there is no doubt in my mind I'm voting for Bush

[Nie Trink Wasser]

I didn't vote for him last time. I didn't vote at all on purpose.

This time there is no doubt in my mind who is the only capable person to hold that office.

The more I experience the slimey nature of almost all liberals and the rigid nature of the extreme right, this is the only logical conclusion for me.

the guy is honest and capable of doing the job with honor.

and that's what I have to say.

http://www.thrusts.org/bush.html

http://www.thrusts.org/bush2004.jpg

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser
I didn't vote for him last time. I didn't vote at all on purpose.

This time there is no doubt in my mind who is the only capable person to hold that office.

The more I experience the slimey nature of almost all liberals and the rigid nature of the extreme right, this is the only logical conclusion for me.

the guy is honest and capable of doing the job with honor.

and that's what I have to say.

http://www.thrusts.org/bush.html

http://www.thrusts.org/bush2004.jpg
That is wonderful news, NTW. I hope you campaign for him widely and vociferously, using the same wonderful mixture of intelligence, logic and persuasiveness you use here in JREF.

Thank you again!

[clk]

"fight the thought police, VOTE BUSH"
I thought Bush and Ashcroft were the thought police? :confused:

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Tricky
Thank you again!
:roll: :roll: :roll:

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by clk
I thought Bush and Ashcroft were the thought police? :confused: Not really. They'd just like to do all the thinking for us. That's why they keep everything top secret. We don't need to know.

[Lurker]

NTW:

Please don't let your undying support for Bush allow you to do something illegal. You do realize you need to be a minimum of 18 years of age to vote don't you?

Lurker

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser
I didn't vote for him last time. I didn't vote at all on purpose.

As opposed to not voting by accident?

This time there is no doubt in my mind who is the only capable person to hold that office. The only person? I'd understand "most," (and totally disagree) but "only?" Plus, is the lack of doubt in your mind or Jim Goad's? You seem to mix them up now and then.

The more I experience the slimey nature of almost all liberals and the rigid nature of the extreme right, this is the only logical conclusion for me.
From criteria stated it seems more emotional than logical. Plus there is no logic presented. Do you like the extreme right because it is rigid? Is Bush your idea of a centrist?

the guy is honest and capable of doing the job with honor.

That's what they said about Jimmy Carter.

and that's what I have to say.
That's nice. I think you are simple and are just trolling for responses with a slapdash post, as I'd hate to think this was your actual thought process.

http://www.thrusts.org/bush2004.jpg

Ahh. The thought police. Don't worry, the police won't come for you and make you start thinking. You will be free to blather no matter who the next president is.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by clk
"fight the thought police, VOTE BUSH"
I thought Bush and Ashcroft were the thought police? :confused:

no, that's what the thought police have beaten into your mind.

"2+2=5"

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser


no, that's what the thought police have beaten into your mind.

"2+2=5"

So who is the thought police, exactly?

[hgc]

Love that picture. Brought to you by the same people who thought to pose W in a flight suit with accentuated crotch. "Hmm, I got it! Let's put him in a white hat and have him put on a 'thousand mile stare,' kind of like squinting into the sun." Yeah, it just screams "honesty" and "honor." When the time comes, they'll pose the Democratic nominee in a black hat, with a scowl like that on Jack Palance in "Shane."

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser

http://www.thrusts.org/bush.htmlI just checked out the link. It has to be the dumbest website I've ever seen. It's got to be some strange kind of spoof.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by Suddenly
As opposed to not voting by accident?


WHOA HO HO ! Quite the jokester. :rolleyes:

actually it was either Nader or nothing, and I would rather have been responsible for nothing in that election.



The only person? I'd understand "most," (and totally disagree) but "only?" Plus, is the lack of doubt in your mind or Jim Goad's? You seem to mix them up now and then.


yes, I'm certain he is the only person capable of doing it correctly. Unlike the others, he's not scripted and posesses a spine



From criteria stated it seems more emotional than logical.



only because your logic is based on emotion as a reaction to my post. My criteria comes from logic, but your comments come from a compulsive need for drama and distortion.



Plus there is no logic presented. Do you like the extreme right because it is rigid? Is Bush your idea of a centrist?[/b]


learn to read and then learn to have a discussion like a human being and not like a lawyer-with-a-funded-agenda

I don't like the extreme right no matter how hard you try to insinuate that I do. Bush is more of a centrist than any other bs candidate pretending to be libertarian or labeling themselves as a "moderate". He leans right as do I.....it's never done me wrong so Im sure he'll fair well with the same attitude.


That's what they said about Jimmy Carter.


except in this case, it's true and not pr.


[/B] That's nice. I think you are simple and are just trolling for responses with a slapdash post, as I'd hate to think this was your actual thought process.


you're a smear campaign in a quest to call me a troll with no logic and it's comical.




Ahh. The thought police. Don't worry, the police won't come for you and make you start thinking. You will be free to blather no matter who the next president is.

the country becomes a sick place to live when liberals are in control. It's bad enough as it is with a conservative in control.

pseudo intellectuals and pseudo honesty......you've got that down to an art.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by Grammatron


So who is the thought police, exactly?

the marxists, maoists, leftists and enemies of individuality in general. It can be witnessed mostly en masse with liberals and their manias.

just take a look at the decay of universities in this country if you need to see thought police.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser
just take a look at the decay of universities in this country if you need to see thought police.
Ah, yes. The belief that liberals control the universities (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25251&perpage=40). Nice and inacurate.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser


the marxists, maoists, leftists and enemies of individuality in general. It can be witnessed mostly en masse with liberals and their manias.

And how exactly are they policing your thoughts?

just take a look at the decay of universities in this country if you need to see thought police.

Ok I took a look, now please define decay and what comprises policing thoughts.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser

...

just take a look at the decay of universities in this country if you need to see thought police. I know nothing of the decay of universities in this country. I trust you'll provide further information.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by Upchurch

Ah, yes. The belief that liberals control the universities (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25251&perpage=40). Nice and inacurate.



sort of like the "liberal media myth" meme of you and your chums.

to bad Walter Cronkite had to prove that it isnt a myth. http://www.centredaily.com/mld/dailytimes/2003/08/15/news/opinion/6530182.htm

Upchurch, I mean, Booger, one day you'll realize that it doesnt matter how much arguable information you post here it won't cover up the reality of what's happening.....find another hobby.

your filibusters here only prove how fast and furious you can click your mouse....thats it.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by Grammatron


And how exactly are they policing your thoughts?


Ok I took a look, now please define decay and what comprises policing thoughts.


http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/

and


PICKETING 101
By Steve Malanga


Just when you thought our universities -- with their multiculti curricula,
anti-Americanism and intolerance of debate -- couldn't possibly get any
more partisan, along comes the next new thing: the labor movement's
successful co-opting of academic departments and programs. For years,
universities have offered courses in "labor studies," often taught by
ardent labor activists. Since the mid-'90s, however, when the movement
began to revive under AFL-CIO chief John Sweeney, these departments have
defined their mission chiefly as supporting labor and its organizing
efforts rather than educating students.


The nearly 50 such programs operating today churn out new initiatives in
support of labor. In 1995, for instance, U-Mass at Amherst began an M.A.
program in union leadership and administration -- in essence, a school for
union leaders that is emblematic of the transformation of the labor
studies field from a backwater of continuing education to postgraduate
academic status. In the late '90s, the labor center at Wayne State
University, working with the radical left-wing group Acorn, began
providing technical support to living-wage campaigns around the country,
which helped to spark successful efforts to raise the minimum wage for
some workers in dozens of cities and provided a model of how academics
could advance union causes. In 2001, the California legislature, in
response to union lobbying, dedicated millions in state money that has
gone for research supporting Big Labor positions.

- Wall Street Journal

[hgc]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser



http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/

and


PICKETING 101
By Steve Malanga


Just when you thought our universities -- with their multiculti curricula,
anti-Americanism and intolerance of debate -- couldn't possibly get any
more partisan, along comes the next new thing: the labor movement's
successful co-opting of academic departments and programs. For years,
universities have offered courses in "labor studies," often taught by
ardent labor activists. Since the mid-'90s, however, when the movement
began to revive under AFL-CIO chief John Sweeney, these departments have
defined their mission chiefly as supporting labor and its organizing
efforts rather than educating students.


The nearly 50 such programs operating today churn out new initiatives in
support of labor. In 1995, for instance, U-Mass at Amherst began an M.A.
program in union leadership and administration -- in essence, a school for
union leaders that is emblematic of the transformation of the labor
studies field from a backwater of continuing education to postgraduate
academic status. In the late '90s, the labor center at Wayne State
University, working with the radical left-wing group Acorn, began
providing technical support to living-wage campaigns around the country,
which helped to spark successful efforts to raise the minimum wage for
some workers in dozens of cities and provided a model of how academics
could advance union causes. In 2001, the California legislature, in
response to union lobbying, dedicated millions in state money that has
gone for research supporting Big Labor positions.

- Wall Street Journal Oh gee, 50 schools training labor leaders -- what a disaster. Every university is already in the business of training corporate leaders.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser
sort of like the "liberal media myth" meme of you and your chums.

to bad Walter Cronkite had to prove that it isnt a myth. http://www.centredaily.com/mld/dailytimes/2003/08/15/news/opinion/6530182.htm OMG, did you even read Cronkite's commentary?
believe that most of us reporters are liberal, but not because we consciously have chosen that particular color in the political spectrum.

More likely it is because most of us served our journalistic apprenticeships as reporters covering the seamier side of our cities -- the crimes, the tenement fires, the homeless and the hungry, the underclothed and undereducated.

We reached our intellectual adulthood with daily close-ups of the inequality in a nation that was founded on the commitment to equality for all. So we tend to side with the powerless rather than the powerful.

If that is what makes us liberals, so be it, just as long as in reporting the news we adhere to the first ideals of good journalism -- that news reports must be fair, accurate and unbiased.

{snip}

Incidentally, I looked up the definition of "liberal" in a Random House dictionary. It gave the synonyms for "liberal" as "progressive," "broad-minded," "unprejudiced," "beneficent."

The antonyms it offered: "reactionary" and "intolerant."
1) I'm almost positive that you and he are not using the same definition of "liberal".
2) He's not saying that the liberals (whoever they may be) are actively controling what information is and is not being presented to the country, as you imply.

:rolleyes:

[RSLancastr]

from Walter Cronkite...
I looked up the definition of "liberal" in a Random House dictionary. It gave the synonyms for "liberal" as "progressive," "broad-minded," "unprejudiced," "beneficent."

The antonyms it offered: "reactionary" and "intolerant."Dear Ed, the liberals are controlling the dictionaries!!

[Mr Manifesto]

Well, let's give Nie his due. He's provided some of his own opinion this time. I assume.

[Zep]

Nie, if GWB had a heart-attack and died before the next election, who would you vote for then? You don't seem to have left yourself with much wiggle-room - it's GWB or nothing.

[nightwind]

Well, I'm pretty conservative, and from Texas.

However, come the presidential election, I will be cancelling out Nie's vote, so note to worry, if you don't like Bush. I am taking care of it. :wink:

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser


yes, I'm certain he is the only person capable of doing it correctly. Unlike the others, he's not scripted and posesses a spine
Not scripted? I'm sure you can't back that up with any evidence. He appears unscripted, but maybe thats because he's not smart enough to follow the script all the time.

only because your logic is based on emotion as a reaction to my post. My criteria comes from logic, but your comments come from a compulsive need for drama and distortion. What did I distort? You said liberals are "slimey" (sic) and righties are "rigid" and therefore you liked Bush. Where's the logic? What did I distort? Either you like rigidity, or you are saying Bush is a centrist. You were unclear. From now on I'll just apply whatever meaning I choose to your vague statements, as asking for clarification is somehow a "need for drama and distortion." I apologize for taking you seriously.

learn to read and then learn to have a discussion like a human being and not like a lawyer-with-a-funded-agenda

Paranoid much? What agenda, the "try to figure out NTW" PAC? I can read, but you can't write clearly. That's why I am asking you to clarify some things, as I'd hate to wrongly assume what you mean.

I don't like the extreme right no matter how hard you try to insinuate that I do. Bush is more of a centrist than any other bs candidate pretending to be libertarian or labeling themselves as a "moderate". He leans right as do I.....it's never done me wrong so Im sure he'll fair well with the same attitude.

What definition of "right" are you working off of? Would you have made Ashcroft AG?



except in this case, it's true and not pr.

Maybe you don't remember Carter. It was accepted that he was "honest and capable of doing the job with honor." Problem was he wasn't effective. That was the point I was making. Being honest and honorable doesn't automatically result in effective.

you're a smear campaign in a quest to call me a troll with no logic and it's comical. No, I'm just curious if you are a troll or are just not very articulate. Your reasoning, if you call it that, is weak and you give the impression by your choice of topics that you are just trying to get a reaction. When pushed for clarification of one of your statements you respond with insults.

the country becomes a sick place to live when liberals are in control. It's bad enough as it is with a conservative in control. In what way is it "a sick place to live?" Can you explain?

pseudo intellectuals and pseudo honesty......you've got that down to an art.

"Pseudo honesty?" Can you give specific instances where I have been untruthful?

[American]

Since I am the single most spiteful human being that ever lived, I too am voting for Bush.

James Traficant was my first choice, but I have to piss-off blowhards at every opportunity in my bitter, miserable life. A vote for Bush is one way to do that.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by American
Since I am the single most spiteful human being that ever lived, I too am voting for Bush.

James Traficant was my first choice, but I have to piss-off blowhards at every opportunity in my bitter, miserable life. A vote for Bush is one way to do that.
All RIGHT! We have American and NTW on the Bush team! I'm feeling better already.

Um... you will be out there explaining Bush's policies to the masses, will you not, 'merican?

[corplinx]

I'll admit it. The first time I went into an american voting booth, it was to vote for dubya. He was the first candidate I ever felt like voting for. Until then, I was just another apathetic ex-gen-xer.

For the longest time I just didn't care. The Gore/Bush thing barely interested me. On one hand you had Gore who represented the current establishment (and who ran on a ironic "people versus the powerful" motto) and Bush who represented the former establishment. Needless to say I wasn't too impressed.

I think the first thing that made me realize there was more to Bush than a silver spoon and suit was when he did a 1 hour interview with Bill O'Reilly. He took a grilling and showed that A. he was more than suit and B. he was open to new ideas. Now, I know O'Reilly has someone become the new Rush Limbaugh for leftists to dismiss out of hand, but try to keep your knee from jerking too hard here. I think I saw that interview while I was stuck in a hotel room in snowy Burlington MA back in 2000.

The thing that actually made me want to get up and vote however, was when Bush called the reporter an @sshole and then refused to apologize. Shallow as it is, that was when I decided he had the kind of resolve the leader of the free world thinks. As I asw Cheney, Powell, Rice, and others coming on board, it became a no-brainer. These are the people I wanted in charge when the proverbial excrement hit the metaphorical fan.

Any democrat who wants my vote is going to have to put together some sort of dream-cabinet to beat bush out for my vote. There is a big baton to pass here.

[peptoabysmal]

Grrrr....

Nie...

You just hit on one of my pet peeves. People who complain about who is in office, but didn't bother to get off their duff and go vote.

Grrrr..... :mad:

I voted for Gore, but this time I'm voting for Dubya. I shudder to think what would happen to our fighting men if a Democrat gets into the office of President right now. :eek:

Well... Besides the fact that the Democrats have worn out their welcome with me :p

[crocodile deathroll]

I stated in another post that if things in Iraq are unchanged or deteriorate further then Bush will be kicked out of office so hard he will need a spacesuit.

Unless he can rig the voting system as well as he did in Florida, which would be an extremely grim prospect for the US and the world.

CDR

[subgenius]

I just might vote for Him, cause he's man enough not to be afraid to throw like a little girl:

[subgenius]

And he's so totally comfortable with himself, and unselfconscious that he has the courage to pick his nose in public:

[subgenius]

Not to mention being able to ride a Segway, holding a dog, while eating a pretzel.
The man can do it all.
I don't care how bad things get in the next year, I've got my mind made up already.
Even if he dies, I'll vote for him.

[subgenius]

Shoot, even if I die I'll vote for him.
Maybe this time he'll get a majority, too.
C'mon all you non-wealthy Republicans, follow our leader.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll
I stated in another post that if things in Iraq are unchanged or deteriorate further then Bush will be kicked out of office so hard he will need a spacesuit.

Unless he can rig the voting system as well as he did in Florida, which would be an extremely grim prospect for the US and the world.

CDR

My folks lived through the depression and a couple of world wars. I lived through Vietnam and Gray Davis. It just flat out amazes me that people are so impatient with a war that was won in less than a month and the peace keeping and stabilization efforts aren't even a year old. It took years to stabilize Japan and we dropped the biggest bomb that was ever used in a war on them.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by corplinx
... I think I saw that interview while I was stuck in a hotel room in snowy Burlington MA back in 2000...

Oh, well then. That just goes to show it was a fair and balance interview instead of a Dorothy Dixer session.


The thing that actually made me want to get up and vote however, was when Bush called the reporter an @sshole and then refused to apologize. Shallow as it is, that was when I decided he had the kind of resolve the leader of the free world thinks. As I asw Cheney, Powell, Rice, and others coming on board, it became a no-brainer. These are the people I wanted in charge when the proverbial excrement hit the metaphorical fan.

Any democrat who wants my vote is going to have to put together some sort of dream-cabinet to beat bush out for my vote. There is a big baton to pass here.

Did he actually address the issue when he called the reporter an @sshole?

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser
I didn't vote for him last time. I didn't vote at all on purpose.

It is not easy going through life not being able to spell 'X'

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by subgenius
Shoot, even if I die I'll vote for him.


And probably will, given the Republican party's previous track record with electoral process.

[crocodile deathroll]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal


My folks lived through the depression and a couple of world wars. I lived through Vietnam and Gray Davis. It just flat out amazes me that people are so impatient with a war that was won in less than a month and the peace keeping and stabilization efforts aren't even a year old. It took years to stabilize Japan and we dropped the biggest bomb that was ever used in a war on them.

Unfortunately the Iraq war is not over and it is five months and still counting as Gihadi resistance just as I expected is pouring over porous borders to continue a guerilla war campaign with the US. What a expensive quagmire Bush has gotten his country into!. And I expect worse to come.

Yes the falling of those statues are looking a lot closer to the beginning of the war than the end.

CDR.

[Jon_in_london]

Theres not much of anything in your mind, NTW.

[Zep]

What a pity Powell is not in office instead of his political master, the lightweight. At least there would have been some sense of balance and brain involved.

And as far as I know he is not so maladroit as to drop dogs, either.

Oh, and NTW, if you DO decide to vote instead of copping out like last time, that at least is some sort of progress. Now don't you wish EVERYONE did that?

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by subgenius
And he's so totally comfortable with himself, and unselfconscious that he has the courage to pick his nose in public:


you are definitely the forum troll.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser
you are definitely the forum troll. :id:

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser



you are definitely the forum troll.


I thought it was funny, and I'm voting for the guy most likely.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by Upchurch
:id:

wow...how IRONIC it is that when picking noses is being discussed, Booger shows up.

http://www.funnygreetings.com/Booger2.jpg

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by corplinx



I thought it was funny, and I'm voting for the guy most likely.

yeah I did too, but if you've been here long enough, you'll notice the vast amount of spam and trolling delivered by subgenius.

de-evolution baby.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser
wow...how IRONIC it is that when picking noses is being discussed, Booger shows up. Well, it's good to know that your capacity for grammer matches your ability capacity for wit. :D I'm with Tricky that you should campaign long and hard for GWB. With any luck, you'll scare off enough of his supporters to make a difference.

Are you actually capable of arguing your point without just resorting to infintile name calling in a juvenile attempt to change the subject?

Never mind. Based on most of the responses you've gotten in this and other threads, it seems that most other posters agree in my assessment of you.

[American]

Originally posted by Tricky
Um... you will be out there explaining Bush's policies to the masses, will you not, 'merican?


What don't you understand about "with us or against us"?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by American
What don't you understand about "with us or against us"? What I don't understand is why the middle is excluded, personally. :D

[KelvinG]

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm absolutely shocked and stunned that NTW is voting for Bush.
This rocks my world to it's very foundation and makes me question everything I thought I knew.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by Upchurch

Are you actually capable of arguing your point without just resorting to infintile name calling in a juvenile attempt to change the subject?

Never mind. Based on most of the responses you've gotten in this and other threads, it seems that most other posters agree in my assessment of you. [/B]


you keep trying to convince the board that I've lost some argument somewhere and had to resort to calling you Booger.

You keep failing to grasp that no matter how much space you fill up with text online, that doesnt mean you've "won" the argument. If winning an argument means to keep typing and failing to comprehend, then I guess you have "won"....

There comes a point, Booger, in which your lack of humor and partisan-drive ruins your conversations with me.

but, hey...remember it's just ole Nie, right ?

harmless ole Nie.

[c0rbin]

What don't you understand about "with us or against us"?

Simpleton Logic. Not the musings I'd expect from a graduate of Yale.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by American

What don't you understand about "with us or against us"?
Very good! That is exactly what I am looking for from you, 'merican. Make sure that the voting public knows that George Bush believes you must be in absolute agreement with everything he does, or you are a bad American.

Please make his position known to as many people as possible. I'm counting on you.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by c0rbin


Simpleton Logic. Not the musings I'd expect from a graduate of Yale.

gee....hmmm...let's put it in context....


1) Terrorist group flies planes filled with people into heavily populated buildings/areas.


if your with Bush in the logic that this sort of thing cannot be tolerated and must be stopped/prevented........then who would think that this sort of thing should be tolerated and the international community should just sit and justify it happening ?

oh wait....I forgot about your partisan agendas.....oh.......Bush has to be wrong about everything.....what was I thinking....you arent an intellectual unless you disagree with Bush....forgot that part.

[NightG1]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser



you keep trying to convince the board that I've lost some argument somewhere and had to resort to calling you Booger.

You keep failing to grasp that no matter how much space you fill up with text online, that doesnt mean you've "won" the argument. If winning an argument means to keep typing and failing to comprehend, then I guess you have "won"....

There comes a point, Booger, in which your lack of humor and partisan-drive ruins your conversations with me.

but, hey...remember it's just ole Nie, right ?

harmless ole Nie.
You're weird, dude.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Tricky

Make sure that the voting public knows that George Bush believes you must be in absolute agreement with everything he does, or you are a bad American. I agree, there has been a rapid decline in that stance in the last 6 months or so. People are starting to think for themselves and are being critical of America (i.e. GWB).

Maybe together you and NTW can have yet another polarizing effect on the nation. God Bless GWB ...I mean, America.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser

There comes a point, Booger, in which your lack of humor and partisan-drive ruins your conversations with me.


Yes, NTW, we shall all try and be as funny and bi-partisan as you.
:dl:

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I agree, there has been a rapid decline in that stance in the last 6 months or so. People are starting to think for themselves and are being critical of America (i.e. GWB).

Maybe together you and NTW can have yet another polarizing effect on the nation. God Bless GWB ...I mean, America.

you are such a puppet !

:roll:

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by KelvinG
Yes, NTW, we shall all try and be as funny and bi-partisan as you. :D:D:D

Yes, I'll try harder in the future.

:roll: :roll: :roll:

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by KelvinG


Yes, NTW, we shall all try and be as funny and bi-partisan as you.
:dl:

I've never claimed to be bi-partisan. I admit that I lean to the right, rather than being a coward and hiding behind buzzwords such as "libertarian" and "moderate".

My point is that upchurch is far more partisan than I am. I have a mind of my own, and Upchurch has a program to follow....thus he's always assuming my motives and thoughts and making an arse of himself.

thus.....Booger was born.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser
you are such a puppet ! :id:

(it's too bad we don't keep track of those. There might be a record here for the most distroyed irony meters by a single poster. Someone call BillHoyt of the Prize Committee.)

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser


I've never claimed to be bi-partisan. I admit that I lean to the right, rather than being a coward and hiding behind buzzwords such as "libertarian" and "moderate".

My point is that upchurch is far more partisan than I am. I have a mind of my own, and Upchurch has a program to follow....thus he's always assuming my motives and thoughts and making an arse of himself.

thus.....Booger was born.

What color is the sky in your world Nie?

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by Upchurch
:id:

(it's too bad we don't keep track of those. There might be a record here for the most distroyed irony meters by a single poster. Someone call BillHoyt of the Prize Committee.)


Booger, you're running out of material. :rub:

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by KelvinG


What color is the sky in your world Nie?

black and blue (and sometimes orange).

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser
you're running out of material
:id:

(Says the man(?) who can only come up with "Booger". This, like NTW himself, has become pointless. I'm off to actually acomplish something.)

[Samus]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser
1) Terrorist group flies planes filled with people into heavily populated buildings/areas.

if your with Bush in the logic that this sort of thing cannot be tolerated and must be stopped/prevented........then who would think that this sort of thing should be tolerated and the international community should just sit and justify it happening ? I agree that something should be done about terrorism, and I don't think there are many countries that would disagree with that.

However, the incorrect solution is to hop from one country to another, invade them, overthrow their government, and attempt to install one that goes against thousands of years of culture. That is a bad idea, and I am against that.

Does that mean I'm "against" the U.S.? No, it means I am against the U.S. stepping all over the laws and governments of other nations in an attempt to push people around. Global politics is not as easy as you so desperately want to make it.

After all, if we continue on the path of "sweep and clear", and keep bullying and removing governments we disagree with, at what point do we become terrorists ourselves?

The U.S. can not be the lone ranger against terrorism, we will lose. There are too many non-state actors to fight, spread too far out, and with too many resources, for us to win the fight the way we're trying to win it.

I can't believe you would think that puts me in the "against us" category, because I happen to disagree with the Bush administration on some policies.

[Samus]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser
I've never claimed to be bi-partisan. I admit that I lean to the right ...(snip)... I have a mind of my own Yes, but that "mind of your own" is influenced by your bias to the right. You will, by your own admission, tend to favor a conservative agenda above all else. Surely you can see the tragic irony in your argument? You're saying you are simultaneously open-minded and partisan.

BTW, everyone is partisan, everyone has views that they hold that conflict with the views of others. Being open-minded, apropos to politicking, involves the ability to acknowledge the other person's argument and work to come up with a solution that works (at least somewhat) for everyone.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by dwb
I agree that something should be done about terrorism, and I don't think there are many countries that would disagree with that.


that is the only thing you've said relevant to the "with us or against us" statement.



I can't believe you would think that puts me in the "against us" category, because I happen to disagree with the Bush administration on some policies. [/B]

you're taking the statement out of context and ramming it into another idea that is not in context with the statement.



Yes, but that "mind of your own" is influenced by your bias to the right. You will, by your own admission, tend to favor a conservative agenda above all else. Surely you can see the tragic irony in your argument? You're saying you are simultaneously open-minded and partisan.


I can admit my bias, thereby overcoming it, unlike many of my opponents. I tend to agree with conservatives, not just follow their lead. I have the ability to disagree with conservatives and that's why I have a mind of mind own....I'm not a sheep....I actually dont know why Im explaining this to you, because its a waste of time.



BTW, everyone is partisan, everyone has views that they hold that conflict with the views of others. Being open-minded, apropos to politicking, involves the ability to acknowledge the other person's argument and work to come up with a solution that works (at least somewhat) for everyone.


the problem comes with someone will not recognize a solution that works, simply because it doesnt match the program of their chosen groupthink. They're afraid of being as I am here, which would put them in a position outside of the groupthink.

[American]

Originally posted by Upchurch
People are starting to think for themselves and are being critical of America (i.e. GWB).


That's right. GWB=America. You said it.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by American
That's right. GWB=America. You said it. God (i.e. GWB) help me, I think I'm starting to understand your sense of humor. :eek: :D

[Samus]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser
you're taking the statement out of context and ramming it into another idea that is not in context with the statement. No, I'm not. The "with us or against us" policy is exactly as black and white as it sounds. You either agree with the actions of the U.S., or you are somehow agreeing with the terrorists. That's precisely the mentality that plagued this country for the first year and a half after 11 Sept. Only now are we starting to realize there are better ways of going about this.

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser
I can admit my bias, thereby overcoming it, unlike many of my opponents. I tend to agree with conservatives, not just follow their lead. I have the ability to disagree with conservatives and that's why I have a mind of mind own....I'm not a sheep....I actually dont know why Im explaining this to you, because its a waste of time. Well, if you think it is a waste of time for you to explain your claims, then that's your decision to make.

I don't think we're going to reach consensus here. Admitting that you have a conservative bias is a very good thing, and I commend you for it. Trying to expose others who refuse to admit their biases is a noble effort as well. But saying that you can be simultaneously bias and open-minded, well, that just doesn't make any sense. Overcoming your bias, by definition, means you no longer have that bias. You might set aside your bias, you might do something not in the spirit of it, but you don't overcome it. You are a conservative; your views on proposed policy will be tainted with the conservative goggles you look through. You don't need to go along with the groupthink, because you will reach the same conclusion.

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser
the problem comes with someone will not recognize a solution that works, simply because it doesnt match the program of their chosen groupthink. They're afraid of being as I am here, which would put them in a position outside of the groupthink. Can you name a specific example of this? I'm saying the "with us or against us" policy won't work, because we can't fight this fight alone, and we're putting too many people against us with such a hard-nosed and simplistic view of foreign policy. I'm saying your solution won't work because it won't work, not because I can't break out of groupthink. If anything, your groupthink and mine share common ancestry (me being a conservative in some respects).

[c0rbin]

oh wait....I forgot about your partisan agendas.....oh.......Bush has to be wrong about everything.....what was I thinking....you arent an intellectual unless you disagree with Bush....forgot that part.

1) What are my "partisan agendas"?

2) For the record, I do not think Bush was wrong about everything.

3) You seem to be unable to see more than 2 options. Are you simple?

[subgenius]

See there are some intellectuals for Bush.
You don't have to be a brain-dead bimbo to like him, like NTW:
"I think we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that, you know, and be faithful in what happens."
http://drudgereport.com/flash6b.htm

A brilliant analysis.

That's why I'm voting for him no matter what happens in the next year.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by subgenius
See there are some intellectuals for Bush.
You don't have to be a brain-dead bimbo to like him, like NTW:
"I think we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that, you know, and be faithful in what happens."
http://drudgereport.com/flash6b.htm

A brilliant analysis.

That's why I'm voting for him no matter what happens in the next year.



I knew the Spears quote would be used in this manner.

When I read it, I groaned, because liberals are going to jump all over this, distort it and possibly try to ruin her career for having faith in Bush.

Obviously, like most pop artists/actors, she doesnt know anything relevant about politics/national security, but chooses to say something. At least it's refreshing to see that she has a mind of her own unlike most in Hollywood.

her quote is just as moronic as many other braindead-leftist-bimbos that simply fall in line with the group, make moronic quotes, and get recognition for being famous.

let her believe what she wants to believe....she was never a beacon of intelligence anyway.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

:)


Imagine the date is September 12, 2001. Ask yourself this question: Are you willing to bet that two years will pass and there will not be another terrorist attack on American soil?


I will wager that there is not one person reading this column who would have made that bet two years ago.



There is only one reason for this relative security that Americans enjoy. It is not that the terrorists have given up their violent agendas or their hatred for us. They have not. It is not because America’s borders are secure or because America’s internal security systems have been successfully overhauled.




There is one reason – and one reason alone – that Americans have been safe for the almost two years since the 9/11 attacks.




That reason is the aggressive war that President Bush and the American military have waged against international terror and its Axis of Evil. The war on terror has been fought in the streets of Baghdad and Kabul instead of Washington and New York. By taking the battle to the enemy camp, by making the terrorists the hunted instead of the hunters, President Bush and the American military have kept Americans safe.




Now the battlefield of the war on terror is post-liberation Iraq. The jihadists of al-Qaeda and radical Islam and Arab fascism are crawling out of the snakepits of Tikrit and slithering across the borders from terrorist bases in Syria and Iran to attack American troops, UN diplomats and anyone helping the American cause. Their goal is self-evident: To force the collapse of civil order and to inflict enough casualties on American forces that America will withdraw.

http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=9645

[Upchurch]

Ugh.

W: I've got a whistle that scares elephants away.

S: But there are no elephants in North America.

W: See? It works!

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Ugh.

W: I've got a whistle that scares elephants away.

S: But there are no elephants in North America.

W: See? It works!


Dear Booger,

it's sad to see someone force their eyes, ears, and mouth to perform only according to a political agenda.

In short, I think you're unintentionally becoming the butt of the joke.

[Larspeart]

I don't think there is a person here would could single-handedly undermine Bush's hopes at re-election more then NTW.

Go Harry Brown!

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by Larspeart
I don't think there is a person here would could single-handedly undermine Bush's hopes at re-election more then NTW.

Go Harry Brown!

oh wow, look who it is. It's the screen name that is so intelligent it considers misquoting Ben Franklin noble somehow.

typical.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Larspeart
Go Harry Brown!

Unfortunately, Browne isn't seeking the nomination again. So, it looks like it'll be either Go Gary Nolan! or Go Michael Badnarik! Of the two, I prefer Badnarik, but I'll take either of them over Bush, Edwards, or any of the other candidates who have so far announced their intention to run.

[Larspeart]

Darnit! I want HB over both of them though.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

it's great that you are trying to be unique like a snowflake and vote for these zaney fellows calling themselves "libertarian" and "moderate", but stop kidding yourself and vote for the only group of people capable of holding the country together through such adversity.

Vote for Bush and just tell your peers you voted for some other more "cool" candidate and everything will work out fine. They'll never know, but at least you'll know you did the right thing.

that is all.

[Larspeart]

Um, I don't think I have ever heard the terms 'moderate' and 'libertarian' mentioned in the same sentence before, unless the word 'not' was included in it.

Do you not realize that no one likes you?

Go find another board to bother.

[Nasarius]

Wait, wait, what third party candidate is "moderate"? If anything, it's the two major party candidates that try to be moderate, and the third parties (especially the biggest ones, ie Libertarian and Green) are out on the fringes.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by Larspeart
Do you not realize that no one likes you?

Go find another board to bother. [/B]

that's the difference between me and you.

you're a libermaniac who's character is based on how many people like you. You just want to be popular and you just want what you think to be popular.

typical liberal plop.