 01:45 PM
You've obviously done extensive research on WWII. Like, watching Saving Private Ryan or something. Germany and Japan became military powerhouses BECAUSE of their conquests...not the other way around. When Germany took Austria, France, England, or the Soviets could have stopped him WITHOUT the help of any of the other three nations. Germany was still MUCH weaker than any of the other three. But once they had taken the Chechs, the Sudetenland, and Austria, they had a massive slave labor force, and the massive industrial ability of the Chechs. THAT allowed him to build the army/airforce that swept Europe and much of Russia. Saddam was stopped BEFORE he could take Saudi Arabia as well as Kuwait. Tell you what...do a little math. Combine the oil production of Iraq, Kuwait, and the Saudi's. What is that, 75% of the worlds oil production? Now put that in the hands of one man. Even if the US military takes him out in a month, what happens to the worlds economy if he blows all of THOSE oil field like he did in Kuwait. Shut down 75% of the worlds oil for even a MONTH and the world is in the worst depression it has ever SEEN. Remove the restrictions on Saddam, and THAT is the goal he was going to pursue. He said so REPEATEDLY, and he had the oil wealth to do it. Or do you think we should have left the restrictions in place and allowed the Iraqi people to slowly starve to death?
I now stand corrected. If Saddam would have been allowed to roll thru Saudi Arabia and control the majority of the world's oil supply, the world would have been in a depression?? Probably. Or are we talking about OUR dependance on oil and that WE would have been severely affected by that?? I thought that the 1st Gulf War was about freeing Kuwait, that democratic little freedom loving country ol' Saddam knocked around the 1st time. And this one was about WMD's and the terrorist connection. Oh, wait. We haven't found any WMD's, even though our intellegence said that we should trip over the 1st about 2 feet into Iraq. And the Al Queida connection that did not exist. Or was it time that our sons and daughters die so that Iraq can be free, an idea that some of their own frigging people don't like, as the car bombings and raids on our troops would attest.

Or are we afraid that all that slave labor Saddam would have employed to fuel his military industry that has produced such fearful weapons as the Scud (the Iraqi version of the German V2 rocket from WWII) could somehow harm us. And all those Iraqi made Russian 7-72 tanks. Or the Air Force that could not fly because they would be shot down.

You are absolutely correct. The continued conquests of Germany and Japan fueled their industries. They also had the capacity and technology to make use of it. Are you arguing that the Chech and Austrian industries helped fuel Germany. Sure, I'll agree with that. The Germans and Japanese had companies like BMW, Messerschmidt, and Mitsubishi that made weapons for their continued war effort. And Iraq has, well, uh. Get real, these guys don't have the capacity to make Happy Meal toys.

I'll agree the 1st Gulf War was necessary for the threat to OUR economies depandance on oil. I think the 2nd one is BS, and still is about the threat to our dependance on oil in the region. And if a two-bit despot like Saddam can threaten our way of life, then it just might be time to rethink our way of life. Think about how may untold billions of dollars it will take to enforce the "democracy" in Iraq. Wouldn't it be more prudent to use that money to find a way to become less dependant on oil, so that when a two-bit despot like Saddam threatens 70% of the world's (or our) oil supply, we wouldn't have to send our sons and daughters to die halfway around the world?? If we really want to support our men and women in the armed forces, isn't it time to find an alternative source of energy??? Or are our politicians and the oil companies so entertwined that will never happen?

Hitler and his minions were Evil on Earth. Saddam and his minions while similar in nature were evil, but never would have the capacity IN SCOPE do do what the Nazis did. Please!!

PhinPhan1227
07-29-2004, 04:05 PM
I now stand corrected. If Saddam would have been allowed to roll thru Saudi Arabia and control the majority of the world's oil supply, the world would have been in a depression?? Probably. Or are we talking about OUR dependance on oil and that WE would have been severely affected by that?? I thought that the 1st Gulf War was about freeing Kuwait, that democratic little freedom loving country ol' Saddam knocked around the 1st time. And this one was about WMD's and the terrorist connection. Oh, wait. We haven't found any WMD's, even though our intellegence said that we should trip over the 1st about 2 feet into Iraq. And the Al Queida connection that did not exist. Or was it time that our sons and daughters die so that Iraq can be free, an idea that some of their own frigging people don't like, as the car bombings and raids on our troops would attest.

Or are we afraid that all that slave labor Saddam would have employed to fuel his military industry that has produced such fearful weapons as the Scud (the Iraqi version of the German V2 rocket from WWII) could somehow harm us. And all those Iraqi made Russian 7-72 tanks. Or the Air Force that could not fly because they would be shot down.

You are absolutely correct. The continued conquests of Germany and Japan fueled their industries. They also had the capacity and technology to make use of it. Are you arguing that the Chech and Austrian industries helped fuel Germany. Sure, I'll agree with that. The Germans and Japanese had companies like BMW, Messerschmidt, and Mitsubishi that made weapons for their continued war effort. And Iraq has, well, uh. Get real, these guys don't have the capacity to make Happy Meal toys.

I'll agree the 1st Gulf War was necessary for the threat to OUR economies depandance on oil. I think the 2nd one is BS, and still is about the threat to our dependance on oil in the region. And if a two-bit despot like Saddam can threaten our way of life, then it just might be time to rethink our way of life. Think about how may untold billions of dollars it will take to enforce the "democracy" in Iraq. Wouldn't it be more prudent to use that money to find a way to become less dependant on oil, so that when a two-bit despot like Saddam threatens 70% of the world's (or our) oil supply, we wouldn't have to send our sons and daughters to die halfway around the world?? If we really want to support our men and women in the armed forces, isn't it time to find an alternative source of energy??? Or are our politicians and the oil companies so entertwined that will never happen?

Hitler and his minions were Evil on Earth. Saddam and his minions while similar in nature were evil, but never would have the capacity IN SCOPE do do what the Nazis did. Please!!


Thank you for embodying the mindset that forces me to vote Republican more often than Democrat. A man is going to take over 70-80% of the worlds oil and cut us off...solution....get off our dependence on oil. What do we do for the decade it takes us to retool? What do we do for the time tht we have no oil and can't run our vehicles, facotries, or power plants? DETAILS!! Don't worry about DETAILS...Just DO THE RIGHT THING!! No, in todays world Saddam was not going to become a Superpower. He didn't have to. All he had to do was become as strong as he was prior to Gulf War I. Industry and technology? France, Germany and Russia were ACHING to sell him their weapons for oil. Within a month of rearming Saddam could have rolled to the end of the Saudi Penninsula. And yes, we could have kicked him right back off. During that time he could have caused a WORLD depression(yes WORLD, do you think everyone else runs their economies on rice?). So yes, Saddam was as dangerous as a scaled down Hitler. Less dangerous overall? Yes he was. A lot easier to remove? Absofreakinglutely.

ABrownLamp
07-29-2004, 05:08 PM
#1-We succeeded in bringing democracy to Japan even though that nation faced as many if not MORE challenges than Iraq.

#2-The current government, even though it is more the product of our efforts than true democracy, has already recieved MASSIVE popular support.

Iraq has the economy and populace to be a stable and stabilizing force in the Middle East. They have already, in a very short time, demonstrated a willingness to do what must be done to maintain a stable government. With the time to train their security forces, there's no reason they can't be successful.
You cannot compare Japan to Iraq...

#1 Iraq has been lead by a despots since its existence. Japan had a long history of voting prior to our invasion

#2 McCarthur wrote Japan's Constitution. What we have setup right now is for Iraqi rulers to be voted in, and have THEM write their own Constitution.

#3 We had extensive planning of post victory reconstruction BEFORE we invaded Germany and Japan. Extensive planning. This war was so unplanned and miscalculated that there is no comparison between the two. You are juxtaposing two completely different countries with completely different histories for two completely different wars. I just don't see the similarities you see.

Additionally, we still have troops over in Japan. Today. And that place is running pretty smoothly if you ask me.

ABrownLamp
07-29-2004, 05:23 PM
You've obviously done extensive research on WWII. Like, watching Saving Private Ryan or something. Germany and Japan became military powerhouses BECAUSE of their conquests...not the other way around. When Germany took Austria, France, England, or the Soviets could have stopped him WITHOUT the help of any of the other three nations. Germany was still MUCH weaker than any of the other three. But once they had taken the Chechs, the Sudetenland, and Austria, they had a massive slave labor force, and the massive industrial ability of the Chechs. THAT allowed him to build the army/airforce that swept Europe and much of Russia. Saddam was stopped BEFORE he could take Saudi Arabia as well as Kuwait. Tell you what...do a little math. Combine the oil production of Iraq, Kuwait, and the Saudi's. What is that, 75% of the worlds oil production? Now put that in the hands of one man. Even if the US military takes him out in a month, what happens to the worlds economy if he blows all of THOSE oil field like he did in Kuwait. Shut down 75% of the worlds oil for even a MONTH and the world is in the worst depression it has ever SEEN. Remove the restrictions on Saddam, and THAT is the goal he was going to pursue. He said so REPEATEDLY, and he had the oil wealth to do it. Or do you think we should have left the restrictions in place and allowed the Iraqi people to slowly starve to death?
#1 Germany marthed through parts of Russia but never "swept" any part of it

#2 I don't know for sure, so I won't make any claims, but I find it hard to beleive that the German rise to power militarily (especially when you consider cost) revolves around slave acquisition.

ABrownLamp
07-29-2004, 05:44 PM
Thank you for embodying the mindset that forces me to vote Republican more often than Democrat. A man is going to take over 70-80% of the worlds oil and cut us off...solution....get off our dependence on oil. What do we do for the decade it takes us to retool? What do we do for the time tht we have no oil and can't run our vehicles, facotries, or power plants? DETAILS!! Don't worry about DETAILS...Just DO THE RIGHT THING!! No, in todays world Saddam was not going to become a Superpower. He didn't have to. All he had to do was become as strong as he was prior to Gulf War I. Industry and technology? France, Germany and Russia were ACHING to sell him their weapons for oil. Within a month of rearming Saddam could have rolled to the end of the Saudi Penninsula. And yes, we could have kicked him right back off. During that time he could have caused a WORLD depression(yes WORLD, do you think everyone else runs their economies on rice?). So yes, Saddam was as dangerous as a scaled down Hitler. Less dangerous overall? Yes he was. A lot easier to remove? Absofreakinglutely.The problem is that if we were to try and rid the world of all the dictators in the world who have hatred towards the US, want nukes, have the capability to get nukes and kill their own people, we will be at war forever. It just seems strange to me that of all the countries that fit this description we chose Iraq.

I think in your statement you have made a lot of assumption about a man who had little military power. Clinton destroyed his airforce. I mean, we could have this same argument over plenty of countries in the Middle East. What do we do about them?

MDFINFAN
07-29-2004, 06:40 PM
Gore is speaking for the DEM party. The portion of the DEM party that is energized is the left wing wackos, not the middle of the road guys like Liberman.

Oliver...

Nope actually Clinton has more clout than Gore..He was the last Dem Pres. and when he broke down the difference between the two parties Monday night..I know the repubs were glad he's not running again..I think after all that happen in Clinton's Whitehouse, he'd win again against Bush..I really do.

PhinPhan1227
07-29-2004, 06:45 PM
You cannot compare Japan to Iraq...

#1 Iraq has been lead by a despots since its existence. Japan had a long history of voting prior to our invasion

#2 McCarthur wrote Japan's Constitution. What we have setup right now is for Iraqi rulers to be voted in, and have THEM write their own Constitution.

#3 We had extensive planning of post victory reconstruction BEFORE we invaded Germany and Japan. Extensive planning. This war was so unplanned and miscalculated that there is no comparison between the two. You are juxtaposing two completely different countries with completely different histories for two completely different wars. I just don't see the similarities you see.

Additionally, we still have troops over in Japan. Today. And that place is running pretty smoothly if you ask me.

#1-Japan was only a few years out of Feudalism prior to WWI. Democracy was NOT in place in Japan prior to our involvement. Their government was run by a military dictatorship which paid lip service to the Emperor. It was a VERY totalitarianism state.

#2-MacArthur wrote it...and the Japanese then rewrote it. We all but wrote the current Iraqi Constitution...they will then rewrite it.

#3-Read a book about our occupation. It was hardly the perfect operation you portray it as. It took seven years to get the occupation troops out. Yes we still have troops there. Japan wants them there as protection against nations like N Korea, not to help keep the government in power.

PhinPhan1227
07-29-2004, 06:48 PM
#1 Germany marthed through parts of Russia but never "swept" any part of it

#2 I don't know for sure, so I won't make any claims, but I find it hard to beleive that the German rise to power militarily (especially when you consider cost) revolves around slave acquisition.


#1-ROFL!!!! Blitzkrieg doesn't mean "molasses war", it means "lightening war". Prior to the Russian Winter setting in the Soviets were SWEPT up by the German army.

#2-Read a book. Forced labor was a KEY factor in their power. How do you think a nation the size of Ohio was able to field an army large enough to occupy Europe, North Africa, and Asia east of Moskow? their factories were NOT being run with Germans. The Germans left in Germany were supervising workers brought in from conquered lands.

PhinPhan1227
07-29-2004, 06:52 PM
The problem is that if we were to try and rid the world of all the dictators in the world who have hatred towards the US, want nukes, have the capability to get nukes and kill their own people, we will be at war forever. It just seems strange to me that of all the countries that fit this description we chose Iraq.

I think in your statement you have made a lot of assumption about a man who had little military power. Clinton destroyed his airforce. I mean, we could have this same argument over plenty of countries in the Middle East. What do we do about them?


Clinton didn't destroy SPIT concerning Iraq. Bush sr did that. What sets Saddam apart is a willingness TO ATTACK HIS NEIGHBORS. I don't CARE if people hate us. And honestly I don't care that much if they acquire heavy weapons. So long as they show that they are to SCARED to USE them, I don't care WHAT they have or HOW they feel. It took Saddam less than a decade to build the Army he used to sweep into Kuwait. It would only take him a decade to build an army that could sweep through Arabia.

MDFINFAN
07-29-2004, 11:32 PM
Clinton didn't destroy SPIT concerning Iraq. Bush sr did that. What sets Saddam apart is a willingness TO ATTACK HIS NEIGHBORS. I don't CARE if people hate us. And honestly I don't care that much if they acquire heavy weapons. So long as they show that they are to SCARED to USE them, I don't care WHAT they have or HOW they feel. It took Saddam less than a decade to build the Army he used to sweep into Kuwait. It would only take him a decade to build an army that could sweep through Arabia.

Bottom line to this is Iraq didn't attack us, Al Qaida did...why would Clinton have gone after Iraq, they were no threat..Did you notice that Iraq really didn't have a army to defend itself against us..yea they were really rebuilding a big big army... :roflmao:

ohall
07-29-2004, 11:59 PM
Bottom line to this is Iraq didn't attack us, Al Qaida did...why would Clinton have gone after Iraq, they were no threat..Did you notice that Iraq really didn't have a army to defend itself against us..yea they were really rebuilding a big big army... :roflmao:

Germany didn't attack us, Japan did. Please explain to me why we entered the European theatre of war during WW2?

Oliver...

PhinPhan1227
07-30-2004, 12:31 AM
Bottom line to this is Iraq didn't attack us, Al Qaida did...why would Clinton have gone after Iraq, they were no threat..Did you notice that Iraq really didn't have a army to defend itself against us..yea they were really rebuilding a big big army... :roflmao:


God, my one year old son has better comprehension. Here it is slowly...we couldn't maintain sanctions forever...the Iraqi people dying because of them. But once we lifted the sanctions, he WOULD have rebuilt. Oh, and Iraq attacked our ally, which is EXACTLY a reason to go to war. Aaaand...still waiting for that MOS and unit.

finfan54
07-30-2004, 09:15 AM
Nope actually Clinton has more clout than Gore..He was the last Dem Pres. and when he broke down the difference between the two parties Monday night..I know the repubs were glad he's not running again..I think after all that happen in Clinton's Whitehouse, he'd win again against Bush..I really do.


ah just like a democrat, always looking back. Clinton would not win against Bush, because we know so much more about the Der Schlichmeister. Post 9-11? are you kidding me? Its a whole different world now and i know its hard to deal with but reality struck home on sept. 11. Bill Clinton would think health care for 40 million Americans is more doable than protecting the country.

finfan54
07-30-2004, 09:18 AM
Bottom line to this is Iraq didn't attack us, Al Qaida did...why would Clinton have gone after Iraq, they were no threat..Did you notice that Iraq really didn't have a army to defend itself against us..yea they were really rebuilding a big big army... :roflmao:


Fact is the talk of Saddam having weapons of mass distruction came from the Clinton Administration. The UN agreed to the war. Clinton administration people agreed to the war (later changing there mind for political reasons). Al Qaida is all over the world, including inside your own country! wake up fools!

Kencoboy
07-30-2004, 01:22 PM
Thank you for embodying the mindset that forces me to vote Republican more often than Democrat. A man is going to take over 70-80% of the worlds oil and cut us off...solution....get off our dependence on oil. What do we do for the decade it takes us to retool? What do we do for the time tht we have no oil and can't run our vehicles, facotries, or power plants? DETAILS!! Don't worry about DETAILS...Just DO THE RIGHT THING!! No, in todays world Saddam was not going to become a Superpower. He didn't have to. All he had to do was become as strong as he was prior to Gulf War I. Industry and technology? France, Germany and Russia were ACHING to sell him their weapons for oil. Within a month of rearming Saddam could have rolled to the end of the Saudi Penninsula. And yes, we could have kicked him right back off. During that time he could have caused a WORLD depression(yes WORLD, do you think everyone else runs their economies on rice?). So yes, Saddam was as dangerous as a scaled down Hitler. Less dangerous overall? Yes he was. A lot easier to remove? Absofreakinglutely.
So you are willing to send American troops to die because of our dependance on foreign oil??? I agree the 1st Gulf War was necessary because of the threat to the world's oil supply. THAT DOES NOT MEAN IT WAS RIGHT. And we have a moral obligation to those who serve in our Armed Forces to fix our mistakes so that servicemen do not die simply because we are unwilling to solve a problem. Would you be willing to die so that Exxon can continue to reap its billions?? If your answer is yes, then mount up and head on out. If your answer is no, then we must search for alternative fuels NOW!!

This is not a liberal issue. This is not a conservative issue. This is a logical issue. We cannot afford to waste our precious youth in the folly of our dependance on foreign oil any longer. Period. And any sane rational human being would think the same. IF WE DO NOT TRY - IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN!!

ohall
07-30-2004, 02:55 PM
So you are willing to send American troops to die because of our dependance on foreign oil??? I agree the 1st Gulf War was necessary because of the threat to the world's oil supply. THAT DOES NOT MEAN IT WAS RIGHT. And we have a moral obligation to those who serve in our Armed Forces to fix our mistakes so that servicemen do not die simply because we are unwilling to solve a problem. Would you be willing to die so that Exxon can continue to reap its billions?? If your answer is yes, then mount up and head on out. If your answer is no, then we must search for alternative fuels NOW!!

This is not a liberal issue. This is not a conservative issue. This is a logical issue. We cannot afford to waste our precious youth in the folly of our dependance on foreign oil any longer. Period. And any sane rational human being would think the same. IF WE DO NOT TRY - IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN!!

You just don't get it do you? If we cannot ensure our supply of oil, like any other major country we could possibly fold under our own weight. People like you confuse me. The terrorist know this, our enemies know this. We need to fix this!

Every other country is entitled to ensure its oil supply but to some we are evil when do this. Until the DEM's allow this country to decrease our foreign oil dependancy this kind of pre-emptive war will continue to happen. 60% foreign oil dependancy is because of all the tree hugging regulation this country has to live by. It is insane that this country has not built a new oil refinery since 1978. This one fact should tell EVERYONE just how screwed up things are in this country when it comes to our oil regulations.

Oliver...

PhinPhan1227
07-30-2004, 02:58 PM
So you are willing to send American troops to die because of our dependance on foreign oil??? I agree the 1st Gulf War was necessary because of the threat to the world's oil supply. THAT DOES NOT MEAN IT WAS RIGHT. And we have a moral obligation to those who serve in our Armed Forces to fix our mistakes so that servicemen do not die simply because we are unwilling to solve a problem. Would you be willing to die so that Exxon can continue to reap its billions?? If your answer is yes, then mount up and head on out. If your answer is no, then we must search for alternative fuels NOW!!

This is not a liberal issue. This is not a conservative issue. This is a logical issue. We cannot afford to waste our precious youth in the folly of our dependance on foreign oil any longer. Period. And any sane rational human being would think the same. IF WE DO NOT TRY - IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN!!

What do you think wars are fought over? Do you know why Japan attacked Pearl Harbor? We were limiting her access to South East Asian oil supplies. We were threatening to strangle her and she fought back. Name me a war and I will show you a "dependance" that war was fought over. You want to rant and rave about finding alternative fuels? Fine and dandy...but tell me this...Clinton was in charge for 8 years. During that almost decade we didn't move toawrds alternative fuels...we embraced the SUV. The President has to deal with the world as it IS, not as it should be. Heck, he tried to reduce foerign dependance on oil and they shot down drilling in ANWAR. Bush has also pushed Fuel Cell technology, but that is a good 10 years away. He can't act HOPING that in 10 years we will be free from foreign oil, he has to assume will will NOT be. So while your naievete is heartwarming, it's simply not realistic.

Kencoboy
07-30-2004, 03:45 PM
You just don't get it do you? If we cannot ensure our supply of oil, like any other major country we could possibly fold under our own weight. People like you confuse me. The terrorist know this, our enemies know this. We need to fix this!

Every other country is entitled to ensure its oil supply but to some we are evil when do this. Until the DEM's allow this country to decrease our foreign oil dependancy this kind of pre-emptive war will continue to happen. 60% foreign oil dependancy is because of all the tree hugging regulation this country has to live by. It is insane that this country has not built a new oil refinery since 1978. This one fact should tell EVERYONE just how screwed up things are in this country when it comes to our oil regulations.

Oliver...
I guess I don't get it. I don't think we are evil for looking after our interests. I think we need to reevaluate our interests if we are the greatest country in the world. And, if we are so dependant on oil we are forced to fight wars every time a two-bit scumbag like Saddam procures a peashooter, then maybe we need to find another avenue to fuel our economy.

The oil companies are not building new refineries because it cuts into their bottom line - the CEO's pockets.

AGAIN you guys can politicize the issue all you want - and nothing will change!! This is not a LIBERAL issue. THIS is not a CONSERVATIVE issue. This is an AMERICAN issue, and if we continue to depend on the Middle East for our oil, can we ever be truly free?? And since its the tree-hugging regulation that's causing the problem and the GOP controls Congress and the White House, one would think that regulation would go away.

PhinPhan1227
07-30-2004, 04:10 PM
I guess I don't get it. I don't think we are evil for looking after our interests. I think we need to reevaluate our interests if we are the greatest country in the world. And, if we are so dependant on oil we are forced to fight wars every time a two-bit scumbag like Saddam procures a peashooter, then maybe we need to find another avenue to fuel our economy.

The oil companies are not building new refineries because it cuts into their bottom line - the CEO's pockets.

AGAIN you guys can politicize the issue all you want - and nothing will change!! This is not a LIBERAL issue. THIS is not a CONSERVATIVE issue. This is an AMERICAN issue, and if we continue to depend on the Middle East for our oil, can we ever be truly free?? And since its the tree-hugging regulation that's causing the problem and the GOP controls Congress and the White House, one would think that regulation would go away.

Refineries only increase gas, not oil. And here's a clue...companies EXIST to make a profit. If they do things to reduce that profit than they are defrauding their investors. Exxon/Mobil is not a non-profit company. And once again, a President doesn't have the luxury of HOPING that we will be less dependent on oil...he has to assume will will still be dependent. And lastly, Bush has put forward efforts to reduce our dependence. Why not ask KErry why he is against Wind Farms off Martha's Vinyard if he is in favor of Alt Sources of power. Apparently he and Teddy would prefer that the Vinyard continue to burn oil to keep the islands power plant working.

ohall
07-30-2004, 04:14 PM
I guess I don't get it. I don't think we are evil for looking after our interests. I think we need to reevaluate our interests if we are the greatest country in the world. And, if we are so dependant on oil we are forced to fight wars every time a two-bit scumbag like Saddam procures a peashooter, then maybe we need to find another avenue to fuel our economy.

The oil companies are not building new refineries because it cuts into their bottom line - the CEO's pockets.

AGAIN you guys can politicize the issue all you want - and nothing will change!! This is not a LIBERAL issue. THIS is not a CONSERVATIVE issue. This is an AMERICAN issue, and if we continue to depend on the Middle East for our oil, can we ever be truly free?? And since its the tree-hugging regulation that's causing the problem and the GOP controls Congress and the White House, one would think that regulation would go away.

No we are not building new refineries because of all the tree hugging laws that have been put in place since the lat 70's. It's impossible to reach the current standards to build a new oil or gas refinery, because they were meant to be impossible to reach.

The only reason middle east terrorist can do anything is because of oil. They survive off of hand outs from rich Middle Eastern countries and their leaders. We will not have to go after every TWO bit scum bag. We'll only have to go after the ones who would threaten the world’s oil supply.

I agree this is an American issue, but only one side has a rational take on the whole thing. One side cares more about bleeding heart liberals because that is their base and without them they wouldn’t be anywhere rather than caring about what is best for this country.

Incorrect, you need I believe 61 or 62 votes to change the tree hugging regulations. If you think the REP's can get 11 or 12 DEM's to switch on that issue you are very confused. They may be able to get 4 or 5, but even that would be wishful thinking. Something awful is going to have to happen before the LIBERALS in this government wake up. It took 9/11 for them to wake up to pass the patriot act. DEM's only act after the fact. That is the main reason I am not a DEM. I think you need to go after things before they go after you. This is not a relevant POV for most DEM's.

Oliver...

ABrownLamp
07-30-2004, 05:54 PM
#1-Japan was only a few years out of Feudalism prior to WWI. Democracy was NOT in place in Japan prior to our involvement. Their government was run by a military dictatorship which paid lip service to the Emperor. It was a VERY totalitarianism state.

#2-MacArthur wrote it...and the Japanese then rewrote it. We all but wrote the current Iraqi Constitution...they will then rewrite it.

#3-Read a book about our occupation. It was hardly the perfect operation you portray it as. It took seven years to get the occupation troops out. Yes we still have troops there. Japan wants them there as protection against nations like N Korea, not to help keep the government in power.
I simply don;t know enough about history to get into a debate about this with you. I'm relying on the three history classes I took sophomore year in 1999.

This is what I see though. A small island out in the Pacific has been conquered, in a war that has been won
Conversely you have a large area of land, in a war that has not been won. Iraq has what, five or six different major sects? They don't get along. It's not like Iraq is an island either. And it's surrounded by nations that support terror. Nations that we will most likely never ever be able to "liberate." Unless we invade them too. Which obviously, after the Iraq war, will most likely not ever happen again. I just don't see how Iraq will grow to be this thriving democracy when it is surrounded by such opposition.
Incidentally, do you support ivading N Korea too?

PhinPhan1227
07-30-2004, 08:59 PM
I simply don;t know enough about history to get into a debate about this with you. I'm relying on the three history classes I took sophomore year in 1999.

This is what I see though. A small island out in the Pacific has been conquered, in a war that has been won
Conversely you have a large area of land, in a war that has not been won. Iraq has what, five or six different major sects? They don't get along. It's not like Iraq is an island either. And it's surrounded by nations that support terror. Nations that we will most likely never ever be able to "liberate." Unless we invade them too. Which obviously, after the Iraq war, will most likely not ever happen again. I just don't see how Iraq will grow to be this thriving democracy when it is surrounded by such opposition.
Incidentally, do you support ivading N Korea too?

We won't invade Korea because we would incur massive casualties. There's also no upside to an Korean invasion. Who are we going to infuence there, China? As for Iraq/Japan..Iraq is only the size of California..not much larger than Japan. And whil ethere are some rough neighbors around Iraq, the actual leaders of those nations DO want a free and stable Iraq in place. Japan didn't have a totaly easy time of it either. There were several attempts during our occupation to bring about a Communist government. Those efforts were put down, but not without a good bit of effort. The presence of Kurd. Shia, and Sunni elements DO complicate things, but remember also that they are all muslims. That is a unifying factor which can be used. Japan has Buddhists, Shinto, Christians, and others and they all found a way to get along. Most likely, Iraq will wind up as more of a Confederation, much like the Balkans. Three states with much more power than our states currently have.

Kencoboy
07-31-2004, 03:34 AM
Refineries only increase gas, not oil. And here's a clue...companies EXIST to make a profit. If they do things to reduce that profit than they are defrauding their investors. Exxon/Mobil is not a non-profit company. And once again, a President doesn't have the luxury of HOPING that we will be less dependent on oil...he has to assume will will still be dependent. And lastly, Bush has put forward efforts to reduce our dependence. Why not ask KErry why he is against Wind Farms off Martha's Vinyard if he is in favor of Alt Sources of power. Apparently he and Teddy would prefer that the Vinyard continue to burn oil to keep the islands power plant working.
Companies exist to make a profit. You're kidding. The problem is when we rely on companies that make a profit to opearte in our best interests, sometimes they don't because they are only interested in making a profit.

As far as the Wind Farms go, Amen, brother!!!

PhinPhan1227
07-31-2004, 10:50 AM
Companies exist to make a profit. You're kidding. The problem is when we rely on companies that make a profit to opearte in our best interests, sometimes they don't because they are only interested in making a profit.

As far as the Wind Farms go, Amen, brother!!!


What private company exists to operate in your best interest? It exists to make a profit, make money for it's investors, and pay it's employees, in that order. As for wind farms, I'm 110% in favor of them. But John Kerry and a few other Mass politicians aren't willing to have them sit off Martha's Vinyard because they might diminish the view. How's that for environmentally conscious?

CrunchTime
07-31-2004, 11:54 AM
[QUOTE=Section126]This is priceless!!!!!!!!!!!

This guy Michael Moore is dumber than any of you think!!!!!!!

O'Reilly: "The 9/11 report says that MI6 (British Intelligence), Vladimir Putin, The Mosad, The CIA, and German Intelligence told Bush that Iraq had WMD's...........So is Bush a liar to say that Iraq had WMD's, if he was citing those sources as his evidence?

Moore: "Bush told a bold face lie, that he knew was a lie."

O'Reilly: "Wait a Minute......All these people are telling him this is true....so because he says that Iraq has WMD's because he is being told they do....He is a Liar?

Moore: "Of course."

O'Reilly: "So Bush conrols all of these agencies?"

Moore: "Would you send your child to die to secure Fallujah?"




What would you expect an intellectual midget:dunce: .His arguements are lame :astro: and dont hold water:monkeyl: So I would expect he would be outdebated by just about anyone smarter than a peanut.:jumper:

DolFan31
08-03-2004, 10:32 AM
Savage is an independent.

:roflmao: :roflmao: :lol: :lol:


Then explain his book titles:

- The Savage Nation: Saving America from the Liberal Assault on Our Borders, Language and Culture
- The Enemy Within: Saving America from the Liberal Assault on Our Schools, Faith, and Military

Some independant. :rolleyes:


Sometimes I wonder if you ever really know anything about politics..

MDFINFAN
08-05-2004, 11:33 PM
He is ridiculous. My parents did not force me to join th Navy, it was a choice that I made on my own.

Moore states: "Why should Bush sacrifice the children of people across America for this?" What is he talking about?

Every service member that has gone to Iraq has volunteered to go. We are not "sacrificing" service members.

We are in the Military because we believe in something greater than Michael Moore will ever know.

Every Military person doesn't believe what you believe..I was a captain in the army and I thought that our president wouldn't send us to war unless it was absolutely neccessary, and this is one war I would feel used in. I always support our troops because we didn't to vote on weather a war is just or not, we said we'll go whereever our country ask us to go..but even as a officer I have to said this is BS, and a lot of fellow Officers I do think the same way and they're still in the Military..You seem to be a blink follower, and that's one of the worst type of people we can have in the military, people like you would follow a Hilter type person and that's scary..we also wanted soldiers to be able to think for themselves. That's what's makes our Military great. Self sacrifice, unselfishness and the ability to contiinue the battle even when seniors military personnel are fallen. Blind follows get stopped in their tracks, they can't see for themselves, that's scary..I'm glad I know a lot of great military people and they won't be voting for bush this year.

MDFINFAN
08-05-2004, 11:39 PM
Fact is the talk of Saddam having weapons of mass distruction came from the Clinton Administration. The UN agreed to the war. Clinton administration people agreed to the war (later changing there mind for political reasons). Al Qaida is all over the world, including inside your own country! wake up fools!

Exactly Al Qaida is all over the world, not Iraq fool...as I've said before everyone assumed Iraq had WMD, but we couldn't even show the proof, the UN was trying to do inspections and verify, but we couldn't wait, remember fool....Everyone went with the safe, they probably do, but that wasn't the issue, the issue was they would give them to Al Qaida because there was this mysterious link..which we found out later there wasn't, even thought most of us knew that at the time, but you'd have to be unpatriotic to disagree with the Administration..so your right to disagree in this country got cut short..sounds like the remnance of dictator to me....OPEN YOUR EYES PEOPLE..

PhinPhan1227
08-06-2004, 01:18 AM
Every Military person doesn't believe what you believe..I was a captain in the army and I thought that our president wouldn't send us to war unless it was absolutely neccessary, and this is one war I would feel used in. I always support our troops because we didn't to vote on weather a war is just or not, we said we'll go whereever our country ask us to go..but even as a officer I have to said this is BS, and a lot of fellow Officers I do think the same way and they're still in the Military..You seem to be a blink follower, and that's one of the worst type of people we can have in the military, people like you would follow a Hilter type person and that's scary..we also wanted soldiers to be able to think for themselves. That's what's makes our Military great. Self sacrifice, unselfishness and the ability to contiinue the battle even when seniors military personnel are fallen. Blind follows get stopped in their tracks, they can't see for themselves, that's scary..I'm glad I know a lot of great military people and they won't be voting for bush this year.

Once again MDFin...what was your MOS and where did you serve. I've asked this close to a dozen times and have yet to get an answer from you.

MDFINFAN
08-06-2004, 06:59 PM
Once again MDFin...what was your MOS and where did you serve. I've asked this close to a dozen times and have yet to get an answer from you.

Yea after rereading my post I would ask the same questions.. :roflmao:

Bling
08-09-2004, 09:02 PM
http://www.homestead.com/prosites-prs/index.html

Go to that website and then say he is an Independent. He is very far right wing and he knows it.

he's even more conservative than Rush Limbaugh, but the fact still stand that he's a independent. He even calls Republicans liberals.

Super_Duper85
08-14-2004, 11:28 PM
Good one... O'Reilly never answered the question. He would not say that he would send his kids or the kids of fellow Americans to Fallujah. He said he would "sacrifice himself." Talk about dancing around the question. Actually, O-Reilly got owned.


This is priceless!!!!!!!!!!!

This guy Michael Moore is dumber than any of you think!!!!!!!

O'Reilly: "The 9/11 report says that MI6 (British Intelligence), Vladimir Putin, The Mosad, The CIA, and German Intelligence told Bush that Iraq had WMD's...........So is Bush a liar to say that Iraq had WMD's, if he was citing those sources as his evidence?

Moore: "Bush told a bold face lie, that he knew was a lie."

O'Reilly: "Wait a Minute......All these people are telling him this is true....so because he says that Iraq has WMD's because he is being told they do....He is a Liar?

Moore: "Of course."

O'Reilly: "So Bush conrols all of these agencies?"

Moore: "Would you send your child to die to secure Fallujah?"

CAN YOU SAY OWNED???????????????

MikeO
08-15-2004, 01:38 AM
What gets me is Ann Coulter accuses Dem's of "TREASON" and the republicans laugh and think she is correct and laugh at the mud being thrown.

Moore calls Bush a liar and all hell breaks lose on the right!

What is worse. Saying someone lied? Or accusing someone of TREASON!

It's all BS and I really wish we could talk about topics so we can see candidates talk about real issues that effect real people. Not treason or liar namecalling being thrown around!

PhinPhan1227
08-15-2004, 02:01 AM
What gets me is Ann Coulter accuses Dem's of "TREASON" and the republicans laugh and think she is correct and laugh at the mud being thrown.

Moore calls Bush a liar and all hell breaks lose on the right!

What is worse. Saying someone lied? Or accusing someone of TREASON!

It's all BS and I really wish we could talk about topics so we can see candidates talk about real issues that effect real people. Not treason or liar namecalling being thrown around!



How about the NAACP leader calling Conservatives "The Taliban"?

MikeO
08-15-2004, 02:04 AM
How about the NAACP leader calling Conservatives "The Taliban"?
Its all bad. Not defending that.

Although if our President who is a "uniter" not a "divder" would maybe speak to the NAACP, then those things wouldn't occur.

PhinPhan1227
08-15-2004, 02:12 AM
Its all bad. Not defending that.

Although if our President who is a "uniter" not a "divder" would maybe speak to the NAACP, then those things wouldn't occur.


He refused to speak to them AFTER they made those comments. If someone said that about me I wouldn't speak to them either. Bush DID speak before the Minority Journalist Association however, so it's not a racial thing...it's the fact that the NAACP is bought and paid for by the DNC.

ohall
08-15-2004, 02:52 PM
Its all bad. Not defending that.

Although if our President who is a "uniter" not a "divder" would maybe speak to the NAACP, then those things wouldn't occur.

Why would anyone go speak to a ORG where their leaders called him another Hitler? Honestly by him not going it did more good than harm. The NAACP is a joke, and most ppl know that.

Oliver...

DolFan31
08-15-2004, 03:05 PM
Why would anyone go speak to a ORG where their leaders called him another Hitler? Honestly by him not going it did more good than harm. The NAACP is a joke, and most ppl know that.

Oliver...

I think that it still costed him a bigger majority of the black vote. We know that most African-Americans will vote Democratically, but I think after this it will definately cost more black votes than before. Just my 2 cents..

ohall
08-15-2004, 03:34 PM
I think that it still costed him a bigger majority of the black vote. We know that most African-Americans will vote Democratically, but I think after this it will definately cost more black votes than before. Just my 2 cents..

Well then you just don't get what I'm saying. If Bush #43 went there I may have stayed home on election day. I prob wouldn't have voted this year at all if he went there. I would have lost all repsect for him. If he went there I would have thought he was no better than let's say a John Kerry. When ppl disrespect you sometimes you simply have to ignore them. This also applies to when countries show us their azzes. This is why I like Bush #43. It's refreshing to have a President who has some backbone.

REP's always lose the majority black vote, yet they still some how get into office. Think about it.

DolFan31
08-15-2004, 04:32 PM
It's refreshing to have a President who has some backbone.


And ignorance at the same time!

ABrownLamp
08-15-2004, 04:34 PM
REP's always lose the majority black vote, yet they still some how get into office. Think about it.
Thought about it. And I still have no idea what you are talking about. Wasn't the last President for two terms a Democrat?

Hey, DEMS always lose the Conservative Christian vote, yet they still somehow get into office. Think about it.

ohall
08-15-2004, 04:35 PM
And ignorance at the same time!

Yes I beleive you are showing a lot of ignorance. No President should cow tail to foreign influence. That is what some of you want from an American President. Some of you seem to care more about what Europe thinks of us rather than what is good for us.

I don't get some of you.

Oliver...

DolFan31
08-15-2004, 04:51 PM
Yes I beleive you are showing a lot of ignorance. No President should cow tail to foreign influence. That is what some of you want from an American President. Some of you seem to care more about what Europe thinks of us rather than what is good for us.

I don't get some of you.

Oliver...

Hey buddy, look at Iraq. Then realize that YOU WANT THE WORLD'S SUPPORT!

Imagine if in WW1 and 2 Britain & France didnt have most of the world behind them and Germany, Italy, and Japan(and their allies) got stronger?

DolFan31
08-15-2004, 04:52 PM
Thought about it. And I still have no idea what you are talking about. Wasn't the last President for two terms a Democrat?

Hey, DEMS always lose the Conservative Christian vote, yet they still somehow get into office. Think about it.

Good point :up:

ohall
08-15-2004, 04:55 PM
Hey buddy, look at Iraq. Then realize that YOU WANT THE WORLD'S SUPPORT!

Imagine if in WW1 and 2 Britain & France didnt have most of the world behind them and Germany, Italy, and Japan(and their allies) got stronger?

Sorry man, you are just lost. The type of help France, Germany were going to give us was not worth what we had to give up. Ever since WW2 America has taken on a 85% burden when the UN is involved.

This is not a conventional war, and to apply conventional war logic is the wrong thing to do. Further there was nothing we could have given to France and Germany short of 100% profit sharing in Iraq for 2 or 3% troop support that is.

Oliver...

ohall
08-15-2004, 04:57 PM
Thought about it. And I still have no idea what you are talking about. Wasn't the last President for two terms a Democrat?

Hey, DEMS always lose the Conservative Christian vote, yet they still somehow get into office. Think about it.

ROFL!

EXACTLY!

I'm glad one of you is able to think! By him not going to cowtail to the NAACP he gained more than he lost, because if he went and did that he would have lost many ppl within his base.

Oliver...

Bling
08-15-2004, 04:59 PM
Thought about it. And I still have no idea what you are talking about. Wasn't the last President for two terms a Democrat?

Hey, DEMS always lose the Conservative Christian vote, yet they still somehow get into office. Think about it.

Democrats will never get the Christian vote...... but in another 20 years, the black community might become balanced.

DolFan31
08-15-2004, 04:59 PM
ROFL!

EXACTLY!

I'm glad one of you is able to think! By him not going to cowtail to the NAACP he gained more than he lost, because if he went and did that he would have lost many ppl within his base.

Oliver...

Ya, that'll teach those pesky black voters. :rolleyes:

ohall
08-15-2004, 05:04 PM
Ya, that'll teach those pesky black voters. :rolleyes:

There you go again. This is not about black voters, this is about keeping your base in order. In a dif enviroment Bush or another canidate could think about bringing in the other canidates base. This is not one of those elections.

Are you sure you are keeping up with this current election?

Oliver...

DolFan31
08-15-2004, 05:05 PM
Sorry man, you are just lost. The type of help France, Germany were going to give us was not worth what we had to give up. Ever since WW2 America has taken on a 85% burden when the UN is involved.

This is not a conventional war, and to apply conventional war logic is the wrong thing to do. Further there was nothing we could have given to France and Germany short of 100% profit sharing in Iraq for 2 or 3% troop support that is.

Oliver...

You really need to read up on World and American History. Since Im still in high school(and doing my own research as much as I can), Im quite fresh with my history. In addition, you also missed my point. We need the world's help, and countries that actually have militaries, like France, Germany and Russia, not Guam, Albania, Afganistan, Uzbekistan, Ecuador, Columbia, and such. Iraq is a security nightmare, and its because of lack of enough troops on the ground to keep order. Its quite obvious. Had we stopped being so stubborn, and kissed their asses, we wouldnt have half the problems we have now. Sure they would still be an insurgency, but it wouldve been a lot more controlled than it is now. As far as rebuilding Germany and Japan post-World War II ,we also had the help of our allies in helping to rebuild those countries as well as their own.

ohall
08-15-2004, 05:08 PM
You really need to read up on World and American History. Since Im still in high school(and doing my own research as much as I can), Im quite fresh with my history. In addition, you also missed my point. We need the world's help, and countries that actually have militaries, like France, Germany and Russia, not Guam, Albania, Afganistan, Uzbekistan, Ecuador, Columbia, and such. Iraq is a security nightmare, and its because of lack of enough troops on the ground to keep order. Its quite obvious. Had we stopped being so stubborn, and kissed their asses, we wouldnt have half the problems we have now. Sure they would still be an insurgency, but it wouldve been a lot more controlled than it is now. As far as rebuilding Germany and Japan post-World War II ,we also had the help of our allies in helping to rebuild those countries as well as their own.

Do me and yourself a favor, re-read my previous post and then get back to me.

You are showing your ignorance and how the UN works and the type of role we play within the UN. The lies lies Kerry are telling about the UN only works for ppl like you. Go and learn about the UN, please!

Oliver...

DolFan31
08-15-2004, 05:13 PM
Do me and yourself a favor, re-read my previous post and then get back to me.

You are showing your ignorance and how the UN works and the type of role we play within the UN. The lies lies Kerry are telling about the UN only works for ppl like you. Go and learn about the UN, please!

Oliver...

*sigh*.. Yes, we play a significant role in the UN. Yes, we practically own the UN. But, why is it such a bad thign to include countries in the rebuilding process of Iraq? Sure, we didnt need to them to oust Saddam, but we need as much troops as we can to keep order and rebuild. So tell me what lies has Kerry said regaurding the US's role in UN? I think Id rather trust his word than yours, considering he has been a Senator and a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. I would think he knows more about the US-UN than you would.

ABrownLamp
08-15-2004, 07:41 PM
ROFL!

EXACTLY!

I'm glad one of you is able to think! By him not going to cowtail to the NAACP he gained more than he lost, because if he went and did that he would have lost many ppl within his base.

Oliver...I agree to some extent. I wouldn't speak at a convention where I wasn't welcomed. However, the difference is that I am not President of the free world. I don't represent everyone in the nation.

I can't believe you are telling me that if he went you would not go out and vote. That's ridiculous. At this point you know who you are voting for. Bush is not the best man for the job. Kerry is not the best man for the job. You are voting for who will do less damage to the country. This election is less about who we want in office than it is about who we don't want. I think you know that. I think everyone knows that. That is why going/ not going to the convention really doesn't make a difference in the eyes of voters. No one that was going to vote for Bush would have voted Kerry had he gone, ESPECIALLY HIS BASE.

ohall
08-15-2004, 09:06 PM
I agree to some extent. I wouldn't speak at a convention where I wasn't welcomed. However, the difference is that I am not President of the free world. I don't represent everyone in the nation.

I can't believe you are telling me that if he went you would not go out and vote. That's ridiculous. At this point you know who you are voting for. Bush is not the best man for the job. Kerry is not the best man for the job. You are voting for who will do less damage to the country. This election is less about who we want in office than it is about who we don't want. I think you know that. I think everyone knows that. That is why going/ not going to the convention really doesn't make a difference in the eyes of voters. No one that was going to vote for Bush would have voted Kerry had he gone, ESPECIALLY HIS BASE.

The NAACP does not speak for blacks. The President spoke to a black org recently, I foget the name. He has made his case to the black vote, he just wouldn't cowtail to the over the top NAACP and I support his decision 100%. He should never return until their is a public apology for their over the top comments about him and Hitler. The NAACP has been taken over by left wing wackos.

Yup if he went to the NAACP after they insulted him I wouldn't have been voting. Like I said I would have lost all respect for him at that point. That would go for any politician who would act like a coward looking to beg for votes at that level.

Oliver...

DolFan31
08-15-2004, 09:11 PM
The NAACP does not speak for blacks. The President spoke to a black org recently, I foget the name. He has made his case to the black vote, he just wouldn't cowtail to the over the top NAACP and I support his decision 100%. He should never return until their is a public apology for their over the top comments about him and Hitler. The NAACP has been taken over by left wing wackos.

Oliver...

I agree that..

1.The NAACP does not speak for blacks

2.Comparing Bush to Hitler is just wrong.

3.There should be a public apology.

However, and I think you can agree with this, Bush needs to do a better job appealing to African Americans. Not the brown-nose, quoting MLK all the time stuff the Dems do, but something creative. Same goes for Kerry. Im tired of candidates from both parties doing the same thing regaurding the African-American community. To me it seems they are a forgotten demographic.

ohall
08-15-2004, 09:23 PM
I agree that..

1.The NAACP does not speak for blacks

2.Comparing Bush to Hitler is just wrong.

3.There should be a public apology.

However, and I think you can agree with this, Bush needs to do a better job appealing to African Americans. Not the brown-nose, quoting MLK all the time stuff the Dems do, but something creative. Same goes for Kerry. Im tired of candidates from both parties doing the same thing regaurding the African-American community. To me it seems they are a forgotten demographic.

The entire REP party has to do a better job making blacks/all minorities understand they are choosing poorly by constantly voting DEM. One day this 50-year class war fare being run by the DEM's will back fire on them.

The REP party has done as much if not more for minorities yet most minorities seem to think the opposite. Pop culture does more to help the DEM Party in this area than anything else IMO. Perception is always strong than reality.

Oliver...

DolFan31
08-15-2004, 09:35 PM
The entire REP party has to do a better job making blacks/all minorities understand they are choosing poorly by constantly voting DEM. One day this 50-year class war fare being run by the DEM's will back fire on them.

The REP party has done as much if not more for minorities yet most minorities seem to think the opposite. Pop culture does more to help the DEM Party in this area than anything else IMO. Perception is always strong than reality.

Oliver...

Im trying to seek middle ground with you and all you do is play partisian politics with me.

But I agree somewhat, the REP party needs to do a better job at explaining that getting rid of Affirmative Action is nessasary since it is reverse discrimination and its like passing kids who fail grades, yes they are advancing but theyre not learning.

ohall
08-15-2004, 10:15 PM
Im trying to seek middle ground with you and all you do is play partisian politics with me.

But I agree somewhat, the REP party needs to do a better job at explaining that getting rid of Affirmative Action is nessasary since it is reverse discrimination and its like passing kids who fail grades, yes they are advancing but theyre not learning.

Liberals are the ones who want students to be moved thru school without the proper grades. Conservatives are the ones that want no student to get a passing grade unless they actually earn that grade.

As I said, one day this class warfare that is being waged on the REP party by the DEM party will backfire on them.

I'm not seking any middle ground with you on this. I am not a member of a political party that sanctions the NAACP which is an over the top ORG that says our current President is like Hitler. They should go after the NAACP, they should not be hugging their azzes. Honestly why would I want to find any middle ground on this issue? There is no middle ground on this issue for me.

Oliver...

DolFan31
08-15-2004, 10:22 PM
Liberals are the ones who want students to be moved thru school without the proper grades. Conservatives are the ones that want no student to get a passing grade unless they actually earn that grade.

As I said, one day this class warfare that is being waged on the REP party by the DEM party will backfire on them.

I'm not seking any middle ground with you on this. I am not a member of a political party that sanctions the NAACP which is an over the top ORG that says our current President is like Hitler. They should go after the NAACP, they should not be hugging their azzes. Honestly why would I want to find any middle ground on this issue? There is no middle ground on this issue for me.

Oliver...

The REP party has ORGs that are equally as over the top. Try The Project for a New American Century, and some religious right ORGs and other ORGs like those(Id name some more but its my bedtime lol).

PhinPhan1227
08-15-2004, 11:41 PM
You really need to read up on World and American History. Since Im still in high school(and doing my own research as much as I can), Im quite fresh with my history. In addition, you also missed my point. We need the world's help, and countries that actually have militaries, like France, Germany and Russia, not Guam, Albania, Afganistan, Uzbekistan, Ecuador, Columbia, and such. Iraq is a security nightmare, and its because of lack of enough troops on the ground to keep order. Its quite obvious. Had we stopped being so stubborn, and kissed their asses, we wouldnt have half the problems we have now. Sure they would still be an insurgency, but it wouldve been a lot more controlled than it is now. As far as rebuilding Germany and Japan post-World War II ,we also had the help of our allies in helping to rebuild those countries as well as their own.


Here's the problem. Yes, we want their help. But if the only weay we will do anything is with their help than we are no longer independant. We then are subject to THIER will, rather than ours. France declared that NO MATTER what happened, no MATTER what evidence was produced, they would veto the effort. Sorry, but when someone makes that declaration the only thing you can do is tell them to go screw themselves. BTW, take a look again at the first Guld War's coalition. Other than the US and England, the "Coalition" made up something like 1% of the troops involved.

PhinPhan1227
08-15-2004, 11:47 PM
I agree that..

1.The NAACP does not speak for blacks

2.Comparing Bush to Hitler is just wrong.

3.There should be a public apology.

However, and I think you can agree with this, Bush needs to do a better job appealing to African Americans. Not the brown-nose, quoting MLK all the time stuff the Dems do, but something creative. Same goes for Kerry. Im tired of candidates from both parties doing the same thing regaurding the African-American community. To me it seems they are a forgotten demographic.

#1-I despise the term "African American". It's utter bull-$hit. I have friends who were born in Nigeria. THEY are African Americans. If Black Americans need a label, they can use white, brown, whatever, but they are NOT African Americans. I loved a recent story of a South African kid in a school recently who nominated himself for the schools "African American of the Month" award. The kid was white but was CERTAINLY an African American. Christ, my father was Cuban. Doesn't make me a Cuban American. Maybe an American of Cuban decent, but not a Cuban American.

#2-As soon as the NAACP turned their backs on Powell and Rice they lost any claim to be concerned over the advancement of colored people. They should change their name to the NAALDCP.

ABrownLamp
08-15-2004, 11:51 PM
Liberals are the ones who want students to be moved thru school without the proper grades. Conservatives are the ones that want no student to get a passing grade unless they actually earn that grade.

As I said, one day this class warfare that is being waged on the REP party by the DEM party will backfire on them.

I'm not seking any middle ground with you on this. I am not a member of a political party that sanctions the NAACP which is an over the top ORG that says our current President is like Hitler. They should go after the NAACP, they should not be hugging their azzes. Honestly why would I want to find any middle ground on this issue? There is no middle ground on this issue for me.

Oliver...
That is total BS. don't tell me that DEMS want students to be moved thru school without the proper grades when the No Child Left Behind policy does exactly that. If you look at what happened in Houston you would understand. I will give you a link tomorrow about the "miracle in Houston" when GWB was governor. The No Child Left Behind policy forbids certain schools from receiving funding if they havn't exceeded certain standards set forth by administration. So what happens is that schools kick out failing students who are not doing well so that they can meet standards. It's total BS.

You can demonize the NCAAP all you want. But the fact is that Christian coalitions segregate ANYONE who has ideals which differ from what the Bible tells them. We are all going to Hell as far as they are concerned. What is the difference? This is GWBs base. Your clairvoyance into the future about the future of black votes is about as realistic as Christians seeing the light and voting DEM. It will never happen. There is a history of neglect. Let's be honest, REPS are not looking out for the interest of miorities like DEMS aren't looking out for the interest of the upper class.

There is no middle ground. And when GWB decides to neglect those that despise him, the gap grows wider

PhinPhan1227
08-15-2004, 11:58 PM
That is total BS. don't tell me that DEMS want students to be moved thru school without the proper grades when the No Child Left Behind policy does exactly that. If you look at what happened in Houston you would understand. I will give you a link tomorrow about the "miracle in Houston" when GWB was governor. The No Child Left Behind policy forbids certain schools from receiving funding if they havn't exceeded certain standards set forth by administration. So what happens is that schools kick out failing students who are not doing well so that they can meet standards. It's total BS.

You can demonize the NCAAP all you want. But the fact is that Christian coalitions segregate ANYONE who has ideals which differ from what the Bible tells them. We are all going to Hell as far as they are concerned. What is the difference? This is GWBs base. Your clairvoyance into the future about the future of black votes is about as realistic as Christians seeing the light and voting DEM. It will never happen. There is a history of neglect. Let's be honest, REPS are not looking out for the interest of miorities like DEMS aren't looking out for the interest of the upper class.

There is no middle ground. And when GWB decides to neglect those that despise him, the gap grows wider

Ok, this must be a failing in reading comprehension. If the schools are kicking out kids who are doing poorly, than HOW are they MOVING THOSE KIDS THROUGH SCHOOL? How does "kicking out" translate to "moving through" in your world? What Ohal is talking about is the policy of advancing kids even when they have not met certain standards. What Ohall is talking about is lowering college acceptance standards for minorities, and then being surprised when those minorities have to drop out of college because they don't have basic skills. Christ there's a whole new topic...want to reduce college tuition? Teach kids to read and write so every college doesn't have to extend so many resources teaching entering Freshmen all the stuff they should have learned in High School.

ohall
08-16-2004, 12:03 AM
That is total BS. don't tell me that DEMS want students to be moved thru school without the proper grades when the No Child Left Behind policy does exactly that. If you look at what happened in Houston you would understand. I will give you a link tomorrow about the "miracle in Houston" when GWB was governor. The No Child Left Behind policy forbids certain schools from receiving funding if they havn't exceeded certain standards set forth by administration. So what happens is that schools kick out failing students who are not doing well so that they can meet standards. It's total BS.

You can demonize the NCAAP all you want. But the fact is that Christian coalitions segregate ANYONE who has ideals which differ from what the Bible tells them. We are all going to Hell as far as they are concerned. What is the difference? This is GWBs base. Your clairvoyance into the future about the future of black votes is about as realistic as Christians seeing the light and voting DEM. It will never happen. There is a history of neglect. Let's be honest, REPS are not looking out for the interest of miorities like DEMS aren't looking out for the interest of the upper class.

There is no middle ground. And when GWB decides to neglect those that despise him, the gap grows wider

Are you seriously trying to tell me that conservatives are the ones who made it possible for so many students to be pushed up to a grade they had no business being in? Get real man, seriously!

Christian right? You mean the same Christian right that started most of the black colleges in this country?! I swear, I keep telling you guys this, but this class warfare will end up biting your political party in their collective azzez one day. All it takes is a lil common sense on the issues and anyone can see who has been the minorities’ best friend. Let me tell you it ain't the DEM party. All they do is make a living off of minorities while telling them they are doing everything that is best for them. Most of it is lies.

Oliver...

ABrownLamp
08-16-2004, 12:04 AM
#1-I despise the term "African American". It's utter bull-$hit. I have friends who were born in Nigeria. THEY are African Americans. If Black Americans need a label, they can use white, brown, whatever, but they are NOT African Americans. I loved a recent story of a South African kid in a school recently who nominated himself for the schools "African American of the Month" award. The kid was white but was CERTAINLY an African American. Christ, my father was Cuban. Doesn't make me a Cuban American. Maybe an American of Cuban decent, but not a Cuban American.

#2-As soon as the NAACP turned their backs on Powell and Rice they lost any claim to be concerned over the advancement of colored people. They should change their name to the NAALDCP.
1# I agree it's stupid, but that's politics. You have to be sensitive to certain people to get their approval. That's just the way it is. It's the changing times. Tell me you don't have to think twice when you say the word "black" as opposed to African American. Clinton knows the Black national anthem by heart. I didn't even know there was a black national anthem. That's what gets Presidents elected. My girlfried got a scholarship into law school for being African American because her mother is from Morrocco. She is as white as I am. It's ridiculous.

2# You have to admit that the REP priority is not aimed at the Black populous. And that isn't because they are Black, it's becase most Blacks are poor. Let's not be PC about it. Trickle down economics hits the lowest class last, or when it has reached its maturity. Thus, minorities are neglected by the REP party.

ABrownLamp
08-16-2004, 12:15 AM
Ok, this must be a failing in reading comprehension. If the schools are kicking out kids who are doing poorly, than HOW are they MOVING THOSE KIDS THROUGH SCHOOL? How does "kicking out" translate to "moving through" in your world? What Ohal is talking about is the policy of advancing kids even when they have not met certain standards. What Ohall is talking about is lowering college acceptance standards for minorities, and then being surprised when those minorities have to drop out of college because they don't have basic skills. Christ there's a whole new topic...want to reduce college tuition? Teach kids to read and write so every college doesn't have to extend so many resources teaching entering Freshmen all the stuff they should have learned in High School.
Because they are keeping the ones that succeed. Seriously. I have just come back from a bar. I can't canvass the internet for a link right now. If you really care and you have to di it tonight google "the miracle in Houston" and you will see what I am talking about. Otherwise, I will give it to you tommorrow.

As far as college acceptance standards...who cares. If you fail you fail. I fully support affirmative action in college, but I think it should end after that. I understand that there are certain hardships growing up that I did not face growing up in one of the wealthier parts of Miami (Pinecrest) Lets give these kids a shot at succedding. If they can't hack it, then they can't hack it. What is excessive is affirmative action in the workforce. I graduated just like they did. If they aren't the right man for the job then that should be that. Period.

ABrownLamp
08-16-2004, 12:20 AM
Are you seriously trying to tell me that conservatives are the ones who made it possible for so many students to be pushed up to a grade they had no business being in? Get real man, seriously!

Christian right? You mean the same Christian right that started most of the black colleges in this country?! I swear, I keep telling you guys this, but this class warfare will end up biting your political party in their collective azzez one day. All it takes is a lil common sense on the issues and anyone can see who has been the minorities’ best friend. Let me tell you it ain't the DEM party. All they do is make a living off of minorities while telling them they are doing everything that is best for them. Most of it is lies.

Oliver...


Which Black colleges are you talking about. Moorehouse? Howard? Spellman?They are about as non religious as any other college. Which one are you referring to? I can't beleive you are trying to claim REP victory for minority advancement. There is a reason they are 90% DEM.

PhinPhan1227
08-16-2004, 12:20 AM
1# I agree it's stupid, but that's politics. You have to be sensitive to certain people to get their approval. That's just the way it is. It's the changing times. Tell me you don't have to think twice when you say the word "black" as opposed to African American. Clinton knows the Black national anthem by heart. I didn't even know there was a black national anthem. That's what gets Presidents elected. My girlfried got a scholarship into law school for being African American because her mother is from Morrocco. She is as white as I am. It's ridiculous.

2# You have to admit that the REP priority is not aimed at the Black populous. And that isn't because they are Black, it's becase most Blacks are poor. Let's not be PC about it. Trickle down economics hits the lowest class last, or when it has reached its maturity. Thus, minorities are neglected by the REP party.

Actually the "African American/Black" thing is a hot button for me, so no, I don't concern myself that someone has picked a new arbitrary label for themselves. Especially not when that person probably has no problem with the Washington Redskins using a name that is as offensive as the N word. As to the rest, the Rep priority is responsability. The mindset that the people who want to succeed will succeed if you you leave them alone. The Dem mindset is that the government can take care of you better than you can take care of yourself. If both groups actually stuck to those core values I would be a sscreaming Republican. Unfortunately the Moral Right screws the pooch.

PhinPhan1227
08-16-2004, 12:26 AM
Because they are keeping the ones that succeed. Seriously. I have just come back from a bar. I can't canvass the internet for a link right now. If you really care and you have to di it tonight google "the miracle in Houston" and you will see what I am talking about. Otherwise, I will give it to you tommorrow.

As far as college acceptance standards...who cares. If you fail you fail. I fully support affirmative action in college, but I think it should end after that. I understand that there are certain hardships growing up that I did not face growing up in one of the wealthier parts of Miami (Pinecrest) Lets give these kids a shot at succedding. If they can't hack it, then they can't hack it. What is excessive is affirmative action in the workforce. I graduated just like they did. If they aren't the right man for the job then that should be that. Period.


You're not understanding something obviously. The compalint is that the Dem mindset is to push students through WHETHER THEY ARE LEARNING OR NOT. If you are kicking out failing students, than you are NOT pushing students through. The two actions are mutually exclusive, they can't exist in the same place at the same time. As for AA, it's one of the most evil thing sI have ever seen. Who cares what happens when they fail? I care what happens when they fail. If you can't meet the standards of a University right out of High School, go to Community College, LEARN what you need to learn, and THEN go to a University. Nobody is going to care if you went to Georgetown for 4 years or 2 years when they read your resume...only that you got that degree. By allowing kids into schools they AREN'T PREPARED FOR you are SETTING THEM UP TO FAIL. That's evil. That's racist. Same thing with jobs. Take a look at the reporter a couple of years ago who was hired by a major newspaper in a "Diversity" program. The man wasn't qualified...cheated to try and keep his job, and wound up being a national disgrace. That program didn't help him, and it CERTAINLY didn't advance his "race".

ABrownLamp
08-16-2004, 12:42 AM
Actually the "African American/Black" thing is a hot button for me, so no, I don't concern myself that someone has picked a new arbitrary label for themselves. Especially not when that person probably has no problem with the Washington Redskins using a name that is as offensive as the N word. As to the rest, the Rep priority is responsability. The mindset that the people who want to succeed will succeed if you you leave them alone. The Dem mindset is that the government can take care of you better than you can take care of yourself. If both groups actually stuck to those core values I would be a sscreaming Republican. Unfortunately the Moral Right screws the pooch.
So you can say the word "black man" with confidence around blacks? I can't. The American Indian is a race long forgotten by American culture. I agree with you, but as of right now, Redskin is acceptable.

People will succeed if you allow them, but perspectives of succeeding in life and what success in life is changes as you get older. Thus, successs as a teenager (your own car, being able to beat everyone up) is much different than it is in your 20's (money, good future prospects) and even more different wen you are 30 (job security, money, good job). You can't leave destitute teenagers living in the hood as teenagers with nothing but what they grew up with and expect them to advance. That is why the government needs to step in. That is why they get certain privelages. And that is why I say, let them have their chance in college. If they screw up...then at least we know we gave them a chance.

ohall
08-16-2004, 12:53 AM
Which Black colleges are you talking about. Moorehouse? Howard? Spellman?They are about as non religious as any other college. Which one are you referring to? I can't beleive you are trying to claim REP victory for minority advancement. There is a reason they are 90% DEM.

Most colleges were founded by christians, you know churches. This includes black colleges. Do a lil homework bud, you'll feel a lot better when you actually look into things.

Reality is often contrary to popular perception.

Oliver...

PhinPhan1227
08-16-2004, 12:57 AM
So you can say the word "black man" with confidence around blacks? I can't. The American Indian is a race long forgotten by American culture. I agree with you, but as of right now, Redskin is acceptable.

People will succeed if you allow them, but perspectives of succeeding in life and what success in life is changes as you get older. Thus, successs as a teenager (your own car, being able to beat everyone up) is much different than it is in your 20's (money, good future prospects) and even more different wen you are 30 (job security, money, good job). You can't leave destitute teenagers living in the hood as teenagers with nothing but what they grew up with and expect them to advance. That is why the government needs to step in. That is why they get certain privelages. And that is why I say, let them have their chance in college. If they screw up...then at least we know we gave them a chance.


Yep. I never use the term African American and I've never had anyone complain. If they do I will be happy to explain my reasons, but it hasn't come up. Lol...honestly, the first thing I would probably say is why are they upset about not being called an African American when they aren't calling white people "European American". As for the rest, sorry, no. I DO agree that a person who comes from a lower economic status should have a SLIGHT advantage. And most schools give that some weight. But going by race is a different matter(and many scholls give race HUGE weight). A poor white kid deserves just as much consideration as a poor black kid. All that aside, a destitute kid in a ghetto has a MUCH better chance of succeeding by going to Community College and THEN going to a University if they can hack it. They haven't racked up $30,000 in student loans "just to see if they can hack it", and they haven't been SET UP to fail. Seriously, HOW are you helping a kid by sending them to a University that has standards THEY DON' T MEET? The OVERWHELMING number are going to(and do) fail that way. I don't have time to look up the stats, but minority kids who go through CC's before going to a University have a MUCH higher graduation rate than monority kids who go straight to University. You aren't "giving them a chance", unless they actually HAVE a chance. All you are doing is making yourself feel good by "giving the poor black kid" a free pass. PRoblem is, the free pass is bogus, because it doesn't go anywhere.

ABrownLamp
08-16-2004, 01:01 PM
Most colleges were founded by christians, you know churches. This includes black colleges. Do a lil homework bud, you'll feel a lot better when you actually look into things.

Reality is often contrary to popular perception.

Oliver...
Who cares who founded those universities? Dude that was over 100 years ago. What does that have to do with today. Those are all secular institutions now. How did we even get to this topic? You were in the middle of demonizing the NCAAP for chastizing Bush, saying one day they will see the light and make a shift towards the REP party. And I was simply stating that that is about as likely as Chrisitan Coalitions making a move towards the left. Not going to happen anytime soon...especially when you ignore the other party.

ABrownLamp
08-16-2004, 01:26 PM
Yep. I never use the term African American and I've never had anyone complain. If they do I will be happy to explain my reasons, but it hasn't come up. Lol...honestly, the first thing I would probably say is why are they upset about not being called an African American when they aren't calling white people "European American". As for the rest, sorry, no. I DO agree that a person who comes from a lower economic status should have a SLIGHT advantage. And most schools give that some weight. But going by race is a different matter(and many scholls give race HUGE weight). A poor white kid deserves just as much consideration as a poor black kid. All that aside, a destitute kid in a ghetto has a MUCH better chance of succeeding by going to Community College and THEN going to a University if they can hack it. They haven't racked up $30,000 in student loans "just to see if they can hack it", and they haven't been SET UP to fail. Seriously, HOW are you helping a kid by sending them to a University that has standards THEY DON' T MEET? The OVERWHELMING number are going to(and do) fail that way. I don't have time to look up the stats, but minority kids who go through CC's before going to a University have a MUCH higher graduation rate than monority kids who go straight to University. You aren't "giving them a chance", unless they actually HAVE a chance. All you are doing is making yourself feel good by "giving the poor black kid" a free pass. PRoblem is, the free pass is bogus, because it doesn't go anywhere.
You probably have an easier time with saying "black" because you weren't brought up in the same age I was. I've been kind of force fed that one is appropriate and the other may be construed as rude. Hey I think it's as stupid as you do.

As far as university acceptance goes. It's more than just about being poor. There is a history of racial discrimination that this whole process was created for. They have PLENTY of free help and assistance programs in college to help students that do not have appropriate educational backgrounds. At FSU, freshman have to pass an English and Math competancy test before they can even take college level work. If they don't pass they have to take remedial-non credit hour courses. You really have to put forth some effort to not succeed in college. I don't know the statistics either, but I am sure that you are right that minorities that pass comm college have a higher college graduation rate than otherwise. But that is a loaded statistic. Why don't you compare the minorities that start off in CC and those that start off in college and compare graduation rates. I am sure that you will find those starting in college graduate at a significantly higher rate.

PhinPhan1227
08-16-2004, 03:32 PM
You probably have an easier time with saying "black" because you weren't brought up in the same age I was. I've been kind of force fed that one is appropriate and the other may be construed as rude. Hey I think it's as stupid as you do.

As far as university acceptance goes. It's more than just about being poor. There is a history of racial discrimination that this whole process was created for. They have PLENTY of free help and assistance programs in college to help students that do not have appropriate educational backgrounds. At FSU, freshman have to pass an English and Math competancy test before they can even take college level work. If they don't pass they have to take remedial-non credit hour courses. You really have to put forth some effort to not succeed in college. I don't know the statistics either, but I am sure that you are right that minorities that pass comm college have a higher college graduation rate than otherwise. But that is a loaded statistic. Why don't you compare the minorities that start off in CC and those that start off in college and compare graduation rates. I am sure that you will find those starting in college graduate at a significantly higher rate.


You misunderstood me. Minorities that START in CC and then transfer to a University have a higher FOUR year graduation rate than minorities who start out in a four year university. Part of that is because if a student needs to spend 1-2 years taking remedial courses they are racking up costs all that time even though they are not progressing towards a degree. It's not only frustratijng, it's also VERY expensive. One other thing, even in good remedial courses at a four year college, there is stil a MUCH higher student to teacher rate than at a CC.

ohall
08-16-2004, 04:32 PM
Who cares who founded those universities? Dude that was over 100 years ago. What does that have to do with today. Those are all secular institutions now. How did we even get to this topic? You were in the middle of demonizing the NCAAP for chastizing Bush, saying one day they will see the light and make a shift towards the REP party. And I was simply stating that that is about as likely as Chrisitan Coalitions making a move towards the left. Not going to happen anytime soon...especially when you ignore the other party.

Let's see, if they didn't found them odds are they WOULDN'T BE AROUND TODAY!

What's wrong with you anyway?

Oliver...

ABrownLamp
08-16-2004, 05:31 PM
Let's see, if they didn't found them odds are they WOULDN'T BE AROUND TODAY!

What's wrong with you anyway?

Oliver...

Oy. Seriously, this is the most nonsequitor conversation I've ever had. What are we debating here anyway? I don't even care about those schools.

ABrownLamp
08-16-2004, 05:49 PM
You misunderstood me. Minorities that START in CC and then transfer to a University have a higher FOUR year graduation rate than minorities who start out in a four year university. Part of that is because if a student needs to spend 1-2 years taking remedial courses they are racking up costs all that time even though they are not progressing towards a degree. It's not only frustratijng, it's also VERY expensive. One other thing, even in good remedial courses at a four year college, there is stil a MUCH higher student to teacher rate than at a CC.

The rigors of basic liberal arts requirement classes are not that much different in CC than they are in most state universities. I can tell you this from personal experience. Thus a student going to CC does not benefit much outside of cost (which is about 60 dollars per credit to 90 per credit in FL). If that student has a desire and ability to learn, they will learn. College or CC. A student does not need to spend 1 or 2 years working remedial courses in college. There are only about 2 or 3 remedial classes you can take.

Again you say "Minorities that START in CC and then transfer to a University have a higher FOUR year graduation rate" Which is exactly my point. It is a loaded statistic. Of course, people that have the drive to learn and that have succeeded through 2 years of higher course work will have a higher percentage of college degrees than the percentage of regular kids straight out of high school attending college for the first time. Which is why I posed the question, compare kids that START their first years of education after high school in CC to those that START in college, and tell me who has the higher percentage of degree attainment.

ohall
08-16-2004, 06:00 PM
Oy. Seriously, this is the most nonsequitor conversation I've ever had. What are we debating here anyway? I don't even care about those schools.

Umm, indeed.

Oliver...

PhinPhan1227
08-16-2004, 08:02 PM
The rigors of basic liberal arts requirement classes are not that much different in CC than they are in most state universities. I can tell you this from personal experience. Thus a student going to CC does not benefit much outside of cost (which is about 60 dollars per credit to 90 per credit in FL). If that student has a desire and ability to learn, they will learn. College or CC. A student does not need to spend 1 or 2 years working remedial courses in college. There are only about 2 or 3 remedial classes you can take.

Again you say "Minorities that START in CC and then transfer to a University have a higher FOUR year graduation rate" Which is exactly my point. It is a loaded statistic. Of course, people that have the drive to learn and that have succeeded through 2 years of higher course work will have a higher percentage of college degrees than the percentage of regular kids straight out of high school attending college for the first time. Which is why I posed the question, compare kids that START their first years of education after high school in CC to those that START in college, and tell me who has the higher percentage of degree attainment.

I never said anything about kids who GRADUATE from CC. I stated kids who START in CC. That's the stat I read. I would assume that kids who get their Associates would have an even higher graduation rate, but that's not what I was talking about. And as for CC being easier, I'm not talking about the curriculum, I'm talking about the environment(also from personal experience). CC has MUCH smaller teacher to student ratios. In some classes by a factor of 1/10th the students(20 students in an average CC Chemistry class to 200 fr a University). That alone is a HUGE advantage. Add to that the flexibility of a CC which is generally geared more towards students that may be working while going to school and the GREATLY reduced cost and you have much of the diffference. Especially for a poor kid, WHEN they can attend class, as well as how much time they have to work in ADDITION to going to class can make all the difference in the world.

DolFan31
08-16-2004, 08:34 PM
Actually PP, technically we're all African Americans. History and uncovered evidence has shown many hints that human life began in Africa. So I think its safe to call blacks or anyone in this country that are citizens African Americans. :D

PhinPhan1227
08-16-2004, 10:33 PM
Actually PP, technically we're all African Americans. History and uncovered evidence has shown many hints that human life began in Africa. So I think its safe to call blacks or anyone in this country that are citizens African Americans. :D


Different schools of thought on that. There is still a lot of evidence for convergent evolution. All that aside, if life DID begin in Africa than I have no problem with everyone claiming that title. Just so long as nobody expects some kid from Detroit to have exclussive rights to it :evil: