[kduncan]: Angel Zadkiel: "And our spending is more because for one, we are a larger country. And 2 we have a larger military than all of the other countries." We're.. uh.. bigger than China? US: 416 billion/China: 47 billion.
[Flowing Destiny]: yeah cause you have U.S. with 416 while china has 47
[Flowing Destiny]: And I said PROBABLY I never said it was 100% biased
[Flowing Destiny]: I have to go and actually live a life now so goodbye all
[kduncan]: Angel Zadkiel: "I looked at the opening page for the site and I didnt even go in because I knew the information was biased." How could you assume the information INSIDE the site was biased if you don't think the information on the opening page was biased? Are you afraid of looking at information that might shatter your pat, preconceived notions about the current administration
[kduncan]: 416 what vs 47 what, Angel Zadkiel? That's not a population report, that's a military budget.
[kduncan]: Etarkano, just out of curiousity, which country spends more than 416 billion on their military? Because every single source I've looked at indicates that the US spends more than most of the rest of the world's countries combined.
[kduncan]: Angel Zadkiel: "I looked at the opening page for the site and I didnt even go in because I knew the information was biased and I didnt want to hear info taken out of context and twisted to suit their needs." That's a direct quote, you never said PROBABLY, Angel Zadkiel.
[Maurer's conclusions]: The only country that I could imagine spending more than $416,000,000,0
[kduncan]: Think about 400,000,000,00
[kduncan]: Angel Zadkiel: "I know that you are that politicaly biased against bush and his supporters so I think you are trying to bully me out of here when all I'm trying to do is offer a different point of view." Let me see, why would I be being so harsh on you? Could it be that because, without ever having spoken to me you come out with: "anal", "s.o.b.", "calm down", "stop making enemies", "pain in the ass", and "high and mighty". So, Angel Zadkiel, who was doing the bullying? I'm just defending myself and pointing out that you don't have a foot to stand on, at least not one that's been fully (or even partially) researched. I'll tell you what though, promise to keep your insults to yourself from
[kduncan]: here on out, and I'll let you off the hook for being totally uninformed.
[Flowing Destiny]: I never said the info on the opening page was wrong or misquoted though
[Flowing Destiny]: I said I looked at the opening page and knew it was biased because of the depictions of the current administration
[kduncan]: Angel Zadkiel "No I never said they werent in Iraq. You are very good at twisting what other people say and turning it into what you want to hear." Ok, I have to admit to being a bit confused on this one, but I'll assume that you were remarking about my Hallirton comment since this came immeidately after the Halliburton comment. To reiterate, what I said was: "Ok, Angel Zadkiel, on the one hand you say I have no proof, that it's only my opinion that Halliburton is making a bundle (billions) on re-building buildings that the US destroyed, but on the other hand you say that Halliburton is in Iraq "contracting. Like buildings and such." So.. which is it? Was I correct in saying that Halliburton
[kduncan]: is in Iraq (with no-bid contracts no less) rebuilding buildings the US destroyed? Or are you correct in saying that, er, Halliburton is in Iraq "contracting. Like buildings and such"? Do you even realise that you've said that Halliburton is doing precisely what I said it's doing?"
[kduncan]: Angel Zadkiel: "I never said the info on the opening page was wrong or misquoted though" So, you agree that Bush said, "This is still a dangerous world. It's a world of madmen and uncertainty and potential mental losses." and, "Will the highways of the internet become more few?", and "It's clearly a budget, it's got lots of numbers in it." So, if those are accurate quotes (And you agreed that they are.), how do you then come to the conclusion that the other information presented within the site is not accurate?
[Flowing Destiny]: Because not all of the info on the site are quotes are they? If the whole site was quotes then it wouldnt be much of a site if you ask me
[Flowing Destiny]: I was never arguing about the Haliburton thing. The comment I made about them being in Iraq for contracting was directed to someone else who said they were there cause of oil.
[Maurer's conclusions]: Another good bush quote is : "families is where the nation finds hope; where wings take dream." And : "Is our children learning?"
[Flowing Destiny]: So he makes errors in grammar. Its a normal thing a lot of people do. I do it sometimes....e
[kduncan]: Angel Zadkiel, your discussion is invalid unless you've actually looked at the site. To criticise something without even looking at it is ridiculous. You've painted yourself as an irrational person who is judgemental without knowing the facts of the argument you're trying to make. Look at the site and see what is being presented. Only then can you possibly hope to argue that the information presented there is inaccurate. You're making yourself look like a fool.
[Dil*]: i think it's safe to say...pwned.
[Maurer's conclusions]: Indeed. I've always wondered what that word means. Did someone misspell owned? Or is it a shortening of pawned?
[Flowing Destiny]: I dont look on it because if it is biased like I suspect then I will be very angry and I would think it would be pointless waste of time.
[Flowing Destiny]: This wiki is a pointless waste of time as well. He is in office for 4 more years so you might as well just accept it and deal with it. Its because of people like you that the nation is still divided after the election is over. I just want you to move on and deal. I'm not telling you to accept him or anything just to not complain about it or anything because he won it validly and he had the majority of votes. That was the big issue when he was first elected. He didnt get the maj. vote so people thought they were robbed but this time he got the majority of the vote and won the election fair and square. Kerry did a good job himself but Bush did a better job.
[kduncan]: Ok, so Angel Zadkiel doesn't know what he is talking about, and he's proven so by saying he won't look at site because he's afraid it might be biased (that.. fear thing again) but he has no way of knowing this because he.. won't look at it. If this wiki is a pointless waste of time, Angel Zadkiel, simply.. move on and stop coming here. After all, it's not like you're contributing anything because you won't offer proof of what you post here, of course, you won't look at proof of what we say here because you're afraid the proof might be.. biased. Is it fun walking around with blinders on? Is it fun refusing to look at things because you're afraid of what you might see? So Bush won, is that a
[kduncan]: coup to you? You know.. one dollar equals one vote and all. Is it rewarding to know that his only platform was terror and fear, and that it was fear that won over the American people. Is it rewarding that he couldn't win if it hasn't been for 911? Oh, and 911.. ask a pilot.. see if they agree with the 911 Commission report. Ask a pilot about the ATC communications and failures that day. Or.. don't.. you might be afraid of what you hear.
[Dil*]: Just because bush won, you think we'd stop doing what we think and know is right? I don't think so, anybody with dignity would continue fighting the good fight. Not jumping on the winning bandwagon.
[kduncan]: People who care about reason and the good fight also understand that it's important to look at all sides of an issue, not just the side that they agree with. First of all, it's important to know what the opposition thinks, and secondly, they want to make sure that they really are on the side of righteousness. Yes, I watch FOX news. Yes, I visit the Republican and Democrat web sites. Yes, I look at sites that support a point of view that is in opposition to my values and point of view. Yes, I understand that they are biased, as is everything in life. If you wait for something to come along that is completely unbiased, you might as well lock yourself up in a box for the rest of your life. It's
[kduncan]: important for people to look at issues from ALL angles because that's the only way you can truly make a decision as to what you will believe in and what you will support.
[Dil*]: yeah, i want to watch 42degrees celcius, it's the anti-moore film.
[kduncan]: Angel Zadkiel: "So he makes errors in grammar. Its a normal thing a lot of people do. I do it sometimes....e
[kduncan]: Iraq Angel Zadkiel? Are errors for invading a country to be expected and forgiven? Even when the person making such a grave error in judgement won't admit that he was in the wrong? Seems to me you're a bit of a hypocrit, Angel Zadkiel. Oh.. and for your info, I threw in a bit of erroneous (that means "wrong") information a while back, just to see.. and it seems you don't even know the specifics of the administration you say you support. You don't even know enough to point out when someone has said something wrong about one of the heads of say.. the energy department. Yes, you are ignorant, you support something without knowing anything about it, and you refuse even to look at other
[kduncan]: points of view. And that's the saddest, worst kind of igorance, because it's entirely voluntary ignorance.
[Flowing Destiny]: because I dont know who the hell is the head of the energy department and I dont care. I never said I was afraid of things being biased. You think this is the good fight? You think its the good fight but all it is is annoying. And you dont even know me lady. If you knew me and actually met me you would probably wouldnt be saying all that shit. You ask any one of my friends about and they'll tell you I am a funny person who puts up with a lot of crap but they will tell you that anyone who messes with me the way you have messed with me I will not hesitate to yell and swear at people. Polotics are not the most important things in life. And he didnt win through fear. You think he (cont
[Flowing Destiny]: did when in fact he didnt. Its people like you who's existence is pointless. If it turned out Kerry would've been worse then Bush would you apologize for electing a terrible candidate? If this stuff had happened under Gore would this be Gore Haters? If it was your parties candidate that would be doing all that Bush did would you be criticizing him? I doubt it.
[kduncan]: Angel Zadkiel: "If you knew me and actually met me you would probably wouldnt be saying all that shit." And yet you allow yourself the right to make judgement on a person while under that same conditions of "not even knowing them". Angel Zadkiel: "You ask any one of my friends about and they'll tell you I am a funny person who puts up with a lot of crap but they will tell you that anyone who messes with me the way you have messed with me I will not hesitate to yell and swear at people." I made one comment, which I can look up and quote if need be, and I got called an "insolent whelp", "anal", "s.o.b.", "stop making enemies", "pain in the ass", and "high and mighty", and that my
[kduncan]: "existance is pointless". You've called others in this wiki "dumbass", "dumbshit", "asshole", and told them that, "I hope you people kill yourselves cause you'll have nothing to bitch about" You are an intolerant, ignorant person, your behaviour in this wiki has proven as much regardless of the other face you show your friends. I know enough about you from what you've written here to be able to say that with some conviction. I think anyone looking back through these pages would tend to agree with me.
[kduncan]: Now, about your assertations about MY choice for president. Again you show your ignorance by assuming that there were only two candidates on the ballot, and that there are only two political parties in the US. I didn't vote for Kerry, he was not much better than Bush. A bit better, but not much. No, I would never apologise for the choices I made when I voted. Had I been a Bush supporter the first time around I'd have regreted my choice, but the simple fact is that Bush didn't win legally the first time. And I'm not talking about the popular vote. The way Bush won Florida was illegal and disenfranchise
[kduncan]: supporter either; but of course, you're too blinded by your hatred and lack of reasoning ability to understand this. People are saying that you should apologise for being a rude, intolerant, ignorant boor.
[kduncan]: Angel Zadkiel, I'm rather sick of posting the same words of yours over and over, but you certainly did say that you wouldn't look at things you thought were biased. This is undoubtedly out of fear that you might see something that challenges you. You say you won't "look at websites because they're biased". Well, news programs are biased as well, that's why it's important to get your information from a VARIETY of sources, and not just rely on one or two. The value of websites (even if they happen to be the website for FOX news) is that they list references. It's important to look up the references that people have used to base their report (news story) on. It's important to look at
[kduncan]: news from other countries, news from the opposing party's point of view (which is why I visit both the Republican and Democrat party sites, as well as the sites of other parties in the US). It's important to know WHO the heads of the administration are, and what their beliefs and policies are.. otherwise you have no right to even be discussing politics (and that's politics with an "i", not an "o"), because, quite frankly, if you don't even know WHO is running the country, you can't logically support or criticise them.
[kduncan]: And Angel Zadkiel, if the candidate I helped put in office was doing the things Bush is doing, I'd certainly be working to try to get someone else elected, and I'd applaud any efforts taken to put him or her out of office. If my candidate did the things Bush did, he'd have been ousted from his party for violating the principles of the party. By the way, are you aware that the Republicans list no party values on their site? Neither do the Democrats. Both list this year's current platform.. but no long term values. My party lists both long term values, and a current, up to date platform.
[kduncan]: Angel Zadkiel: "Its because of people like you that the nation is still divided after the election is over." Have I shown intolerance here? Have I expressed outright hatred, as you have? You told people who don't support Bush to go kill themselves, and that their exsistence is worthless. Is that tolerance? Or is that the comment of someone seething with hatred? It's hatred, intolerance, ignorance, and distrust that divide this nation, Angel Zadkiel.. you've shown all of those traits in your remarks in this wiki. I'd turn that around and say it's people like YOU who are the divisive force: people who tell others to kill themselves because those "others" don't agree with the administration
[kduncan]: currently in office.
[Flowing Destiny]: But if you'd stop disagreeing and just deal with it I wouldnt have to be here would I? It all stems from you wanting want you think is best for the country. You think the Florida vote is illegal yet if your party won florida I doubt you'd be complaining. And now I think I am going to leave this place because you are as ignorant as I. I just want people to stop complaining about who won and just deal with 4 more years. Its pointless to argue with you because you are not open to thinking differently. I am open to other peoples opinions. I never said I have to like them but I am open to them. If they dont display such a huge party biased then I am open to their opinion. I will (cont)
[Flowing Destiny]: apologize to everyone on here except for you. You have treated me with as much disrespect as I have shown you. Trying to make me seem like the evil of this country is a pathetic way of trying to change my point of view or of trying to make me seem the bad guy. I dont care if I seem to be the bad guy on here. I know that in reality I am not a bad person. My friends do know me. They know how angry I can get when people bring up all this political crap, it ticks me off. Dont act like you know me or have figured me out when you have only seen one of many sides of me. So good day to you bitch. I apologize to everyone except her have a good day
[Dil*]: Deal with 4 more years; there's a chance the other bush members of the family could run, bushes cousin and such. We have alot more bushes to worry about than dubya here.
[kduncan]: Angel Zadkiel yet again exhibiting his ignorance: "You think the Florida vote is illegal.." that was the 2000 vote. You know, the one where tens of thousands of black voters were NOT permitted to vote? You know, the one where Katherine Harris (then Secretary of State) threw up her hands and admitted that they'd made a "mistake" in removing some 50,000 black voters from the rolls? You know, the one where the voters were returned to the rolls AFTER Bush was sworn in as (appointed) president? You mean the same Katherine Harris who, after making such a grave error on behalf of some 50,000 Florida voters was then rewarded with a senate seat? Angel Zadkiel: "I didn't look at the site because it
[kduncan]: was biased." Tell me again.. WHO'S not open to looking at different points of view? I go to other party sites, I look at FOX news, I look at the Republican agenda at the Republican site. WHO'S the one who won't look at other points of view? Tell us again how you won't look at what you call biased info.. I certainly do, thus I am the one who is open to other schools of thought. PROVE you're open minded and look at the site I gave the link to earlier..unles
[kduncan]: Angel Zadkiel, if you tell other people that their "exsistance is worthless" because they don't agree with you, and you tell people to "go kill themselves" because they don't agree with you.. sorry, but that's not a good person certainly. And now I get "bitch" again because you are too verbally and intellectually hampered to put up a valid argument. People who know what they're talking about don't have to stoop to insults, and telling people they're worthless, and telling people they should kill themselves to prove their point; only a person who lacks the verbal and intellectual skills to argue intelligently stoops to such use such methods.
[kduncan]: You are an ignorant person, and worse, you're a person who doesn't even realise how close-minded and ignorant you really are. Here's a suggestion: Stop using the internet for the sole purpose of chatting, there's a wealth of information and ideas.. seek them out and learn something new. Who knows, you might even learn how to curse in another language.
[kduncan]: Angel Zadkiel: "You have treated me with as much disrespect as I have shown you." Show some proof I had done so the first time you called me an "insolent whelp". Show me I'd done so when you threw a slew of curse words at me and refused to apologise for them because you "just don't like people like her". I've called you ignorant, and you've proven as much. I've called you rude, and you've proven it throughout this forum. I've called you intolerant, and you've proven it. Take you're own advise: Let go of your hatred. Stop hating people solely because they have opinions different from yours. Open your mind and learn to accept new ideas.
[kduncan]: I've not "painted you as an evil person", rather, you've done a fine job of showing what you are entirely by yourself.
[kduncan]: Angel Zadkiel: "But if you'd stop disagreeing and just deal with it I wouldnt have to be here would I?" ie: People should just put up and shut up? Should the earliest Americans have just rolled over and "put up" with British rule? Should the northern states have just "put up with" slavery? Should the US have just rolled over and "put up" with the supposed attacks that occured on 911? Do you even realise just how un-American it is to look the other way at injustice, and when our administration lies to us? Why do you have to be here because the people here (and I'm not the only one) disagree with you? You don't have to keep coming here. I support the Bush haters wiki because I disagree with
[kduncan]: the Bush administration
[~*Tinkerbell*~]: has any of u guys met the guy(i have and i hate him) and im not meaning like he said hi more like gettin in a convo w/ him
[Dil*]: he has no reason to be here.
[~*Tinkerbell*~]: yeah i totally hate him hes an ass
[kduncan]: Thank you, Inuyasha_Kikyo and _Dilandau_, I appreciate the support. He was bullying everyone posting here, and you guys shouldn't have to put up with that garbage from anyone. I'm glad I was at least able to pull an apology to you guys out of him.
[Dil*]: np, .....too be honest, i woulda started a flamewar with the kid if he had been so offensive to me; i admire your patience.
[kduncan]: eh.. not patience.. I think it's called tenaciousness. And he can be as offensive as he wants, it only reflects poorly on him. I don't believe in flamewars, because a flamewar is sort of pointless and all the participants end up looking a bit foolish. But neither do I believe in simply standing by and letting someone get away with that kind of behaviour.
[~*Tinkerbell*~]: how do u join this wiki
[Dil*]: message the management.
[~*Tinkerbell*~]: yeah i do want to be a member
[Goldice]: ok i'll add u
[~*Tinkerbell*~]: kk thank
[Dark Geisha]: I was just reading over the whole conversations, and yet, no one still has managed to convince me that George W. Bush is an adequete president, or human, for the matter. I think that means that my brain remains to be free from those evangelical christians who have brainwashed the majority of America. *Phew*
[farfy girl]: Oh right, those horrible Christians are so much worse than those throat-cutting arabs...
[Dil*]: okay stop being hypocritical people, don't generalize..no
[kduncan]: Dark Geisha, I'm not convinced that a true Christian would actually vote for Bush. After all, he's proven to be a liar, he's proven to be hypocritical. He's an adulteror, and a thief -- all things that are (theoretically) reprehensible to true Christians. Those proclaiming themselves to be Christian who also condemned Bill Clinton for straying from his marital vows looked the other way when George Bush (the current president's father) had his own extra-marital affair. I find it oddly ironic that those far right Christians in the US -- the very same ones who put Bush in office -- hold some of the same extremely restrictive beliefs that members of the Taliban hold.
[kduncan]: I have to agree with _Dilandau_ when she says that one group is as bad.. or as good.. as the other. And this is true of any religion: You have the practitioners who hold true to the core of the religion and practice it as best they know how, and you have those who practice the religion in only its strictest, most repressive form, and you have those who rape and abuse the religion solely to meet their own goals regarding profit and power.
[Lord Kügenheim]: I dont think its any religions fault that fanatics. I think its the individual themselfs who chooses to go run into a building with C4 strapped to them.
[farfy girl]: You can't deny, though, that a lot less Christian fanatics than Islamic ones strap bombs to themselves and kill innocents, and drive planes into buildings.
[Dil*]: then again....not as many christians live on the edge of the poverty line...hardly getting enough food and income for their families...dri
[Lord Kügenheim]: In a sick way, i can kinda see why people do suicide things... they want to be heard and alowed to live like us, and can you blame them? But then, who thinks that we would actually listen to them? I mean, the northern countries could end all the poverty with a click of their fingers, but they dont do they?
[Goldice]: no because in their eyes that is showing weakness
[farfy girl]: I do not believe that they are doing that to "be heard" at all... They believe in their twisted religion that they will go to heaven for killing nonbelievers in their "Jihad". They are trained from childhood that killing is justified because anyone that does not believe in Allah and the Koran deserve death. Also, America, Austrailia, as well as other rich countries are doing a ton to liberate these people, as well as provide tons of relief for the tidal wave victims.
[Maurer's conclusions]: Does 'liberating' include complete lack of tolerance, rape, disregard for the law and justice and torture?
[Maurer's conclusions]: Ahem. The US government is spending more money on Bush's inauguration than they have sent to the tidal wave victims...
[Lord Kügenheim]: i dont agree with that farfy girl, in the 1980s i believe, many rich countries came together and decided to help the 3rd world by canceling some of their debts. most european countries canceled all of their debts, but america (the one who was owed the most) refused. Considering america is the richest country in the world and other countries could afford to do this, but not America. So yes, OTHER countries are doing a lot to help.
[kduncan]: I'm not sure that a mere dollar figure put on chairty is enough, one has to look at the percentage the amount of money given to charity out of the total pie. Some poorer nations give a much larger percentage out of their national budget than many wealthier nations; their small amount given (compared to say.. the US) isn't necessarily less, but more. A person who makes 100,000 dollars a year, but gives 1,000 of it to charity isn't exactly on the same keel as a person who makes 25,000 a year, but gives 500 of it to charity. The Democratic and Republican parties together spent more than 500 MILLION on the Presidential campaigns for Bush and Kerry, this figure doesn't include the campaigns for
[kduncan]: all the other Democrats and Republicans seeking public office. Did you see that figure, the one for the campaigns of two people? FIVE HUNDRED MILLION. That's alot of money, and still, the amount we're offering to the people absolutely crushed by this disaster than spans several countries isn't as much as the money spent to get two people elected to office.
[kduncan]: Farfy girl, I'm going to assume that you don't actually know any Muslim people. What you need to do before repeating general stereotypes is get to know some of the people that you are stereotyping. You might even find out that most of them are actually pretty nice people, and that other than having slightly different relgious beliefs, they aren't all that different from you. Well, except for maybe being a little more tolerant of others.
[Oblivious Commentary]: No one participating in christianism, islam, or, for that matter, pretty much any religion, can say that other religions massacre innocent people just because they don't believe in a certain god(s); without being a hipocrite. Most religions have waged war or crusades into other countries, killing, or imprisoning peoples that refuse to convert. On that note, most of the crusades/wars were done on behalf of tyrants or dictators. So, farfy girl, you need to know that there are a lot of good Muslims and a few extremists, whose reasons for suicide bombings are not always religious.
[Dil*]: Some political reasons to that as well, they want to be heard. I'm not condoning it though.
[farfy girl]: Stereotypes???
[Maurer's conclusions]: It all depends on your interpretation
[kduncan]: Farfy Girl, when you say something like, "They believe in their twisted religion that they will go to heaven for killing nonbelievers in their "Jihad". They are trained from childhood that killing is justified because anyone that does not believe in Allah and the Koran deserve death." It 1. Doesn't sound to me like you've actually spoken to many Muslim people one-on-one, 2. Doesn't sound like you see most Muslims as very nice, peaceful people, and 3. That you're repeating much of the same stereotyping that we've heard from extreme rightists in the US.
[kduncan]: Further, you say that the bible says to "be good to those they disagree with." While there is general feeling of forgiveness and tolerance in the New Testament (as long as you don't read as far as the Apocolpypse), the Old Testament is rife with intolerance and calls for death and punishment for those who believe differently. Along with these punishments is the call to put anyone who believes differently (pagans) to death, to cut off the hand of a thief (and it doesn't distinguish between thsoe who steal for personal gain, or those who steal to feed their starving children). You forget the rash of abortion clinic bombings in the US which killed and maimed indiscriminant
[kduncan]: indiscriminate taking of lives by the leaders of Jonestown, Guyana and Waco, Texas. You forget the racist slaughters of people of colour in the US by religious fundamentalist
[farfy girl]: I do take these into account and do not condone these Christian practices. You, sir, fail to take into account that most of these are far outdated and many are isolated incidents. I have read most of the bible, and have read some of the Koran. I did not say at all that Christians were perfect, but in recent history, many more "religiously justified" killings have been committed by Muslims. I will say once again that I do know and talk to muslims, think that a vast majority are good people, but again, too many that are violent exist in the world for my comfort. I don't see how you can call it stereotyping while these monsters are committing these horrible acts every single day.
[Maurer's conclusions]: Well, actually, according to Bush, the US is going on a crusade right now. And also, everyone who is killed by the death penalty is due to the Judeo-Christia
[kduncan]: Let's see.. the events that occured in Waco Texas occured in the late eighties or early nineties; the events in Jonestown, Guyana occured in the late seventies or early eighties; the KKK was in its heyday in the fifties and sixties.. and is active even today, abortion clinic bombings continued into the new millenium, and the Catholic church continues to protect the priests who abused children in the sixties, seventies, and eighties. In order for you to call something a "current" event does it have to have happened yesterday??? I'll remind you too that Muslim terrorist atracks are isolated incidents. We see attacks on a daily basis in Iraq because the US INVADED THEIR COUNTRY. Is this simple
[kduncan]: fact lost to you? What would happen in the US if a foreign power invaded and overthrew the government? Do you honestly believe that most Americans would sit back and say to one another, "Yes, this is for our own good. These invaders are our liberators and we should honour and welcome them with open arms.", or do think we would fight back? And by the way, talk about jumping to assumptions, I find it interesting that, without direct evidence one way or the other regarding my gender (since I don't broadcast it in my Elftown house), you assume I'm a male. Since your assumption about me is incorrect, what makes you think your assumptions about others (Muslims, Christians, etc) are accurate?
[farfy girl]: I would if I were living in a dictatorship that has slaughtered thousands of my own people. Didn't you see the Iraqis tear down that statue of Saddam and drag its head through the streets, hitting it with shoes? (in case you didn't know, showing the bottom of your shoe there is like giving someone the finger, so hitting someone in the face with one is extremely insulting) And no, I did not assume that you are male; I just use that word asexually when I don't know for sure. You sure do seem to draw a lot of conclusions from that, not even knowing why I did it... Just who is assuming things here?
[Dil*]: Umm, just because they hated Saddam doesn't mean they like the Americans either. Their country didn't have craters in it before.
[Maurer's conclusions]: First of all, farfy girl, just because some people tore down a statue and kicked it, doesn't mean that all of Iraq hated the Baathist regime. For example, I would gladly tear down any statue of Bush, but just because I do, doesn't mean all of America does.
[farfy girl]: Has Bush killed thousands of people for trying to critisize him? NO. That man ruled with an iron fist, using his facist thugs to silence people by killing them, and I can't believe that you would defend him and condemn Bush...
[Dil*]: Err, when did we defend Saddam? We already went through why we don't like bush too much.
[farfy girl]: When you compare tearing down a statue of Saddam to one of Bush, and saying that they suicide bombings are merely ways of expressing anxiety or whatever, and saying that (apparently in your opinion) the amount of hate on the Iraqis' part towards Saddam did not constitute throwing him and his facist regime out of power.
[Dil*]: No he was pointing out the fact that just because some Iraqis tore down the statue of Saddam and kicked it doesn't mean they support the americans. It just means that those guys just really hated Saddam. Not all of the Iraqies hated Saddam though. I think you've got the completely wrong idea. And suicide bombings are an act to get attention towards the Palestinians who are mostly living in a hell, on the edge of the poverty line. Wouldn't it suite the world more if they just quietly starved to death?
[Maurer's conclusions]: Indirectly, Bush has killed thousands of people, actually.
[Maurer's conclusions]: http://www.sto
[kduncan]: farfy girl: "You sure do seem to draw a lot of conclusions from that, not even knowing why I did it... Just who is assuming things here?" I think most people will assume, and not incorrectly I might add, that a "Sir" is a male.. unless you happen to be in the military; and a check of your Elftown house tells me you're a couple years shy of military service. If unsure, the best thing to do is to not use a gender dependant word like "Sir".
[kduncan]: Ok, now about that statue incident: I did watch the tearing down of the statue on television, and who was at the top of the statue? An American. Who provided ropes and such to facilitate tearing down the statue? American military personnel. Now, about the genocide that occured in Iraq under Hussein's rule: Many, if not most of the Kurds who were gassed, etcetera were actually.. ~gasp!~ Iranians. Imagine that, Hussein was dealing with some of the same dissidents that US forces are now fighting in Iraq. Interestingly enough, we condemn Hussein for using some of the same methods of dealing with these "terrorist insurrgents" that the US and it's dwindling group of allies are currently using.
[farfy girl]: I actually have some relatives that were in the military, so it is customary at my house. Oh yes, and my school is starting back up, I'm going to be learning how to drive, and I have a job now, so I won't be able to carry on a debate with y'all so much anymore. See ya around.
[kduncan]: The thing is, Hussein was not popular in the middle eastern countries bordering Iraq. Why? Because he was just too damned liberal for many of the very conservative Muslimns in that part of the world.. including our "friends", the Saudis. Hussein had to make the rest of the middle east believe that he still had an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, if Iraq's neighbors had believed otherwise, they wouldn't have waited for the US to do their dirty work for them. Unfortunately for Hussein, the US wouldn't wait for the UN inspectors to finish their job, we told them to get the hell out, that we would go in there and find those weapons of mass destruction, because Rumsfeld knew exactly where
[kduncan]: they were. They were, "..north, south, east, and west of Kikrit.. or somewhere thereabouts." We knew that Hussein had chemical labs set up in tracktor trailers because Powell showed the UN proof in the form of artist renderings as to what those labs surely looked like. Never mind that our own spy agency, you know.. the one with the acronym CIA.. was telling Bush, "..now wait a minute, we're not quite sure the intelligence data on this whole weapons of mass destruction business in Iraq is accurate, in fact, we're pretty sure it's not."
[kduncan]: Bah.. they always duck out when they start to lose the argument. Seems to be the rule of order with Bush supporters, as well as with Bush himself. Ever been to a Bush rally? Ever hear a dissenting voice? Ever wonder why not? You should.
[Maurer's conclusions]: I would like to go to a Bush rally, but it seems I always hear about them after they happen. Know any websites with scheduled rallies?
[Kyrinn]: Ya know, I think you Bush Haters take too much of an emotional stance on this. Like the democrats. It comes across to ppl that you are whining. and you are.
[Kyrinn]: Boy they said there was a big debate here. Hmm.. the opinion of two ppl eh? Big debate my ass
[farfy girl]: I'm not ducking out, you stereotyping liberal. You know perfectly well that school is starting up again. The difference between the slaughter by Hussein and Bush's war on terror is that Bush is doing this to free people and to make the world a safer place! To save your ungrateful butt! Saddam mass murdered his own people to make them shut up and obey his dictatorship.
[Maurer's conclusions]: Well, ignorant comments that demonstrate an utter lack of political intelligence (such as yours) do not do much to spark it.
[farfy girl]: e_e Oh, brilliant comeback...
[Maurer's conclusions]: Oh, you're back. Care to continue?
[farfy girl]: No time. I just wanted to mention that Dilandau was much more understanding about my departure the last time I was too busy to carry on a conversation.
[Lord Kügenheim]: look, im sure farfy girl isnt "backing down" as you put it. she just hyas real life things to worry about as all people do
[Dil*]: Maybe we're more emotional because we actually give a crap about people's lives? Ever think of that?
[farfy girl]: Thank you, Dilandau and Lord Kügenheim for understanding that even though I am not really involved in your lives directly that I have more to worry about than debating politics on the computer all day.
[Dil*]: I feel the same way sometimes, but it's nice to once in a while.
[DisturbedKitsune]: You know...I never knew this place existed and now I've missed out on so much...
[Union Jack]: farfy girl, please read the Patriot Act and then read about the first things that dictators do: take away personal freedoms and have the power to detain you FOREVER. What is the difference between Bush and a dictator right now?
[Lord Kügenheim]: not all dictators are bad... i mean, like everything it depends on the person who is doing the dictating.
[Maurer's conclusions]: Indeed, in some cases, what could be considered oppressive measures are needed to maintain peace; e.g. Rwanda, where there is no freedom of press, to ensure that extremist Hutus or Tutsis do not spark war again.
[Lord Kügenheim]: Yeah. like it was said on some recent film... You gotta paint the picture of good with some nasty colours. I think the stereotype of bad dictators comes from the fact that we never hear of any good ones because its all the bad ones we remember
[Dil*]: That's not all true, some dictators start up good, but then they get corrupted by their power. I'm sure there were several benevolent dictators in greek times....can't recal the names though.
[kduncan]: farfy girl: ".. you stereotyping liberal." Actually, people who know have accused me of being quite conservative. Have you ever considered the possibility that Hussein and Bush are fighting the exact same "terrorists" in Iraq? Bush is not trying to "make the world safer", if he was trying to make the world safer we would be decommisioning several hundred of the US's nuclear warheads. If he was trying to make the world safer he'd be going after the countries that are an actual threat to world security like.. say.. North Korea. Hussein killed alot of people, yes, but you missed the part of my post in which I mentioned that many of the Kurds that were gassed were actually Iranian Kurds
[kduncan]: who had crossed the border into Iraq.. and why?.. you might ask. To do the same thing the US has done; ie: to effect the downfall of Saddam Hussein. See, the Iranians didn't like Hussein either, he was far too liberal a Muslim to be a leader of a Muslim country. He actually allowed women to hold government office in his country. He didn't require the very strict Muslim dress for women that our friends the Saudi's require of women in their country. He allowed women to attend college and get advanced degrees. Did he do some reprehensible things, hell yes.. just like Bush is doing now. By the way, after you look up the Patriot Act (you did, didn't you?) you can look up and download the Project
[kduncan]: for a New American Century. Read it over and see what's really happening in this country. After you've read that over, look up information on the HARRP project, and look up the Carlyle Group. You have blinders on Farfy girl.. it's time to take them off.
[kduncan]: You should read "The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad", by Fareed Zakaria. He contends that the biggest problem with democracy is the endless cycle of elections, which breeds a system where decisions are made based on short-term political and electoral considerations rather than on social, economic and legal merits. (Sound familiar?) He goes on to say that The democracies that work are liberal democracies or those that are concerned with individual, economic, political and religious liberty. In the US we are seeing more and more laws enacted that favour the corporate entity over individuals rights. We are seeing religious and personal freedoms disappear. We are
[kduncan]: seeing political rallies that can only be attended by people belonging to the "right" political party, and even then you have to sign a pledge to support that party. We are seeing people being stripped of their right to fly based on nothing more than being the "wrong" religion or belonging to the "wrong" political party. We're "liberating" the Iraqi people? Perhaps you remember reading this poem. It's by Martin Niemoeller, a German Lutheran Pastor:
[kduncan]: "In Germany, the Nazis first came for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't Jewish. Then they came for the trade unionist, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for the homosexuals, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a homosexual. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak for me."
[kduncan]: So, tell me farfy girl, when all is said and done, and the American government has "liberated" the rest of the people of the world, disarming them at the same time of course, when it comes to it.. who will be left to speak up for the American people?
[farfy girl]: I thought I already told you people that I don't have time for this. Why is everyone asking me questions? e_e
[kduncan]: ve you looked up "Liberal" in the dictionary, farfy girl? Websters dictionary describes a liberal as : broad-minded; especially: not bound by authoritariani
[kduncan]: they're finished slinging their insults and it comes time to answer a few questions themselves.
[farfy girl]: Alright, up until the time I left, I have been answering your questions. Dilandau can respect the fact that I have a busy life, but you just don't seem to get it. You seem to hate it when I make generalization
[farfy girl]: In California, voters were given the chance to decide whether taxpayer-funde
[Dil*]: hmm, I suggest you stop watching this page for a bit since you're busy. But the people that founded America were people that were trying to escape religious persecution in Europe...dunno if that qualifies that as Liberal.
[farfy girl]: lol, I just did. Come summer vacation or what have you, I will return. (perhaps with a little more sanity if I try to more wholly ignore this place) Btw, Dil, I voted on your poll. :) Like your work.
[Dil*]: ...These people are *really* into politics ya know...i'm too busy to get into it like i used to ...unfortunate
[kduncan]: Correct me if I'm wrong here, but California recently elected a REPUBLICAN governor. That governor, as well as Bush, wants to give illegal aliens certain rights that only citizens and legal aliens of the US currently have.. such as the right to welfare, tax-free status for a certain number of years (I believe five, but don't quote me on that) and driver's licenses. Of course, big business (you can read that as "corporations" if you'd like) have a vested interest in seeing illegal aliens remain in the US. After all, illegal aliens do much of the work that American's don't like to do: migrant farm work, sweatshop work, and low paid waitressing, hotel maid, and childcare work (ask Kerik about
[kduncan]: that last one, I understand he's been having his own illegal alien taking care of his kids). Anyway.. the first American's came to the US to escape religious persecution in Europe. Religious freedom was important to them, which is why our founding fathers found it so important to keep religion seperated from affairs of state.. they believed that EVERYONE had the right to worship as s/he saw fit. The little thing with taxation didn't come until well after the states had become settled, and culmniated with the little tea dump into Boston harbour. You think it's a conservative act to dump the King's tea into the harbour in protest? Conservatives would be lynching them today. Those guys were
[kduncan]: not only liberal, they were outright revolutionists
[kduncan]: Now, suppose you explain how Bush's invasion of Iraq is saving "my ungrateful butt".. in your own words. Boy.. you know, you sound a little bitter there farfy girl; bitterness seems to be a common theme amongst Bush supporters.
[Flowing Destiny]: We're only bitter because you like to talk a lot. I wont get my self involved in this mess because I already know its pointless to try to argue with you. farfy girl, trust me, you'll never be able to argue with this kduncan chic. Maybe the others will give you a half decent chance but she wont. I've had dealings with her type and trust me, once you prove a point and prove it with facts they wont budge until some outside force makes you leave. Dont attack me kduncan, I am just telling her the truth and what happened with my experience trying to "argue" with you. Trust me farfy, it isnt worth your time and its a waste of time to try and arguewith someone who'll never listen. cont.
[Flowing Destiny]: and dont think I am following the administration blindly. Changes are needed. The first step is getting rid of that fool Rumsfeld. Everything is a mess because of him. Now the President followed Rumsfelds bad advice so the real root of the problem is Rumsfeld. If you act on terrible advice then its the person who gave you that advice who is at fault. Just saying my peace and I'd appreciate it if you didnt bust me down in here kd. I'm just trying to tell someone who tried to argue with you like I did that its pointless to do so. So just let me be and leave me alone. I'm done trying to argue with anyone
[kduncan]: Here's a fact for you Angel Zadkiel: The Bush administration officially gave up the search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq just before Christmas. In view of the fact that the Bush administration failed to find weapons of mass destruction (like the UN team they kicked out of Iraq), I am even less able to buy the "We're keeping Americans safe by invading Iraq" mantra. And, no, you have never proven anything with any facts. I don't give in to mere hearsay or wishful thinking: If you say something, be prepared to back it up with hard factual information. And as for Rumsfeld giving Bush bad advice: Who was it, exactly, who "hired" Rumsfeld, and has subsequently refused to replace him?
[kduncan]: Do you think that might be.. Mr. Bush? If the advise was bad, and Bush knew it was bad since well before Christmas.. then why would Bush be keeping Rummy on the team? Isn't a CEO who keeps a bad advisor on staff equally guilty (maybe even more so) for the failure of the company if said CEO knew the advise given was bad? Wouldn't that make Bush either, well, a fool or a crook. Ok, ok, I'll agree to the idea that he might actually be both. Questions kids, you gotta ask questions.
[kduncan]: Oh, and following the money trail always helps too.
[Dil*]: Yep, cold hard facts.
[kduncan]: Personally, I think Bush supporters are so bitter because their boy keeps letting them down.
[Goldice]: has any of you actually been to their wiki?
[Goldice]: theres one that actually slags us off
[Lord Kügenheim]: oh so members, i almost got dizzy looking....
[Goldice]: yeah i must admit i thought i was seeing double
[Lord Kügenheim]: you would have thaught they would become one wouldnt you...
[Goldice]: yeah. i think being traitors is an awful thing
[Goldice]: but then again, some people can live double lives can't they?
[kduncan]: Heh.. _Dilandau_: " ..support bush doesn't let me post there anymore...they said they were going to report me to the town guards..." I'm sorry, _Dilandau_, but that's so funny, and so typical of Bush supporters (and Bush himself by the way). You know that Bush wouldn't let anyone attend his political rallies if they were wearing or carrying anything that was thought to be even remotely "anti-Bush", and that attendees had to sign a statement saying they would vote for Bush in the election? There's a word for it -- it's called censorship.
[kduncan]: Oh, and about that comment about their boy letting them down: I meant Bush himself of course. He just keeps changing his story after his supporters have harassed people who don't support him, calling us liars, traitors, un-American, and worse.. but then Bush himself back-peddles on his story, in effect proving us right. It must be horribly disappointing to go to bat for your President just to find out a few months later that he really did lie to us.
[kduncan]: _Dilandau_, I went there just for a look-see (the first, I might add), and you have nothing to apologise for, nor does your brother. They were rude, condescending, belligerent, and quite unwilling to discuss things in a civil manner. Frankly, I'm not at all surprised that they duck into this wiki for a brief comment, only to duck back out when they're challenged to actually think.. it seems that being a Bush supporter has become indicative of a person being ignorant and intolerant.
[kduncan]: More information, not entirely specific to the Bush administration
[Dil*]: i'll go check it out.
[Dil*]: Wow, that's scary, glad I don't live in America....May
[Lord Kügenheim]: if you think about it. people dont need Oil and money and Governments to survive. you can go and build yourself a house and become a subsistance farmer just fine. If no one comes to bother you (which they most likely will) you should be fine forever.
[Dil*]: yes, but the only thing...you'd probably have to give up computers right....
[Lord Kügenheim]: damn... good point... i think i would die without a PC...
[kduncan]: I understand Willie Nelson has started a company that is selling soybean oil as a substitute fuel for diesel engines, surprisingly (or maybe not, considering how versatile and amazing soybeans are), diesel engines will actually run on soybean oil. I think I'll stop teaching people to fly.. and become a soybean farmer.
[Dil*]: yes, i could give up all technology...e
[octopus009]: Has anyone here seen Farenheight 9/11? I'm not doubting you haven't but it was scary because I had never known Bush had been associated with the Bin ladens and the Saudi Royal Family and some of the other lies and secrets of his that weren't already TOO obvious. I also read Michael Moore's book Dude where's my Country...fant
[Dil*]: Ya I read that book and watched that movie.
[octopus009]: What did you think of them?
[Dil*]: they're great.
[octopus009]: Indeed they are
[kduncan]: I saw Farenheight 911 and read "Dude". I liked both of them very much. 911 had some questionable scenes though. There was one in particular, I can't remember what is was, but when I saw it I was like, "Whaaat?" because I knew he had exaggerated the issue to the point that, if taken out of context, it would no longer be entirely true. I should really watch it again along with the film that claims to debunk his entire movie.. just as a comparison. The movie didn't really present any new material to me, I was aware of the issues he presented in "911" before I saw the movie. I'm not entirely convinced that bin Laden actually had anything to do with 911.
[kduncan]: I would also add to people who may not have seen the movie yet, or even those who have seen it but may not be familiar with the issues presented in the movie outside of what is presented in the movie: Use that information only as a starting point, and do your own research.
[Dil*]: I knew most of that stuff before watching the movie as well. But then again there's not point in saying Michael Moore's movie is biased. Of course it is, it's of his opinion and perspective. You have to agree or disagree withit yourself.. and do your own research.
[kduncan]: Michael Moore.. biased???
[Maurer's conclusions]: He's terribly biased. But his propaganda is required to counter the evil influence of Fox TV.
[Dil*]: Not that Michael is biased, just his movie because it is of one person's opinion..
[kduncan]: gads.. I'm, still try to get over the concept that Moore might actually be.. biased. Note: I'm joking, of course.
[anarchy102]: HELP!!!, Like all human beings with even a small amount of intellect I am Anti-Bush but I Live about 15 minutes away from Adolf...I mean Georges ranch in Crawford, TX and I am surrounded by right wing, fascist, moronsEven my father who is otherwise an inteligent person in love with bush wherein lies my delima I cant conveince him to convert over every point i make against lucifer....I mean Bush he makes some counter-point that usually dosent make since Ive tried everything from the patriot act to his lies about WMD's PLEASE HELP!!!
[Black_Dragon_123]: No, Michael Moore's movies can't really be called "biased". His movies are designed to show his opinion, and that is what they do, so if you wanna rant about it being biased, then why the hell'd you watch it in the first place, and that's all I have to say about that.
[The Luggage]: Bush is an idiot. a very political idiot, but still an idiot.. I'm so glad i dont live in america, let alone within 20 minutes away from him. I read somewhere that his reports and grades from harvard or wherever he went are now classified documents. Perhaps that's to hide the fact he still cant spell his own name? Although i must say that our lovely prime minister, Tony Blair, is just as bad as he is. Ah well, at least he's gonna be gone soon.
[Black_Dragon_123]: And, now I'm gonna rant more about how Michael Moore's movies can't really be called "biased". You see, he doesn't pretend to be presenting "Both sides", like fox. He's presenting what HE HAS FOUND and what HE THINKS ABOUT THE ISSUE. It's designed to present his opinion, and if you don't want to know his opinion, then don't watch the movie, dumbass.
[Maurer's conclusions]: Michael Moore is biased, obviously. How can anyone's personal opinion be anything than subjective? Whether you can achieve objectivity at all is debateable.