mysteryman wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:McG wrote:
I've not seen someone so owned by a politician, well except for Frank. But we all know he really loves W, he's just trying to put up a front for his liberal friends.
Nonsense! It seems Bush still owns a whole lot of you righties no matter how stupid and incompetent he's proven himself to be.
Then why are you on this or any other Bush supporters thread?
Supporters? Funny, I'd always read the meaning of the thread title the other way. As in:
Why do you (after all he has wrought, you stupid blind bast*rd) still support George Bush?
McTag wrote:mysteryman wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:McG wrote:
I've not seen someone so owned by a politician, well except for Frank. But we all know he really loves W, he's just trying to put up a front for his liberal friends.
Nonsense! It seems Bush still owns a whole lot of you righties no matter how stupid and incompetent he's proven himself to be.
Then why are you on this or any other Bush supporters thread?
Supporters? Funny, I'd always read the meaning of the thread title the other way. As in:
Why do you (after all he has wrought, you stupid blind bast*rd) still support George Bush?
So you support him because he reminds you of yourself?
One reason that I support W
( to the extent that I do, on an ecclectic basis,
singularly NOT including his veto of stem cell research funding )
is his successful defeat of a conspiracy in the UN
to disarm the citizens of America and of the world.
Frank Apisa wrote:McGentrix wrote:
For what reason did those that fought under and died for Washington do so if not for the love of their country? Please tell me.
For hatred of country, McG.
Their "country" was England...their liege lord was George III.
They hated him and it...and fought to be rid of both.
They were rebels, McG. Those good folk who fought under George Washington were rebels. If they had lost...they would be remembered as traitors...to their "country."
Get your head screwed on straight, will ya.
Love is a greater "motivator" in the positive than hate can ever be in the negative.
Sounds like again Frank, it is you who has things "twisted".
RexRed wrote:Frank Apisa wrote:McGentrix wrote:
For what reason did those that fought under and died for Washington do so if not for the love of their country? Please tell me.
For hatred of country, McG.
Their "country" was England...their liege lord was George III.
They hated him and it...and fought to be rid of both.
They were rebels, McG. Those good folk who fought under George Washington were rebels. If they had lost...they would be remembered as traitors...to their "country."
Get your head screwed on straight, will ya.
Love is a greater "motivator" in the positive than hate can ever be in the negative.
Sounds like again Frank, it is you who has things "twisted".
Try understanding what is written before you respond, Rex. If you don't...you sound dumber than usual. And we don't want that, do we!
Seems to me that Frank has got it right. This time. :wink:
Intrepid wrote:Seems to me that Frank has got it right. This time. :wink:
I knew if I just kept trying....
Frank Apisa wrote:Intrepid wrote:Seems to me that Frank has got it right. This time. :wink:
I knew if I just kept trying....
You are still wrong...
What rule books says "rebels" have to be motivated by hate? They identified themselves with freedom and liberators from oppression. Freedom does not contain hate but liberation from hate.
Hate is a weak motivator, love is greater.
So now you are both wrong.
The USSR tried to rule with fear motivation and look where it got them?
You apparently stopped studying history in the 1700's...
RexRed wrote:Frank Apisa wrote:Intrepid wrote:Seems to me that Frank has got it right. This time. :wink:
I knew if I just kept trying....
You are still wrong...
What rule books says "rebels" have to be motivated by hate? They identified themselves with freedom and liberators from oppression. Freedom does not contain hate but liberation from hate.
Hate is a weak motivator, love is greater.
So now you are both wrong.
The USSR tried to rule with fear motivation and look where it got them?
You apparently stopped studying history in the 1700's...
You still do not understand what I wrote, Rex.
Get your brain fixed...and then we can talk. (Talk to your god about it!)
Whoa there, Frank. It's because they do talk to their gods that we are in such trouble in this world. Look what Bush got us into in Iraq, and them suicide bombers believe god will reward them with virgins when they are received in heaven.
cicerone imposter wrote:Whoa there, Frank. It's because they do talk to their gods that we are in such trouble in this world. Look what Bush got us into in Iraq, and them suicide bombers believe god will reward them with virgins when they are received in heaven.
You can't blame Bush on God. Unless, of course, God does make mistakes.
I'm not so sure, but at times many around the world thinks of Bush as a king.
Frank Apisa wrote:RexRed wrote:Frank Apisa wrote:Intrepid wrote:Seems to me that Frank has got it right. This time. :wink:
I knew if I just kept trying....
You are still wrong...
What rule books says "rebels" have to be motivated by hate? They identified themselves with freedom and liberators from oppression. Freedom does not contain hate but liberation from hate.
Hate is a weak motivator, love is greater.
So now you are both wrong.
The USSR tried to rule with fear motivation and look where it got them?
You apparently stopped studying history in the 1700's...
You still do not understand what I wrote, Rex.
Get your brain fixed...and then we can talk. (Talk to your god about it!)
I read exactly what you wrote;
You implied that our country was built on the hatred of a king. I disagree, it was built on the desire (love) for freedom.
Again it is you Frank who has twisted the situation to fit your ideology.
cicerone imposter wrote:I'm not so sure, but at times many around the world thinks of Bush as a king.
You're not sure?
Well when he is replaced by the next republican president will you be sure then? How many "elected" kings willingly give up their power after 8 years?
Now who exactly are these "people" who think Bush is a king? Nut case socialists?
Question,
Who is going to "control" all of these socialists clones drone puppet people in this utopian dream world of the radical far left? A pauper?
RexRed wrote:How many "elected" kings willingly give up their power after 8 years?
He does it willingly, really? Thanks for that info.
RexRed wrote:Question,
Who is going to control all of these socialists clones drone puppet people in this utopian dream world of the radical far left? A pauper?
Voters. Parliaments. Constituional courts. Etc etc, what ever there is in democracratic countries.
Walter, It'll be voters if the republicans don't steal the votes by the voting machine fraud.
"There certainly are potential security vulnerabilities that have arisen," said Jennifer Kerns, a spokeswoman for California's secretary of state. "But you have to be realistic about it: When you're administrating elections, there's a very low risk of any" tampering.
That ain't a "middle ground", that's Diebold propoganda.
Here's a quote from a letter sent by Diebold to states after they could no longer conceal the vulnerability problems from the public. Note the similarities to Kerns quote above:
The probability for exploiting this vulnerability to install un-authorized software that could affect an election is considered low.
You can see the full Diebold letter, and the nearly identical (word-for-word!) "Directive" from Pennsylvania officials, who struck that same "middle ground" when they had to deal with the problem just days before their recent primary elections right here.
Beyond that, the article goes on to quote Diebold spokesman/known-liar, David Bear, repeating his same old "there are no evil election officials" canard, while otherwise doing a nice job, at least, of pointing out Shamos' apparent about-face concerning the security on these machines, after he had once been an ardent supporter/defender of e-voting.
Bottom-line, however: This is not an even debate. Nor even a "debate" at all!
The Computer Scientists and Election Integrity Advocates have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Diebold voting machines, both optical scan and touch-screen, are hackable and unsecure. They have also been federally certified despite violating federally created standards for certification. They should be decertified immediately at the federal level on that basis alone.
The other side is not debating. They are spinning in an attempt to downplay the issue as "not all that important."
That's not a debate. That is FACT versus SPIN and coverage of these issues ought to be clear on that. Especially from Washington Post where we'd expect them to be a bit more honest than Fox "News". But perhaps it's time to simply do away that expectation once and for all.
UPDATE: While WaPo misses the point (or chooses to), the smaller papers, such as the Lakeland Florida Ledger get it right anywayÂ…
cicerone imposter wrote:Whoa there, Frank. It's because they do talk to their gods that we are in such trouble in this world. Look what Bush got us into in Iraq, and them suicide bombers believe god will reward them with virgins when they are received in heaven.
It is easier to die for Allah (PBUH) than it is to LIVE every day and every thought of one's life for Allah (PBUH). It will be the person who LIVES for Allah (PBUH) who will find paradise. The person who seeks Allah (PBUH) in death and suicide will only discover a mirage of emptiness and judgment. The flesh is justified by life and not death. Allah (PBUH) is blessed by our kindness and graciousness and not by our greed and jealousy. Allah (PBUH) is blessed by our tenderness and not our rage, our peace not terror, our love not fear and truth not hypocrisy.
Radical Islamists or anyone else who projects their own evil onto Allah (PBUH) will suffer the forfeit of their own future heavenly rewards.
