Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: MagicBag.co Certified Organic All-In-One Grow Bags by Magic Bag   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract   Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2  [ show all ]
New Fanaticus Article (A little's new)
    #1336901 -

Deleted by admin

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: New Fanaticus Article (A little's new) [Re: World Spirit]
    #1337110 -

The economy sucks and so does Bush. Moved this here from General questions becasue iot was more political and basically had nothing to do with the fanaticus post, This was in resonse to my post.

And this is the first time I ever moved anyones reply to another forum but I thinkmany here would debate this persons viewpont of hois defense of Gyorgy.

mj

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: New Fanaticus Article (A little's new) [Re: World Spirit]
    #1337144 -

And here i thought this would be something worth reading..... :tongue:


--------------------
"Know your Body - Know your Mind - Know your Substance - Know your Source.

Lest we forget. "

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: New Fanaticus Article (A little's new) [Re: mjshroomer]
    #1337149 -

I disagree with everythingthe guy said John....but I wont argue a point to deaf ears, if sheeple wish to believe they are being protected by stripping away the freedom of everyone in the nation, then let them believe it, there is nothing that would change their minds....they believe what the news media says and the propaganda about being a free nation

Prisoner#1



--------------------
California Has Legalized Child Prostitution

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: New Fanaticus Article (A little's new) [Re: Prisoner#1]
    #1337204 -

Funny how you're a sheep, merely following a different shepherd.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: New Fanaticus Article (A little's new) [Re: World Spirit]
    #1337232 -

Ever think if Bush was not elected, the terrorist acts would have never occured? The economy wouldnt be so bad off, and then we wouldnt have to go to war to bounce it back up again..???

I think 9/11 was a response to the election of Bush II...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: New Fanaticus Article (A little's new) [Re: World Spirit]
    #1337308 -

I'd have to say that President Bush makes a fine president.

Hmm, convicted of drunk driving.

Did NOT garner the public vote.

Went AWOL for 1 year from the Air National Guard.

Showed zero interest when the WTC were attacked, and kept reading to school children for 20 minutes.

Promised to show definitive proof of Usama Bin Laden's involvement. None was revealed by the US Government, but by Usama himself many months later.

Promised to show definitive proof of the clever catch-phrase of "Weapons of Mass Destruction"; nothing was shown but rhetoric. Most Iraqi "Weapons of Mass Destruction" were supplied by the USA, France and GB; no irony there.

Pre-election he promised to honor states rights. Consistently violates states rights by arresting cripples in Santa Cruz and convicting Ed Rosenthal in a trial that made a total mockery of justice.

Passes laws to violate the constitution. Enables law enforcement to read your private e-mail, tap your phones, sieze your property, hold you without being charged, etc.

Under his rule there are more people in prison per capita than any other nation in
the history of the world.

Displays horrid diplomacy by pissing off foreign nations right and left with his arrogant righteousness.

Former cocaine abuser.

His family was heavily involved in the S&L Scandal costing Americans trillions.

Made his fortune by unethically getting taxpayers to pay for his stadium.

His kids are pot-smoking alcoholics.

His niece is a major substance abuser, but protected by her royal status.

Claims we are going into Iraq to protect the Kurds and to stop terrorism. We never gave a damn about the Kurds in the previous 30 years, nor do we mention the horrendous human rights violations in Syria and Turkey. No links to the WTC have been even remotely demonstrated.

16 terroists were from Saudi Arabia, why not attack them for supporting terror?

Cannot find funds for home education nor any life-affirming projects, but wants to spend $100 billion to avenge his father's mistake.

All-in-all a great Christ-like er "Christian" (guess that are not the same thing, are they, Enter?) President. A real fucking hero.


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: New Fanaticus Article (A little's new) [Re: angryshroom]
    #1337316 -

Quote:
I think 9/11 was a response to the election of Bush II...


It goes back much further than that. Are you familiar with the statements of Bin Laden? Are you familiar with the U.S. policies in the mid-east which pre-date the election of George Bush? 9/11 was a response to the perception that the U.S. is an empire and a supporter of Israel.

As far as the economy, ever heard of the business cycle and fiat currency? The Federal Reserve's monetary policies led to the stock market bubble (mal-investment). This problem is systemic and cannot be blamed on Bush. His response to it however can be blamed on him. He's a fucking pickle-brained born again spoiled rich kid with dictatorial tendencies.


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: New Fanaticus Article (A little's new) [Re: Evolving]
    #1337324 -

He's a fucking pickle-brained born again spoiled rich kid with dictatorial tendencies.

No need to build him up!



--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: New Fanaticus Article (A little's new) [Re: World Spirit]
    #1337336 -

Helen Thomas, the legendary White House correspondent who has personally covered eight presidents over a period of forty years, recently called Bush "the worst president in all of American history."

See here

In my opinion, Bush makes Nixon seem pretty harmless (not to mention that Nixon was a foreign policy genius compared to him).

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: New Fanaticus Article (A little's new) [Re: angryshroom]
    #1337337 -

Quote:
Ever think if Bush was not elected, the terrorist acts would have never occured? The economy wouldnt be so bad off, and then we wouldnt have to go to war to bounce it back up again..???

I think 9/11 was a response to the election of Bush II...


Sorry but the economy started sliding while Klinton was in office.
As for 9/11, scum ic scum. They would have done it no matter who was president. Or have you forgotten the 93 bombing? Or are you just so anti Bush that you don't think about what you say?


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: New Fanaticus Article (A little's new) [Re: Swami]
    #1337363 -

Quote:
Hmm, convicted of drunk driving.


A lot of people have been. So what?

Quote:
Did NOT garner the public vote.


The electoral vote is all that counts.

Quote:
Showed zero interest when the WTC were attacked, and kept reading to school children for 20 minutes.


So if he had jumped right up and headed for Air Force 1, 20 minutes would have made any difference?

Quote:
Pre-election he promised to honor states rights. Consistently violates states rights by arresting cripples in Santa Cruz and convicting Ed Rosenthal in a trial that made a total mockery of justice.

Passes laws to violate the constitution. Enables law enforcement to read your private e-mail, tap your phones, sieze your property, hold you without being charged, etc.



Both are sad, yes. Congress passed the pot laws long before he was pres, as for the Patriot Act, there's no defence for that.
I don't recall having heard HE arrested anyone. Do you have special inside info or does accuracy not concern you?

Quote:
Under his rule there are more people in prison per capita than any other nation in the history of the world.



You could easily say that about the last several presidents.

Quote:
Displays horrid diplomacy by pissing off foreign nations right and left with his arrogant righteousness.


His job is to look out for us, not the other nations.

Quote:
Former cocaine abuser.


Lame. How many on this site have done coke? That makes them bad?

Quote:
His kids are pot-smoking alcoholics.


See above.

Quote:
His niece is a major substance abuser, but protected by her royal status.


See above.

Quote:
Cannot find funds for home education nor any life-affirming projects, but wants to spend $100 billion to avenge his father's mistake.


Good. The federal government has no business funding life affirming projects. Read and try to comprehend the 10th ammendment.


All in all, you made a very lame post.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Edited by luvdemshrooms (02/26/03 09:06 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: New Fanaticus Article (A little's new) [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #1337393 -

Actually I thought his post was excellent... :smirk:


--------------------
"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: New Fanaticus Article (A little's new) [Re: World Spirit]
    #1337394 -

> Don't blame this incident regarding PF on the president.

Yeah don't blame the president.  He has nothing to do with running your country.  He is just an innocent bystander. 

> The posts that are permitted at all mushroom websites speak for themselves.

That is, until the websites get confiscated by the DEA. 

> We act enlightened, yet we speak like newborns fumbling with our words the best we can.

You only speak for yourself. 

I cant wait till your next post where you applaud your government for destroying the paraphernalia business.  :smirk: 


--------------------
man = monkey + mushroom

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: New Fanaticus Article (A little's new) [Re: Rono]
    #1337401 -

Funny, I would have thought that you, as someone who seems to like accuracy, even though we disagree on the conclusions we reach, would have had a problem with the level of accuracy in this post.

Quite frankly, it was crap.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: New Fanaticus Article (A little's new) [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #1337450 -

Note the lack of response about Bush's violation of his military oath and shirking of his duty.


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmm, convicted of drunk driving.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A lot of people have been. So what?

You are correct, violating the law and intentionally endangering others is the hallmark of a great president.


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did NOT garner the public vote.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The electoral vote is all that counts.

In a republic that is true, but he constantly calls us a democracy, which is hyprocitical or at least, ignorant.


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Showed zero interest when the WTC were attacked, and kept reading to school children for 20 minutes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So if he had jumped right up and headed for Air Force 1, 20 minutes would have made any difference?

There is strong evidence that quick, decisive action may have stopped the second plane into the WTC and DEFINITELY could have prevented the Pentagon attack. Why you would ever defend this demonstration of lack of concern and leadership is beyond me.


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-election he promised to honor states rights. Consistently violates states rights by arresting cripples in Santa Cruz and convicting Ed Rosenthal in a trial that made a total mockery of justice.

Passes laws to violate the constitution. Enables law enforcement to read your private e-mail, tap your phones, sieze your property, hold you without being charged, etc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both are sad, yes. Congress passed the pot laws long before he was pres, as for the Patriot Act, there's no defence for that.

Hey, we agree that he is not defending the constitution as he took an oath to do; again not the mark of a great president.


I don't recall having heard HE arrested anyone. Do you have special inside info or does accuracy not concern you?

Apparently you are unaware that his henchmen, er, cabinet members and similar postholders, are hand-picked to be in accord with his policies. Did you think Hutchinson was elected? Try some junior college courses and get up to speed on political science.


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under his rule there are more people in prison per capita than any other nation in the history of the world.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You could easily say that about the last several presidents.

So you think that violating human rights makes for a great president? Look at his horrific record in Texas prisons.


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Displays horrid diplomacy by pissing off foreign nations right and left with his arrogant righteousness.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
His job is to look out for us, not the other nations.

True, but how does making more enemies make our nation safer? I suppose the WTC bombings had absoluetly nothing to do with our foreign policy?!


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Former cocaine abuser.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lame. How many on this site have done coke? That makes them bad?

How is that "lame"? How many others on this site are total hypocrites in that they support stiff prison sentences for cocaine use?


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
His kids are pot-smoking alcoholics.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See above.

Double-standard. See above.


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
His niece is a major substance abuser, but protected by her royal status.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See above.

Double-standard. See above.


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cannot find funds for home education nor any life-affirming projects, but wants to spend $100 billion to avenge his father's mistake.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good. The federal government has no business funding life affirming projects.

I see. We should only spend money on death-affirming projects such as weapons, military might, and war. This is a very Christian attitude.


All in all, you made a very lame post.

And you made a strong case that he is, indeed a GREAT president?


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Edited by Swami (02/26/03 09:31 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: New Fanaticus Article (A little's new) [Re: Swami]
    #1337552 -

Quote:
Note the lack of response about Bush's violation of his military oath and shirking of his duty.


I'm aware of the talk but haven't taken the time to delve into it. As such I didn't comment on something I do not know all the details of. You should try it.


Quote:
You are correct, violating the law and intentionally endangering others is the hallmark of a great president.


Where did you see me say it was a good thing? It certainly doesn't disqualify him from being president. Have you ever driven after having a few or perhaps smoking a bit of pot?


Quote:
In a republic that is true, but he constantly calls us a democracy, which is hypocritical or at least, ignorant.


So do the majority of Americans, both left and right. It's a common mistake, even Klinton calls it that. (both of them) Did you ever think twice about it when either of them do it? I doubt it.


Quote:
There is strong evidence that quick, decisive action may have stopped the second plane into the WTC and DEFINITELY could have prevented the Pentagon attack. Why you would ever defend this demonstration of lack of concern and leadership is beyond me.


Actually, every timeline I've seen has shown there wasn't enough time. Care to provide a source for your claim? It has nothing to do with a lack of concern and to claim otherwise is blatant bullshit.


Quote:
Hey, we agree that he is not defending the constitution as he took an oath to do; again not the mark of a great president.


In this case yes, not good. However, have you ever made a similar post about Klinton, the FBI files, Travelgate, Juanita Brodderick, Kathlene Wiley (sp) or are you too enamored with Bubba?


Quote:
Apparently you are unaware that his henchmen, er, cabinet members and similar postholders, are hand-picked to be in accord with his policies. Did you think Hutchinson was elected? Try some junior college courses and get up to speed on political science.


So he picked the arresting officers personally? I'd say it's you who needs to brush up on accuracy. You said....
"Consistently violates states rights by arresting cripples in Santa Cruz and convicting Ed Rosenthal in a trial that made a total mockery of justice."
He arrested no-one. He convicted no-one. What part of He do you fail to grasp. Perhaps a dictioary definition of "he" would help?


Quote:
So you think that violating human rights makes for a great president? Look at his horrific record in Texas prisons.


Why do you have so much trouble with a simple sentence. Is blind hatred obscuring your vision? I do however have no problem with capital punishment if that's what you're getting at.


Quote:
True, but how does making more enemies make our nation safer? I suppose the WTC bombings had absoluetly nothing to do with our foreign policy?!


More than likely (although we'll never know, 9/11 would have happened no matter who was president.


Quote:
How is that "lame"? How many others on this site are total hypocrites in that they support stiff prison sentences for cocaine use?


It's lame when you don't include the second sentence in the original post. It's lame when you write the sentence in a manner which only suggests he's a bad guy for having done cocaine.


Quote:
Double-standard. See above.


Every (well most anyway) parent looks out for his kids. If he didn't you'd bash him for that as well.



Quote:
I see. We should only spend money on death-affirming projects such as weapons, military might, and war. This is a very Christian attitude.


I'm an atheist. We should only spend money on that which is authorized by the constitution and bill of rights. War is covered, "life affirming" projects are not. Work to change the constitution if you're not happy with it. I like it as is.



Quote:
And you made a strong case that he is, indeed a GREAT president?


Once again you misquote me. I was merely pointing out the falicys and hypocrisys in your post. I think he (for the most part) is a good president, but by no means a great one. He is FAR better than our last president.

If you decide to respond to this, wait until you can at least read and understand what I have written. You've done a poor job so far.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Edited by luvdemshrooms (02/26/03 10:15 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: New Fanaticus Article (A little's new) [Re: mjshroomer]
    #1337690 -

I didn't read any of the other posts in this thread. I just want to reference your post...

>The economy sucks and so does Bush

The economy has nothing to do w/ Bush. It has absolutely nothing to do w/ him. Any and every economist will tell you this. Any one in the finance industry will tell you this.

Today's economic woes began many years ago in the 90's. It's way too easy to legitimetly argue that our economic concerns are rooted in Clinton's administration.

Clinton was clearly warned by Greenspan a year and a half prior to the end of his admin that our economy was goin to be fucked and to do somethin, but Clinton sat on his ass cuz he knew he'd be out of office and decided to pass the problem on.

Regarding the tech boom, it was clear to anyone in the industry that the tech boom wasn't financially sound. You had hundreds of companies not turnin a single profit yet having killer ipo's. Individual investors (the blind and the clueless) were taken for a ride...and it all occurred during Clinton's presidency....so fuck the personal bashin cuz it gets old really fast.


--------------------
Marijuana is a horticultural plant.  Hemp is an industrial weed.  I believe they were both provided to us by GOD to use and enjoy.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: New Fanaticus Article (A little's new) [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #1337768 -

Swami i loved your points...
Luvdems were you on the debating team in highschool?

I didn't know bush had tried coke!! To me that just seems outrageous! What would happen to me if i was caught with cocaine? How easy would it be for me to get a job?

I cant understand how people can be so against drugs when they themselves know what it is like to want to try them and experiment.
We need to embrace all drugs and let people make informed descisions that way more people will do shrooms and weed instead of coke and other synthetics...


--------------------
"Know your Body - Know your Mind - Know your Substance - Know your Source.

Lest we forget. "

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: New Fanaticus Article (A little's new) [Re: Azmodeus]
    #1337782 -

Quote:
Swami i loved your points...


Does that mean accuracy isn't important to you either?

Quote:
Luvdems were you on the debating team in highschool?


No. I'm just a big fan of truth and accuracy.

Quote:
I cant understand how people can be so against drugs when they themselves know what it is like to want to try them and experiment.


Perhaps he had a bad experience and wants to "save" us from ourselves. Perhaps he's had a change of heart. Perhaps he's just spewing the anti-drug stuff for the public.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: New Fanaticus Article (A little's new) [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #1337808 -

As such I didn't comment on something I do not know all the details of. You should try it.

Specific referral please rather than a generic attack.


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are correct, violating the law and intentionally endangering others is the hallmark of a great president.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where did you see me say it was a good thing?

Apparently you have a severe reading comprehension or short-term memory problem.

All of my intial post was directed towards this comment of Enter's: I'd have to say that President Bush makes a fine president.

My response was taking the position that Bush is NOT a fine president.


It certainly doesn't disqualify him from being president.

Guess you read things that were never said. Never said anything about qualifications. We will try again: I'd have to say that President Bush makes a fine president.


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a republic that is true, but he constantly calls us a democracy, which is hypocritical or at least, ignorant.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So do the majority of Americans, both left and right. It's a common mistake, even Klinton calls it that. (both of them)

Where does Clinton come in here? Can you not stay on track man? So you think that political ignorance is the hallmark of a fine president?


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is strong evidence that quick, decisive action may have stopped the second plane into the WTC and DEFINITELY could have prevented the Pentagon attack. Why you would ever defend this demonstration of lack of concern and leadership is beyond me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually, every timeline I've seen has shown there wasn't enough time. Care to provide a source for your claim? It has nothing to do with a lack of concern and to claim otherwise is blatant bullshit.

I see. The president "knew" ahead of time that nothing further could be done and that is why he dilly-dallied for 20 minutes while New York burned. So in your mind, continued reading of the Billy Goat story was a decisive "action" and is the hallmark of a fine president?


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey, we agree that he is not defending the constitution as he took an oath to do; again not the mark of a great president.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In this case yes, not good. However, have you ever made a similar post about Klinton, the FBI files, Travelgate, Juanita Brodderick, Kathlene Wiley (sp) or are you too enamored with Bubba?

What evil or stupidy that others have propagated is irrelevant as to whether or not Bush is a "fine President". This is twice that you have brought up Clinton now. Guess it is impossible for your attention not to wander to your favorite subject which was never mentioned nor implied.


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apparently you are unaware that his henchmen, er, cabinet members and similar postholders, are hand-picked to be in accord with his policies. Did you think Hutchinson was elected? Try some junior college courses and get up to speed on political science.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So he picked the arresting officers personally? I'd say it's you who needs to brush up on accuracy. You said....

"Consistently violates states rights by arresting cripples in Santa Cruz and convicting Ed Rosenthal in a trial that made a total mockery of justice."
He arrested no-one. He convicted no-one. What part of He do you fail to grasp.

And Hitler did not kill a single Jew; he merely gave the orders.

Bush promised to protect the states rights which he did not. This is called a lie; a broken promise. He hand-picked the Attroney General and Drug Czar to follow his wishes. Apparently you know little about management, being Commander-in-Chief, "the buck stops here" or any form of leadership authority and responsibility.


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So you think that violating human rights makes for a great president? Look at his horrific record in Texas prisons.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why do you have so much trouble with a simple sentence.

I am guessing that this is, in effect, a question. But what it refers to is anyone's guess.

Is blind hatred obscuring your vision?

Hatred? Obscuring? My eyes are open wider than most Americans.


I do however have no problem with capital punishment if that's what you're getting at.

Never mentioned that. Under Bush, Texas had the highest per capita prison population. Under Bush, the USA has the highest per capita prison population ever.


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
True, but how does making more enemies make our nation safer? I suppose the WTC bombings had absolutely nothing to do with our foreign policy?!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More than likely (although we'll never know, 9/11 would have happened no matter who was president.

Perhaps, but do you believe that Bush should keep making bad foreign policy decisions to ensure future acts of revenge?


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How is that "lame"? How many others on this site are total hypocrites in that they support stiff prison sentences for cocaine use?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's lame when you don't include the second sentence in the original post. It's lame when you write the sentence in a manner which only suggests he's a bad guy for having done cocaine.

Ah, a person who commits a felony is a "fine president" with or without the second sentence.


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Double-standard. See above.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Every (well most anyway) parent looks out for his kids. If he didn't you'd bash him for that as well.

That is a pathetic strawman. Try responding to what I ACTUALLY wrote, not what you would have me write. A basic course in logic might help your debating skills and make you more credible.


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I see. We should only spend money on death-affirming projects such as weapons, military might, and war. This is a very Christian attitude.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm an atheist.

Irrelevant what religion you are. This thread is NOT about you. Bush claims to be a Christian, but does way too many unChrist-like acts.


We should only spend money on that which is authorized by the constitution and bill of rights. War is covered, "life affirming" projects are not. Work to change the constitution if you're not happy with it. I like it as is.

Naivite at is zenith. The USA spends all kinds of money on things not specified by the Constitution; which by the way, is being dismantled piece-by-piece under the fine leadership of Mr. Bush.


He is FAR better than our last president.
Third Clintonian reference. Do you have an obsession? Whether or not CLinton was or was not a fine president has ZERO bearing on whether or not Bush is a fine president. This fact seems beyond your grasp.



--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: New Fanaticus Article (A little's new) [Re: Swami]
    #1337835 -

Good shit swami! You should spend more time over here.


--------------------
I may not always tell the truth, but atleast I'm honest
-----------

I see what everyone is saying. It is so hard to form an opinion when you see both sides so clearly!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: New Fanaticus Article (A little's new) [Re: Swami]
    #1337900 -

Quote:
Specific referral please rather than a generic attack.



IMO your entire post.

Quote:
Apparently you have a severe reading comprehension or short-term memory problem.


Can't you do any better than that? My response to you was a direct comment on your response to me. Perhaps if you go back and re-read it you'll do better the second time.

Quote:
Guess you read things that were never said. Never said anything about qualifications. We will try again: I'd have to say that President Bush makes a fine president.


I can comprehend sarcasm.

Quote:
Where does Clinton come in here? Can you not stay on track man? So you think that political ignorance is the hallmark of a fine president?


Nope. I was just asking if you had the same problem when others do it.

Quote:
I see. The president "knew" ahead of time that nothing further could be done and that is why he dilly-dallied for 20 minutes while New York burned. So in your mind, continued reading of the Billy Goat story was a decisive "action" and is the hallmark of a fine president?


Not very good at either comprehending the written word or reading minds are you? I'm still waiting for the source of your claim.

Quote:
Guess it is impossible for your attention not to wander to your favorite subject which was never mentioned nor implied.


Still just curious if you have a problem with others or if you only find Bush's action contemptible.

Quote:
Bush promised to protect the states rights which he did not. This is called a lie; a broken promise. He hand-picked the Attroney General and Drug Czar to follow his wishes. Apparently you know little about management, being Commander-in-Chief, "the buck stops here" or any form of leadership authority and responsibility.


And it seems you can't follow along with Congress being the ones to make or change laws. Does that mean Bush has asked for them to be changed? I doubt it but he didn't pass or sign the laws. They were there when he was elected.

Quote:
Hatred? Obscuring? My eyes are open wider than most Americans.


I'm sure you think so but I've seen nothing here to back up that pompous claim.

Quote:
Under Bush, Texas had the highest per capita prison population. Under Bush, the USA has the highest per capita prison population ever.


And that would have changed had someone else been in charge? Can you either prove that or provide someone elses proof? Or is it ESP, future sight or wishful thinking?

Quote:
Ah, a person who commits a felony is a "fine president" with or without the second sentence.


I didn't say he was a fine President. Please, your arguements are weak enough on their own without you "exaggerations".
My point was it was a poorly written sentence. The second sentence changes the entire meaning.

Quote:
That is a pathetic strawman. Try responding to what I ACTUALLY wrote, not what you would have me write. A basic course in logic might help your debating skills and make you more credible.


Nothing "strawman" about it. I was trying to point out nicely I find you to be, or at least come across, as an incredible hypocrite. And as for logic, IMO yours is poor at best. I'd go as far as to describe it as shameful.

Quote:
Irrelevant what religion you are. This thread is NOT about you. Bush claims to be a Christian, but does way too many unChrist-like acts.


I wasn't aware atheist was or is a religion. As to the second, what Bush claims to be is unimportant to me as long as he looks out for the US first.

Quote:
Naivite at is zenith. The USA spends all kinds of money on things not specified by the Constitution; which by the way, is being dismantled piece-by-piece under the fine leadership of Mr. Bush.

The only one naive here is you. The US should spend no monies not speciffically allowed for in the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights.
.
Quote:
Third Clintonian reference. Do you have an obsession? Whether or not CLinton was or was not a fine president has ZERO bearing on whether or not Bush is a fine president. This fact seems beyond your grasp.


Still just curious. You produced nothing beyond my grasp other than wonderment at your thought processes.


Should you decide to waste even more of your time, at least try not to put words in my mouth this time.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: New Fanaticus Article (A little's new) [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #1338372 -

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specific referral please rather than a generic attack.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMO your entire post.

An entire post is a "specific" line?! Try using a dictionary.




Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guess you read things that were never said. Never said anything about qualifications. We will try again: I'd have to say that President Bush makes a fine president.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can comprehend sarcasm.

Sarcasm? There is that reading comprehension problem again. "I'd have to say that President Bush makes a fine president. " is the quote from Enter that I responded to.

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where does Clinton come in here? Can you not stay on track man? So you think that political ignorance is the hallmark of a fine president?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nope. I was just asking if you had the same problem when others do it.

This is called side-stepping. Start a new thread on Clinton and I will respond there instead of muddying this one up.


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So in your mind, continued reading of the Billy Goat story was a decisive "action" and is the hallmark of a fine president?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not very good at either comprehending the written word or reading minds are you?

Do you NOT understand the nature of a question? There is no mind-reading going on, but a request for clarification. Check the punctuation at the end there.


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guess it is impossible for your attention not to wander to your favorite subject which was never mentioned nor implied.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Still just curious if you have a problem with others or if you only find Bush's action contemptible.

Your repetition is monotonous. Start a new thread.


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bush promised to protect the states rights which he did not. This is called a lie; a broken promise. He hand-picked the Attorney General and Drug Czar to follow his wishes. Apparently you know little about management, being Commander-in-Chief, "the buck stops here" or any form of leadership authority and responsibility.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And it seems you can't follow along with Congress being the ones to make or change laws. Does that mean Bush has asked for them to be changed? I doubt it but he didn't pass or sign the laws. They were there when he was elected.

Nice, but weak try. Congress did NOT force Bush to make or break a promise. PERIOD

Congress did not pick Bush's cabinet members. PERIOD

Congress did not direct Hutchinson and Ashcroft to send D.E.A. Agents to a medical marijuana dispensary full camo gear and automatic weapons in Santa Cruz when a knock and a warrant would have sufficed. Period.


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hatred? Obscuring?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sure you think so but I've seen nothing here to back up that pompous claim.

Like you backed up your hatred claim?


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under Bush, Texas had the highest per capita prison population. Under Bush, the USA has the highest per capita prison population ever.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And that would have changed had someone else been in charge? Can you either prove that or provide someone elses proof? Or is it ESP, future sight or wishful thinking?

This is fact that cannot be argued. I never mentioned the why or how, but only the "isness" of it. As usual you cannot deal with what was ACTUALLY presented. Look up the stats at the Bureau of Prisons.


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah, a person who commits a felony is a "fine president" with or without the second sentence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't say he was a fine President. Please, your arguements are weak enough on their own without you "exaggerations".

ONCE AGAIN ENTER SAID THAT and this was a refutation. Why do you have such enormous trouble with understanding the nature and theme of a post? Go back to the beginning and read it.


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is a pathetic strawman. Try responding to what I ACTUALLY wrote, not what you would have me write. A basic course in logic might help your debating skills and make you more credible.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nothing "strawman" about it. I was trying to point out nicely I find you to be, or at least come across, as an incredible hypocrite. And as for logic, IMO yours is poor at best. I'd go as far as to describe it as shameful.

It certainly is a strawman when you make up a statement that was NOT said then attempt to shoot it down. Look it up.


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Irrelevant what religion you are. This thread is NOT about you. Bush claims to be a Christian, but does way too many unChrist-like acts.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wasn't aware atheist was or is a religion.

There is that amazing reading comprehension difficulty again. Never said that atheism was or was not a religion; only that yours was irrelevant to Bush's religious hypocracy.


As to the second, what Bush claims to be is unimportant to me as long as he looks out for the US first.
This thread is still NOT about you, but about whether or not "Bush is a fine president." I know this is difficult for you to follow.


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Naivite at is zenith. The USA spends all kinds of money on things not specified by the Constitution; which by the way, is being dismantled piece-by-piece under the fine leadership of Mr. Bush.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The only one naive here is you. The US should spend no monies not speciffically allowed for in the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights.

There is no mention of the word "should". There are thousand of projects that the USA spends monies on not outlined in the Constitution. This is unarguable.


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third Clintonian reference. Do you have an obsession? Whether or not CLinton was or was not a fine president has ZERO bearing on whether or not Bush is a fine president. This fact seems beyond your grasp.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Still just curious. You produced nothing beyond my grasp other than wonderment at your thought processes.

Is that a real response as to why you mention Clinton? A.D.D. ?


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Edited by Swami (02/27/03 01:49 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: New Fanaticus Article (A little's new) [Re: Swami]
    #1339029 -

Truly sad. I'll waste no more time with this.

Responding with misleading sentences and half truths will not score you any points except with half-wits.

I'll just leave you with a "keep trying".


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Edited by luvdemshrooms (02/26/03 09:53 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: New Fanaticus Article (A little's new) [Re: Swami]
    #1339164 -

You are wasting your time with him I think. When he loses he just gets more obnoxious.


--------------------
I may not always tell the truth, but atleast I'm honest
-----------

I see what everyone is saying. It is so hard to form an opinion when you see both sides so clearly!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: New Fanaticus Article (A little's new) [Re: Swami]
    #1341258 -

:grin: :grin: :grin: :grin:

So this is where you are spending your time?

Caught ya!  Should you be doing, ahem, more important things? :wink:

hint hint

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2  [ show all ]

Shop: MagicBag.co Certified Organic All-In-One Grow Bags by Magic Bag   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract   Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Bill Clinton to run U.N.? ekomstop 1,380 11 10/22/04 06:32 PM
by Divided_Sky
* The Negro Project!!! Ellis Dee 859 5 04/08/02 11:38 PM
by
* An article from April 4, 1999 on the U.S. federal debt RandalFlagg 696 5 01/22/05 09:53 AM
by RandalFlagg
* Compared to George Bush, Clinton was Conservative
( 1 2 all )		 Skeptikos 4,645 31 01/20/06 12:11 AM
by Falcon91Wolvrn03
* Long Boring Article on Amer-Euro relations JesusChrist 1,142 11 10/19/04 11:02 AM
by Annapurna1
* Mother convicted in son's suicide PsiloKitten 874 5 10/07/03 04:37 PM
by Anonymous
* bill clinton: the best republican president we've ever had?
( 1 2 all )		 entiformatie 2,712 31 07/01/03 08:50 PM
by luvdemshrooms
* The Clinton Legacy is 9/11/01.
( 1 2 all )		 Ellis Dee 4,659 24 02/14/02 08:28 PM
by PGF

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
2,481 topic views. 3 members, 1 guests and 8 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.042 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 16 queries.