Thread: looks like Bush got in again for another four years....

If both candidates tie, then the Senate chooses the Vice President, while the House of Representatives chooses the President

DDT: I agree it's not just a Replublican issue, both parties approved the bill by quite a majority.

What you have to ask yourself is, given the nature of the act, do you believe that everyone who voted it through had had time to both read and understand it before voting for it?

And secondly, do you think they'd all have voted for it, had it been called the USA-REVOCATION-OF-LIBERTY Act instead of the USAPATRIOT Act?

Call me a cynic...

Originally Posted by BlackMage

Originally Posted by Janice McNay

This isn’t really true. Gore really got more votes in Florida, but the election was stolen from Gore in Florida by very clever and BAD people.

See when you throw rubbish like this into a completely unbiased and informative explanation, you look dumb. You have no credible evidence of this radical and childish claim. If you had, Gore would have been awarded the presidency.

I see no cogent point to your invective. My claim was actually quite serious, but written in a fecetious manner. I used the word 'bad' as a child might use it. I do not believe that makes me 'childish'. No matter what, they certainly were quite clever.
(I forget the woman's name who designed the lamentable and infamous 'butterfly ballot', but she was a Democrat at the time. Several months later, she changed to Republican. All well and good, but I would lay a large bet that the Republican Party of Florida keeps her far, far away from the ballot design division.)
Look, Pat Buchanan has said himself that thousands of old Jews probably didn't mean to vote for him. It is also obvious to Buchanan that the several thousand older Jews who voted for him had actually made a mistake and intended to vote for Gore.
Buchanan believes that, if the 'butterfly ballot' in use hadn't been so confusing, Gore would have won Florida in 2000 and become President. Merely because many believe something, and have credible evidence for their belief, oft-times changes nothing. That is why Bush became president. You cannot believe that if I had " 'credible evidence' " that Gore would have been President. There WAS credible evidence. Hell, there was INCONTROVERTIBLE evidence. There was no legal mechanism to use the evidence, nor, I believe, should there have been.
Yes, you were right when you wrote that it didn't really belong in that post. It was a misguided attempt at humor, even a 'dumb' one.
I noted with interest that you did not argue with my assertion that Nixon almost undoubtedly won the majority of popular votes in 1960, though this is never written about in school History texts.
NOTHING in my post was 'radical', if you mean by that an opinion that strongly conflicts with some commonly held view. There are millions of people in this country who would agree that more citizens left the voting booths in Florida believing they had voted for Gore than the number of those who believed they had voted for Bush.

Originally Posted by waxwing

Beg, borrow or steal a copy of the new BBC documentary series 'The Power of Nightmares' - it's outstanding, especially the third part.

I've seen the first part of this series. I was not too impressed. The writers premis was opposite of reality to begin with and very black and white in their assesments. Both liberals and conservatives are guilty of suppressing freedoms, in the real world. The writers have drawn their conclusion from the way they see world events unfold. Good for them. I have drawn mine. I mean, this is kind of like "Charton Heston reviews Farenheit 911", here. (that is, me watching this)
But since you mentioned the third part..... and there are some interesting points in what I have seen so far, I will make a point to watch the rest.

Well of course it has a viewpoint that many would consider extreme, and I can easily understand that you might think it is describing the opposite of reality.
Also I think you shouldn't confuse the abstract idea of liberalism which is described as part of modern Western culture with any specific group of liberals, say in the US political scene. For that reason I'm not sure what you mean when you say 'liberals are guilty of suppressing freedoms'.
I think you have to see the third part because that's where you get the payoff. One of the premises of the 3rd part is that Al Qaeda does not exist. Hope that got your attention!
Another idea in the third part is that the neocons have coopted an idea from the Green movement of the 1980s, namely the 'Precautionary Principle', which states that even in the absence of evidence, we must take action against a potential evil, because by the time we have found concrete evidence it may be too late. Hence the USA is and has been locking people up without any evidence of their committing a crime, but only based on the belief that they want to commit a crime in the future.

Originally Posted by waxwing

.
Also I think you shouldn't confuse the abstract idea of liberalism which is described as part of modern Western culture with any specific group of liberals, say in the US political scene. For that reason I'm not sure what you mean when you say 'liberals are guilty of suppressing freedoms'.
want to commit a crime in the future.

No I was not confusing liberalism with a specific group any more than the documentary appeared to.
I have watched all three parts now. Most of the documentary did not tell me anything more than I already knew or suspected. Parts of the documentary I did not know and I fully believe. ( Part Three). Such as the non-existence of Alqueda and the patheteic attempt of the FBI (or any law enforcement agency) to "prove" the innocent guilty. Yes, much of it I believe to be fact, I guess parts that I had a problem with were simply the conclusions drawn by the authors at times. Of course not everything that can be stated, will be said in a documentary. I would like to see a rebuttal documentary on "The Power of Nightmares" put out by an independant group. Personally I think that our world problems are far bigger than Bush, Kerry, Blair, conservative or liberal and that we "pions" are more likely to be affected by the Committee of 300 or similar offshoot.

If ayone wants to watch this documentary The Power of Nightmares it can be seen here.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1037.htm

Originally Posted by DDT

Personally I think that our world problems are far bigger than Bush, Kerry, Blair, conservative or liberal and that we "pions" are more likely to be affected by the Committee of 300 or similar offshoot.

That's because you're a crazy idiot. I'm sure you're the reason I walk into a Barnes & Noble and see "The Da Vinci Code" in the Non-fiction section.

You need to pull your head out of the sand. The Da Vinci Code may be fiction but the The Committee is not and can easily be checked. As to how much power or affect they have is debatable only. Wasn't it Kruschev who refered to them as "The Magicians" ? Perhaps one of the Russian members here knows of this?
Anyone who thinks that there are no "unseen" forces behind decisions and policies affecting our world is not only naive but ignorant of history.

Originally Posted by mike

That's because you're a crazy idiot. I'm sure you're the reason I walk into a Barnes & Noble and see "The Da Vinci Code" in the Non-fiction section.

http://sorryeverybody.com/

Originally Posted by Lampada

http://sorryeverybody.com/

You guys are embarrassing. Is anyone of the degenerates on there old enough to process thoughts? As soon as Islamofacists see that we're sure to be bombed.

Your constant attempts to be provocative serve to render you even more boring than when you take a stab at serious discussion; I'd give up if I were you. On both.

Originally Posted by joysof

Your constant attempts to be provocative serve to render you even more boring than when you take a stab at serious discussion; I'd give up if I were you. On both.

Lampada had that one coming and I don't see you adding anything to this topic either. But since you think me boring I will let these men speak for me.

The late Dr. Carroll Quigley, professor of histroy at the Foreign Service School at Georgetown University, and mentor of President Bill Clinton, clearly stated: "There does exist, and has existed for a generation, and ... international network which operates to some extent in the way the radical Right believe the Communists act. In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Groups, have no aversion to cooperating with the Communists or any othe group, and frequently do so. I know of the operation of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960s, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for most of my life, been close to it and many of its policies ... but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known" (Tragedy and Hope, Macmillan, 1966, p. 950).

In a letter to an associate dated November 21, 1933, President Franklin Roosevelt wrote, "The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson."

BENJAMIN DISRAELI, Prime Minister of England, was attributed with this statement in 1844: "The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes."

JUSTICE FELIX FRANKFURTER, U.S. Supreme Court Justice: "The real rulers in Washington are invisible and exercise power from behind the scenes.”

THOMAS JEFFERSON, U.S. President: "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a moneyed aristocracy that has set the Government at defiance. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs."

NORMAN THOMAS, For many years the U.S. Socialist Presidential candidate proclaimed: "The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of "liberalism" they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened

WINSTON CHURCHILL, Prime Minister of England, stated to the London Press in 1922: "From the days of Sparticus Wisehophf, Karl Marx, Trotski, Belacoon, Rosa Luxenburg, and Ema Goldman, this world conspiracy has been steadily growing. This conspiracy played a definite recognizable role in the tragedy of the French revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the 19th Century. And now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their head and have become the undisputed masters of that enormous empire."

Sorry, but taking uncited quotes from famous people and political leaders has never been considered a reliable way of proving an argument, except maybe on an episode of Art Bell or something. Here's a good example of your kind of debating:

"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas." George W Bush, 2002.

I guess that proves it, huh?

THOMAS JEFFERSON, U.S. President: "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a moneyed aristocracy that has set the Government at defiance. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs."

That quote has absolutely nothing to do with the Illuminati or any other crazy bullshit. Jefferson was observing the growth in corporations and private banking institutions and feared that people would become destitute and inherit massive debts from their parents if banks became too powerful. He was arguing for the creation of a public, non-profit bank, not suggesting there's some shadow government. This is exactly why it helps to bother to read something that a quote comes from to verify that the crazy internet website using it hasn't taken it out of context to deceive you. You really are a fuсking moron, you know that?

I know exactly what Jefferson was referring to and how it relates, if you don't you should be carefull who you call a moron. Most of the other quotes are self explanitory (which you have nothing to say about) and I notice you have not much to contribute to this dicussion anyway other than flipant and foolish remarks along the lines of Joysof and Lampada. Come back when you can have a civillized discussion otherwise bugger off!!!!... and perhaps someone else will feel inclined to join in without fear of ridicule from you.

Originally Posted by DDT

I know exactly what Jefferson was referring to and how it relates, if you don't you should be carefull who you call a moron.

You apparently don't.

Most of the other quotes are self explanitory (which you have nothing to say about)

I have nothing to say about them because: 1) I'm sure they're equally out of context but it would take hours to track down the sources of all of them, which isn't worth it; and 2) Every time I point out what an idiot you are you quietly move to another thread and start all over again with your insane bullshit.

and I notice you have not much to contribute to this dicussion anyway other than flipant and foolish remarks along the lines of Joysof and Lampada.

Yes, because I have a job mostly, but also because in the 2 yrs or so that I've been here, I've seen about ten people exactly like you come and go: stupid douchebags who start crazy arguments, then when they get their ass handed to them in a sling by 5 or 6 people they don't admit they were wrong, but rather just start some other crazy argument and repeat the process all over again. And what does anyone come out of it with? You aren't here to have a rational discourse, you're here to peddle your own beliefs and ignore anyone else who might prove you wrong. I can pretty much spot your type from a long distance these days, and you're no different from them in any way.

Come back when you can have a civillized discussion otherwise bugger off!!!!...

I've had several civilized discussions with you where I politely pointed out why you were wrong about something, and what happened? You either fell silent and never posted in that topic again, or else kept going and never acknowledged anything that I said. Well, it's gotten old fairly quickly.

and perhaps someone else will feel inclined to join in without fear of ridicule from you.

Then that is a silly thing for them to believe. I will always be here to ridicule them--they should not have such weak faith in my reliability.

Oh, jeez, I almost forgot. Blow me, you stupid asshole.

Never the less this thread was going along quite peaceful until you showed up with insults.

I expressed my belief that there is more to world politics than meets the eye. Now, is there anyone here who wishes to express their opinions on the above quote ( from my earlier post) by Dr Carroll Quigley?

Originally Posted by DDT

other than flipant and foolish remarks along the lines of Joysof and Lampada. Come back when you can have a civillized discussion

http://masterrussian.net/mforum/viewtop ... c&start=90

Cruel experience has taught me not to engage with you on serious matters.

Originally Posted by joysof

[
Cruel experience has taught me not to engage with you on serious matters.

I did not "out and out" call you a terrorist, (I used the qualifier "if" ) if that is what you are still sore about. I have tried not to resort to name calling, though I have been insulted called names and ridiculed. ( Which does seem to be acceptabe here, if you do it with style) I do not get angry about it ( I mean this is just forum the Internet) and I do not hold grudges against anyone. It is not likely that anyones mind will be changed overnight here so don't get mad at me if I don't seem to budge from a position. All we can really do is plant the seeds that over time may come to fruition. You and others here have already caused me to rethink some of my positions but we will probably always disagree on much. So, what I am saying is that you are still welcome to put your'e two cents in if you change your mind. I am not interested in an Internet Battle, just in what and why you think something. I believe the suject at hand is worth cosideration. But I think that perhaps this thread has "Gone to sh@t" now.

wow. Net computer war, anyone?
How savage.