Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » OT: Political IQ Test
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #65208] |
Thu, 05 February 2004 18:34   |
 |
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Nodbugger |
And your piont has been sustained by anything? Ive only countered your opinion with common sense.
Its all I need to get rid of you.
And the website is not a source. Its an opinion site that is obviously biased.
And if you eve go that site I can see why you are soo stupid.
And the tax cuts were across the board. They helped everyone that payed taxes.
And may I ask you a few questions
1. How would leaving Saddam in power promote Peace in the middle east?
2. Do you agree Saddam needed to be dealt with?
3. If not for war, what other way could we remove Saddam from power?
(BTW I have never heard someone like you answer these questions)
|
First off, you "countered" me with opinions, in which you believe that your opinions are common sense. This is an opinion. Opinions do not equal facts, except apparently in your crazy world. Your common sense is all you need to get rid of me? Man, shut up. I keep coming back, and I'm not going away because of your opinions.
Yes, that website may be an opinion site, until they get to quoting Bush about his speeches. You can't bias something that someone else said. My god, as soon as you see something that doesn't like Bush, all you people go in an uproar about the site being biased, where in fact the site is telling the truth. That site is a source, plain and goddam simple. (Notice how I don't care at all about your opinions. I can't recall you uttering a single number to support your cause YET.) And in the future, don't say that I'm stupid because I went to a website in which it is your opinion that the site is bad.
You still didn't explain to me how residential tax cuts work, which makes it apparent to me that you have no concept of how they work. And don't give me that stupid baby argument of "Oh, I know how they work, it's just that YOU want me to explain it to you." That's just stupid.
If the tax cuts were across the board and you know it, how about you get me some numbers to support it?
My answers to your questions:
1) Yes, Saddam had an effect on the region. Yes, it was a bad one. Yes, it would have made me happy to see him step down.
2) Yes, Saddam needed to be dealt with. Bush did it in about the worst way possible. He basically flicked off the U.N. and went his merry way. He also went in saying to the media that they knew WMDs were in Iraq. Can you say wrong? I know I can.
3) There really was no correct way to remove Saddam Hussein from power at the time.
Listen up, don't call me a hypocrite because I thought Saddam was bad but I also thought Bush made sucky decisions to get him out of power.
Crimson: WHAT THE HELL. Clinton cut the military in half? To support such a crazy "fact" like that you really need some numbers.
Finally, Nodbugger, this thread is about Bush is good or bad, not about whether anyone else is, although I am happy to defend Clinton all day long. And you really have to get some numbers to support what you are saying. Because all of your opinion posts are really getting on my nerves, and they don't really prove much of anything other than that you can't prove a point.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #65211] |
Thu, 05 February 2004 19:03 |
Llama Man 451
Messages: 79
Registered: February 2004
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
nodbugger give me a friggin break thae fact that you say you dont watch the news is proof enough yoou dont know shit about politicswhich you already have proved earlier in the thread. anyay i said that saddam didnt have an effect on ALL of the middle east idiot, kuwiit was scared to death i know!!!!! also false premises weapons of mass destruction, liberation of theIraqui people, an end to terrorism, we dont want oil. . . read between the lines!!! we didnt do any of those we found no weapons we are turning Iraq into a friggin anarchy practically, we are talking about going to saudi arabia and there was never any proof about sadddams link to terrorism it was bin ladin (or so they say)nthose were false premises.
crimson- that was a good speech but i dont understand the point of it exactly, it still doesnt answer why we went to war with iraq and seriously if my facts and comebacks are pissing you off maybe you should come up with osme of your own (not to brag or anything)i must congratulate you on your IRS bit (if you ask me, you can trust the IRS as far as you can sling a piano) but compared to nodbugger King of Assuming He's Right here you are Socrates. unfortunately it still doesnt really level out the scale and i still wanna hear what these taxes are all about nodblugger
also like superfly said this was about current events not how awesome of a president clinton was, so maybe we should talk abou things that are happening now like abortion and stuff. im getting bored of proving nodblugger wrong and i think it would be good to moveon to a new topic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #65215] |
Thu, 05 February 2004 19:21 |
 |
Crimson
Messages: 7428
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
| Llama Man 451 |
crimson- that was a good speech but i dont understand the point of it exactly,
|
If you can't swim with the big fishes, don't jump in the ocean.
| Quote: |
it still doesnt answer why we went to war with iraq
|
Yeah, well, maybe you hit the snooze button again.
| Quote: |
and seriously if my facts
|
Facts? Where?
| Quote: |
and comebacks are pissing you off maybe you should come up with osme of your own (not to brag or anything)
|
Sorry I prefer to discuss like an adult.
| Quote: |
i must congratulate you on your IRS bit (if you ask me, you can trust the IRS as far as you can sling a piano)
|
Oh, so now we just can't trust the numbers when they don't end up in your favor, eh? Maybe I should have added the word "allegedly" to it?
| Quote: |
also like superfly said this was about current events not how awesome of a president clinton was, so maybe we should talk abou things that are happening now like abortion and stuff. im getting bored of proving nodblugger wrong and i think it would be good to moveon to a new topic.
|
You want a different topic, start a new thread. I'm not arguing how "awesome Clinton was" because the truth was the exact opposite.
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #65216] |
Thu, 05 February 2004 19:21 |
Llama Man 451
Messages: 79
Registered: February 2004
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
|
nodblugger- i TOTALLY agree with you Iraq is TOTALLY stable. thats why we need a large, expensive military presence there . . . theyre about as stabledick cheneys blood pressure
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #65217] |
Thu, 05 February 2004 19:24 |
Llama Man 451
Messages: 79
Registered: February 2004
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
|
facts where- last time i checked crimson i had given more facts than your alleged clinton poster and im sorry for suggesting something i should have know you are right about everything
|
|
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #65219] |
Thu, 05 February 2004 19:35 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Crimson |
If you can't swim with the big fishes, don't jump in the ocean.
|
The fact that you posted someone giving an eloquent speech about the U.S. not responding to terrorism with wars instead of sending that sissy F.B.I. organization out...is actually fairly irrelevant. I feel for llama man when he can't quite follow randomness.
| Crimson |
Yeah, well, maybe you hit the snooze button again.
|
What in the world are you talking about? Iraq had no connections with terrorism, except when that little assassin group came in, but if it didn't justify a war back then, why should it justify one now? Contrary to what the media says, Iraq had no connection with 9/11.
You really could have been more specific in addressing a post then quoting 5 words of it and saying that it's wrong.
| Crimson |
Sorry I prefer to discuss like an adult.
|
Then why'd you call me a Dumbass earlier, if you're such an adult?
| Crimson |
Oh, so now we just can't trust the numbers when they don't end up in your favor, eh?
|
Im gonna have to go with you on this one, the IRS really isn't biased one way or another.
| Crimson |
You want a different topic, start a new thread. I'm not arguing how "awesome Clinton was" because the truth was the exact opposite.
|
I'm afraid I was a little misunderstood when I told Nodbugger to stay focused on Bush. What I meant was that he should stop dissing me because of his opinions, because it's childish and doesn't get anywhere. And it would only seem as if Clinton were a bad president because conservatives tried to get Clinton in so many scandals, like Whitewater, which was just stupid. Yeah, Clinton definitely sucked enough to create 23 million jobs while he was president.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #65220] |
Thu, 05 February 2004 19:40 |
Llama Man 451
Messages: 79
Registered: February 2004
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
HOLY SHIT hell has frozen over nodbugger has agreed with someone no way im glad that you put up a random thing about germany. however we are not invading and killing germany so it is quite different CRIMSON YOU NEED TO CHILL OUT AND ACTUALLY READ WHAT OTHER PEOPLE SAY NOT JUST SKIMM IT? AND STOP TRYING TO FALL BACK ON stupid peoples speeches sorry bout caps but i in response to your little conniption
DMAN I AM CONTROVERSIAL!!!
"You all stare but you'll never see/ There's someting inside me" - Corey Taylor
Life is strange when you must lock your door in fear of your cat
Sometimes when I'm all alone I stare at my goldfish, and think about how much I hate fishticks, then I realize that I don't have a goldfish.
There is a fair chance that at this moment I am being hunted by a demonic monkey from Central America. Please don't tell him I've been here. Please. I don't know what he wants.
[Updated on: Thu, 05 February 2004 19:42] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #65224] |
Thu, 05 February 2004 19:43 |
|
Crimson
Messages: 7428
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
Facts: Clinton cut the active military in half:
Total counts of Active Duty Military Personnel (Army + Navy + Marine Corps + Air Force)
1987: 2,174,217
(Bush, Sr. takes office)
1988: 2,138,213
1989: 2,130,229
1990: 2,043,705
1991: 1,985,555
(Clinton takes office)
1992: 1,807,180
1993: 1,705,103
1994: 1,610,490
1995: 1,518,224
1996: 1,471,722
1997: 1,438,562
1998: 1,406,830
1999: 1,385,703
(Clinton leaves office)
These figures show a net loss of 788,514 active military personnel, which is 36% of the military that Reagan had at the end of his term in 1988. You can see a graphical representation of this:
http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/military/ms8.pdf
or the actual numbers at:
http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/military/ms9.pdf
Note that these numbers do not include the FBI or CIA, which I think I need to dig up, because I know that their funding was cut along with the DoD funding.
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #65226] |
Thu, 05 February 2004 19:47 |
Llama Man 451
Messages: 79
Registered: February 2004
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
nodbugger, what the hell are you talking about they are doing well there are about two suicide bombings a week!!!
java, which side are you on?
if itll make you happy here
http://www.bushin30seconds.org
besides java, have you put in anything besides random shit about canada
"You all stare but you'll never see/ There's someting inside me" - Corey Taylor
Life is strange when you must lock your door in fear of your cat
Sometimes when I'm all alone I stare at my goldfish, and think about how much I hate fishticks, then I realize that I don't have a goldfish.
There is a fair chance that at this moment I am being hunted by a demonic monkey from Central America. Please don't tell him I've been here. Please. I don't know what he wants.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #65229] |
Thu, 05 February 2004 19:51 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Javaxcx |
For the sake of argument; Put your money where your mouth is. Prove it.
|
Did you watch the news the day Saddam was captured? The media [this doesn't count FOX news, because I DO NOT watch FOX news] was randomly flashing pictures of the 9/11 terrorists along with their coverage of Saddam being captured without explaining why they were doing it. Moving on, it's rather difficult to prove something that hasn't been proven, like Iraq being involved with the 9/11 terrorist bombings.
But congratulations! Java, you've gone 3 entire posts on this thread without comparing anything Canadian to anything else. 
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #65233] |
Thu, 05 February 2004 19:55 |
|
Crimson
Messages: 7428
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
| Llama Man 451 |
nodbugger, what the hell are you talking about they are doing well there are about two suicide bombings a week!!!
java, which side are you on?
if itll make you happy here
http://www.bushin30seconds.org
besides java, have you put in anything besides random shit about canada
|
No, he said proof. Not yet another anti-Bush link.
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #65238] |
Thu, 05 February 2004 20:02 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Crimson |
Facts: Clinton cut the active military in half:
Total counts of Active Duty Military Personnel (Army + Navy + Marine Corps + Air Force)
1987: 2,174,217
(Bush, Sr. takes office)
1988: 2,138,213
1989: 2,130,229
1990: 2,043,705
1991: 1,985,555
(Clinton takes office)
1992: 1,807,180
1993: 1,705,103
1994: 1,610,490
1995: 1,518,224
1996: 1,471,722
1997: 1,438,562
1998: 1,406,830
1999: 1,385,703
(Clinton leaves office)
These figures show a net loss of 788,514 active military personnel, which is 36% of the military that Reagan had at the end of his term in 1988.
|
It's not 36% of the military Reagan had, it's 36% of the people. Now, after Reagan left the presidency, a little place I like to refer to as the Soviet Union collapsed, which was pretty much the last big super-power that stood in the way of the U.S. (INTERESTING FACT: If Clinton hadn't seized most of the weapons-grade nuclear fuel in the collapsing Soviet Union, there might have actually been WMDs in Iraq.) It's for this reason that active personnel went down during the Clinton Administration. This does not, however, mean that the strength of the military went down. Under Clinton, new technology came around, and Clinton stopped throwing money to sleazy defense contractors for research for development of special weapons that didn't even come close to working.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #65240] |
Thu, 05 February 2004 20:07 |
 |
Javaxcx
Messages: 1943
Registered: February 2003
Location: Canada, eh?
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
Actually, I didn't want the news when Saddam was captured. I've learned that the on-the-spot news has revealed half-truths and biased propaganda. I'm completely serious, so don't get the impression that I'm attacking you by saying that.
See, the problem with proving that Iraq had no connections to 9/11 is like trying to find a needle in a haystack. Media can be twisted to support a certain idea, circumstantial evidence, or political sway. This has been proven time and time again. If you need proof, just look at different news sites and look at the avid differences in opinion.
On a side note: Personally, I think that alot of the democrat/republic "battle" in the eyes of a voter is: "Well, I think THIS side will win, so I'll support them". Of course, I might be wrong, but thats my opinion.
Sniper Extraordinaire
Read the FUD Rules before you come in and make an ass of yourself.
All your base are belong to us.
You have no chance to survive make your time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #65250] |
Thu, 05 February 2004 20:18 |
 |
warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| SuperFlyingEngi |
| Crimson |
Facts: Clinton cut the active military in half:
Total counts of Active Duty Military Personnel (Army + Navy + Marine Corps + Air Force)
1987: 2,174,217
(Bush, Sr. takes office)
1988: 2,138,213
1989: 2,130,229
1990: 2,043,705
1991: 1,985,555
(Clinton takes office)
1992: 1,807,180
1993: 1,705,103
1994: 1,610,490
1995: 1,518,224
1996: 1,471,722
1997: 1,438,562
1998: 1,406,830
1999: 1,385,703
(Clinton leaves office)
These figures show a net loss of 788,514 active military personnel, which is 36% of the military that Reagan had at the end of his term in 1988.
|
It's not 36% of the military Reagan had, it's 36% of the people. Now, after Reagan left the presidency, a little place I like to refer to as the Soviet Union collapsed, which was pretty much the last big super-power that stood in the way of the U.S. (INTERESTING FACT: If Clinton hadn't seized most of the weapons-grade nuclear fuel in the collapsing Soviet Union, there might have actually been WMDs in Iraq.) It's for this reason that active personnel went down during the Clinton Administration. This does not, however, mean that the strength of the military went down. Under Clinton, new technology came around, and Clinton stopped throwing money to sleazy defense contractors for research for development of special weapons that didn't even come close to working.
|
And this proved her right. Maybe not the "half" she claimed, but the miitary's strength was infact cut down quite considerably. She never said reduced in power, or your definition of military strength, just "cut in half".
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #65251] |
Thu, 05 February 2004 20:18 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Javaxcx |
Actually, I didn't want the news when Saddam was captured. I've learned that the on-the-spot news has revealed half-truths and biased propaganda. I'm completely serious, so don't get the impression that I'm attacking you by saying that.
See, the problem with proving that Iraq had no connections to 9/11 is like trying to find a needle in a haystack. Media can be twisted to support a certain idea, circumstantial evidence, or political sway. This has been proven time and time again. If you need proof, just look at different news sites and look at the avid differences in opinion.
On a side note: Personally, I think that alot of the democrat/republic "battle" in the eyes of a voter is: "Well, I think THIS side will win, so I'll support them". Of course, I might be wrong, but thats my opinion.
|
No offense taken about your opinions of on-the-spot news. I think it sucks, too.
That's an interesting way to look for what's true and what's not, by looking for conflicting stories, but I got enough evidence to satisfy myself for a lifetime after I watched the news that day. They had no reason to show pictures of 9/11 bombers, and yet they did, right in the middle of the Saddam Captured broadcast.
Well, at least I'm not picking a side [Democrat/Republican/Constitutionalist?] because I can't vote. 
And thanks for an intellectual post that didn't insult anyone.
| Quote: |
And this proved her right. Maybe not the "half" she claimed, but the miitary's strength was infact cut down quite considerably. She never said reduced in power, or your definition of military strength, just "cut in half".
|
I beg to differ. The fact that there are less people in the military doesn't mean that it is less potent. Although, this whole "military going down in size" thing is silly because the U.S. spends more money to support it's military than all the other countries in the world. Combined.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
[Updated on: Thu, 05 February 2004 20:21] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #65255] |
Thu, 05 February 2004 20:22 |
Llama Man 451
Messages: 79
Registered: February 2004
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
|
java- three posts is pretty monumental i must say but i do respect your opinoi on the reublican-democrat battle. but in my opinion it is more of people fighting for what they believe in. i believe that if bush is reelected we will face a timem worse than the great depresion and even if he is not elected again we will remember this for a looooooong time, whereas crimson, nodbugger believe othewise.
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Thu Jun 06 05:56:17 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01397 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
