Delay the US election?

Kage_Prototype said:
You do realise that if Bush delays the election, it would cause a much larger public uproar than if terrorists attacked?

considering this fella started his presidential career with a previously little known concept of a "Pregnant Chad" .. did you expect it to change appreciably in just 4 years?

delaying tactics seems to be the order of the day for our dear bush. :sad:

Orph has hit the nail on the head really well - remember that the
election is most important to ordinary Americans, and Bush has had some
dodgy policies right across the board - not just on Iraq..

I think there are plenty of reasons for wanting him out, Iraq is merely the large, sharp tip of an iceberg.

Oh, and someone mentioned that WMD had conclusively been found in Iraq

• not true. Unusable weapons grade plutonium and other "non-dangerous"

(in a military sense) nuclear material has been removed by the ISG, or
is in the hands of the IAEA.

Aside from that, a rusty old nerve gas shell has been found which dates
to the Iran/Iraq war - proving both that modern WMD's are not there,
and unlikely to be there and also that Iraq indeed has a history of
using chemical weapons.

Just not recently :/

Personally, I'm not surpised that british and CIA intelligence is being accused of being...well, crap, to put to bluntly.

I'd also like to share with you all this little humourous snippet:

Outside the government, everybody's got their pet theories on the unfolding WMD debacle. And that naturally includes members of the media. Most political pundits picked sides on the WMD debate early on, and the ones who lined up behind the White House are beginning to feel the heat.

Case in point: Fox News Channel's own Bill O'Reilly. For several months, O'Reilly was playing a little game regarding the WMD situation in Iraq. Originally, Bill was convinced that when we liberated Iraq, there would be WMDs aplenty. Back in March 2003, he went so far as to tell the Good Morning America viewers that "if the Americans go in and overthrow Saddam Hussein and it's clean, he has nothing, I will apologize to the nation, and I will not trust the Bush administration again."

Months later, after President Bush declared the end of combat operations in Iraq and still no weapons of mass destruction had been uncovered, O'Reilly started to regret those words. So he gave the White House an ultimatum to come clean about the WMDs "in the next few weeks." But when that deadline was about to expire, Bill offered a new expiration date, granting the President an additional five months. Five weeks later, when it became obvious that the administration had no intention of meeting O'Reilly's decree, Bill extended it another six months. When you add it all up, the drop-dead date was dragged out one full year. How's that for accommodating?

In effect, Bill kept hitting the snooze button on his WMD deadline to avoid (or at least postpone) apologizing to the nation and declaring his mistrust for the Bush administration, two things he probably never had any intention of doing under any circumstances. But, in the end, it became unavoidable.

date O'Reilly quote deadline
5 Jun 2003 On his television show The O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly declares: "Reasonable people are faced with two conclusions -- one, that the intelligence was wrong, or, two, that more time is needed to find the weapons. Talking Points just asks one thing from President Bush: an update on the situation in the next few weeks. That's a very reasonable request, and one the President must take seriously if he wants to advance the cause of the USA throughout the world. In the end, if the intelligence was faulty, some people have to be fired. If, God forbid, the intelligence was contrived, and I don't believe that, but if it is proven, then Congressional action must be taken." 1 Jul 2003
11 Jun 2003 On his television show The O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly declares: "It is possible the President did lie, but most of the credible evidence points to wishful thinking on WMDs, rather than outright deception. By the way, the President must tell us his feelings on the guerrilla action in Iraq and the WMDs, or risk losing popularity... We the people deserve an extensive update from the President before he goes on summer vacation. This is not a partisan issue. This is a people issue. There are things we have the right to know about, and the President must tell us." 1 Aug 2003
31 Jul 2003 On his television show The O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly declares: "We're confused about the WMDs. And Mr. Bush has an obligation to clear this up by the end of the year." 1 Jan 2004
8 Oct 2003 During his appearance on the National Public Radio interview program Fresh Air, Bill O'Reilly declares: "Well, certainly the WMD situation is troubling, okay. All Americans should demand within the next nine months -- before the Presidential candidate, uh candidates, really swing in -- for an explanation of what exactly happened. Americans will accept mistakes if mistakes were made honestly, but it needs to be defined by the Bush administration why the intelligence was faulty. And, uh, you know, there is no spin on that. They have to do it." 1 Jul 2004
10 Feb 2004 Still lacking any substantive explanations from the White House, Bill O'Reilly grudgingly apologizes on Good Morning America.

O'REILLY: Well, my analysis was wrong and I'm sorry. Absolutely, you know.
GIBSON: Camera's right there.
O'REILLY: Um, and I'm not pleased about it.
GIBSON: Camera's right there.
O'REILLY: Yeah, I just said it. What do you want me to do? Go over and kiss the camera?

http://www.rotten.com/library/history/war/wmd/saddam/

I once watched a webcast of him. He loses his temper so quickly! it's hilarious! :biggrin: I wonder if this guy is actually a trusted figure of political discussion in the US? I've heard many people claim his "no spin zone" is quite the opposite. I'm curious.

Orpheus said:
i was forced to buy 10,500+ dollars in diesel last year, this year looks even worse all because of the rising costs of fuel. sure i could get another job, but so could bush.. there are a lot more people with jobs like mine, than his.

You should try living here where petrol/diesel costs 4/5x as much, most of which is tax.

Anyway, yes this sounds very much like something to prevent what happened in Spain, and is quite pathetic really, especially this quote:

Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge warned last week that Osama bin Laden (news - web sites)'s al Qaeda network want to attack within the United States to try to disrupt the election.

Yeah, sure. Must get that info from the same person who said music and film piracy funds terrorism :rolleyes: Fair enough with this legislation if congress itself is attacked, but still if something like that happened perhaps it would be wise to take a different direction on this silly "war on terror" and get rid of your current pres. et al?

lep, i am not stupid, i realize that fuel is higher elsewhere, but does that make it better, or worse?

seriously, i drive in excess of 100,000 miles per year, i am not comparing land masses here truly, but it would be a bit harder to accomplish this on your island.

still, its not truly the idea of 10,000 dollars worth of diesel so much as why it cost that much to begin with.

if this nation is gonna remain dependent on fuel as its primary mode of propellant it needs to invest in alternatives, such as grain.

we have the technology to make this product, but the oil investors keep balking at the notion.

anywho's it is my job to use fuel, but not to endure 30 to 40 % of my income while doing so.

unofficial poll here guys, how many of you actually put 30 to 40% of your total income into a fuel tank?

now, do you see my perspective?

What you dont seem to understand Orpheous is that the gas prices did not start skyrocketing JUST AS Bush entered office. To think that the economy got up and decided to crash just as Bush entered office is pure lunacy. If we look back we find that Clinton withdrew from the oil reserved weeks before leaving office to keep the gas prices at a low enough figure that he would not be blamed with the problem. This is a temporary solution. So when Bush entered office and what Clinton took out the problem hit and Bush got blamed for it. Gas prices are not Bushes fault. If anything it is Clinton's fault for 1.) not recognizing the problem and 2.) Not stabilizing the world economy resulting in higher gas prices for all. You want to talk about bad economy but you all dont see what the economy runs on. Yes it is oil. Yes we need it. No we do not require the middle east. Yes it makes it a whole lot easier to get what we need to function.

Take a look at the prices for anything in the country. They are all tied to oil and the ease of obtaining it. No oil? No shipping. Higher cost because now the average person has to go out and pay for the fact we have no gas to ship the damn product! Like someone said, Iraq is a desert and it would take a great deal longer to find any WMD that were left burried in its desert. Especially since we lack the greater man power that it would require who knows if we will ever have time to look for them since in my point of view the security of our armed forces atm is more important. But just know this, the stabilization of that region and the gift of freedom to man woman and child is more important than just your life. And if you guys can not see past 3 inches of your own civil liberties to complain and bitch about our country without a single thought as to what civil liberties others lack, than I pity you.

LOL @ Ferretmailto:LOL@Ferret

you know bud, you been misspelling my name ever since you been here, funny thing is, i keep forgetting to say something :wink:

lets assume for a second that you are correct, bush having oil interest not withstanding..

it still doesn't excuse the fact that fuel is artificially inflated because of the lack of interest in creating alternate sources.

bottomline, bush accepts responsibility the day he took the position.. if he cannot do that, he deserve no better from us.

if i were to take charge of a failing business, knowing it was in trouble in advance, and then try to pawn off my failure onto the employees, i would be as wrong as bush is today.

Orpheus said:

mazemaster said:
Bush has a tendency to make a fool of himself on television does not prove that he is a bad president.

i bet money, the USA will never elect another president with oil interests :sad:

Bush Junior wasn't the first though, was he?

orph sorry for spelling your name incorrectly :razz:

Bush's staff did research alternative methods, such as the grain energy. But findings show it would take more energy to create that type of energy than they'd get in the output. Research was done, but its not smart to just jump into such things without proper reasearch and findings.

Ferret said:
orph sorry for spelling your name incorrectly :razz:

Bush's staff did research alternative methods, such as the grain energy. But findings show it would take more energy to create that type of energy than they'd get in the output. Research was done, but its not smart to just jump into such things without proper reasearch and findings.

ferret, i am unsure exactly where you live, but they have had alternatives, on the market, in the western states of the US for quite a while now.

presumably, it costs more money, to produce each gallon of fuel, than it does to produce the same gallon of petroleum.. it doesn't cost more in energy to my knowledge, just more dollars.

now, with this said, i could see how a newer technology might cost more in the beginning, but as with all things, time will bring more cost efficiency..

the trouble is, if we grow fuel, we become less dependent on fossil fuels.. and at the moment fossil fuel is where all the money is.

we have the ability to make fuel, we should be able/permitted to do so.

and don't worry about the name, i am the worlds worse ar typo's

Wow, i got the joke!

I think there should be alternatives to oil for fuel, and there should be some serious research into it carried out. In england, the average cost of fule is 80p [ about 1.12 dollars] for a litre. If it stays like this, i will be on no more than a scooter in my life.

scooters rock man, they rock.

orph, I will comment when I get home. I'm at work atm stealing my mothers computer.

SumhObo said:
<DIV>Oh yeah, and there's also the deal with that new "Iraqi" governing council. Its members may have all been born in Iraq, but they were hand-picked by Bush and his assortment of happy friends. Democracy, anyone?</DIV>

Well, this is an old quote, but might as well say it: the governing council is no more, the current president and prime minister of Iraq were approved by the UN.

yes ferret...... bikes with hair dryers attached rock do they? They have the worst sound ever...

ah I love scooters just to see the kids leaning as far forward as they
can just to get an extra 1 mph out of it but it never works unless
there going down a hill.

It makes me chukkle.

I knew someone who was leaning as far forward as he could and he had
the bike at full revs but he got hold of the handle with his left hand
so he could use his right to try to pull it round further it didnt work
though but I laughed and laughed at him.

My funnyiest encounter with someone with a scooter is a townie wearing a baseball cap, only too see it get blown off by the wind. Made me lmao off

Wow, i got the joke!

I think there should be alternatives to oil for fuel, and there should be some serious research into it carried out. In england, the average cost of fule is 80p [ about 1.12 dollars] for a litre. If it stays like this, i will be on no more than a scooter in my life.

You're a year or two too late :smile:

MIT converted a car (I think it was a Toyota) to run on water using hydrogen fuel cells, it got the same amount of mileage, with water vapor as the exhaust.

Honda and GM are making cars that are hybrids between gasoline and other fuels that are clean burning.

Basically it comes down to the fact that, EVERYONE has a fossil fuel powered car. If they introduced a newly fueled car into the market, it'd be way too expensive, since its not in surplus, so it would undoubtedly be phased out.

That's why they're taking it slow. But there has been massive amounts of research into the idea.

And actually, you can buy Oil powered cards from Honda right now, you just have to bring it up on your own, but they make them. Also you can convert your current car.

My friend (who's becoming an auto mechanic) was telling me about this car from ... I think it was Honda, I'm not sure, and the exhaust was cleaner then the air surrounding the car, so you could suck on the tail pipe (theoretically) and have cleaner air.

Anyway, there's a crap load of alternatives companies, schools, and people have been pushing. But ... people don't realize how much importance oil has on the economy.

Yea, i heard about the hydrogen, but i didn't know it was marketed.

Lots of research, just one company who refuse to acknowledge the need
(and massive financial gain, i'd wager) for change on the car market..

who is it?

EXXON! - translates into "Esso" or, "evil", if you prefer!

MIT converted a car (I think it was a Toyota) to
run on water using hydrogen fuel cells, it got the same amount of
mileage, with water vapor as the exhaust.

That doesn't work. Either your source is incorrect, or there was also another source of power in the car.

It all comes down to the reactions: Hydrogen reacts with Oxygen if you
add heat or a spark to produce water and a bunch of extra energy due to
the bonds that are formed. On the other hand, water will break its
bonds and revert to Hydrogen and Oxygen if you add enough energy, like
running electricity through it (electrolysis). The reactions are like
this:

2H2 + O2 >> 2H20 + energy

2H20 + energy >> 2H2 + O2

As you can see, the two reactions are just the reverse of each
other. Thus the amount of energy produced by the explosion of
hydrogen is the same as the amount of energy (in electricity) required
to extract that Hydrogen from water.

So if you used an electric battery to electrolysize some water and then
used the hydrogen extracted to power a car, it would be the same as if
you had just used the battery to power an electric motor and skipped
the hydrogen fuel cell altogether.

In fact, it would be even slightly worse. Since no reaction is 100%
energy efficient, in every chemical reaction you lose a tiny bit of
energy that you can't get back (the entropy of the universe is always
in the increase). Therefore, if you do a reaction, and then use the
products to do the reaction backwards, you will end out at the same
place you started, minus a tiny bit of energy. Basically it takes a bit
more energy from the battery to extract hydrogen from water then you
get from exploding the hydrogen.

Any reactional power source is just the same though- at the end you're just reacting two things together which probably just started out as the products from your reaction. Electrolyze the water in a factory or make some petrol out of rotting plants, it's the same sort of thing; your car will only be "breaking even" if it's solar/nuclear. The point is that it makes for a decent fuel to carry with you, in terms of weight, storage and efficiency.

Basically the process you (Crono) describe is this:


It doesn't work because the total energy of all things going into a process, whatever that process is, must equal the total energy of all things leaving the process.

If that alone does not convince you that its impossible, then consider what would happen if you used the product water to do the process again. And again. And again... You would have a way of creating an infinite amount energy using only the water you started with.

Also, Lep, the water you would carry wouldn't be the actual fuel. The actual fuel would be whatever battery (or other device) that you use to get electricity to extract the hydrogen. If you carried straight hydrogen with you then that would be the fuel, but not water.

Crono said:
MIT converted a car (I think it was a Toyota) to run on water using hydrogen fuel cells, it got the same amount of mileage, with water vapor as the exhaust.

Your car has hydrogen bottles on it; sure you have to electrolyse some water first, but do it in a big solar powered factory and you're ok :razz:

edit whoa Nelly, slow down with the old replies :biggrin: The car carries hydrogen with it, I know, seems you don't though :smile:

dammit, i hate it when these threads degrade so far above my education :sad:

shuffles away downtrodden

The part of that which bothers me is the phrase:

"MIT converted a car (I think it was a Toyota) to run on water"

The car isn't running on water in any way. Its running on Hydrogen.

Jesus Christ, Maze, calm the f**k down.

Its my understanding that the fuel cell they used extracts the hydrogen from the water on its own simply by contact, in other words, it can extract hydrogen from any liquid.

And if you believe I'm wrong, so be it. But this is was MIT and several motor companies are doing ...

So, are you saying they're lying?
In either case, it's not a big deal, its just what I read straight from the horses mouth, so to speak.

Heres what I see:

George Bush: Idiot,loser, Oil Baron.Desperate in the wake of floundering opinion polls, dreams up yet another crafty way to institute a barely legal form of censorship, this time preventing an entire country from voting all at once(remember when he won an entire country wide vote by less than 2500 votes, ... in the state which happened to be governed by his brother?). I would'nt be suprised if he staged his own terrorist attack just so he can make another spinky speech and bring around another victory. The guys IS a moron, and I don't see why America can't see that.

Juim said:
Heres what I see:

George Bush: Idiot,loser, Oil Baron.Desperate in the wake of floundering opinion polls, dreams up yet another crafty way to institute a barely legal form of censorship, this time preventing an entire country from voting all at once(remember when he won an entire country wide vote by less than 2500 votes, ... in the state which happened to be governed by his brother?). I would'nt be suprised if he staged his own terrorist attack just so he can make another spinky speech and bring around another victory. The guys IS a moron, and I don't see why America can't see that.

dammit juim, stop pussyfooting around and just say what you feel for christ sakes.

Actually ... as much as people don't like to admit ... your vote, in all actuality, DOESN'T matter.

The electoral college is the chumps who decide who the next president is, however, that's made up of senators and such from each state, so their vote is suppose to reflect their state ... but ... if they just voted for who they thought should win ... that person would win.

The popular vote doesn't mean much, sorry :sad:

Crono, they actually can't do that anymore. Electoral votes once could be cast however the electors felt, but they are now obligated to cast their votes to match the vote of the state. Still, when more people vote for the loser than the winner, even just a couple times in a couple hundred years, there needs to be a closer look taken at how things work.

Hell, shouldn't a second term be guaranteed for a president? Shouldn't they be so dedicated to their job and making such efforts to rule for the people that re-election is a mere formality?

sigh I'm getting too idealistic these days... Keep getting more and more jaded with each passing moment.

Juim said:
Heres what I see:

George Bush: Idiot,loser, Oil Baron.Desperate in the wake of floundering opinion polls, dreams up yet another crafty way to institute a barely legal form of censorship, this time preventing an entire country from voting all at once(remember when he won an entire country wide vote by less than 2500 votes, ... in the state which happened to be governed by his brother?). I would'nt be suprised if he staged his own terrorist attack just so he can make another spinky speech and bring around another victory. The guys IS a moron, and I don't see why America can't see that.

When people start thinking that our own goverment plans attacks on us and starts yelling that people lose votes simply because of the fact his BROTHER IS A GOVERNOR OFTHAT STATE, is the point in which I exit the most retarded conversation ever.

You can't just "extract" the hydrogen from water without adding energy
in some form or another. The molecular bonds in the water molecule have
a certain bond energy, and in order to break the bond, that much energy
must used. Period.

If you lift a spaceship off the earth you have to expend energy (rocket
fuel) to move the shuttle from a low potential energy state (on the
ground) to a high one (in space). The same thing applies to separating
atoms in a molecule except they are being held together by the weak
force (electric charges) rather than the gravitational force.

$loth said:
LOL! Moore is right, in his book, he says that no WoMD have been found, which is correct, i cannot see how this is twisting words. IMHO there is no solid ground for going to war with iraq, but, there is still some belief in me that Saddam huissain is a twisted lil bas*ard.

Congratulations. You're a parrot! Orph's opinion, quite respectably, references personal experience. Yours comes straight out of a liberal's unfortunate recording of his rantings on paper. But hey, why take a stance when Michael Moore can do it for you?

My comments:

Michael Moore is possibly broken into a tier of narcissism not even I could even begin to contemplate and I will sock him in the face if I ever see him. Saddam getting what he deserves is a good thing, no question, you pacifist bums. People dying in Iraq for any unfounded or unjust reason is inexcusable. Kerry will win the next election. Oil isn't just for cars, the modern world is running on it. The electoral college is not an intricate device crafted to sabotage your rights.

I believe that Bush is at least decent as a President, especially given 9/11, though I will not allow my conservativism to blind me to what he's done wrong. Calling him an idiot because he falters during speeches and Fahrenheit 9/11 played an orchestra of banjoes in the background whenever they pictured him is hardly valid criticism. Here's what I see Juim: a guy spouting asinine conspiracy theories and speculation about another man who he will never meet or treat with an ounce of seriousness.

Juim said:
would'nt be suprised if he staged his own terrorist attack just so he can make another spinky speech and bring around another victory. The guys IS a moron, and I don't see why America can't see that.

Trust me, they do, because everybody needs a fool, and unfortunately Bush has become America's. Oh, and with your first sentence you proved you have zero credibility.

<TABLE cellSpacing=2 cellPadding=2 width="95%" align=center bgColor=black>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD style="FONT-SIZE: 11px; COLOR: gold">? posted by Orpheus</TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD bgColor=#151515>
you know bud, you been misspelling my name ever since you been here, funny thing is, i keep forgetting to say something

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Hey, at least you don't have it as bad as me - as of our last debate, Lep still thinks my name is Cassisus.

KFS, ah ... its been awhile since I've had any sort of social class, so.

Maze, I'm well aware of that, but what bonds a molecule together is not the same thing that bonds an object to the ground.
I don't know how the Fuel cell I studied worked exactly, that was just how it was explained, so back off.

Cass, I never said it was a conspiracy to steal our votes, I just said that in all actuality the popular vote is not what decides the presidential elect, thats all.

Godamn, guys.

mazemaster said:
The part of that which bothers me is the phrase:

"MIT converted a car (I think it was a Toyota) to run on water"

The car isn't running on water in any way. Its running on Hydrogen.

Everyone makes mistakes :rolleyes: .

Apart from me, i'm perfect :wink:

Pacifist, Actionist; Liberal, Conservative; Terrorist, Peacekeeper... at least some of you are very clear about a lot of matters. I, for one, cannot find such clear distinctions anywhere. But then again, what do I know?

<DIV>Nothing, Fraggard. And even if you do, you don't really matter anyway.</DIV>
<DIV>.</DIV>
<DIV>Daymn, I never knew just how open to bribery (legal or not) and personal opinions the US system really was. I assumed that, like in Australia, the popular vote was the ONLY thing that counted. Get a better system. That said, even down here "campaign contributions" are allowed - a form of legalised bribe. And we wonder why the average worker often ends up with a raw deal as compared to corporations?</DIV>
<DIV>.</DIV>
<DIV>ATM, I'm a bit pissed off at Howard (dubbed "Man of Steel", which in Russian is "Stalin", ironically...) for:</DIV>
<DIV>.</DIV>
<DIV>A) Creating a s**tload of hype over terrorism - NOT a major threat in Australia - and removing various civil liberties in the process</DIV>
<DIV>B) Wasting taxpayer $$$ on ads pretending to be public service announcements</DIV>
<DIV>C) Making things tough for us students, by raising the cost of various Uni courses by 25%.</DIV>
<DIV>.</DIV>
<DIV>Pity I can't vote... but then again, every time Labour (trade-union based) has got their hands on the country, the economy goes to buggery.</DIV>

Ferret said:
When people start thinking that our own goverment plans attacks on us and starts yelling that people lose votes simply because of the fact his BROTHER IS A GOVERNOR OFTHAT STATE, is the point in which I exit the most retarded conversation ever.

ferret my friend, i hate to say this but you sound like the other end of juims discussion, but you deny him the right to be over there :sad:

i have known a few people who see bush in a noble role, but not many, most people in my social class see bush EXACTLY like juim's reply.. far be it for me to go with the majority, but in this case, how can so many be so wrong?

in the end though, you really should not end your side of the debate just because someone else is even more passionate about the subject than you are..

leave if you must, but do so for selfish reasons, not because you scoff at someone else.

/2cents

SH, if they are going to raise costs of uni courses, they could at least give you a vote. That way, it makes things more fair.

SumhObo said:
<DIV>Pity I can't vote... but then again, every time Labour (trade-union based) has got their hands on the country, the economy goes to buggery.</DIV>

That happens here too, history for you. Guess it's like crop rotation or something...

Pacifism is one of the most disgusting ideas anyone ever thought of.

</troll>

zero credibility?

because I spoke the truth?. He is an idiot. Have you ever seen him speak publicly without a preplanned speach? Have you researched his history, both personally and professionally?

I often get the feeling that he is not actually commander in chief, more of a puppet rather. He clearly does not have the mental wherewithall to perform proficiently in this highest of political positions. It's either that, or more like Peter Sellers in "Being there". You should watch it. It's an extreme example remind you, but an apt one. Also, can you give me at least one instance where he has dealt with any situation either nationally, or internationally in a manner seeming wise and just, or even effective? Everything he touches turns to stone.

Finally, the "staging his own terrorist" statement was no more than an attempt at comedy. Lighten up please.

My thread , btw, was not meant to infer that I am a Michael Moore fan by any means. I find him to be alittle too broad with the sword of judgement, and filled with hot air most of the time(I tend to be a bit judgemental myself with regard to Bush Jr. , hehehe). He clings to issues of merrit, but often falls short of saying anything good or important due to his zealous approach.

So forgive the curt nature of my original post, it was not meant to inflame.

Oh, and cassius, speaking of credibility, hows about punching another human being in the face because you disagree with his views?. Seems a trifle like a double standard to me.

Juim said:
zero credibility?

because I spoke the truth?

That GWB ordered an attack on the United States? This is what I referenced.

Juim said:
Finally, the "staging his own terrorist" statement was no more than an attempt at comedy. Lighten up please.

The key word here is attempt.

Juim said:
Oh, and cassius, speaking of credibility, hows about punching another human being in the face because you disagree with his views?.

Aside from it that my statement is irrelevant to any measure of credibility, I will respond - yes, I disagree with Moore, but no, that isn't why I hate him. I'm in California; I can't physically threaten every hippy I meet. To my mind, Moore doesn't do what he does for money, he does it for ego; the work he produces of his own accord (books, dialogue in the movies) falls so far short of what his team does for him (fact-checking team, music, timing of footage and splicing) that I can safely conclude that he more than deserves getting sense slapped into him.

Juim said:
hows about punching another human being in the face because you disagree with his views?.

depending on the subject matter involved, i would do it in a heartbeat. force doesn't often resolve an issue, but it will definitely end it. i have no qualms what so ever for putting someone on their ass for the right reasons.

some, not all but some of todays biggest problems stem from the simple fact that people believe they can say almost anything in the name of freedom of speech.. WRONG.. you cannot willfully hurt someone premeditated.. calling a black person an "N" is grounds for an ass whipping if i am there to hear it.. same holds true for many other equally abhorrent comments. (stop looking at me like that, gay issues don't count or at least, i won't fight over it, subject is to petty for bruised knuckles)

anywhos, i am betting none of this is relevant to a political debate, simply cause it is not supposed to get personal enuff to warrant physical violence.. sadly that is a rule that seem destined to be broken more often than not.

would i hit someone for their political stance, ?? nah. life's to short to worry about such small issues.

My point exactly. You speak as an educated person, then condone childish brutality, albeit sarcastically. This attitude lends little towards your credibility with regard to your apparent counterpoint to my statement. Suffice it to say, I am not looking for any type of tit-for-tat poking here, I simply did'nt see the need for such obvious vehemence in your reply to me. I will speak no more of it, no harm done.

Can you hear it?? The orchestrated music rising up in the background right about here:

from the simple fact that people believe they can say almost anything in the name of freedom of speech.. WRONG..

^<SUP>points</SUP> up^^

west coast humor, even more vague than mine :/

[edit] WTF happened to my text, its out of line by 1/2 a space horizontally? i didn't think that was possible

Juim said:
My point exactly. You speak as an educated person, then condone childish brutality, albeit sarcastically. This attitude lends little towards your credibility with regard to your apparent counterpoint to my statement. Suffice it to say, I am not looking for any type of tit-for-tat poking here, I simply did'nt see the need for such obvious vehemence in your reply to me. I will speak no more of it, no harm done.

I speak as an educated person who hasn't finished high school, my friend.