How Do You Check To See Who Is

[Rip The Jacker]

:unsure:

[vidcc]

well you wait until all the votes are cast and the time limit is reached and you count them..... anything else is just conjecture. :lol: :lol:

[Rip The Jacker]

What I meant was, is it possible to see who is winning so far? :blink:

[Spicker]

Originally posted by Rip The Jacker@10 July 2004 - 00:35
What I meant was, is it possible to see who is winning so far? :blink:
if u mean b4 the vote

the only it can be done is by Internet Polls ;)

[vidcc]

well the "so far" aspect doesn't really count for much..many times one party has been ahead in the opinion polls yet got a thorough butt kicking come the actual election.
Besides it's no good leading the race if you run out of gas just before the chequered flag. :P


Besides at the moment it seems to be more a case of...."it's not who we want to win rather who we want to lose"

[Rip The Jacker]

So you guys are telling me I have to wait eh? Whens the voting over again? :unsure:

@vidcc
Great signature. :lol:

[vidcc]

Originally posted by Rip The Jacker@9 July 2004 - 17:08
So you guys are telling me I have to wait eh? Whens the voting over again? :unsure:

@vidcc
Great signature. :lol:
well that or invent a time machine :lol:

thanks.... i found myself with time on my hands and it's been so long since that has happened i didn't know what to do with myself...that was the result :lol:

[Rat Faced]

Try keeping an eye on Prez Track 2004 (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Presidential_Tracking_Poll.htm).

This site not only keeps upto date polls on the popular vote:

very close at moment 9th July 2004:

Bush 46%
Kerry 47%
Other 3%
Not Sure 4%


but also translates these into the electoral college votes:

Kerry leading Bush at the moment 226 Electoral Votes to 203...



Like all polls though, there is a margin of error of Plus/Minus 5%...

ie: "Its too close to call"

[Rip The Jacker]

Thanks for the link RF. :)

Whens the voting end?

[Rat Faced]

Well, I have trouble answering that.... there are those that say they havent finished counting the last elections votes yet ;)

.....and im not sure it actually matters who votes for whom in the USA these days...

both are, to me...the same party


(much as the UK, except our 3 party system does actually give the choice Tory, Tory or Liberal.. rather than the Republican/Republican 2 party system :P )




:ph34r: :ph34r:

[BigBank_Hank]

RTJ are you a registered voter?

[Rip The Jacker]

No actually I'm not. I'm 17 years old.

[Biggles]

The gist of the figures would appear to be that little has changed from Nov 2000 and that it will go to the wire.

[BigBank_Hank]

Originally posted by Rip The Jacker@10 July 2004 - 02:39
No actually I'm not. I'm 17 years old.
Will you be 18 before election time? You have to be registered 6 weeks before the election to be able to vote.

And don’t put to much weight in political polls. It’s way to early in this thing to tell.

[vidcc]

It's good to see that a 17 year old is taking interest in the elections ( to whatever degree it might be). It is important to follow these things. Not just the electorial process but also the manifesto of each party. It matters not that a 17 year old won't vote, the outcome of the election has a direct affect upon this person beyond his/her control and come the next election that will be paid for.

[Rat Faced]

Politics effects everyone, in everything they do.

If more people realised that, and gave it the attention that something that effects them so greatly deserved, there would be no low turnouts in elections.

Its good to see anyone, whatever their age, realise this.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@10 July 2004 - 14:16
Politics effects everyone, in everything they do.

If more people realised that, and gave it the attention that something that effects them so greatly deserved, there would be no low turnouts in elections.

Its good to see anyone, whatever their age, realise this.
I used to think that, but the older I get, the more I think voters should be means-tested, so we could at least get away from such phenomena as females with moist panties voting for Kerry just because Edwards is so cute.

That would be tremendously unfair to Democrats, though, as it would probably disqualify eight out of ten of them. <_<

[Rat Faced]

Oh I dont know...

It depends what type of "Test" you set up..


The Republicans may suffer with the Rednecks not voting, if it was an IQ test as an example.....

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@10 July 2004 - 15:37
Oh I dont know...

It depends what type of "Test" you set up..


The Republicans may suffer with the Rednecks not voting, if it was an IQ test as an example.....
True enough, but I suspect a much higher percentage of Republicans would qualify as informed.

Just a guess.

[vidcc]

Oh good grief......how silly is this becoming?...sexist comments on one side and intelectual doubts from the other..... this sounds like the childish element of the campaign name calling trail is infecting the board.... this isn&#39;t the lounge chaps

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by vidcc@10 July 2004 - 21:01
Oh good grief......how silly is this becoming?...sexist comments on one side and intelectual doubts from the other..... this sounds like the childish element of the campaign name calling trail is infecting the board.... this isn&#39;t the lounge chaps
I dont think so, apart from the usual sniping that is ;)


I dont think myself and J2K4 were attacking each other, in fact we appeared to agree that any type of test would favour one party over another.

ergo: Should be no "Tests"



(Ok there was sniping too...but thats the top and bottom of it all, nothing serious.... :rolleyes: )

[Rip The Jacker]

I&#39;ve been getting more political lately, I think its because I took an annoying Sociology class, either that or the fact that I dislike George Bush.

I just turned 17 a month ago, so I won&#39;t be voting...

[BigBank_Hank]

I’m probably going to regret this but I have to ask. Why does a 17 year old dislike Bush? Not that age has anything to do with it but young people usually don’t care too much about politics.

In answering my question RTJ I have only one request: No copy and pasting articles. I want your thoughts not what some article that you agree with.

[j2k4]

My daughter&#39;s boyfriend (who is 29, and should know better) told me he&#39;s going to vote for Kerry because "I think Kerry will do a better job than Bush."

"A better job? How?" I asked.

"I don&#39;t know; I just like him better" he replied.

I queried further: "What do you like about him?"

Again he said, "I just like him better."

A deep thinker, there.

I think if I had brow-beaten him, it might have proven fatal, but my daughter would have objected.

She will cancel out his vote, in any case. ;)

[vidcc]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@10 July 2004 - 18:15
I’m probably going to regret this but I have to ask. Why does a 17 year old dislike Bush? Not that age has anything to do with it but young people usually don’t care too much about politics.


probably for the same reasons anyone else dislikes Bush.

[BigBank_Hank]

Originally posted by j2k4@10 July 2004 - 20:34
My daughter&#39;s boyfriend (who is 29, and should know better) told me he&#39;s going to vote for Kerry because "I think Kerry will do a better job than Bush."

"A better job? How?" I asked.

"I don&#39;t know; I just like him better" he replied.

I queried further: "What do you like about him?"

Again he said, "I just like him better."

A deep thinker, there.

I think if I had brow-beaten him, it might have proven fatal, but my daughter would have objected.

She will cancel out his vote, in any case. ;)
J2 that seems to be the general consensus of Kerry supporters. They know nothing of him or his “proposals” but they’ll vote for him anyway.

On a side note how old is your daughter? :D

[vidcc]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@10 July 2004 - 19:11

J2 that seems to be the general consensus of Kerry supporters. They know nothing of him or his “proposals” but they’ll vote for him anyway.


hmm...... well Hank seeing as you are making this comment about Kerry voters being somehow unaware of anything and apparently Bush voters are right on the button perhaps i could get an answer for a question i asked from a previous thread.

original post (http://filesharingtalk.com/index.php?showtopic=116527&st=0#)


(BigBank_Hank @ 2 July 2004 - 10:03)

. Kerry has nothing to run on and does nothing but attack the President.


The personality attacks are a 2 way street so i won&#39;t debate them as you know i look at policy not personality and i find this character assasination tactic beneath contempt whoever the target.

you say Kerry has nothing to run on. Have you read his manifesto and compared it to Bush&#39;s point for point? If you could debate the merrits of each issue for us so we can assertain why you feel this way it would be appreciated....well i would appreciate it

What exactly are you looking for that is missing from the Kerry manifesto that Bush has in his?

The issues are the same for all candidates so could we have a reason why you feel the candidate lacks on their stance not just say they lack.

:D

[BigBank_Hank]

I remember that thread and I wanted to comment on it but never got around to it with that being the 4 of July weekend and all. But that’s no excuse so here goes.

The beauty about Kerry is he’s been in the Senate for 20 years so he’s voted on lots of things. Most of the things that he’s “proposing” now he’s was voted against in the past. I’ll give an example. “I John Kerry served in Vietnam so I’m going be strong on national defense” (not an actual quote BTW). In reality Kerry voted against all the major weapon systems that are helping us win the war on terror. For example he voted against: F-117 Nighthawk (Stealth Fighter), M1A1 Abraham’s Tank, also he voted against upgrading body armor for our troops.

I’ve said a lot of things about Kerry but so far I haven’t hammered him on his voting record

[Rip The Jacker]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@10 July 2004 - 17:15
I?m probably going to regret this but I have to ask. Why does a 17 year old dislike Bush? Not that age has anything to do with it but young people usually don?t care too much about politics.&nbsp;

In answering my question RTJ I have only one request: No copy and pasting articles. I want your thoughts not what some article that you agree with.
I don&#39;t want this to turn into an arguement, but here is my answer.

1. He is a liar.
2. He seems rather dumb, making grammatical errors and inventing his own words.
3. For bombing civilians and children for oil profits.

[BigBank_Hank]

I know that you don’t want to turn this into a big debate but I think that you are misguided.

1. The President never lied about our cause for invading Iraq. He looked at the evidence he was given a made a hard decision. Remember that congress had to vote to authorize the war.

2. You make think he sounds dumb but he does have a degree from Harvard and an MBA from Yale. He makes while speaking and so do you and I, no one is perfect.

3. We still haven’t taken 1 drop of oil from Iraq.

[Rip The Jacker]

1. Not about the war. Bush was arrested for drunk driving, and lied about it (http://filesharingtalk.com/index.php?showtopic=115544&view=findpost&p=1064493).

2. C&#39; mon, lets think about this. How many presidents make up their own words? He is, after all, the "misunderestimated" man.

3. Oh... then why did he kill the children?

Again, no pun intended.

EDIT: By the way, have you seen Fahrenheit 9/11 yet? Just wondering...

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Rip The Jacker@11 July 2004 - 01:38
3. Oh... then why did he kill the children?


Okay, Rip-

Take this one assertion and back it up, figuratively, literally, or any other way you think you can.

Please do not presume to offer Fahrenheit 9/11 as proof.

Also be aware that qualifiers such as "indirectly responsible" will not suffice either. ;)

[Rip The Jacker]

I&#39;m just saying that I&#39;ve seen very graphic photos/videos of killed Iraqi children, because of this war, and I never did find out why...

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Rip The Jacker@11 July 2004 - 03:13
I&#39;m just saying that I&#39;ve seen very graphic photos/videos of killed Iraqi children, because of this war, and I never did find out why...
No, I think what you just said is that Bush "killed the children".

Am I wrong? :huh:

[j2k4]

Originally posted by j2k4+11 July 2004 - 03:17--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 &#064; 11 July 2004 - 03:17)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Rip The Jacker@11 July 2004 - 03:13
I&#39;m just saying that I&#39;ve seen very graphic photos/videos of killed Iraqi children, because of this war, and I never did find out why...
No, I think what you just said is that Bush "killed the children".

Am I wrong? :huh: [/b][/quote]
Actually, never mind; it&#39;s very late, and I am very tired.

Just be advised you would do well to forego the use of such rhetoric for it&#39;s own sake; that alone would place you far above your cohort, although you might often find yourself with nothing to say, which is not necessarily a bad thing.

[Rip The Jacker]

Originally posted by j2k4+11 July 2004 - 00:26--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 11 July 2004 - 00:26)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by j2k4@11 July 2004 - 03:17
<!--QuoteBegin-Rip The Jacker@11 July 2004 - 03:13
I&#39;m just saying that I&#39;ve seen very graphic photos/videos of killed Iraqi children, because of this war, and I never did find out why...
No, I think what you just said is that Bush "killed the children".

Am I wrong? :huh:
Actually, never mind; it&#39;s very late, and I am very tired.

Just be advised you would do well to forego the use of such rhetoric for it&#39;s own sake; that alone would place you far above your cohort, although you might often find yourself with nothing to say, which it not necessarily a bad thing. [/b][/quote]
Man, its late, I&#39;m sleepy, and those big words are not what I needed lol.

I think you are trying to say "You should shut up, for your sake."

I probibly should. Nevermind. I just wanted to know if it was possible to see who is winning so far.

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@11 July 2004 - 02:41
In reality Kerry voted against all the major weapon systems that are helping us win the war on terror. For example he voted against: F-117 Nighthawk (Stealth Fighter), M1A1 Abraham’s Tank, also he voted against upgrading body armor for our troops.

Do you want to do your homework?

Or rely on a Bush Advertisement?


Kerry did not, in fact, vote specifically against "13 weapons systems" as the ad claims. The bills shown on screen are actually Pentagon appropriations bills Kerry voted against in 1990 (H.R. 5803, S. 3189) and 1995 (H.R. 2126 ). Of course, voting against overall military spending bills does amount to voting against everything in them, but even so it isn&#39;t quite the same as voting to eliminate specific weapons. We&#39;ve addressed similar attacks by the Bush campaign in earlier articles, Feb. 26, March 16 and April 26 .

PFA&#39;s ad also fails to mention that Kerry voted for Pentagon money bills in 16 of his 19 years in the Senate. By that measure, Kerry was much more a supporter of "weapons systems our troops depend on" than he was an opponent.

Furthermore, Bush&#39;s own father, who was then President, and Richard Cheney, who was then Secretary of Defense, proposed to cut or eliminate several of the very same weapons that Republicans now fault Kerry for opposing. In his first appearance before Congress as Defense Secretary in April 1989, for example, Cheney outlined &#036;10 billion in defense cuts including proposed cancellation of the AH-64 Apache helicopter, and elimination of the F-15E ground-attack jet. Two years later Cheney&#39;s Pentagon budget also proposed elimination of further production of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle and targeted a total of 81 Pentagon programs for termination, including the F-14 and F-16 aircraft. And the elder President Bush said in his 1992 State of the Union address: "After completing 20 planes for which we have begun procurement, we will shut down further production of the B - 2 bombers. . . . And we will not purchase any more advanced cruise missiles." So if Kerry opposed weapons "our troops depend on," so did Cheney and the elder President Bush.



Source (http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=209)

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by Rip The Jacker@11 July 2004 - 05:53
1. He is a liar.
2. He seems rather dumb, making grammatical errors and inventing his own words.
3. For bombing civilians and children for oil profits.
1. All politicians are Liars, or at the least are economical with the Truth... its their Job. They cant help it any more than a Skunk can help its odour.

Try the link from the above post for anaysis of the crap coming out of both camps in this election for example...

You have to decide for yourself on each issue you feel strongly about, then see where the Parties stand on those issues. Do not follow any Party blindly, and only join one if your goning to try and change its policies to fit what you want.

Remember when you read Boards like this, that the people in them have already got their beliefs... dont let them hoodwink you with bullshit. Check everything out for yourself, and always remember to check your sources to find out what THEIR agenda is.


2. Yes, he is rather Dumb for a "World Leader". Dont let his grammer fool you though, he is actually of "Average Intelligence" going off IQ.

He is the 1st to tell you he was not much of a student, but he isnt as thick as everyone makes out either. He is no more stupid than the average person, just no more intelligent either. I do think he&#39;s easily lead though... as hes supposed to be the Boss, then that is a no no in my book.


3. Yes. Spot on. Despite what Hank says, every drop of profit from the Oil is controlled by the USA... even now, despite "Sovereignity". The US Oil companies profit by having more control over the "Price of Oil", and they make more money by having the Price high. The Oil revenues themselves pay for US companies to "Rebuild" what the coalition destroyed.

In effect, the US Taxpayer has paid for a war which has benefited and made huge profits for:

The Arms Industry (eg: Carlyle Group)
The Energy Industry (Oil Companies in particular)
The Construction Industry (Haliburton in particular)

Look at the companies that are the big winners, then look at who are the people involved with those companies over the last 10 years.

The whole thing is nothing more than revenge and a re-distribution of money from the US Taxpayer to the coffers of the friends and family of the current administration.

At the same time, "normal" investors have had to live with huge swings in the StockMarkets, as companies not involved with all of this take the flack for an unstable investment environment. Investment Money goes to the Companies making big profits, not those that just try and get by.




Answer 3 is, of course, my opinion. ;)

[vidcc]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@10 July 2004 - 19:41
I remember that thread and I wanted to comment on it but never got around to it with that being the 4 of July weekend and all. But that’s no excuse so here goes.

The beauty about Kerry is he’s been in the Senate for 20 years so he’s voted on lots of things. Most of the things that he’s “proposing” now he’s was voted against in the past. I’ll give an example. “I John Kerry served in Vietnam so I’m going be strong on national defense” (not an actual quote BTW). In reality Kerry voted against all the major weapon systems that are helping us win the war on terror. For example he voted against: F-117 Nighthawk (Stealth Fighter), M1A1 Abraham’s Tank, also he voted against upgrading body armor for our troops.

I’ve said a lot of things about Kerry but so far I haven’t hammered him on his voting record
Well time zones give others a quicker chance to view and answer replies, it bloody 5 am. at the moment and i can&#39;t get back to sleep after my daughter woke me :angry:
i did see a similar worded republican campaign advert

It appears to have been answered by someone more awake than I.

[clocker]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@10 July 2004 - 19:41
In reality Kerry voted against all the major weapon systems that are helping us win the war on terror. For example he voted against: F-117 Nighthawk (Stealth Fighter), M1A1 Abraham’s Tank, also he voted against upgrading body armor for our troops.


Oh please.

Not only is The War on Terror a completely useless and stupid phrase (just like The War Against Drugs and The War on Crime, it defines nothing and is so beautifully amorphous that it can mean anything that is politically expedient), but by almost any standard you wish to apply, we can hardly be said to be "winning".

Since the terrorists that we can identify refuse to wage war in the manner that Patton would recognize, the fighter jets and tanks are of little use anyway.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by j2k4+11 July 2004 - 01:06--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 11 July 2004 - 01:06)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Rip The Jacker@11 July 2004 - 01:38
3. Oh... then why did he kill the children?


Okay, Rip-

Take this one assertion and back it up, figuratively, literally, or any other way you think you can.

Please do not presume to offer Fahrenheit 9/11 as proof.

Also be aware that qualifiers such as "indirectly responsible" will not suffice either. ;) [/b][/quote]
Whatever reason we use for the war on Iraq we cannot deny that there was "colateral" casualties and as time passes this still occurs.
by definition Bush may not be considered liable for a charge of killing children but as a result of the decision to invade these children (and adult civilians) did pay with their lives.
Of course it has been found by our own government that the reason given at the time of the vote to go to war, WMD, was in fact based on bad intelligence of which they cleared themselves of all blame but does that clear them of responsibility?
It all boils down to opinion and which side of the fence one is looking at and with war one is allowed a huge amount of immunity.

I don&#39;t think Bush is a child killer.....even though i haven&#39;t approved of the invasion from before day one, But perhaps you could convince the parents of the dead children of that.
As i said it would come down to opinion and sitting on sides of fences

[j2k4]

Originally posted by vidcc+11 July 2004 - 08:02--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vidcc @ 11 July 2004 - 08:02)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by j2k4@11 July 2004 - 01:06
<!--QuoteBegin-Rip The Jacker@11 July 2004 - 01:38
3. Oh... then why did he kill the children?


Okay, Rip-

Take this one assertion and back it up, figuratively, literally, or any other way you think you can.

Please do not presume to offer Fahrenheit 9/11 as proof.

Also be aware that qualifiers such as "indirectly responsible" will not suffice either. ;)
Whatever reason we use for the war on Iraq we cannot deny that there was "colateral" casualties and as time passes this still occurs.
by definition Bush may not be considered liable for a charge of killing children but as a result of the decision to invade these children (and adult civilians) did pay with their lives.
Of course it has been found by our own government that the reason given at the time of the vote to go to war, WMD, was in fact based on bad intelligence of which they cleared themselves of all blame but does that clear them of responsibility?
It all boils down to opinion and which side of the fence one is looking at and with war one is allowed a huge amount of immunity.

I don&#39;t think Bush is a child killer.....even though i haven&#39;t approved of the invasion from before day one, But perhaps you could convince the parents of the dead children of that.
As i said it would come down to opinion and sitting on sides of fences [/b][/quote]
God forbid anyone on this board should stray from the extreme rhetoric that is the norm, especially when discussing Bush.

Easy to write, easy to read, easy to believe; I guess that&#39;s good enough, huh? ;)

[vidcc]

Originally posted by j2k4@11 July 2004 - 07:22
God forbid anyone on this board should stray from the extreme rhetoric that is the norm, especially when discussing Bush.

Easy to write, easy to read, easy to believe; I guess that&#39;s good enough, huh? ;)

I don&#39;t think Bush is a child killer

It&#39;s not extreme, it&#39;s a sad fact of war and would be used in any inquiry.
Are you denying that innocent deaths have occured? of course not. But one has to look at it from both sides to see the point clearly.
Even when one disagrees with a theory one has to be able to understand how the theory could be reached to be able to understand another persons opinion.
lets take bush out of the equasion and use any other waring country.

Fact: innocent civilians have been killed

Fact: it wasn&#39;t intentional

Fact: someone gave the order to go to war



So who has innocent deaths on their conscience?


It goes with the territory

[clocker]

Originally posted by j2k4@11 July 2004 - 07:22

God forbid anyone on this board should stray from the extreme rhetoric that is the norm, especially when discussing Bush.

Easy to write, easy to read, easy to believe; I guess that&#39;s good enough, huh? ;)
What part of vidcc&#39;s post would you characterize as "extreme", j2?

[j2k4]

Originally posted by vidcc+11 July 2004 - 09:51--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vidcc &#064; 11 July 2004 - 09:51)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@11 July 2004 - 07:22
God forbid anyone on this board should stray from the extreme rhetoric that is the norm, especially when discussing Bush.

Easy to write, easy to read, easy to believe; I guess that&#39;s good enough, huh? ;)

I don&#39;t think Bush is a child killer

It&#39;s not extreme, it&#39;s a sad fact of war and would be used in any inquiry.
Are you denying that innocent deaths have occured? of course not. But one has to look at it from both sides to see the point clearly.
Even when one disagrees with a theory one has to be able to understand how the theory could be reached to be able to understand another persons opinion.
lets take bush out of the equasion and use any other waring country.

Fact: innocent civilians have been killed

Fact: it wasn&#39;t intentional

Fact: someone gave the order to go to war



So who has innocent deaths on their conscience?


It goes with the territory[/b][/quote]
Just to clarify:

Bush hasn&#39;t killed any children, to my knowledge, and the language in question indicated otherwise.

Conscience, or the lack thereof, was not mentioned.

The "other-side" of your "both sides" formulation is not entitled to such loose use of words or intent, no matter what "feelings" are involved, vid.

I really hate to bring it up, but, as Clinton holds the singular honor of having ordered our troops into action on more occasions than any other president in the last fifty years, do you think it at all possible he might bear "responsibility" similar to that you wish to lay at Bush&#39;s feet?

I am reminded of the old goose/gander adage.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by clocker+11 July 2004 - 10:05--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 11 July 2004 - 10:05)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@11 July 2004 - 07:22

God forbid anyone on this board should stray from the extreme rhetoric that is the norm, especially when discussing Bush.

Easy to write, easy to read, easy to believe; I guess that&#39;s good enough, huh? ;)
What part of vidcc&#39;s post would you characterize as "extreme", j2? [/b][/quote]
None.

The subject was Rip&#39;s post:

QUOTE (Rip The Jacker @ 11 July 2004 - 01:38)
3. Oh... then why did he kill the children?

[Rat Faced]

@ J2K4...

Yes, Mr Clinton is "Responsible" for all the innocents killed as a result of any action he ordered.

Are you merely pointing this out?



You begin to sound like Israel, whereby any criticism is hailed as "anti-semetic", ir-respective of whether that criticism would have been leveled at anyone else doing the same thing.

:P

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@11 July 2004 - 10:36
@ J2K4...

Yes, Mr Clinton is "Responsible" for all the innocents killed as a result of&nbsp; any action he ordered.

Are you merely pointing this out?




Yes.

Is it wrong or off-point?

Is Rip&#39;s supposition more accurate? Relevant?

I think my point was ultra-clear, Rat:

Drop the agenda-serving rhetoric and debate.

To post as Rip did and expect not to be called on it?

Surely enough of that goes on already.

Using similar technique, I can say that Bush killed Uday and Qusay, too, although that is not true.

I can also lay the Waco massacre on Clinton, and wonder why no one seems offended or willing to be reminded of it.

If I were inclined, Rat, I could bury this board with rhetoric, cut-and-paste bullshit, you-name-it.

I could play the game the same way others do, but I don&#39;t; I don&#39;t because it would be too fucking easy.

There are a very few of us here who post their own intellectual work-product.

It shouldn&#39;t be too much to ask for more of that; after all, are we here to share our opinions, or the opinions of others?

What I see here, much too often, is the equivalent of the old school-yard tactic:

"Let&#39;s you and him have a fight"

Not much water being carried around here lately.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by j2k4@11 July 2004 - 08:12

I really hate to bring it up, but, as Clinton holds the singular honor of having ordered our troops into action on more occasions than any other president in the last fifty years, do you think it at all possible he might bear "responsibility" similar to that you wish to lay at Bush&#39;s feet?

I am reminded of the old goose/gander adage.
i did take bush out of the subject so you already have your answer.
And as for the number of occasions that&#39;s kind of misleading to the point of shameful spin. It&#39;s like saying that someone who goes to a buffet and has 4 plates with one slice of cake is greedier than one that has 2 plates with 3 slices on each


During the administration of Clinton, the U.S. enjoyed more peace than at any time in its history.
source (http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/bc42.html)

[Snee]

Originally posted by Rip The Jacker@11 July 2004 - 07:38
1. Not about the war. Bush was arrested for drunk driving, and lied about it (http://filesharingtalk.com/index.php?showtopic=115544&view=findpost&p=1064493).
Isn&#39;t lying about your mistakes sort of a time honoured tradition for politicians everywhere.

Not very shocking, is it.

[Rat Faced]

vidcc, you may be right..

However, that isnt what was being debated.

Clinton is just as guilty of any innocents killed as a result of his actions, that Bush is with his.


Your argument appears to be "But hes not as Guilty"...

He is...

If each "Death" is counted individually (Direct and Indirect) then Bush isnt even the "Most" Guilty, Clinton is. He did, however have twice as long to achieve this distinction.

If you only count US deaths, the Bush is "Most" Guilty... however, as most of these were military, then there is an argument that they shouldnt count at all.

If only "Direct" action is taken into account, then again the honour belongs to Bush.



Tell me though... is it better to Die by a bomb/bullet, or to die due to no Medical Supplies or lack of clean Drinking Water?


They are as bad as each other... the only difference being Clinton made it look like nothing was going on, whereas Bush&#39;s actions are thrown in your face all the time.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by vidcc@11 July 2004 - 09:06
i did take bush out of the subject so you already have your answer.

Rat i didn&#39;t say he was innocent...i pointed that i took bush out of the subject which means all leaders that go to war are just as guilty

[clocker]

Originally posted by j2k4@11 July 2004 - 08:12


I really hate to bring it up, but, as Clinton holds the singular honor of having ordered our troops into action on more occasions than any other president in the last fifty years, do you think it at all possible he might bear "responsibility" similar to that you wish to lay at Bush&#39;s feet?


No you don&#39;t, you love to bring it up.

Frequently,you respond to a criticism of Bush with a factoid about Clinton...the relevance escapes me.
Clinton is no longer President, Bush is.

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by vidcc+11 July 2004 - 16:45--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vidcc @ 11 July 2004 - 16:45)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-vidcc@11 July 2004 - 09:06
i did take bush out of the subject so you already have your answer.

Rat i didn&#39;t say he was innocent...i pointed that i took bush out of the subject which means all leaders that go to war are just as guilty [/b][/quote]
My Bad...










I&#39;ll get me coat :ph34r:

[j2k4]

Originally posted by clocker+11 July 2004 - 11:49--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker &#064; 11 July 2004 - 11:49)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@11 July 2004 - 08:12


I really hate to bring it up, but, as Clinton holds the singular honor of having ordered our troops into action on more occasions than any other president in the last fifty years, do you think it at all possible he might bear "responsibility" similar to that you wish to lay at Bush&#39;s feet?


No you don&#39;t, you love to bring it up.

Frequently,you respond to a criticism of Bush with a factoid about Clinton...the relevance escapes me.
Clinton is no longer President, Bush is.[/b][/quote]

Wrongo.

While I confess to "not hating" to mention Clinton, I will state also that I am incredibly weary of having to do so.

If I am confronted, for example, by a statement that goes something like, "Bush is responsible for our international allies forsaking us, and making the U.S. more hated than at any time in our history" or any other statement that attempts to denigate Bush or his policies by comparison to other times/eras/incidents, the heads of corresponding administrations are most certainly fair play.

I do not make a habit of it normally (surely you must admit this), but I try to make an exception whenever vidcc is in the room. ;)

[vidcc]

Originally posted by j2k4@11 July 2004 - 10:43
I do not make a habit of it normally (surely you must admit this), but I try to make an exception whenever vidcc is in the room. ;)
:lol: and there&#39;s me trying to make the point and making excluding Bush...guess i can&#39;t win.

By the way, using the fact that someone else does something isn&#39;t an excuse....2 wrongs don&#39;t make a right

[j2k4]

Originally posted by vidcc+11 July 2004 - 14:36--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vidcc &#064; 11 July 2004 - 14:36)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@11 July 2004 - 10:43
I do not make a habit of it normally (surely you must admit this), but I try to make an exception whenever vidcc is in the room. ;)
:lol: and there&#39;s me trying to make the point and making excluding Bush...guess i can&#39;t win.

By the way, using the fact that someone else does something isn&#39;t an excuse....2 wrongs don&#39;t make a right[/b][/quote]
Great.

Not even I, the All-Powerful, All-knowing j2k4, know what we&#39;re talking about now. :huh:

[vidcc]

Originally posted by j2k4+11 July 2004 - 12:52--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 11 July 2004 - 12:52)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by vidcc@11 July 2004 - 14:36
<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@11 July 2004 - 10:43
I do not make a habit of it normally (surely you must admit this), but I try to make an exception whenever vidcc is in the room. ;)
:lol: and there&#39;s me trying to make the point and making excluding Bush...guess i can&#39;t win.

By the way, using the fact that someone else does something isn&#39;t an excuse....2 wrongs don&#39;t make a right
Great.

Not even I, the All-Powerful, All-knowing j2k4, know what we&#39;re talking about now. :huh: [/b][/quote]
sorry i&#39;ll use smaller words if i can :lol:

I was saying i was trying to make a point about responsibility and made an effort to make it in a way that didn&#39;t point to Bush as the example....

[j2k4]

Originally posted by vidcc+11 July 2004 - 15:01--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vidcc @ 11 July 2004 - 15:01)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by j2k4@11 July 2004 - 12:52

Originally posted by vidcc@11 July 2004 - 14:36
<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@11 July 2004 - 10:43
I do not make a habit of it normally (surely you must admit this), but I try to make an exception whenever vidcc is in the room. ;)
:lol: and there&#39;s me trying to make the point and making excluding Bush...guess i can&#39;t win.

By the way, using the fact that someone else does something isn&#39;t an excuse....2 wrongs don&#39;t make a right
Great.

Not even I, the All-Powerful, All-knowing j2k4, know what we&#39;re talking about now. :huh:
sorry i&#39;ll use smaller words if i can :lol:

I was saying i was trying to make a point about responsibility and made an effort to make it in a way that didn&#39;t point to Bush as the example.... [/b][/quote]
...And I was merely pointing out Rip&#39;s faux pas.

Then what?

[j2k4]

Originally posted by vidcc+10 July 2004 - 20:39--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vidcc @ 10 July 2004 - 20:39)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-BigBank_Hank@10 July 2004 - 18:15
I’m probably going to regret this but I have to ask. Why does a 17 year old dislike Bush? Not that age has anything to do with it but young people usually don’t care too much about politics.&nbsp;


probably for the same reasons anyone else dislikes Bush. [/b][/quote]
Maybe this doesn&#39;t qualify as anti-Bush in your book?

It appeared before Rip&#39;s post, or mine, for that matter.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by vidcc@11 July 2004 - 09:51

I don&#39;t think Bush is a child killer

It&#39;s not extreme, it&#39;s a sad fact of war and would be used in any inquiry.
Are you denying that innocent deaths have occured? of course not. But one has to look at it from both sides to see the point clearly.
Even when one disagrees with a theory one has to be able to understand how the theory could be reached to be able to understand another persons opinion.
lets take bush out of the equasion and use any other waring country.

Fact: innocent civilians have been killed

Fact: it wasn&#39;t intentional

Fact: someone gave the order to go to war



So who has innocent deaths on their conscience?


It goes with the territory
And this, where you affix the deaths of civilians to Bush as if that were an exceptional circumstance?

Would my point have been more effectively made if I had made some generic comment about past presidents&#39; trespasses without mentioning a specific example not only of a president with the same type of "blood" on his hands, but one who none of you would be willing to call on the carpet for having done that which you deem so significant when Bush is the one in your docket?

It would seem, to use your formula, that two wrongs can make a right, depending on whose wrongs they are. ;)

Rights from the "right" are worthy of no note whatsoever, due, apparently, to their providence.

Well, here are a few more:

Clinton had a LARGE part in making the bed Bush finds himself in, though you&#39;d never know it from listening to people who cannot face facts.

True, Bush is president.

Also true: Clinton was president, for eight years, and much of the situation we are now in isn&#39;t because of anything Monica blew.

Prove me wrong...

[vidcc]

Originally posted by j2k4@11 July 2004 - 13:14
.


probably for the same reasons anyone else dislikes Bush. [/QUOTE]
Maybe this doesn&#39;t qualify as anti-Bush in your book?

It appeared before Rip&#39;s post, or mine, for that matter. [/quote]
No this isn&#39;t anti bush.. the question was why would a 17 year old hate bush and the answer is probably for the same reasons as anyone else that hates him...it gives no reason as to why anyone should hate him. It was a direct answer to a direct question. To see this as an anti Bush statement is just paranoid
Perhaps just for your benefit i should have said "for the same reasons anyone else hates bush or if it was a 17 year old hating Clinton it would probably be for the same reasons any other person hates Clinton"



QUOTE (vidcc @ 11 July 2004 - 09:51)
QUOTE&nbsp;
I don&#39;t think Bush is a child killer



It&#39;s not extreme, it&#39;s a sad fact of war and would be used in any inquiry.
Are you denying that innocent deaths have occured? of course not. But one has to look at it from both sides to see the point clearly.
Even when one disagrees with a theory one has to be able to understand how the theory could be reached to be able to understand another persons opinion.
lets take bush out of the equasion and use any other waring country.

Fact: innocent civilians have been killed

Fact: it wasn&#39;t intentional

Fact: someone gave the order to go to war



So who has innocent deaths on their conscience?


It goes with the territory


And this, where you affix the deaths of civilians to Bush as if that were an exceptional circumstance?

Note the line where i (and i am repeating this) said "lets take bush out of the equasion and use any other waring country." .
I did this so it wasn&#39;t anti Bush. and because i used "any other waring country how could i be suggesting "exceptional circumstance" ?

the original lead up to this was answering why anyone could think of Bush as killer. And i gave a theory. Then removed Bush from the question.
It has to be looked at in this manner otherwise we wouldn&#39;t be able to charge dictators with genocide or any other war crime because "they didn&#39;t actually pull the trigger" And in this statement i say that any waring factor, which means that i do apply the same logic to Clinton and therefore you had the answer before you asked the question.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by j2k4@11 July 2004 - 13:41
Also true: Clinton was president, for eight years, and much of the situation we are now in isn&#39;t because of anything Monica blew.

Prove me wrong...
care to elaborate as to exactly what you are talking about? otherwise how could anyone possibly debate it?

[j2k4]

Originally posted by vidcc+11 July 2004 - 17:14--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vidcc &#064; 11 July 2004 - 17:14)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@11 July 2004 - 13:41
Also true: Clinton was president, for eight years, and much of the situation we are now in isn&#39;t because of anything Monica blew.

Prove me wrong...
care to elaborate as to exactly what you are talking about? otherwise how could anyone possibly debate it?[/b][/quote]
Okay.

How does this sound?

I&#39;ll recount a story wherein Bill Clinton is sexually accosted in the Oval Office by a nymphomaniacal intern whose dress is stained during the encounter, which dress is key evidence in the Grand-Jury proceedings and impeachment that follow.

Next, I ask you to remove Bill Clinton from the story (easy, huh?) and ask you how you&#39;d feel if another President (hint, hint) bore the same role in this farce, and then ask your opinion of the story&#39;s merits?

Pretty slick.

Here&#39;s a hint for you:

If you truly wish to "...take Bush out of the equation", you accomplish same by not leaving behind a subtle suggestion of that which you are asking others to omit.

[vidcc]

lets put bush into this and say that it was he that got the blowjob...AS YOU HINTED

my thoughts.... so what.

so what about the dui offences.. i never raise them. why? because they have no bearing on his political policies.

who believes the pretzel story?...unless it was soaked in jack daniels... bush admitted he used to drink too much but apart from a few jokes it makes no difference. I don&#39;t care. (this from a tee totaller)

Did he go AWOL in the national guard or not?...i don&#39;t care....again....BECAUSE IT MAKES NO IMPACT ON HIS POLICIES

I repeat yet again.

I CARE NOT WHAT ANY POLITICIAN GETS UPTO IN HIS/HER PRIVATE LIFE...THIS INCLUDES BUSH Jnr....I DO CARE ABOUT THEIR POLITICAL ACTIVITIES.


i even stated that my thinking means Clinton does have blood on his hands.(did you miss that?)

just how did clinton put bush in whatever bed you are talking about? i need specifics to be able to debate

and the
"leaving behind a subtle suggestion of that which you are asking others to omit." is all in your head...i assure you.

Don&#39;t go thinking that you know my mind better than i do

[j2k4]

Originally posted by vidcc@11 July 2004 - 19:56
lets put bush into this and say that it was he that got the blowjob...AS YOU HINTED

my thoughts.... so what.

so what about the dui offences.. i never raise them. why? because they have no bearing on his political policies.

who believes the pretzel story?...unless it was soaked in jack daniels... bush admitted he used to drink too much but apart from a few jokes it makes no difference. I don&#39;t care. (this from a tee totaller)

Did he go AWOL in the national guard or not?...i don&#39;t care....again....BECAUSE IT MAKES NO IMPACT ON HIS POLICIES

I repeat yet again.

I CARE NOT WHAT ANY POLITICIAN GETS UPTO IN HIS/HER PRIVATE LIFE...THIS INCLUDES BUSH Jnr....I DO CARE ABOUT THEIR POLITICAL ACTIVITIES.


i even stated that my thinking means Clinton does have blood on his hands.(did you miss that?)

just how did clinton put bush in whatever bed you are talking about? i need specifics to be able to debate

and the
"leaving behind a subtle suggestion of that which you are asking others to omit." is all in your head...i assure you.

Don&#39;t go thinking that you know my mind better than i do
I thought Rip started this tread, and I thought I was responding to him when I asked about his statement that Bush "killed the children".

Then someone takes exception on Rip&#39;s behalf, apparently trying to reveal or interpret what he meant, and here we are.

Is this typical of "TheTalkClub"? :huh:

[BigBank_Hank]

This has to be some sort of world record for the Talk Club.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by j2k4@11 July 2004 - 19:23
I thought Rip started this tread, and I thought I was responding to him when I asked about his statement that Bush "killed the children".

Then someone takes exception on Rip&#39;s behalf, apparently trying to reveal or interpret what he meant, and here we are.

Is this typical of "TheTalkClub"? :huh:
i didn&#39;t take exception, i joined in the debate and my original response was at both. (sorry if you feel i have been cheating on you j2 and "debating" with others :lol: :lol: :lol:

It was a meaty statement and couldn&#39;t be overlooked.

This is the talk club which is irrelevent to what i am about to say because all "public" posts are open to all members... if they are not for the eyes of others to debate then they should be in PM.


I won&#39;t be around for a few days so could everyone stop posting so i don&#39;t have to miss threads like i did when i was away a couple of weeks ago :lol:

[j2k4]

Originally posted by vidcc@11 July 2004 - 22:26
(sorry if you feel i have been cheating on you j2 and "debating" with others :lol: :lol: :lol:

It was a meaty statement and couldn&#39;t be overlooked.


I am never jealous, vid-my plate is always full; my cup runneth over. ;)

Of which "meaty statement" do you speak? :huh:

[Rip The Jacker]

Damn this thread hit 5 pages already. :lol:

@j2k4
Sorry for not replying to your PM yet.

If you guys are still talking about my comments earlier, yeah forget them, just ignore me.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Rip The Jacker@12 July 2004 - 17:20
Damn this thread hit 5 pages already. :lol:

@j2k4
Sorry for not replying to your PM yet.

If you guys are still talking about my comments earlier, yeah forget them, just ignore me.
No sweat, Rip. ;)

We&#39;re just mucking along here; emphasis on MUCKING. :huh:

Vid&#39;s gone, so I fear it&#39;s all for naught. :P