I'm gonna take some of the tension away from this deabate and post a link I urge you all to watch, and quickly, it has already been removed from over 100 websites, and you'll see why. Watch every second of it and open your mind. http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryho...ntagon.php#Main
That is just a minor fraction of what this site explains: Infowars.com Alot of the things on the site you will think are wild and a complete load of bullshit but if you read some of the articles you'll be amazed and astonished by what you read and see. I'm gonna tell people to go here with caution because some of the articles will shock you.
thanks for posting that. here's a link by scientists as to that detonation are more a reason for the twin towers to collapse then the impact of the planes http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html
That is just a minor fraction of what this site explains: Infowars.com Alot of the things on the site you will think are wild and a complete load of bullshit but if you read some of the articles you'll be amazed and astonished by what you read and see. I'm gonna tell people to go here with caution because some of the articles will shock you. [/b][/quote] there's also sites like these worth checking out http://www.propagandamatrix.com/index.html http://www.democracynow.org/index.pl http://www.truthout.com just wanted to say i wasn't flooding - or intentionally, while i was posting the quoted post was posted and i wanted to respond to that. to prove what does Bush do good, is really defending criminal. he got into the office illegaly first time round, he started illegal war - that illegal war dooms him as war criminal. and also the question is whom has he done good for?
I've seen that. I've seen it disproved. This doesn't explain it as well as the one I'm thinking of but here it is disproved... http://urbanlegends.about.com/gi/dynamic/o....com/2002/03/14
haha, that's a load of crap, it's even more distracting how they blame it on "math and science" to distract you from the real questions that went unnanswered. There's still the matter that the pilot who they arrested CAN'T FLY A PLANE, that the GIANT plane made a TINY, PER FECT CIRLCE in the wall, that NO pieces of a plane were found (officially confirmed) and that every single photo or video that could have backed up their argument has been siezed by the FBI. Don't be fooled by a lame cover-up like that... A plane that huge going that fast would've torn down 3/4 of the building and left behind a totally demolished lawn, especially at those speeds... strangely, nobody saw this boeing except the people who's job it personally is to defend the fact that it existed.
President's Approval Rating Dips Below 40 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050910/ap_on_...HBhBHNlYwM5NjQ- And of course Barbara Bush: It's Good Enough for the Poor
Thank you for further proving my point, Link. No matter what I can find about the good things Bush has done, you'll critique it, no matter how sound in logic it is. The reason is because you hate him. You hate him with a passion, and you're not even willing to accept the idea that, possibly, he has done a few good things for our nation (if you're American, which I am assuming you are -- my apologies if you are not). I've lurked the board for a long while before I registered here, and I did notice a few members that actually did defend Bush, and actually did provide sources. They were all ridiculed, even when other members could find nothing wrong with anything they said. That's why before recently I was so hesitant to post in the "Serious Chat" section -- because everyone here is so liberal and they won't accept a neutral perspective, and especially not a completely opposite perspective, from what I've read. You know what proves my point to an even further extent? That I never once claimed Bush was a good president and you jumped straight down my throat and out my ass. All I've been saying since my visit on these forums is that Bush was a decent to below-average president, but that he was being given an unfair amount of blame for New Orleans. That's it! And you proceeded to utterly attack every single thing I said. Why is that? It's because you have such a hate for the man and you can't see things from a neutral perspective. And, nice of you to search Google and only go to one site that was obviously biased with information on the positive things he's done. I mean, it'd be far too much to ask that you at least go a few pages in to your Google search and pick a non-biased article from neither side. Heaven forbid! And, I'm out. It's obvious this conversation is going nowhere (and I'm not blaming you for that, it's my fault as much as anyone's), and that I can't say anything to get the liberal people here to at least think neutrally about things. It's not worth it if I'll just get bashed for everything I say.
he may have done good things for USA, but they don't outweight the Patriot Act 1 and 2, maybe you can try to familiarize what it takes away from you - America is supposedly Land of the free - with those two - it can't even pretend to be. taking away your freedoms is indeed a deed worth admiring, that act does certainly elevate you from the bottom of the barrel to the 'average' and kinda bad but not really really bad. he done good things for USA? yeah, who gives a shit about those iraqis who died? about those iraqi babies who will suffer from the effects of depleted uranium left behind by Bush's army?who gives a shit about the soldiers who died in the war that Bush lead Americans into and that is illegal and for no other reason then profit from the pump? how exactly does Bush elevate poverty that has been rising under his presidency to levels in parts of USA comparable to third world with black people suffering twice as much and in places even more than the whites in the same vicinity? list goes on, since you don't particularly don't wish to debate anymore, i won't loose my time. you have not produced enough evidence that Bush's deeds outweight what he's done wrong and you wonder that Link is not convinced? is that his fault? he's only applying his logic, his reason and his believes into the matter- nowhere he 'jumped at your throat'. he's discussed things with you with maturity here. its Links right to critique Bush and not to come to the same opinion of him as you have. debate's goal is not to agree with each other, its not to force somebody to change their minds, if they don't and refute your argument- it doesn't mean that they are 'jumping at your throat.' i'd also like to remind you that when you are asked to back up your claim you don't ask the opposing side to do it. if you make a claim its yours to defend and back up, not the other side of the debate or even a person on the same debating side as yours. because you want to be 'neutral' to Bush and call him decent president is your right, its also Links right to disagree and bring forward why he does not agree.
http://neverknwo.gnn.tv/blogs/8700/I_just_...Detainment_Camp read this and please scroll down to when you see a government doc which talks of civilian labour camps..... in the beginning of nazi rule - thats well before the second world war and before reichstag the first concentration camps - without the gass chambers ...as yet.....and filled with political prisoners, gypsies and system unwanteds started also - many germans even didn't know about it, untill it was late. many good germans saw hitler as good and somebody who can protect and elevate german nation. wake up call came late for them, there may be hope for us if we wake up in time. 'the prize of liberty is eternal vigillance' as the quote goes. and from the same website i linked to before a list of reports about the flow of relief for new orleans http://shiftshapers.gnn.tv/blogs/8799/FEMA...An_Amazing_List oh bless its that local government and not on that decent guy in the white house orders
Your previous post was a loaded post. Obviously there's a REASON I'm "critiquing" these "points." Because they're not true, or have unsound logic, or possibly true but was presented in a poor way. If it's so sound logically, why don't you explain why, or prove it? You've been proving very few of your statements lately, and then hide behind a supposed bias or my inability to comprehend or detect a logical argument. Everything you're doing and saying implies to me that you're incapable of proving your statements true. I'm not liberal. Get over this obstacle, even if you are a minority, logic triumphs over repitition. I'm an anarchist, if you remember, I don't approve of much the state does in general, it doesn't matter what agenda it's used for. Stop assuming that I just hate Bush because he's Bush, and start considering that I don't like him, nor the rest of the government, for several good reasons. I haven't blamed Bush alone for this N.O. fiasco, if you've been paying attention. If you'd like to read the article I posted in the other thread again, you'll notice it attacks every level of government, and their failures. Honestly, I think your finger pointing at my bias is somewhat groundless. You attempted to make a statement, that Bush has done good things in office. So, I didn't "hunt up" biased sites to poke fun at you, I went straight down the list. And honestly, I don't have all the time in the world. So what I did find, I considered, as you'll note, I did agree with two things Bush did before finding bias in the site, and not much impressed me at all. I'd much rather talk to YOU about it, the one asserting that your statement is true in the first place, instead of retreating whilst assuming that anything opposing or countering is the product of a non-neutral viewpoint.
I know I said I wasn't going to respond, but it's obvious to me you're baiting everything to get me to, so I might as well make you happy. Please. Being on the debate team, I know how to defend what I say. As I've already said, though: what's the point if all you're going to do is critique every single thing? And I never once said what you posted was sound logic, nor did I imply it. I said if there was something of sound logic you'd still debate it. If you want to go to a bi-partisian political message board and slug it out, then go for it. I'm not going to bother here, as when I have proved that I'm capable of supporting my statements all I get are responses about how sources are biased, how what the source is stating is wrong, etc. And, being "liberal" doesn't mean you belong to the Democratic party or any party in particular, other than a liberal party. Anarchists are normally classified with liberals. So because you post an article that says Bush isn't the only one to blame means I'm supposed to know you share the same belief? I can post an article saying something -- doesn't mean I'll support it. Maybe you should mention it sometime, eh? As for me retreading the same issues: is this not the pot calling the kettle black? In all of your discussions I've seen about Katrina you've repeated yourself over, and over, and over, and over again. Just because I don't want to get into a whole spiel with you about politics doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about. If you want to believe that I don't, though, then do so. It doesn't hurt my feelings -- to the contrary, it amuses me. I had an old username here and all that resulted in when I posted sources was negativity. People kept repeating what they've been saying to begin with (such as you and I are both currently doing), so what's the point? Again, if you really want to debate the issue, how about linking to a political forum?
It seems like everyone OUTSIDE of America is shown how much of a prick Bush is and how much he isn't doing. Maybe people in America are just failing to see that he is doing absolutely fuck all to help them and that their country is going to shit because of it.
teehee im going to take this opportunity to say happy birthday to you Decdicated...even though its got absolutely shit all to do with bush.....so....HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!
Bush hasn't messed this country up at all! I mean come on... so the enconomy is in the toilet, and maybe gas prices are WAY high, but hey, we're at war!!!
People inside the country are seeing it too. Why else would the last elections be so close? And Ether: Don't make a pointless post like that. It seems like youre just posting to get your count up, so cut it out.
by who? anybody who knows anything about political philosophies and differences of political thinking knows the difference between an anarchist and a liberal. Link even pointed out to you the main reason of difference - anarchists are against having a state structure of society, they are for direct democracy, they are against capitalism, while liberals promote the idea of a minimal State, individual rights, and the responsibility of the people to judge their governments - having governments is representative democracy, not direct, they want minimal State while anarchists stand for complete abolishion of state. liberals are also pro-capitalist but more people orientated one. for anarchists, capitalism is a big no no. Dedicated said: It seems like everyone OUTSIDE of America is shown how much of a prick Bush is and how much he isn't doing. Maybe people in America are just failing to see that he is doing absolutely fuck all to help them and that their country is going to shit because of it. for sure people outside of America were in shock that Bush got re-elected - so did Blair - who's acts as Bush's dog = although his re-election comes down to the choice of him or right wing - (because people think they have to choose the government, from my point of view people should take the power back) - that's for another topic though about Blair. the fact is, that Bush and his cronies are digging their own graves, so the failure of americans to see what you said, will turn the other way - hopefully.
Ugh, that's what I get for replying another time... Being a liberal doesn't mean you can't be an anarchist. An anarchist is more of a philisophical belief, whereas if someone were to classify you as "a liberal", they would be saying you're... Would you say that anarchism is an orthodox view? Not exactly. Hence why anarchists are normally classified as liberals. Is there anything wrong with that? No. I was just making a statement. And, modern liberalism (which is what is currently associated with liberalism) is not "pro-capitalist": No, anarchists are not 100% liberals, but they do have numerous liberal beliefs, which is why they are normally classified on the liberal end of the spectrum, as they're not exactly conservative. Edit: And please look at the Pournelle Chart (notice where "classical anarchism" is located -- on the left): (Like I've said: if you want to continue these debates find a non-biased political forum, please. If not, start PM'ing me or something -- can't promise I'll respond quickly, though: I've got a busy week coming up.)