Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: militarymuscle69 on March 01, 2007, 05:33:06 AM
-
Yesterday a post is made about Gore using to much power and Beserker steps in and demands facts before bashing Gore. Then OzmO makes a post (see: list of things bush has done wrong) and doesn't put one fact in his whole post. Everything in there is opinion based... (oh ok maybe he knew the 3 planes had been hijacked, I guess he should have jumped in the phone booth changed and gone to stop them.) and not one work from Beserker, because as he admits he is politically biased. Obvioiusly OzmO is also. Where is our conservative rep?
-
You all heard it. The people demand a conservative mod. We are tired of the liberals trying to bully the board.
My vote goes to cap86.
-
(oh ok maybe he knew the 3 planes had been hijacked, I guess he should have jumped in the phone booth changed and gone to stop them.)
No, but he sure didn't have to lie to America about it.
He sure as hell didn't have to continue going to an elementary school (a highly publicized public event) after learning of the 3 hijacks and one suicide crash.
Saying "I thought, that is one bad pilot" after being told three planes were hijacked - how can you explain that away?
-
No, but he sure didn't have to lie to America about it.
He sure as hell didn't have to continue going to an elementary school (a highly publicized public event) after learning of the 3 hijacks and one suicide crash.
Saying "I thought, that is one bad pilot" after being told three planes were hijacked - how can you explain that away?
In all honesty I don't have a problem with him going to the school even if he knew about the planes. I mean I don't know about the lie personally, so I can't comment on that.
-
In all honesty I don't have a problem with him going to the school even if he knew about the planes. I mean I don't know about the lie personally, so I can't comment on that.
IMO, it makes zero sense.
If there are 3 hijacked planes, then already we have the worst American soil event in decades. It's HUGE.
Then, when one of those planes crashes into a NYC skyscraper, Bush/Bush's team should have realized we are on the cusp of something historical beyond comprehension. To walk in calmy and say "Thats one bad pilot" was deceptive at best. At worst, it might mean he knew what the targets were, and that his highly public event at an unsecure open campus FL school was in no danger.
And his unwillingness to testify before the 911 commission...
It starts to add up.
-
IMO, it makes zero sense.
If there are 3 hijacked planes, then already we have the worst American soil event in decades. It's HUGE.
Then, when one of those planes crashes into a NYC skyscraper, Bush/Bush's team should have realized we are on the cusp of something historical beyond comprehension. To walk in calmy and say "Thats one bad pilot" was deceptive at best. At worst, it might mean he knew what the targets were, and that his highly public event at an unsecure open campus FL school was in no danger.
And his unwillingness to testify before the 911 commission...
It starts to add up.
Personally I am glad he didn't put on the chicken little costume.
-
Personally I am glad he didn't put on the chicken little costume.
you mean, take his limo to a military base and begin solving the problem?
You wanna know something else? IN the summer of 2001, Bush oddly removed power to shoot down plane from Pentagon/NORAD generals and gave it all to he and Cheney.
He specifically made it so that any shootdown had to be given by him. Then, when that was needed two months later, he walked into an elementary school instead of giving orders.
It's not about playing chicken little. It's about doing his fucking job. He specifically changed policy so he directly had control over shootdowns - then when this power was suddenly needed, he ran from that responsibility. IMO, THAT is the chicken little move.
-
you mean, take his limo to a military base and begin solving the problem?
You wanna know something else? IN the summer of 2001, Bush oddly removed power to shoot down plane from Pentagon/NORAD generals and gave it all to he and Cheney.
He specifically made it so that any shootdown had to be given by him. Then, when that was needed two months later, he walked into an elementary school instead of giving orders.
It's not about playing chicken little. It's about doing his fucking job. He specifically changed policy so he directly had control over shootdowns - then when this power was suddenly needed, he ran from that responsibility. IMO, THAT is the chicken little move.
I think you mean that would make that a chicken shit move, anyway, other than quoting a CT website, where does it say he has sole power to order planes shot down? And it doesn't really matter because the planes to do it no matter who had the power never got in the air.
-
I think you mean that would make that a chicken shit move, anyway, other than quoting a CT website, where does it say he has sole power to order planes shot down?
CT website? No sir. I will cite the specific law tonight if you want. Will it change anything for you?
And it doesn't really matter because the planes to do it no matter who had the power never got in the air.
bullshit, junior. They were re-routed over the atlantic. I'll scan the pics of the paths. They ran a complete circle for 30 minutes at 400 mph, after starting a beeline for the hijacked planes at 1875 mph.
Who called them off? That's the question.
If you want to kage match this one, mm69, I'll take you up on it. Bush took control over this power then did nothing on 911, and those planes were rereouted. I'm sorry to tell you, but 911 was allowed to happen.
-
CT website? No sir. I will cite the specific law tonight if you want. Will it change anything for you?
bullshit, junior. They were re-routed over the atlantic. I'll scan the pics of the paths. They ran a complete circle for 30 minutes at 400 mph, after starting a beeline for the hijacked planes at 1875 mph.
Who called them off? That's the question.
If you want to kage match this one, mm69, I'll take you up on it. Bush took control over this power then did nothing on 911, and those planes were rereouted. I'm sorry to tell you, but 911 was allowed to happen.
All I know is we had a lot of briefings in the Air Force about how to avoid not being able to scramble planes soon enough. So the word from my commanders is we didn't get the planes up in time.
-
All I know is we had a lot of briefings in the Air Force about how to avoid not being able to scramble planes soon enough. So the word from my commanders is we didn't get the planes up in time.
I encourage you to read about it. I've read the 911 commission report, along with the 911 report 'critique' where they point out every inconcistency in the story.
I've read and re-read the transcripts, the flight path, the comunications according to FAA testimony, etc.
They changed websites, they destroyed tapes, they pointed fingers, they lost phone records.
Dude, the story stinks from top to bottom. Aside from WTC7, the inability to shoot down planes with an hours notice is inexcusable. It was NOT incompetence and everyone tried to blame. There are outright lies which were caught under oath, which no one pursued. NORAD knew for 45 minutes after being told by the FAA, and they did nothing for those 45 minutes. The FAA proved they called them at 8:21. NORAD told us they didn't know anything until after 9 am. NO ONE made them accountable for this MAJOR ommission
-
This thread sure got off track fast.
-
This thread sure got off track fast.
Yeah!!! Lets get back to bashing Beserker, OzmO isn't as bad but we need a ballance of power!!!
-
Yeah!!! Lets get back to bashing Beserker, OzmO isn't as bad but we need a ballance of power!!!
Explain how Berserker or Ozmo abused their moderating properties?
-Hedge
-
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=131457.0 (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=131457.0)
Once again we are having problems reading below the first few posts ;D
-
Explain how Berserker or Ozmo abused their moderating properties?
-Hedge
Never accused them of abusing, go ahead and look, I never said it. I asked for fairness. If Beserker is going to complain that misleading info is being spread about a lib, he should complain when misleading info is spread about a conservative
-
Explain how Berserker or Ozmo abused their moderating properties?
They didn't.
This is a ploy to give the neocon element the ability to merge things into irrelevance.
-
Explain how Berserker or Ozmo abused their moderating properties?
-Hedge
They didn't abuse anything, but I question the purpose of the militarymuscle thread. The guy had an opinion. You don't have to agree with it. Creating a thread to attack his opinion isn't going to change his opinion. You can almost view it as an attempt to stifle his opinion. He can complain all he wants. You don't have to agree.
-
Never accused them of abusing, go ahead and look, I never said it. I asked for fairness. If Beserker is going to complain that misleading info is being spread about a lib, he should complain when misleading info is spread about a conservative
Ok, fair enough.
Unless they are abusing their Moderating properties, they're just like any other member.
-Hedge
-
They didn't abuse anything, but I question the purpose of the militarymuscle thread. The guy had an opinion. You don't have to agree with it. Creating a thread to attack his opinion isn't going to change his opinion. You can almost view it as an attempt to stifle his opinion. He can complain all he wants. You don't have to agree.
I think it was the usual "Berserker losing his cool" thread, ie another meltdown from Berserker.
But in no way did it he abuse his moderating properties there.
Perhaps he should've moved his own thread to the Y board, I dunno. ;D
What I know is that Berserker been consistant in that he's kept his moderating and his own opinions separated. That's being fair IMO.
-Hedge
-
I think it was the usual "Berserker losing his cool" thread, ie another meltdown from Berserker.
But in no way did it he abuse his moderating properties there.
Perhaps he should've moved his own thread to the Y board, I dunno. ;D
What I know is that Berserker been consistant in that he's kept his moderating and his own opinions separated. That's being fair IMO.
-Hedge
I said "they didn't abuse anything." What I'm focusing on is an apparent attempt to silence someone's opinion. I'm not talking about fairness or saying anyone cannot, or shouldn't, make a thread telling someone they have no right to complain, I'm saying I question the motive behind that kind of thread.
-
I think it was the usual "Berserker losing his cool" thread, ie another meltdown from Berserker.
But in no way did it he abuse his moderating properties there.
Perhaps he should've moved his own thread to the Y board, I dunno. ;D
What I know is that Berserker been consistant in that he's kept his moderating and his own opinions separated. That's being fair IMO.
-Hedge
I agree that hea had been keeping them seperate until he said this "I'm only trying to see that we're looking at the truth and not misleading info" and then lets the lib point of view post misleading info with out question.
-
Yesterday a post is made about Gore using to much power and Beserker steps in and demands facts before bashing Gore. Then OzmO makes a post (see: list of things bush has done wrong) and doesn't put one fact in his whole post. Everything in there is opinion based... (oh ok maybe he knew the 3 planes had been hijacked, I guess he should have jumped in the phone booth changed and gone to stop them.) and not one work from Beserker, because as he admits he is politically biased. Obvioiusly OzmO is also. Where is our conservative rep?
That's the idea ::) Your conservative mod is there, have you tried to pm him once!!!!!! with a problem :-\ No, you're just upset because I nailed you in a debate...
-
Never accused them of abusing, go ahead and look, I never said it. I asked for fairness. If Beserker is going to complain that misleading info is being spread about a lib, he should complain when misleading info is spread about a conservative
You ask for fairness, you are saying it's not fair now... If it's not fair, there is abuse, where is the abuse?... Have you tried to pm or needed to pm DL at any time? Well? The mod balance is NOT to give the board balance nor was it ever intended to give the board balance... I'm going to copy some posts over here, please read them. thank you.
-
Please read this quote MM69, this should best explain what the intentions of having a mod balance is and is not.
A missunderstanding I'm thinking... Remembering back, some of the accusations from some of the people posting in general was that threads would get deleted or merged and in general harsh policy applied to certain people like you or me because the board mods leaned the other way politically. The balance is so that there is comfort in this area. A person can post freely knowing that there is not a board of mods that leans all one way politically. It also means that the accusation can't be levied in the first place. It also makes it possible for any mod to participate in the board like a normal poster. Because the person you are arguing with, may not be comfortable bringing an issue to you the very next day. Since we adopted the mod range, it means everyone should have another choice of mod to go to nullifying the issue before it ever happens. It was thought that this board would best benefit from the range for these reasons because it is a political board where sides do get drawn and drawn often. So yes I do agree that politics has nothing to do with being a good mod, but the political balance is there for safety of all who come to the board and is there for us mods too! Otherwise I would have to guard my participation extensively for the fairness of all. Hope that explains why there should be a mod balance. You are also right that the balance of the board comes from those who post here, not from the mod balance. The mod balance is for the security of all the users, but really has nothing to do with the board balance that is indeed made up of the participants and in that aspect I'm just 1 more voice in a board of voices no better than anyone else. I don't expect people to listen to what I have to say politically more because I'm a mod. I would hope I'm gauged like everyone else with my political beliefs.
-
That's the idea ::) Your conservative mod is there, have you tried to pm him once!!!!!! with a problem :-\ No, you're just upset because I nailed you in a debate...
You nailed me in a debate???????? which one was that?
-
You ask for fairness, you are saying it's not fair now... If it's not fair, there is abuse, where is the abuse?... Have you tried to pm or needed to pm DL at any time? Well? The mod balance is NOT to give the board balance nor was it ever intended to give the board balance... I'm going to copy some posts over here, please read them. thank you.
I have stated the "abuse" (although I never classified it as such) 700 times. IF YOU ASK FOR FACTS AND NOT ASSUMPTIONS IN ONE BOARD THEN ASK FOR THEM IN ALL BOARDS!!!
-
I have stated the "abuse" (although I never classified it as such) 700 times. IF YOU ASK FOR FACTS AND NOT ASSUMPTIONS IN ONE BOARD THEN ASK FOR THEM IN ALL BOARDS!!!
It was not a mod demand... ::) It's up to regular ol users of this forum to demand facts with they see a need to do so.... I'm not going to dictate any such thing for the whole forum ::) That's crazy... clearly I did not step into the Al Gore debate as a mod dictating any such thing. My personal opinion is that more facts are needed before a definitive condemnation of Al Gore can be made. My opinion. that is all...
-
My personal opinion is that more facts are needed before a definitive condemnation of Al Gore can be made.
But of all the things to pounce on him for... his electricity bill?
What about his fund-raising from the White House? His cozying up to the Chinese?
-
But of all the things to pounce on him for... his electricity bill?
What about his fund-raising from the White House? His cozying up to the Chinese?
All worthwhile anti-Al causes.
-
But of all the things to pounce on him for... his electricity bill?
What about his fund-raising from the White House? His cozying up to the Chinese?
All valid things for a politcal forum, feel free to post on them at will ;D
-
I have stated the "abuse" (although I never classified it as such) 700 times. IF YOU ASK FOR FACTS AND NOT ASSUMPTIONS IN ONE BOARD THEN ASK FOR THEM IN ALL BOARDS!!!
Yes!
-
Yes!
So you want it to be a board rule? I thought it was working just fine when someone felt that someone's case was not adequately supported, they could just point it out as such. Nobody seemed to have a problem doing it before yesterday... So you feel that I should insist on the facts in every thread? Keep in mind that I was NOT asserting a demand for facts in the AL Gore thread AS a means of Modding the thread. You know, all I did in that thread was to say that I felt X questions needed answered before a determination could be made that Al Gore was a hypocrite and MM69 came unglued that I dare ask for such without demanding the same for all... Well that's not a forum rule and I think it would make a silly one. If you're arguing someone and they are lacking in details/facts, just point it out, what's so hard about that? That is all...
-
Berserker,
Maybe when you mod, you should type in big bold letters
"This is your moderator speaking"
...so that those who ride the short bus can keep up. :P
-
So you want it to be a board rule? I thought it was working just fine when someone felt that someone's case was not adequately supported, they could just point it out as such. Nobody seemed to have a problem doing it before yesterday... So you feel that I should insist on the facts in every thread? Keep in mind that I was NOT asserting a demand for facts in the AL Gore thread AS a means of Modding the thread. You know, all I did in that thread was to say that I felt X questions needed answered before a determination could be made that Al Gore was a hypocrite and MM69 came unglued that I dare ask for such without demanding the same for all... Well that's not a forum rule and I think it would make a silly one. If you're arguing someone and they are lacking in details/facts, just point it out, what's so hard about that? That is all...
It was more and observation than anything. It seems like if someone attacks Bush, not only is no evidence is required but the other members trip over themselves to add to his alleged failings. And if someone criticizes a big democrat here, than they had damn sure better have unflappable proof to back it up or face being ridiculed.
-
It was more and observation than anything. It seems like if someone attacks Bush, not only is no evidence is required but the other members trip over themselves to add to his alleged failings. And if someone criticizes a big democrat here, than they had damn sure better have unflappable proof to back it up or face being ridiculed.
Ain't that the truth.
-
It was more and observation than anything. It seems like if someone attacks Bush, not only is no evidence is required but the other members trip over themselves to add to his alleged failings. And if someone criticizes a big democrat here, than they had damn sure better have unflappable proof to back it up or face being ridiculed.
But you do realise you've laid out problems that aren't really that mod fixable right? It's up to you guys to all call BS when you see it... Which is all I did with Al Gore... If you see it, call it, and show why it is... It's not the mod's job to go charging into debates telling people to provide proof or zip it... If someone makes a baseless claim, well, it shouldn't be very difficult to expose it. That's all part of political debate, has been for as long as I can remember. Never have I got a report to mod pm saying, "Joeseph said this and has no proof, can you go stop him please and make him post proof..."
-
and another thing, I call BS once again. Look through the threads! One by one! It is so far from all Bush bashing it's not even funny, topics are all over the place... But again, don't expect for it not to come up when you have several wars going on from a president with a rock bottom approval rating. But saying it's all Bush Bashing is out of line. VERY Clearly other topics routinely get debated when brought to the forum.
-
and another thing, I call BS once again. Look through the threads! One by one! It is so far from all Bush bashing it's not even funny, topics are all over the place... But again, don't expect for it not to come up when you have several wars going on from a president with a rock bottom approval rating. But saying it's all Bush Bashing is out of line. VERY Clearly other topics routinely get debated when brought to the forum.
I'd say more people here attack Bush than defend him, or at very least, more loudly, but that just means conservatives like myself need to work harder to argue our case and persuade those who can be persuaded.
-
Lets not forgot only 1 out of 3 are giving Bush a favorable approval rating. It's not hard to find conservatives who don't have nice things to say for Bush. It's not uncommon to turn on the tube and see a republican not happy at all... I fliped on to a repubican talking impeachment on CNN last week. As far as Bush getting some heat on this board, he bought it, he can own it... And the simple fact is you're not going to be able to blame it all on liberals. You're going to have guys like 240 who vote republican pissed off at Bush. It is what it is...
-
Lets not forgot only 1 out of 3 are giving Bush a favorable approval rating. It's not hard to find conservatives who don't have nice things to say for Bush. It's not uncommon to turn on the tube and see a republican not happy at all... I fliped on to a repubican talking impeachment on CNN last week. As far as Bush getting some heat on this board, he bought it, he can own it... And the simple fact is you're not going to be able to blame it all on liberals. You're going to have guys like 240 who vote republican pissed off at Bush. It is what it is...
Bush has had to feel the impact of smear campaigns of unimaginable force and intent. I can't think of another individual that has had to endure such intense scrutiny and criticism, a lot of which is on a personal level and unnecessary. Does Bush deserve to be scrutinised? Sure. Does he deserve to have expletives and bizarre personal critiques of both himself and his family? I think not.
To this end, he holds himself with admirable grace and cool thoughtfulness. I have no problem at all with anyone pulling apart word for word his policies and political movements; I just disagree with any President being character assassinated.
Besides this, I think I'd be almost the only person here willing to admit I really like George W Bush. I think he's a genuinely warm hearted and lovable guy, with a intellect not quite done justice by his sometimes inarticulate words. This is regardless of what I think of him on a political level. I also felt the same way about Clinton, even if I think he was somewhat dishonest in his approach at times. Respect for the man that leads the most powerful country in the world is something that flows easily from me - it's one hell of a job, one I wouldn't wish upon anyone.
-
Bush has had to feel the impact of smear campaigns of unimaginable force and intent. I can't think of another individual that has had to endure such intense scrutiny and criticism, a lot of which is on a personal level and unnecessary. Does Bush deserve to be scrutinised? Sure. Does he deserve to have expletives and bizarre personal critiques of both himself and his family? I think not.
To this end, he holds himself with admirable grace and cool thoughtfulness. I have no problem at all with anyone pulling apart word for word his policies and political movements; I just disagree with any President being character assassinated.
Besides this, I think I'd be almost the only person here willing to admit I really like George W Bush. I think he's a genuinely warm hearted and lovable guy, with a intellect not quite done justice by his sometimes inarticulate words. This is regardless of what I think of him on a political level. I also felt the same way about Clinton, even if I think he was somewhat dishonest in his approach at times. Respect for the man that leads the most powerful country in the world is something that flows easily from me - it's one hell of a job, one I wouldn't wish upon anyone.
:o :o :owow :o :o :o I totally don't want to nail you for your age, but I gotta say by what I just read, you clearly were not self aware :D during the 90's... I cannot believe Clinton doesn't come to mind when you say, "Bush has had to feel the impact of smear campaigns of unimaginable force and intent. I can't think of another individual that has had to endure such intense scrutiny and criticism, a lot of which is on a personal level and unnecessary ." I actually fell out of my seat just now :P And I'm not even a fan of Clinton.
Honest, we've been getting along good and I like it so don't take this to serious, it's just message board debating and you know me, I'll turn right around and be nice as hell in the next post ;D
-
Bush has had to feel the impact of smear campaigns of unimaginable force and intent. I can't think of another individual that has had to endure such intense scrutiny and criticism, a lot of which is on a personal level and unnecessary. Does Bush deserve to be scrutinised? Sure. Does he deserve to have expletives and bizarre personal critiques of both himself and his family? I think not.
To this end, he holds himself with admirable grace and cool thoughtfulness. I have no problem at all with anyone pulling apart word for word his policies and political movements; I just disagree with any President being character assassinated.
Besides this, I think I'd be almost the only person here willing to admit I really like George W Bush. I think he's a genuinely warm hearted and lovable guy, with a intellect not quite done justice by his sometimes inarticulate words. This is regardless of what I think of him on a political level. I also felt the same way about Clinton, even if I think he was somewhat dishonest in his approach at times. Respect for the man that leads the most powerful country in the world is something that flows easily from me - it's one hell of a job, one I wouldn't wish upon anyone.
I won't go into Clinton as I just see that Berserker already did that... He and his family are subject to this scrutiny because HE put a very personal thing (His families religious beliefs) in the public eye... I didn't ask him about them and I didn't want to know about them, but he threw them at me anyway... He doesn't get the option of saying "Stay out of my personal life".
His entire base for his Presidency was because of very personal beliefs.
-
Bush has had to feel the impact of smear campaigns of unimaginable force and intent. I can't think of another individual that has had to endure such intense scrutiny and criticism, a lot of which is on a personal level and unnecessary. Does Bush deserve to be scrutinised? Sure. Does he deserve to have expletives and bizarre personal critiques of both himself and his family? I think not.
To this end, he holds himself with admirable grace and cool thoughtfulness. I have no problem at all with anyone pulling apart word for word his policies and political movements; I just disagree with any President being character assassinated.
Besides this, I think I'd be almost the only person here willing to admit I really like George W Bush. I think he's a genuinely warm hearted and lovable guy, with a intellect not quite done justice by his sometimes inarticulate words. This is regardless of what I think of him on a political level. I also felt the same way about Clinton, even if I think he was somewhat dishonest in his approach at times. Respect for the man that leads the most powerful country in the world is something that flows easily from me - it's one hell of a job, one I wouldn't wish upon anyone.
Yes, and the attacks on Bush started before he took office. It only started with Clinton once they found dirt on him, and there was plenty. I like W on a personal level.
-
It's what it is.
Clinton fans were truly pissed when Letterman and Leno constantly made fun of "Bubba".
But at least now they acknowledge that Letterman and Leno are making fun of Bush in the same manner, although Clinton was targeted for his obesity and womanizing, whereas Bush is targeted for his lack of intellectual provess.
The funnymen aren't what is important.
What is important, is whether or not the news journalists investigate the persons in power.
The media didn't do its job following the 9-11. The media is supposed to keep the three branches honest.
They failed.
FOX News is the biggest scumbag, but CNN, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, they all did a lot of self censoring.
It's unexcusable.
Some journalistic choices weren't supposed to be easy.
To stand up for freedom of speech, when an outer threat is is emerging, eg.
But that's what a journalist have to do.
Where the fcuk did the Ed Bradley's, the Larry King's, the Bob Woodward's et al go during the self censoring?
Why didn't they speak up?
Hell, why the fcuk didn't Peter McGough, Bob Kennedy, Lonnie Teper or Ron Harris speak up?
They're journalists as well.
Show some spine gentlemen.
-Hedge
-
I like Fox news. Sure the have a conserative leaning on the news, but all of the others you mentioned have a liberal bias to them. I hear real news stories on Fox that the other places don't even mention. I hated when CNN was stating how bad the soldiers were doing while they were doing an excellent job.
-
Yes, and the attacks on Bush started before he took office. It only started with Clinton once they found dirt on him, and there was plenty. I like W on a personal level.
WHAT ::)
-
So you want it to be a board rule? I thought it was working just fine when someone felt that someone's case was not adequately supported, they could just point it out as such. Nobody seemed to have a problem doing it before yesterday... So you feel that I should insist on the facts in every thread? Keep in mind that I was NOT asserting a demand for facts in the AL Gore thread AS a means of Modding the thread. You know, all I did in that thread was to say that I felt X questions needed answered before a determination could be made that Al Gore was a hypocrite and MM69 came unglued that I dare ask for such without demanding the same for all... Well that's not a forum rule and I think it would make a silly one. If you're arguing someone and they are lacking in details/facts, just point it out, what's so hard about that? That is all...
I never asked for it to be a rule, there should be no censorship here, but when you said this, and I quote for the 4th time "I'm only trying to see that we're looking at the truth and not misleading info" that is a moderator speaking and trying to impact the debate. And like it or not, by having all those pretty green stars next to your name will change the way people interpret your comments. All I asked for (and saying I came unglued is a bit of an exaggeration, however par for the course from a lib) was that if you are going to speak up in that form when a Dem is being ridiculed, I would expect my mod to do the sme across the board.
-
Bush has had to feel the impact of smear campaigns of unimaginable force and intent. I can't think of another individual that has had to endure such intense scrutiny and criticism, a lot of which is on a personal level and unnecessary.
{cough} Clinton
Does Bush deserve to be scrutinised? Sure. Does he deserve to have expletives and bizarre personal critiques of both himself and his family? I think not.
I agree that Laura and the twins should be off-limits, but I think critiques of Jeb, GW, GH, Neil, & Barbara are fair.
To this end, he holds himself with admirable grace and cool thoughtfulness. I have no problem at all with anyone pulling apart word for word his policies and political movements; I just disagree with any President being character assassinated.
He has no character
Besides this, I think I'd be almost the only person here willing to admit I really like George W Bush. I think he's a genuinely warm hearted and lovable guy, with a intellect not quite done justice by his sometimes inarticulate words. This is regardless of what I think of him on a political level. I also felt the same way about Clinton, even if I think he was somewhat dishonest in his approach at times. Respect for the man that leads the most powerful country in the world is something that flows easily from me - it's one hell of a job, one I wouldn't wish upon anyone.
{LOL} Give it up Bruce. You won't get your green card that way. ;D
-
I never asked for it to be a rule, there should be no censorship here, but when you said this, and I quote for the 4th time "I'm only trying to see that we're looking at the truth and not misleading info" that is a moderator speaking and trying to impact the debate. And like it or not, by having all those pretty green stars next to your name will change the way people interpret your comments. All I asked for (and saying I came unglued is a bit of an exaggeration, however par for the course from a lib) was that if you are going to speak up in that form when a Dem is being ridiculed, I would expect my mod to do the sme across the board.
Your mod? ??? You say that like you only have 1 mod. You have 3. We all do.
And unless some egregious infraction has occurred, we have no need to call on them. They are afterall volunteers
So you're pissed because a right winger hasn't spoken up and called BS on a post you think is BS?
It's not the job of the mods to post your arguments in a discussion. If you think a statement is BS, call it.
Are we to interpret your impotence and inability to make your own arguments as indicative of the type of military muscle your nation has. You call yourself a strong man... now prove it. Show a little strength you 98lb. weakling. :P
Berserker, I really think you need the big bold letters when acting as mod.
This way... if the postings beside your name DON'T say:
"This is your moderator speaking"
...they'll know you're just Berserker the forum participant ...participating in the discussion.
Hope That Helps :)
-
Point proven - I post something that is positive towards Bush and get a flurry of responses pointing out the error of my ways.
I agree, Clinton got heavily scrutinised in his private life, but there was that little problem of him having sex with everything with a heartbeat and they denying it.
Bush is taking an even higher degree of heat - not for promiscuity, but for his religious and political outlook.
-
Your mod? ??? You say that like you only have 1 mod. You have 3. We all do.
And unless some egregious infraction has occurred, we have no need to call on them. They are afterall volunteers
So you're pissed because a right winger hasn't spoken up and called BS on a post you think is BS?
It's not the job of the mods to post your arguments in a discussion. If you think a statement is BS, call it.
Are we to interpret your impotence and inability to make your own arguments as indicative of the type of military muscle your nation has. You call yourself a strong man... now prove it. Show a little strength you 98lb. weakling. :P
Berserker, I really think you need the big bold letters when acting as mod.
This way... if the postings beside your name DON'T say:
"This is your moderator speaking"
...they'll know you're just Berserker the forum participant ...participating in the discussion.
Hope That Helps :)
Good post, this is just silly... Oh Brother.... ::)
-
I agree, Clinton got heavily scrutinised in his private life, but there was that little problem of him having sex with everything with a heartbeat and they denying it.
Bush is taking an even higher degree of heat - not for promiscuity, but for his religious and political outlook.
Clinton's sex life didn't have any effect on government policy. On the other hand, Bush's political and religious outlook does have an effect on government policy. The man claims that marijuana is a dangerous gateway drug, but is a documented alcohol and cocaine user. Plus his religious outlook is the reason he's against stemcell research. ::)
-
Point proven - I post something that is positive towards Bush and get a flurry of responses pointing out the error of my ways.
I agree, Clinton got heavily scrutinised in his private life, but there was that little problem of him having sex with everything with a heartbeat and they denying it.
Bush is taking an even higher degree of heat - not for promiscuity, but for his religious and political outlook.
Bush is taking heat for his incompetence, his lying, his stupid decisions, his trampelling on the constitution...
I could go on, but neither of us has all year to read the post.
-
Bush is taking heat for his incompetence, his lying, his stupid decisions, his trampelling on the constitution...
I could go on, but neither of us has all year to read the post.
Can you give me one example, just one, of where Bush has lied in his position as President?
-
Can you give me one example, just one, of where Bush has lied in his position as President?
Yellow cake.
-
Yellow cake.
I didn't ask you, but your two word answer proves nothing. Jag?
-
Can you give me one example, just one, of where Bush has lied in his position as President?
No, I cant.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I could not possibly limit myself to simply one.
yellow cake, Katrina, 911, WMD, no torture, no warrantless tapping etc., etc., etc,
Please don't ask me to elaborate, ...you'll have to bring yourself up to speed on your own time.
Hope That Clarifies
-
No, I cant.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I could not possibly limit myself to simply one.
yellow cake, Katrina, 911, WMD, no torture, no warrantless tapping etc., etc., etc,
Please don't ask me to elaborate, ...you'll have to bring yourself up to speed on your own time.
Hope That Clarifies
Ah, okay, I didn't think you'd be able to prove one instance where he has. Thank you.
-
I didn't ask you, but your two word answer proves nothing. Jag?
I accept that you don't understand the 'yellow cake' phrase.
-
I accept that you don't understand the 'yellow cake' phrase.
I accept that you don't actually have any proof whatsoever of Bush lying as President.
-
{LOL} Bruce, I'm beginning to think you're a troll, ...or are secretly looking to undermine the right wing.
I swear I can't help but laugh at some of the comments you make. it's hilarious.
-
I accept that you don't actually have any proof whatsoever of Bush lying as President.
Bruce is actually a BenFun7 gimmick like FuZe. I knew it.
-
I accept that you don't actually have any proof whatsoever of Bush lying as President.
I think the alleged "lies" involve whether Saddam had WMDs and whether he was a threat. The problem with these "lies" is they were being told by members of Congress long before Bush took office.
-
{LOL} Bruce, I'm beginning to think you're a troll, ...or are secretly looking to undermine the right wing.
I swear I can't help but laugh at some of the comments you make. it's hilarious.
Oh, yes! Coming from the person that made this brilliant remark:
If a Somali doesn't want to transport person carry alcohol or guide dogs that's his right
Thank you.
-
Bruce is actually a BenFun7 gimmick like FuZe. I knew it.
EXPOSED!!
-
EXPOSED!!
I demand proof you're not BenFun7, or I demand an apology.
However, if the "BRUCE" account is not the express property of BenFun7, yet BenFun7 uses it to do terrible things, then benFun7 cannot be blamed.
-
I demand proof you're not BenFun7, or I demand an apology.
However, if the "BRUCE" account is not the express property of BenFun7, yet BenFun7 uses it to do terrible things, then benFun7 cannot be blamed.
Um, Ron?
-
Um, Ron?
I believe BenFun7 is using the BRUCE account for fearmongering profiteering purposes for the Obama campaign.
-
I believe BenFun7 is using the BRUCE account for fearmongering profiteering purposes for the Obama campaign.
I'd believe someone is using your account to diminish the viability of your web pages, but they perfom to that end as a stand-alone project.
-
I'd believe someone is using your account to diminish the viability of your web pages, but they perfom to that end as a stand-alone project.
I believe BRUCE is now being used by Berserker in an attempt to gain support for hugo Chavez.
-
I believe BRUCE is now being used by Berserker in an attempt to gain support for hugo Chavez.
Berseker wouldn't even have nightmares involving some of the things I think of Hugo.
-
Berseker wouldn't even have nightmares involving some of the things I think of Hugo.
like, sex dreams?
-
like, sex dreams?
No, I save them for Hillary Condi Ann Coulter!
-
No, I save them for Hillary Condi Ann Coulter!
any port in a storm, brother.
-
any port in a storm, brother.
She's alright to look at, but goddam... you'd have to put a sock in her mouth.
-
No, I save them for Hillary Condi Ann Coulter!
OMG :-X
-
Why DOES Ann have such a big adam's apple?
(http://pr0n.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/b/b9/Coultertv.gif)
Ann Coulter (born Joseph Raymond McCarthy Coulter at least 100 years ago) is a conservative transsexual with a syndicated column. His right-wing diatribes are so full of bullshit that he MUST be trolling IRL. For instance, the chapters in his book Godless about evolution read like they were written by Jack Chick after a week long cocaine bender. Some people find him amusing, although Ann Coulter is not funny and all these people have shitty senses of humor.
What is most dramatic is that Ann Coulter used to be a black man. Born Abu Karim Muhammad al-Jamil ibn Nidal ibn Abdulaziz al-Filastini to a black muslim family, s/he had male to female surgery at a young age. The typical hormone therapy was incomplete in his case. He has no breasts and features typical of women who take testosterone steroids. Watch "her" Adam's apple bob up and down on "her" throat when "she" talks on Fox News. He also received skin and hair treatments to make him look more aryan.
:D
-
OMG :-X
:-[
-
:-[
She has a big ol adams apple dude :D
-
She has a big ol adams apple dude :D
I don't care what you say, I'd still rather sleep with her than Hugo.
-
I don't care what you say, I'd still rather sleep with her than Hugo.
ME TOO!!!!! Are you crazy, I'm not having sexual relations with my father :o
-
ME TOO!!!!! Are you crazy, I'm not having sexual relations with my father :o
And you have to admit she's pretty hot, for a dude.
-
And you have to admit she's pretty hot, for a dude.
yea, totally, for a dude, she's hot :P LOL ;D