The Unknown Zone - proudly an American forum!

Is it a failure and why or why not?

Well, he has made a lot of choices that I am sure he might change if he had the opportunity.

I agree, I'm sure President Bush would LOVE to have a "do-over" on MANY issues....unfortunatly that can't happen.  We will NEVER know the difficulty that starred at him....on 9/11 2001, he faced the worst attack on American soil, he faced the greatest national disaster with Katrina, he inherited a recession, the price of oil sky-rocketed, the housing market crashed, the bank world has been rocked....and he had NO control over any of these incidents.....and through it all, for 6 of his 8 years, we had unemployeement near record lows, a stable inflation AND we had NO further attacks on this land.

so in my opinion, all in all, it was not a failure by him...it was a collective effort by many, many people...9/11 happened despite anything he did.....and the housing market crashed despite anything he did.....Katrina happened despite anything he did...the banks collapsed even though he pointed out potential problems...the cost of oil rised, despite anything that he controlled, other than produce our own oil, something that he TRIED to do....

just my honest opinion...

Yes, sir.

One he!! of a leader.

Yessireee, bob.

:sarcasm:

Quote from: followsthewolf on January 06, 2009, 02:38:15 PM
Yes, sir.

One he!! of a leader.

Yessireee, bob.

:sarcasm:

I did...I did pick up a TAD..of sarcasm...... :yes:  yessiree bob.. ;)  ;D

 :biggrin:

Quote from: Henry Hawk on January 06, 2009, 09:02:55 AM
...on 9/11 2001, he faced the worst attack on American soil,

*cough* PEARL HARBOR *COUGH* *cough*

Quotehe faced the greatest national disaster with Katrina,

*cough* mt. saint hellens, san fransisco earthquake of 1906, great chicago fire, (shall i continue?) *cough*

Quotehe inherited a recession,

BULL-F*****G-S**T.  HE CREATED A RECESSION.

Quotethe price of oil sky-rocketed,

that'll happen when an oil man gets power.

Quotethe housing market crashed, the bank world has been rocked....and he had NO control over any of these incidents.....and through it all, for 6 of his 8 years, we had unemployeement near record lows, a stable inflation

let's see where you get yer data.

QuoteAND we had NO further attacks on this land.

that was because of the magic rock on my mantle. :yes:

Quoteso in my opinion, all in all, it was not a failure by him...

you've made that abundantly clear.  though it's just cause you've kept your eyes closed for 8 years.

awol,

please, please, PLEASE do NOT lose that magic rock, or we're all fokked.

:wink:

Quote from: followsthewolf on January 06, 2009, 06:20:31 PM
awol,

please, please, PLEASE do NOT lose that magic rock, or we're all fokked.

:wink:

:biggrin:

One might have had an argument for the yet unknown while supporting a Bush presidency in 2000 or to a lesser extent in 2004 but given the value of hindsight, anyone who would even suggest that this man was anything other than a complete and utter failure is an idiot who should not be allowed to vote.

Quote from: Exterminator on January 07, 2009, 09:17:07 AM
One might have had an argument for the yet unknown while supporting a Bush presidency in 2000 or to a lesser extent in 2004 but given the value of hindsight, anyone who would even suggest that this man was anything other than a complete and utter failure is an idiot who should not be allowed to vote.

I think given the alternatives that we had to vote (Gore and Kerry)...I STILL feel that Bush could NOT have done any worse than if THEY was running things....

I will 100% admit, that I have not agreed with several things that Bush did.  My point IS, that unders these harsh times, I don't think there would have been anybody, that would have made things much better than they are....and I know this is just MY OWN speculation.

I think that congress as a whole...has been a failure...NOT just the presidency....

Quote from: Henry Hawk on January 07, 2009, 09:25:20 AM
I think given the alternatives that we had to vote (Gore and Kerry)...I STILL feel that Bush could NOT have done any worse than if THEY was running things....

That is pure conjecture and I would submit that it would have been impossible for any to have done a worse job.

QuoteMy point IS, that unders these harsh times, I don't think there would have been anybody, that would have made things much better than they are....and I know this is just MY OWN speculation.

And that speculation is based in total on your blind bias.  Harsh times were not handed to Bush; they were created by him and his administration's policies.

Quote from: Mom on January 05, 2009, 07:19:26 PM
Is it a failure and why or why not?

Complete failure.  In addition, the harm he has done to the Constitution is too large to talk about here, AND, he is a war criminal.  Other than that, he must have been a really nice guy (stupid, ignorant, mf).

He is a total disaster and we only have 10 days left of him..But we will be living with the aftermath of his Presidency for a long time to come....Listing why ? Gosh that would take forever...Patriot Act...Iraq war...Torture...the economy....etc etc...

Quote from: WVaGAL on January 10, 2009, 05:21:02 AM
He is a total disaster and we only have 10 days left of him..But we will be living with the aftermath of his Presidency for a long time to come....Listing why ? Gosh that would take forever...Patriot Act...Iraq war...Torture...the economy....etc etc...

There is a pretty good book on bush, and family, ignorance:

American Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune, and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush

Author: Kevin Phillips (former republican)


http://www.amazon.com/American-Dynasty-Aristocracy-Fortune-Politics/dp/0143034316/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1231607952&sr=8-1 (http://www.amazon.com/American-Dynasty-Aristocracy-Fortune-Politics/dp/0143034316/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1231607952&sr=8-1)

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51ZMZZ2ZSTL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA240_SH20_OU01_.jpg)

Hey dan foster,followsthewolf,awol and any others that do not like Bush..I posted some very interesting articles that has to do with him a little while ago...check them out...@ my blog..

Wow! A Bush hating thread! Cool! Why, we haven't had one of these here since...er, nevermind.

Oh, what the heck! I'm in: The prescription drug bill was bad, CFR was bad (and unconstitutional), and Iraq could have been handled a little better. For most of his term I thought he wasn't even aware that he could veto legislation.

Quote from: Ghost of Jaco on January 12, 2009, 01:11:31 PM
Wow! A Bush hating thread! Cool! Why, we haven't had one of these here since...er, nevermind.

Oh, what the heck! I'm in: The prescription drug bill was bad, CFR was bad (and unconstitutional), and Iraq could have been handled a little better. For most of his term I thought he wasn't even aware that he could veto legislation.

He was only aware of the darkness that surrounded his head, with a pungent odor that constantly took him back to his ranch in waco.  Of course, that was occasionally replaced by the cold, dark place that was up cheney's arse.    He never saw daylight, or any kind of intellectually driven logic, while president.

(http://www.allhatnocattle.net/bush_horse_s_ass.jpg)

Quote from: WVaGAL on January 12, 2009, 01:29:15 AM
Hey dan foster,followsthewolf,awol and any others that do not like Bush..I posted some very interesting articles that has to do with him a little while ago...check them out...@ my blog..

Oh come on, WVG! Your blog is getting kinda full! We needed a new place to vent our BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome).

Hmmmm... A different view, from a historical perspective (and a foreign one at that):

History will show that George W Bush was right

By Andrew Roberts

Last Updated: 7:47PM GMT 14 Jan 2009

The American lady who called to see if I would appear on her radio programme was specific. "We're setting up a debate," she said sweetly, "and we want to know from your perspective as a historian whether George W Bush was the worst president of the 20th century, or might he be the worst president in American history?"

"I think he's a good president," I told her, which seemed to dumbfound her, and wreck my chances of appearing on her show.

In the avalanche of abuse and ridicule that we are witnessing in the media assessments of President Bush's legacy, there are factors that need to be borne in mind if we are to come to a judgment that is not warped by the kind of partisan hysteria that has characterised this issue on both sides of the Atlantic.

The first is that history, by looking at the key facts rather than being distracted by the loud ambient noise of the
24-hour news cycle, will probably hand down a far more positive judgment on Mr Bush's presidency than the immediate, knee-jerk loathing of the American and European elites.

At the time of 9/11, which will forever rightly be regarded as the defining moment of the presidency, history will look in vain for anyone predicting that the Americans murdered that day would be the very last ones to die at the hands of Islamic fundamentalist terrorists in the US from that day to this.

The decisions taken by Mr Bush in the immediate aftermath of that ghastly moment will be pored over by historians for the rest of our lifetimes. One thing they will doubtless conclude is that the measures he took to lock down America's borders, scrutinise travellers to and from the United States, eavesdrop upon terrorist suspects, work closely with international intelligence agencies and take the war to the enemy has foiled dozens, perhaps scores of would-be murderous attacks on America. There are Americans alive today who would not be if it had not been for the passing of the Patriot Act. There are 3,000 people who would have died in the August 2005 airline conspiracy if it had not been for the superb inter-agency co-operation demanded by Bush
after 9/11.

The next factor that will be seen in its proper historical context in years to come will be the true reasons for invading Afghanistan in October 2001 and Iraq in April 2003. The conspiracy theories believed by many (generally, but not always) stupid people – that it was "all about oil", or the securing of contracts for the US-based Halliburton corporation, etc – will slip into the obscurity from which they should never have emerged had it not been for comedian-filmmakers such as Michael Moore.

Instead, the obvious fact that there was a good case for invading Iraq based on 14 spurned UN resolutions, massive human rights abuses and unfinished business following the interrupted invasion of 1991 will be recalled.

Similarly, the cold light of history will absolve Bush of the worst conspiracy-theory accusation: that he knew there were no WMDs in Iraq. History will show that, in common with the rest of his administration, the British Government, Saddam's own generals, the French, Chinese, Israeli and Russian intelligence agencies, and of course SIS and the CIA, everyone assumed that a murderous dictator does not voluntarily destroy the WMD arsenal he has used against his own people. And if he does, he does not then expel the UN weapons inspectorate looking for proof of it, as he did in 1998 and again in 2001.

Mr Bush assumed that the Coalition forces would find mass graves, torture chambers, evidence for the gross abuse of the UN's food-for-oil programme, but also WMDs. He was right about each but the last, and history will place him in the mainstream of Western, Eastern and Arab thinking on the matter.

History will probably, assuming it is researched and written objectively, congratulate Mr Bush on the fact that whereas in 2000 Libya was an active and vicious member of what he was accurately to describe as an "axis of evil" of rogue states willing to employ terrorism to gain its ends, four years later Colonel Gaddafi's WMD programme was sitting behind glass in a museum in Oakridge, Tennessee.

With his characteristic openness and at times almost self-defeating honesty, Mr Bush has been the first to acknowledge his mistakes – for example, tardiness over Hurricane Katrina – but there are some he made not because he was a ranting Right-winger, but because he was too keen to win bipartisan support. The invasion of Iraq should probably have taken place months earlier, but was held up by the attempt to find support from UN security council members, such as Jacques Chirac's France, that had ties to Iraq and hostility towards the Anglo-Americans.

History will also take Mr Bush's verbal fumbling into account, reminding us that Ronald Reagan also mis-spoke regularly, but was still a fine president. The first
MBA president, who had a higher grade-point average at Yale than John Kerry, Mr Bush's supposed lack of intellect will be seen to be a myth once the papers in his Presidential Library in the Southern Methodist University in Dallas are available.

Films such as Oliver North's W, which portray him as a spitting, oafish frat boy who eats with his mouth open and is rude to servants, will be revealed by the diaries and correspondence of those around him to be absurd travesties, of this charming, interesting, beautifully mannered history buff who, were he not the most powerful man in the world, would be a fine person to have as a pal.

Instead of Al Franken, history will listen to Bob Geldof praising Mr Bush's efforts over Aids and malaria in Africa; or to Manmohan Singh, the prime minister of India, who told him last week: "The people of India deeply love you." And certainly to the women of Afghanistan thanking him for saving them from Taliban abuse, degradation and tyranny.

When Abu Ghraib is mentioned, history will remind us that it was the Bush Administration that imprisoned those responsible for the horrors. When water-boarding is brought up, we will see that it was only used on three suspects, one of whom was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, al-Qaeda's chief of operational planning, who divulged vast amounts of information that saved hundreds of innocent lives. When extraordinary renditions are queried, historians will ask how else the world's most dangerous terrorists should have been transported. On scheduled flights?

The credit crunch, brought on by the Democrats in Congress insisting upon home ownership for credit-unworthy people, will initially be blamed on Bush, but the perspective of time will show that the problems at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac started with the deregulation of the Clinton era. Instead Bush's very
un-ideological but vast rescue package of $700 billion (£480 billion) might well be seen as lessening the impact of the squeeze, and putting America in position to be the first country out of recession, helped along by his huge tax-cut packages since 2000.

Sneered at for being "simplistic" in his reaction to 9/11, Bush's visceral responses to the attacks of a fascistic, totalitarian death cult will be seen as having been substantially the right ones.

Mistakes are made in every war, but when virtually the entire military, diplomatic and political establishment in the West opposed it, Bush insisted on the surge in Iraq that has been seen to have brought the war around, and set Iraq on the right path. Today its GDP is 30 per cent higher than under Saddam, and it is free of a brutal dictator and his rapist sons.

The number of American troops killed during the eight years of the War against Terror has been fewer than those slain capturing two islands in the Second World War, and in Britain we have lost fewer soldiers than on a normal weekend on the Western Front. As for civilians, there have been fewer Iraqis killed since the invasion than in 20 conflicts since the Second World War.

Iraq has been a victory for the US-led coalition, a fact that the Bush-haters will have to deal with when perspective finally – perhaps years from now – lends objectivity to this fine man's record.

Andrew Roberts's 'Masters and Commanders: How Roosevelt, Churchill, Marshall and Alanbrooke Won the War in the West' is published by Penguin

Here's the link: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/4241865/History-will-show-that-George-W-Bush-was-right.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/4241865/History-will-show-that-George-W-Bush-was-right.html)


From another article in the Telegraph

The Beeb is currently gearing up for act two of its anti-war stance. The first act failed but now we go to "Weapons of Mass Destruction: The Truth", which, post hoc, can make the war a bad thing. Before the inevitable debates with Tariq Ali, George Soros and General Wesley Clark, let me, as a post scriptum, put down a couple of markers on the issue. Was the intelligence on WMD wrong? Don't know. One can't be sure that stockpiles were not removed from Iraq. This, after all, was a regime that just before the first Gulf war sent its entire air force for safe-keeping in Iran. If the intelligence services were wrong, every Western service and regime, from France to America, from Clinton to Chirac, failed. It is conceivable that Saddam Hussein found it important to pretend that he had nuclear weapons. He might have been like any moronic hooligan or bank robber who, faced with the police, pretends they have a weapon and often die as they reach for their toy pistol - or sunglasses.

Iraq was a regime that had a nuclear reactor (before Israel bombed it), attempted to acquire technological information abroad, refused to follow 16 UN resolutions and periodically kicked out UN inspectors. If its WMD programme was only disinformation, it was believed because Iraq did its level best to make it credible.

President Bush's policy was that his was a pre-emptive doctrine. His action was based on the notion that once you find WMD it's too late. If deployment is to be the proof of their existence, the price tag becomes too high. Emphasis mine - GoJ

Link: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3602161/The-BBC-got-the-dossier-wrong-so-here-comes-WMD-The-Truth.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3602161/The-BBC-got-the-dossier-wrong-so-here-comes-WMD-The-Truth.html)


Certainly food for thought.

the half-full glass says.....we have not been physically attacked on our soil since 9/11.

Quote from: DannyBoy on January 14, 2009, 07:44:17 PM
the half-full glass says.....we have not been physically attacked on our soil since 9/11.

neither have we been wiped out by a super-virus, blasted by lazer beams from outer space, or suffered a catastrophic total existance failure.

thank god for my lucky rock.

He's kept us safe the past 8 years. Thank you, Mr. President.

Quote from: Gardengirl on January 14, 2009, 10:54:07 PM
He's kept us safe the past 8 years. Thank you, Mr. President.

Yes he has and for that I thank him also. 

Quote from: Gardengirl on January 14, 2009, 10:54:07 PM
He's kept us safe the past 8 years. Thank you, Mr. President.

'cept for those poor fuckers in the towers back in 01.

Quote from: Gardengirl on January 14, 2009, 10:54:07 PM
He's kept us safe the past 8 years. Thank you, Mr. President.

Actually, 7.  If you give him credit for preventing terrorist attacks during that time, you also have to hold him responsible for allowing the largest ever on American soil.

Exactly what did he do to keep us safe?

homeland security, patriot act, wire-taps, information sharing between agencies, and yes, Guantanamo Bay....and he also destoyed al-Qaeda cells along with many top insurgent leaders.............guys, like him or not..and I'm sure it's not for most of you.........he DID keep us safe.

Bullshit.   Virtually every so-called security measure put into place has been breached when put to the test.  Terrorists could strike again any time they want to and there is nothing that can be done to prevent it.  All of these "improvements" accomplish nothing more than giving the illusion of security to cowards willing to trade their Constitutional rights for it.

If they can strike anytime they want to, why don't they? Are they afraid of the consequences? Do they suddenly feel sorry for possible victims? There is no reason for them not to strike us if they can, unless they are afraid of the consequences. Same result, President Bush's actions have prevented attack on American soil for 7 years. Mr. Clinton received a security briefing specifically talking about terrorists using hijacked airplanes to attack the US. He did nothing. Where is his blame in 9/11?

Quote from: Anne on January 15, 2009, 11:33:10 AM
If they can strike anytime they want to, why don't they?

They don't need to; the last attack was hugely successful at getting us to abandon our so-called principles and our Constitution and at permanently altering our way of life.

QuoteThere is no reason for them not to strike us if they can, unless they are afraid of the consequences.

Of course they're afraid of the consequences; are you saying they weren't before Bush took office?  It's when the benefits outweigh the consequences that they'll strike.

QuoteSame result, President Bush's actions have prevented attack on American soil for 7 years. Mr. Clinton received a security briefing specifically talking about terrorists using hijacked airplanes to attack the US. He did nothing. Where is his blame in 9/11?

Apparently Clinton did enough because it didn't happen while he was president.

Bush was also warned that terrorists were planning to use hijacked airplanes as weapons, he did nothing and they attacked on his watch.  He has the worst record of any president in the history of the country at preventing terrorist attacks, period.  Spin it anyway you'd like; doesn't change the facts.

Indeed, attempted attacks have been thwarted.
From the (apparently unread by some) article that I posted above:

"The decisions taken by Mr Bush in the immediate aftermath of [9/11] will be pored over by historians for the rest of our lifetimes. One thing they will doubtless conclude is that the measures he took to lock down America's borders, scrutinise travellers to and from the United States, eavesdrop upon terrorist suspects, work closely with international intelligence agencies and take the war to the enemy has foiled dozens, perhaps scores of would-be murderous attacks on America. There are Americans alive today who would not be if it had not been for the passing of the Patriot Act. There are 3,000 people who would have died in the August 2005 airline conspiracy if it had not been for the superb inter-agency co-operation demanded by Bush after 9/11." Emphasis added - GoJ

Wasn't that the one that the English were actually responsible for thwarting?

I think so, Sandy, but the author give some attribution to Bush for demanding inter-agency cooperation.


Here are a few articles on thwarted terror attacks in the US since 9/11 for those interested:

U.S. Thwarts 19 Terrorist Attacks Against America Since 9/11   http://www.heritage.org/Research/HomelandDefense/bg2085.cfm (http://www.heritage.org/Research/HomelandDefense/bg2085.cfm)

Thwarted Terrorist Plots Since Sept. 11 Attacks  http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=1599331 (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=1599331)

20 Terrorist Plots Thwarted Since 9/11  http://thinkingpoints.thengia.org/2008/09/25/20-terrorist-plots-thwarted-since-911.aspx
(http://thinkingpoints.thengia.org/2008/09/25/20-terrorist-plots-thwarted-since-911.aspx)

Quote from: Sandy Eggo on January 15, 2009, 02:39:13 PM
Wasn't that the one that the English were actually responsible for thwarting?

Yes and it was in 2006, not 2005 but Robert's work is apparently fraught with such errors and inconsistencies.  He is, however, typical of the sort of people with whom Bush surrounds himself...if you don't think history will smile on you, find a 'historian' who write it the way you'd like it to be; the truth be damned!  It's hard to believe that he can see to type at all with his head so far up Bush's ass. (http://andrewrobertswatch.blogspot.com/)

Attacking the messenger has not proved the message untrue.
Got anything with more substance?

Quote from: Ghost of Jaco on January 15, 2009, 03:08:44 PM
Attacking the messenger has not proved the message untrue.
Got anything with more substance?

Your use of Anderw Roberts as a source to prove a point does not speak well of your integrity or objectivity.

GoJ, it is useless................not in a million years will these guys admit, to ANYTHING positive about President Bush....

I stand behind him, proudly for his fight on terror and keeping us safe......watch and see, IF and WHEN, we get attacked again, it will THEN be Bush's fault once again.........never, never, never will the liberals admit...

Quote from: Exterminator on January 15, 2009, 03:13:12 PM
Your use of Anderw Roberts as a source to prove a point does not speak well of your integrity or objectivity.

You're not exactly a font of objectivity or integrity yourself, lol! But at least on the Globull Warming thread you tried to put some substance in your arguments. Try it again here.

So I must repeat:
Attacking the messenger has not proved the message untrue.
Which of his assertions do you disagree with and why?

Quote from: Ghost of Jaco on January 15, 2009, 03:36:17 PM
You're not exactly a font of objectivity or integrity yourself, lol! But at least on the Globull Warming thread you tried to put some substance in your arguments. Try it again here.

So I must repeat:
Attacking the messenger has not proved the message untrue.
Which of his assertions do you disagree with and why?

That's like asking what it was that OJ said with which I disagree and why.  Roberts is a lying, history distorting, white supremacist who is a joke in the academic community.  If you think he's respectable, that makes you pretty much just like him.

Quote from: Henry Hawk on January 15, 2009, 03:15:11 PM
GoJ, it is useless................not in a million years will these guys admit, to ANYTHING positive about President Bush....

I stand behind him, proudly for his fight on terror and keeping us safe......watch and see, IF and WHEN, we get attacked again, it will THEN be Bush's fault once again.........never, never, never will the liberals admit...

Oh I know that Henry. Humans are spiritual creatures. When you refuse to believe in a higher power of some kind, then something else will fill the spiritual void. It might be globull warming or it might be Bush Derangement Syndrome, but something will be there that must be defended "religiously". These people are as closed-minded about their beliefs as they claim Christians are of theirs. They seldom argue from substance, but instead brand "infidels"who (dare to) disagree with them as inferior in some manner.
 
Besides, I'm just amusing myself with him anyway. Watching him gnash his teeth at every disagreement, no matter how slight, is kinda fun!

Btw, Henry, doesn't he remind you of another poseur, er, poster on these boards?

Quote from: Ghost of Jaco on January 15, 2009, 03:49:50 PM
Oh I know that Henry. Humans are spiritual creatures. When you refuse to believe in a higher power of some kind, then something else will fill the spiritual void. It might be globull warming or it might be Bush Derangement Syndrome, but something will be there that must be defended "religiously". These people are as closed-minded about their beliefs as they claim Christians are of theirs. They seldom argue from substance, but instead brand "infidels"who (dare to) disagree with them as inferior in some manner.

I can rephrase this for you...when you refuse to believe in fallacy, you refuse to believe in fallacy universally.
 

QuoteBtw, Henry, doesn't he remind you of another poseur, er, poster on these boards?

It must really gripe your ass, too, that Y's not only smarter than you but a much better musician as well.

Quote from: Exterminator on January 15, 2009, 03:57:01 PM
I can rephrase this for you...when you refuse to believe in fallacy, you refuse to believe in fallacy universally.

That sounds profound, but it takes only a moment's reflection to realize it cannot be true. 

Quote
It must really gripe your ass, too, that Y's not only smarter than you but a much better musician as well.

Y? Who in the hell is talking about THAT idiot? I'm not, that's for sure!
As for being smarter than I...hmm...doubtful. How smart is it to spend massive amounts of time and bandwidth attacking something that you do not believe exists? Exactly as does dan foster. I don't believe in the tooth fairy, but I don't use a license plate with the image of a tooth and the word "stupd" on it as my avatar, and I don't waste time arguing with people who do believe in the tooth fairy. THAT is really "stupd", imo.

I didn't even know Y was a musician. He doesn't seem to have the temperament for it, imo. But hey, music's far too important to be left in the hands of professionals.  If you can arrange for he and I to "cut heads" as we musicians say, then I'll be there! We'll find out just who is the better musician!
Who knows, I just might learn something.
Oh, and where and when, exactly, did you see/hear me play? I might have been having an off night.

Ok, enough prattle! Back to the subject:

Quote from: Exterminator on January 15, 2009, 03:43:56 PM
That's like asking what it was that OJ said with which I disagree and why.  Roberts is a lying, history distorting, white supremacist who is a joke in the academic community.  If you think he's respectable, that makes you pretty much just like him.

So, what I hear you saying in response to my question is that while you personally hate him, you couldn't find anything in his assessment of President Bush's term in office with which you disagree.

Ok, I'm good with that. You're entitled to your opinion, as is everyone else. Including the man you've never met who you apparently hate with a burning passion. As far as his "respectability", I have no idea. I just read the piece and considered it a worthy of discussion.

And, based on your debating skills (I mean, come on: trying to deflect by using an ad hominem attack on me? High-schoolish, at best), I'm guessing that you do not exactly run in academic circles, so I find your assertion that he is a "joke" in academic circles to be suspect.

Quote from: Ghost of Jaco on January 15, 2009, 04:19:54 PM
As far as his "respectability", I have no idea.

Then perhaps you should do some research to prevent from appearing even more uninformed.  Would you quote William Calley to support a position about integrity on the battlefield?

QuoteAnd, based on your debating skills (I mean, come on: trying to deflect by using an ad hominem attack on me? High-schoolish, at best), I'm guessing that you do not exactly run in academic circles, so I find your assertion that he is a "joke" in academic circles to be suspect.

Again, learn about your source and come back and tell us what your impression is of his standing amongst his contemporaries.

Quote from: Exterminator on January 15, 2009, 04:32:25 PM
Then perhaps you should do some research to prevent from appearing even more uninformed.  Would you quote William Calley to support a position about integrity on the battlefield?

As you sit there "basking in the warmth of your own regard" (to paraphrase Twain), you are guilty of a fundamental error in your debate: assuming facts not in evidence.
Very early in this thread I voiced my opinion that several Bush policies or decisions were in error.
I found the Roberts article while researching differing points of view on the Bush presidency vis-a-vis a future historical perspective, as I like to be informed of BOTH sides of a subject in a debate. I offered the Roberts article as "food for thought" (clearly labeled so, I might add), meaning I do not necessarily support this position but its arguments cause me to reflect further on the issue.
You assume that since I posted the article it means that I support the author's summary view. There are no facts in evidence on this thread that support that assumption; in fact there is evidence to the contrary. Perhaps you should do some research to improve your debating skills so you do not make such high-schoolish errors in logic in the future.

In a discussion of battlefield integrity (arguably an oxymoron, btw) Lt. Calley's view of the incident at My Lai might certainly offer "food for thought" on the subject, especially transcripts of his tape-recorded interviews with John Sack and his testimony at his court-martial under direct examination by George Latimer. If someone's position is that integrity on the battlefield, by its nature, is impossible, then they might cite the hapless Lt. Calley in support of that position. Someone arguing the opposing view might nonetheless quote Calley as "food for thought" in the discussion.

So far you have offered little (read: nothing) to rebut Robert's views except to impugn him as a source and me for offering his views as food for thought.
Let me try that in some sample debates:
Subject: Bill Clinton's Presidential Library.
Me, using your debating skills:
"Bill Clinton lied to the American people while in office, therefore everything he said or did is evil (despite his passing of, imo, an
excellent welfare reform package). His opinions are of no consequence and you are an idiot".

Subject: Rahm Emmanuel as Chief of Staff for Barrack Obama:
Me, using your debating skills:
"Barrack Obama claimed there were 57 States in one of his speeches, therefore he is obviously an uneducated moron who isn't qualified to be President of the United States (what a disappointment it will be for him when he finds out that his Socialist empire extends to only 50 United States rather than 57. I hope he wasn't including tax revenue from those other seven States in his stimulus package calculations). Therefore his opinions are of no consequence, and you are an idiot".

As one can clearly see, merely impugning a source because you disagree with it without offering any substantial rebuttal to that source is perhaps the weakest argument one can make in any debate. And it certainly doesn't speak well of the debating skills of the person using such a tactic, wouldn't you agree? Plus, resorting to ad hominem  attacks is the last bastion of losers (in a debate. I'm not implying that you are a loser in general).

So, do you have any rebuttal(s) of substance to Mr. Roberts view(s) to offer or should I tacitly assume that you agree with him?
A third option would be for you to claim that you wish to think further on the subject and perhaps do some more research before commenting.
See? I ain't so mean. I gave you an easy "out".


Non-sequitur: I really would like to know where and when you saw/heard me play music. Did you introduce yourself? Did we speak to each other?
Are you a musician? Have WE played together?!? Do you know if Y and I have ever shared a stage?

Cheers!

Well done GoJ!!!.......... :yes:

Quote from: Henry Hawk on January 16, 2009, 11:45:30 AM
Well done GoJ!!!.......... :yes:

Thanks Henry.
You give up too easily, my friend. When your debate opponent resorts to ridicule rather than rebuttal (always avoid alliteration, ahaha!), you are winning the debate. That is true even if you don't actually agree with the point of view you are arguing.
I may or may not agree with Roberts, who knows? I didn't offer his article up in support of my view, just as another viewpoint on the subject. Ex may have some very valid perspectives on the Bush presidency through a historical lens, but we would never know it because he lets his emotions (read: hatred of Bush) color his logical thought processes.

There's a book by Thomas Sowell called, "Visions of the Anointed". It's about how the Left really thinks that they are by birthright the ones supposed to lead this country. It ties in with my comments about radical environmentalism and radical Leftism replacing a belief in a higher power in order to fill a spiritual void (though it can happen to Radical Rightists as well).
Think I'm full of it? Does not the Left think of Obama as a savior or messiah?
I think he's an experienced politician who played well to his base and took advantage of middle-of-the-roaders who disagree with some of Bush's policies. Time will tell if he can grow into the shoes he's putting on. For the sake of the country I hope he moves towards the right a bit. More gov't and higher taxes are not the answer to this nation's (nor the world's) problems.
In a soundbite, "You cannot tax a nation into prosperity".

Quote from: Ghost of Jaco on January 16, 2009, 12:37:13 PM
Thanks Henry.
You give up too easily, my friend. When your debate opponent resorts to ridicule rather than rebuttal (always avoid alliteration, ahaha!), you are winning the debate. That is true even if you don't actually agree with the point of view you are arguing.
I may or may not agree with Roberts, who knows? I didn't offer his article up in support of my view, just as another viewpoint on the subject. Ex may have some very valid perspectives on the Bush presidency through a historical lens, but we would never know it because he lets his emotions (read: hatred of Bush) color his logical thought processes.

There's a book by Thomas Sowell called, "Visions of the Anointed". It's about how the Left really thinks that they are by birthright the ones supposed to lead this country. It ties in with my comments about radical environmentalism and radical Leftism replacing a belief in a higher power in order to fill a spiritual void (though it can happen to Radical Rightists as well).
Think I'm full of it? Does not the Left think of Obama as a savior or messiah?
I think he's an experienced politician who played well to his base and took advantage of middle-of-the-roaders who disagree with some of Bush's policies. Time will tell if he can grow into the shoes he's putting on. For the sake of the country I hope he moves towards the right a bit. More gov't and higher taxes are not the answer to this nation's (nor the world's) problems.
In a soundbite, "You cannot tax a nation into prosperity".

again, I agree with your statements.. :yes:..it is dead on....my problem is I usually don't have time to put together a lengthy reply....I try to mix work along with my time on here......... :rant:..and DANG-it...that work stuff ALWAYS seems to get in my way..... ;D...

I will think of things I want to reply back with....and by the time I can collectively put my thoughts together....It has kind of lost it's punch...or I move on to something else, with every intention of getting back on a post, and never seem to materialize.......

but anyway...continue on....you represent the Conservatives on here very well... :yes:

:puke:

:biggrin:

Quote from: Ghost of Jaco on January 16, 2009, 12:37:13 PM
Thanks Henry.
You give up too easily, my friend. When your debate opponent resorts to ridicule rather than rebuttal (always avoid alliteration, ahaha!), you are winning the debate. That is true even if you don't actually agree with the point of view you are arguing.
I may or may not agree with Roberts, who knows? I didn't offer his article up in support of my view, just as another viewpoint on the subject. Ex may have some very valid perspectives on the Bush presidency through a historical lens, but we would never know it because he lets his emotions (read: hatred of Bush) color his logical thought processes.

There's a book by Thomas Sowell called, "Visions of the Anointed". It's about how the Left really thinks that they are by birthright the ones supposed to lead this country. It ties in with my comments about radical environmentalism and radical Leftism replacing a belief in a higher power in order to fill a spiritual void (though it can happen to Radical Rightists as well).
Think I'm full of it? Does not the Left think of Obama as a savior or messiah?
I think he's an experienced politician who played well to his base and took advantage of middle-of-the-roaders who disagree with some of Bush's policies. Time will tell if he can grow into the shoes he's putting on. For the sake of the country I hope he moves towards the right a bit. More gov't and higher taxes are not the answer to this nation's (nor the world's) problems.
In a soundbite, "You cannot tax a nation into prosperity".

Your world is absolutely the worst set of bullshit of any poster on these boards.  Even worse than henry's delusional "god runs everything because I am too stupid myself" slant on everything.

More gov't and higher taxes is exactly what the right wing has been delivering for decades, yet you have bought assclown limbaugh's stance that the left is responsible for the mess. 

Do you have a single original thought of your own?  You think the "left" has proclaimed itself the anointed, not realizing that the nazi hack that wrote that phrase is just that and the left haven't laid claim to anything?  Its the neocons and their use of religion, led by shrub, that have laid claim to what "god wants" and the book you quote is just more of bush-orwellian speak of the scariest kind. 

At least we knew bush didn't know any better as he was led around the universe by cheney, et al, but you really should know better, or of just the same disastrous mentality as that moron.

Aw, c'mon, Dan. Quit beatin' 'round the bush and tell us how ya really feel.

:biggrin:

Quote from: dan foster on January 16, 2009, 10:06:13 PM
Your world is absolutely the worst set of bullshit of any poster on these boards.  Even worse than henry's delusional "god runs everything because I am too stupid myself" slant on everything.

More gov't and higher taxes is exactly what the right wing has been delivering for decades, yet you have bought assclown limbaugh's stance that the left is responsible for the mess. 

Do you have a single original thought of your own?  You think the "left" has proclaimed itself the anointed, not realizing that the nazi hack that wrote that phrase is just that and the left haven't laid claim to anything?  Its the neocons and their use of religion, led by shrub, that have laid claim to what "god wants" and the book you quote is just more of bush-orwellian speak of the scariest kind. 

At least we knew bush didn't know any better as he was led around the universe by cheney, et al, but you really should know better, or of just the same disastrous mentality as that moron.

Ex, Ex, Ex...er, I mean Y, Y, Y...I mean, dan, dan, dan...
I am hesitant to engage you directly in another debate. I always win!

#1 - I am smarter than you. Smart enough that I know to do research on more than one side of a debate, and then think about what I find out rather than just respond to the emotions I feel. I think, I research, I think some more, and then I post. And as Bo will attest, when I occasionally get a factoid or two wrong I will admit the error and correct my original post, if possible. It is how grownups debate things.


Smarter than you because I seldom actually contradict my own logic as you frequently do.
For example, within these two statements is a logical inconsistency:

Quote from: dan foster on January 16, 2009, 10:06:13 PM
Its the neocons and their use of religion, led by shrub, that have laid claim to what "god wants" and the book you quote is just more of bush-orwellian speak of the scariest kind. 

At least we knew bush didn't know any better as he was led around the universe by cheney, et al,

How can Mr. Bush be so smart as to lead the Neocons (considered by some political theorists to be the remnants of the Reagan Democrats, btw), yet too dumb to do anything but follow Mr. Cheney?


Smarter than you because I seldom make assumptions of facts that are not in evidence.
Example:

Quote from: dan foster on January 16, 2009, 10:06:13 PM
More gov't and higher taxes is exactly what the right wing has been delivering for decades, yet you have bought assclown limbaugh's stance that the left is responsible for the mess. 

How could you possibly know what my radio listening habits are, let alone whether I agree with a particular host's "stance" on an issue?
You cannot.
You are assuming that I have heard Mr' Limbaugh's opinion on the cause of a "mess", and that I agree with it.
There is no evidence on this thread for such an assumption (by now the canny reader will have also found the logical inconsistencies (deflection and setting up a strawman) in dan's statement here, as well, as a response to my assertion that we cannot tax ourselves into prosperity).


#2 - You prove me right time and time again with your own words.
My assertion: "When your debate opponent resorts to ridicule rather than [reasoned] rebuttal , you are winning the debate..."
Now, your response, ridicule emphasized to highlight how little reasoned rebuttal you have offered:

Quote from: dan foster on January 16, 2009, 10:06:13 PM
Your world is absolutely the worst set of bullshit of any poster on these boards.  Even worse than henry's delusional "god runs everything because I am too stupid myself" slant on everything.

More gov't and higher taxes is exactly what the right wing has been delivering for decades, yet you have bought assclown limbaugh's stance that the left is responsible for the mess. 

Do you have a single original thought of your own? You think the "left" has proclaimed itself the anointed, not realizing that the nazi hack that wrote that phrase is just that and the left haven't laid claim to anything?  Its the neocons and their use of religion, led by shrub, that have laid claim to what "god wants" and the book you quote is just more of bush-orwellian speak of the scariest kind. 

At least we knew bush didn't know any better as he was led around the universe by cheney, et al, but you really should know better, or of just the same disastrous mentality as that moron.

Just curious...would someone calling Obama "House ******" (as he has been called by some of the Islamic extremists he claimed he would sit down and discuss terrorism with) as offensive and disrespectful as you calling President Bush "shrub"?


#3 - My friend, may I gently suggest that you are, perhaps, a bit obsessive in your hatred of religion? To the point where I wonder about your balance, sometimes.
You claim to believe in neither good nor evil, God nor Satan, Heaven nor Hell. Yet you spend what seems to me to be inordinate amounts of time and energy heaping ridicule upon those who do believe in such things. You actually go out of your way to insult these people! If you do not believe in a higher power, so be it. In my opinion it's your immortal soul on the line, not mine, and I've done my part to "save you" by merely suggesting that your (lack of) belief may be incorrect and offering to discuss it with you. What, then, would you care of the beliefs of others? I do not believe in faeries, yet I do not seek out those who do for the sole purpose of heaping ridicule upon them. And if I were to happen upon a group of them discussing their beliefs I would merely shrug my shoulders and move on. I certainly would not (nor would any rational person, imo) take time out of my life to locate an insulting avatar to represent me, nor would I waste time researching authors who also do not believe in faeries and tagging my posts with their quotes to the exclusion of all else!*
In your posts, your disagreements (read: ridicule-laden posts) are generally peppered with insults to religious beliefs, even when no mention of such has been made. More than any Christian I know, your "religious beliefs" color every aspect of your personality of which I have been made aware.


#4 - You usually lose your temper and I rarely lose mine. Therefore my arguments are seldom colored by rage.


Now, to your points:
Thomas Sowell is not a Nazi, he is a Conservative. I challenge you to demonstrate any evidence in Mr. Sowell's writings or speeches that he is, indeed, a Nazi.

You may find this next point hard to believe, but I can back it up with research if you require it:
Liberal = Progressive = Socialist/Communist = Nazi. The word "Nazi" even MEANS "National Socialist".

Now, with that in mind:
Who wants to stomp out speech with which they disagree? Liberals. Think college speech codes and support of the Fairness Doctrine.
Who wants to make certain thought illegal? Liberals. Think Political Correctness and especially hate-crime laws.
Who doesn't understand the Constitution as it is written? Liberals. The vacuous "Separation of Church and State" means that the State cannot institute laws preventing people from worshiping as they please, as well as not instituting an Official Church of the united States. In matters of religion, the State is to have no voice at all. And let's not forget that the Left seems to not be able to understand a most simple phrase: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."  Are you aware that is included not to allow hunting, but rather to allow the people to rise up against the State in armed rebellion should they feel the boot-heel (think speech codes, Political Correctness, Fairness Doctrine, and hate-crime laws) of Governmental tyranny upon their necks ?


*I went to a site that, I think, you linked in a post, where there were listed many biblical verses that seemed  to contradict each other.
It was really an interesting site and I spent quite a while there, trying to better understand you, actually.
It seems it is quite easy to cherry-pick unrelated verses from the Christian Bible to make any point one really wants to make. It's called 'salad-bar theology", and it's practiced by believers and non-believers alike. I was surprised that I did not find the two unrelated cherry-picked verses that I consider the perfect proof invalidating such a practice:
"...And Judas went and hung himself".
"Go thee and do likewise".

-Goj

Quote from: followsthewolf on January 17, 2009, 12:18:36 PM
Aw, c'mon, Dan. Quit beatin' 'round the bush and tell us how ya really feel.

:biggrin:

:smile:

Quote from: Ghost of Jaco on January 18, 2009, 03:50:52 PM

Ex, Ex, Ex...er, I mean Y, Y, Y...I mean, dan, dan, dan...
I am hesitant to engage you directly in another debate. I always win!

I am smarter than you.

i doubt that.  i doubt that very much.  you seem even unable to distinguish between individuals with whom you disagree.  let's examine that in conjunction with one of your other statements.

QuoteYou may find this next point hard to believe, but I can back it up with research if you require it:
Liberal = Progressive = Socialist/Communist = Nazi. The word "Nazi" even MEANS "National Socialist".

why bother having all of these other words at all?  hmmm?  wouldn't it be simpler then to just revert to "us" and "them"?  how about just calling us lib's "the enemey" as you seem so want to do:

Quote"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."  Are you aware that is included not to allow hunting, but rather to allow the people to rise up against the State in armed rebellion should they feel the boot-heel (think speech codes, Political Correctness, Fairness Doctrine, and hate-crime laws) of Governmental tyranny upon their necks ?

you didn't feel the need to take up arms when the patriot act was signed, but the fairness doctrine you might just have to do something about?  and by the way, if the media slant is so liberal, wouldn't the fairness doctrine just ensure that the conservative slant was given equal time?  it boggles the mind.  but i digress.

what is fucking hilarious is that you have twisted your ideas so far as to accept that the party of the master race would elect a black man as their leader.

let's look up some nazi characteristics, shall we?

from wiki:

QuoteNazism is sometimes considered by scholars to be a form of fascism. While it incorporated elements from both political wings, it formed most of its alliances on the political right.

wait!  that's not us!  that's YOU!  that can't be right, then, right?

you must mean some modern nazi-ism then, right?

from answers.com:

QuoteNazism: The ideology and practice of the Nazis, especially the policy of racist nationalism, national expansion, and state control of the economy.

ahhh, good.  there's another source that doesn't specifically mention the right.  however, it does say racist, that's a bit of a stickler.  nationalism, why that's just what you call patriotism, isn't it?  national expansion, hmmm that doesn't sound so bad to you does it?  state control of the economy?  that's a bit close to bush's bailout, isn't it?

let's look on a decent, wholesome, site.

from conservapedia:

QuoteHere we have the core of Nazism: (i) a very strong dose of German anti-semitism (with a paranoid belief in a conspiracy between Jewish financiers who control the capitalist economy and steal from the Germans, Jewish liberal intellectuals who preach humanism and enfeeble the Germans, and Jewish communists who seek to enslave the Germans; (ii) a belief in the German nation and the "aryan" German race as an entity with a special, heroic destiny; (iii) war as the ultimate test of national strength and worth; and (iv) conquest--with extermination or removal of the resident population--to create more "living space" or the German people and larger fields for the German farmers. Add to this (a) the "leadership principle"--a hatred of parliamentary institutions, and a belief that a good political order sees an inspired leader giving people vision and commands (rather than see parliamentarians haggle and compromise on behalf of interest groups)--(b) the use of terror to obtain obedience, and (c) the desire to make sure that all of society's organizations serve the national cause, and you have Nazism. [6]

there's that sticky racism thing again.  and we've added a hatred of parliamentary institutions and a belief that a godd politial order sees an inspired leader giving people vision and commands.  that sounds a bit like "the decider" and your views on congress doesn't it?  little close to home yet?  terror to obtain obedience?  whatever (9/11) could (9/11) that (9/11) mean (9/11)?

maybe you should take the test.

http://www.okcupid.com/quizzy/take

i don't expect you'll post your results, or even answer the questions honestly, (if you even bother to click the link) but that should bother you enough to reevaluate your priorities.

I took the test did you awol?  Where are your results?  Here's mine:

Your result for The Would You Have Been a Nazi Test ...
The Resistance

Achtung! You are 38% brainwashworthy, 27% antitolerant, and 48% blindly patriotic
Welcome to the Resistance (Der Widerstand)! You believe in freedom, justice, equality, and your country, and you can't be converted to the the dark side.

Breakdown: your Blind Patriotism levels are borderline unhealthy, but you show such a love of people from everywhere and a natural resistance to brainwashing, you would probably focus your energy to fight the Fuehrer with furor, so to speak.

Conclusion: born and raised in Germany in the early 1930's, you would have taken up ARMS against the oppressors. Or even your friends' oppressors. Congratulations!

Less than 5% of all test takers earn a spot in the Resistance!

The Expatriate
Achtung! You are 38% brainwashworthy, 23% antitolerant, and 24% blindly patriotic



Congratulations! You are not susceptible to brainwashing, your values and cares extend beyond the borders of your own country, and your Blind Patriotism does not reach unhealthy levels. If you had been German in the 30s, you would've left the country.

One bad scenario -- as I hypothetically project you back in time -- is that you just wouldn't have cared one way or the other about Nazism. Maybe politics don't interest you enough. But the fact that you took this test means they probably do. I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt.

Did you know that many of the smartest Germans departed prior to the beginning of World War II, because they knew some evil shit was brewing? Brain Drain. Many of them were scientists. It is very possible you could have been one of them.

Conclusion: born and raised in Germany in the early 1930's, you would not have been a Nazi.

                        Your result for The Would You Have Been a Nazi Test...The Expatriate (http://www.helloquizzy.com/tests//results/the-would-you-have-been-a-nazi-test/?fromCGI=1&var_brainwashworthy=0&var_antitolerant=8&var_patriotic=1)Achtung! You are 0% brainwashworthy, 36% antitolerant,  and 5% blindly patriotic(http://cdn.okcimg.com/php/load_okc_image.php/images/0x0/0x0/0/11123489471292654094.gif)The Would You Have Been a Nazi Test (http://www.helloquizzy.com/tests/the-would-you-have-been-a-nazi-test) at HelloQuizzy (http://www.helloquizzy.com)

Quote from: awol on January 19, 2009, 07:28:02 AM
i doubt that.  i doubt that very much.  you seem even unable to distinguish between individuals with whom you disagree. 

Please tell me you were just pretending to be THAT obtuse, awol? Sheesh!
I was illustrating the sameness of the arguments (and argumentative style) of the three posters mentioned.

Quote
why bother having all of these other words at all?  hmmm?  wouldn't it be simpler then to just revert to "us" and "them"?  how about just calling us lib's "the enemey" as you seem so want to do:

Assertion discounted, you are assuming facts not in evidence.
The "enemy", in my opinion, are those who would seek to replace our republican form of government with socialism or communism. If there is or has been a form of gov't that has provided more freedom and opportunity for its citizens than our representative republic, then I am unaware of it. Therefore it is worthy of protecting from enemies both foreign or domestic.

Quote
you didn't feel the need to take up arms when the patriot act was signed, but the fairness doctrine you might just have to do something about?  and by the way, if the media slant is so liberal, wouldn't the fairness doctrine just ensure that the conservative slant was given equal time?  it boggles the mind.

Deflection and strawman as well as assuming facts not in evidence. Assertions discounted.
I am uncomfortable with any law that would allow the gov't to regulate free political speech. In fact, as I have stated on these very forums, John McCain and George W. Bush are unfit for public office due to their introducing and signing into law, respectively, of the Campaign Finance Reform legislation (oft referred to by me as "The Incumbent Protection Act"). Both (and a host of others) violated the US Constitution and therefore their oath of office.

Quote
but i digress.

Yeah. A lot.

Quote
what is fucking hilarious is that you have twisted your ideas so far as to accept that the party of the master race would elect a black man as their leader.

Obama is not black, he is biracial. And once again you are assuming facts not in evidence.

Quotelet's look up some nazi characteristics, shall we?

from wiki:
wait!  that's not us!  that's YOU!  that can't be right, then, right?

you must mean some modern nazi-ism then, right?

from answers.com:

ahhh, good.  there's another source that doesn't specifically mention the right.  however, it does say racist, that's a bit of a stickler.  nationalism, why that's just what you call patriotism, isn't it?  national expansion, hmmm that doesn't sound so bad to you does it?  state control of the economy?  that's a bit close to bush's bailout, isn't it?

let's look on a decent, wholesome, site.

from conservapedia:

there's that sticky racism thing again.  and we've added a hatred of parliamentary institutions and a belief that a godd politial order sees an inspired leader giving people vision and commands.  that sounds a bit like "the decider" and your views on congress doesn't it?  little close to home yet?  terror to obtain obedience?  whatever (9/11) could (9/11) that (9/11) mean (9/11)?

Fundamental attribution error, assuming facts not in evidence, and setting up a strawman (strawmen, actually). So your assertions are discounted again.

Abraham Lincoln - Republican. Universally credited with destroying the institution of slavery in the United States.

Civil Rights Act - 1964. Republicans supported the bill 27-6 in the Senate (82%) and 138-34 in the House (80%) while Democrats supported the bill 46-21 in the Senate (69%) and 152-96 in the House (61%).

Voting Rights Act of 1965:
Senate: 77–19

    * Democrats: 47–17
    * Republicans: 30–2

House: 333–85

    * Democrats: 221–61
    * Republicans: 112–24

Both pieces of landmark legislation were opposed by more Democrats than Republicans. So, factually, the assumption that Republicans are racist is false.
But anyone who pays attention to the news and give's it a moments thought can reason that it is Liberal Democrats who are truly, politically, racist.
Political racism would be legislating by race, would it not? The passing of laws that are not colorblind, but instead explicitly favor one race over the other.
It is Liberal Democrats who divide people into racial classes and try to legislate by race. Are there racist Republicans? I'm sure that there are, but not as a matter of public policy as it is with the Liberal Democrats.

And on a personal note: my adopted 6-year old daughter is biracial, just about the same color as Obama (and a real smart cookie, too!).

Quote
maybe you should take the test.

http://www.okcupid.com/quizzy/take

i don't expect you'll post your results, or even answer the questions honestly, (if you even bother to click the link) but that should bother you enough to reevaluate your priorities.

Even though you have exposed yourself to be  a "scammer" for websites that will no doubt flood my email with spam, I did sign up.
There are multiple tests, but since we are on the topic of Nazi-ism, I took the Nazi test. I did note that some of the questions were in the form of, "Have you stopped beating your wife?", so everyone's results are suspect, imo.

My results:
Your result for The Would You Have Been a Nazi Test ...
The Resistance


Achtung! You are 31% brainwashworthy, 18% antitolerant, and 43% blindly patriotic
Welcome to the Resistance (Der Widerstand)! You believe in freedom, justice, equality, and your country, and you can't be converted to the the dark side.

Breakdown: your Blind Patriotism levels are borderline unhealthy, but you show such a love of people from everywhere and a natural resistance to brainwashing, you would probably focus your energy to fight the Fuehrer with furor, so to speak.

Conclusion: born and raised in Germany in the early 1930's, you would have taken up ARMS against the oppressors. Or even your friends' oppressors. Congratulations!

Less than 5% of all test takers earn a spot in the Resistance!


Way to many errors in logic to take your argument(s) seriously, awol. Try again.

Quote from: awol on January 19, 2009, 08:51:55 AM
The Expatriate
Achtung! You are 38% brainwashworthy, 23% antitolerant, and 24% blindly patriotic

Just for grins: I would have left with Albert -

The Expatriate

# You scored 23% on brainwashworthy, higher than 11% of your peers.
# 2/100 You scored 9% on antitolerant, higher than 2% of your peers.
# 49/100 You scored 38% on patriotic, higher than 49% of your peers.

 ^
  I------ . . .is now over. . .  :biggrin:

Damn!  You beat me to it!  ;D

Quote from: Palehorse on January 20, 2009, 12:48:42 PM
^
  I------ . . .is now over. . .  :biggrin:

and the world breathes a sigh of relief.

Quote from: awol on January 20, 2009, 12:54:05 PM
and the world breathes a sigh of relief.

:biggrin: I dunno, but my heartburn sure seems to be subsiding!  :biggrin:

Sheeewww, that was rough..but it's over, everyone can take a deep breath now. ;D

Correct. A lot of points are now moot.


Soooo.....who's going to kick off the Obama McChimpy hatefest thread?

Let's just bask in the afterglow of the inauguration ceremony for awhile, shall we?  :wink: :smile: :biggrin:

I truly feel sorry for the guy. No matter what he does, the sh!t is so deep that he doesn't stand a chance.

When Warren Buffett says that he thinks it will take a minimum of 2-3 years before we see stabilization of the economy under the best of circumstances, I think Obama's honeymoon will be extremely short.

I agree, FTW :yes:

I agree, too. I heard on the radio that recessions in the US typically take two years to come out of.

Hopefully, Obama will get a little wiggle room as he tries to untie the Gordian knot.

Quote from: Ghost of Jaco on January 20, 2009, 01:47:37 PM
Correct. A lot of points are now moot.

No not really moot. The hole our new leader has to dig us out of belongs to him.

Quote from: followsthewolf on January 20, 2009, 03:21:33 PM
Hopefully, Obama will get a little wiggle room as he tries to untie the Gordian knot.

My prediction? That won't be the case. Next week, the same people who has been claiming that the shrub did a great job and everything is peachy-keen will be blaming Obama for the mess our country is in.

Quote from: Sandy Eggo on January 20, 2009, 03:23:15 PM
My prediction? That won't be the case. Next week, the same people who has been claiming that the shrub did a great job and everything is peachy-keen will be blaming Obama for the mess our country is in.

In part a symptom of our "give it me fast and give it to me now" society. . . :rolleyes: This approach breeds and feeds impatience.

Patience is not within us, and in some cases rarely is the truth to be found!

Just as I didn't blame Bush for the recession that began near the end of the Clinton presidency, neither will I blame Obama for the one currently under way. In general I think that the President has very little control over the economy. Remember, the budget comes from the House and Senate to the President...not the other way around. And the Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae debacle falls squarely on the heads of the chambers as well. The Bush White House TRIED to get more oversight because they knew it was being mismanaged, but were rebuffed by the Democratic majority.

I am perfectly willing to wait and see how Obama presides before forming firm opinions, and will hold him to blame for only his own mistakes.

Quote from: Ghost of Jaco on January 20, 2009, 04:01:17 PM
Just as I didn't blame Bush for the recession that began near the end of the Clinton presidency...

Good because according to the National Bureau of Economic Research (http://www.nber.org/cycles/recessions.html), there was no recession that began near the end of the Clinton presidency.  The economy was expanding from 1991 through March, 2001.

QuoteIn general I think that the President has very little control over the economy. Remember, the budget comes from the House and Senate to the President...not the other way around. And the Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae debacle falls squarely on the heads of the chambers as well. The Bush White House TRIED to get more oversight because they knew it was being mismanaged, but were rebuffed by the Democratic majority.

Uh, the Repubs had the majority for six out of eight years and they did what again?

Quote from: Ghost of Jaco on January 16, 2009, 11:40:45 AM
So, do you have any rebuttal(s) of substance to Mr. Roberts view(s) to offer or should I tacitly assume that you agree with him?

You can assume that if you'd like; it seems in keeping with your general train of logic.

QuoteAre you a musician? Have WE played together?!?

Yes and I doubt it.

Quote from: Henry Hawk on January 16, 2009, 11:45:30 AM
Well done GoJ!!!.......... :yes:

You can get off of your knees now; GoJ knows when he's been licked.   :biggrin:

Quote from: Ghost of Jaco on January 16, 2009, 12:37:13 PM
When your debate opponent resorts to ridicule rather than rebuttal (always avoid alliteration, ahaha!), you are winning the debate.

No, you aren't.  It's more likely that your opponent has simply recognized the futility of trying to teach a rock and has decided to call a spade a spade and move on.

Quote from: awol on January 20, 2009, 12:54:05 PM
and the world breathes a sigh of relief.

So wong to bad wubbish.

Like all the Liberals on Moveon.com who desperately longed for terrorist attacks and military disaster because a Republican was president.

Now that the Democrats 'own' the war maybe they'll be more interested in winning it than proving Bush wrong by losing. Maybe.

Bush won 2 wars and kept America safe.

When the bombs start going off remember that.

Quote from: Palehorse on January 20, 2009, 12:48:42 PM
^
  I------ . . .is now over. . .  :biggrin:

I might just join Kurt Warner and praise ole' Jeebus for that one.  :spooked: :no: :biggrin:

Quote from: Locutus on January 21, 2009, 12:00:24 AM
I might just join Kurt Warner and praise ole' Jeebus for that one.  :spooked: :no: :biggrin:

:biggrin:

Quote from: Doc on January 20, 2009, 11:41:46 PM
Like all the Liberals on Moveon.com who desperately longed for terrorist attacks and military disaster because a Republican was president.

:rolleyes:  I wouldn't expect anyone who believes that to be able to create a complete sentence and you didn't disappoint.

QuoteNow that the Democrats 'own' the war maybe they'll be more interested in winning it than proving Bush wrong by losing. Maybe.

What do you mean...you say below that Bush already won those wars?

QuoteBush won 2 wars and kept America safe.

Which two...the one in Iraq that is ongoing or the one in Afghanistan in which the Taliban currently control over 70% of the country?  Were there others?

QuoteWhen the bombs start going off remember that.

OMFG!  You'd better go hide; quick!   :eek:

That doesn't matter. There were not enough votes along party lines to allow passage of the reforms. Remember, the Republican majority was pretty thin and Republicans often failed to stand up to the Democrats. That is in part why the Democrats were able to gain the majority; many Republican voters stayed home in disgust. But the problem began, actually, under Bill Clinton*.

Okay, this site does a good job of explaining the debacle: http://strategicthought-charles77.blogspot.com/2008/09/democrats-blocked-bushs-fannie-mae-and.html

   Excerpt: " From the NEW YORK TIMES September 11, 2003:

    The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

    Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

    The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

    The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.


Democrats such as Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts and Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina blocked reform.

    From the NEW YORK TIMES September 11, 2003:

    ''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, and the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

    Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of
    North Carolina, agreed.

    ''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,'' Mr. Watt said.


What actually caused the bank failures is the simple fact that home values are falling not rising. In a normal market where values are rising, banks don't lose money on a failed loan because they get the house, which, with a rising value, is worth more than the loan.

The same thing happened in 1973, when energy costs doubled from the Arab oil embargo, banks failed, stocks fell, jobs where lost, home values fell."

And McCain actually tried to revive previously introduced legislation to implement reforms in 2006:
http://blogwonks.com/2008/09/17/mccain-predicted-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac-debacle/


*More info on the history of the FM/FM debacle:
http://strategicthought-charles77.blogspot.com/2008/09/democrats-created-fannie-mae-and.html

Quote from: Exterminator on January 20, 2009, 05:24:29 PM
You can assume that if you'd like; it seems in keeping with your general train of logic.

You've provided no facts to the contrary. The only other choice is to just ignore you, but you're too much fun for me to do that!

Quote from: Exterminator on January 20, 2009, 05:28:22 PM
No, you aren't.  It's more likely that your opponent has simply recognized the futility of trying to teach a rock and has decided to call a spade a spade and move on.

In other words you are out of arguments and you know it, are left with only epithets.

PWND!

Quote from: Doc on January 20, 2009, 11:41:46 PM
Like all the Liberals on Moveon.com who desperately longed for terrorist attacks and military disaster because a Republican was president.

Now that the Democrats 'own' the war maybe they'll be more interested in winning it than proving Bush wrong by losing. Maybe.

Bush won 2 wars and kept America safe.

When the bombs start going off remember that.

You join the ranks of right wingers as one of the funiest I have seen, beyond the oreallys and manity's.  To claim those "liberals" were wanting terrorist attacks is just about as outrageous as one can get.  Bush was the least learned president to take office.  Now, please, go join the other 19 percenters that think he was "a nice guy" and leave the actual running of THIS new democracy to the smart people that won.

Might I point out that bush actually lost both Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention the rest of the world.

Wow, he can cuss so I guess that makes him right.... :eek: :eek: Better run and hide and quit bringing up all those facts 'cause his cussin' and name callin' really shows just how smart he really is and that he knows what the real scoop is.  Oh man, I'm shakin' in my boots now..... :rolleyes:

someone needs a timeout! ;D

seriously, if you are letting this affect your health, you might wanna step back from it for a while, dan.

i did for a couple weeks, posted only fluff for a while, and now i feel rejuvinated.


hookt on foniks werkt fer mee.

In the late summer or fall of 2005 I asked a lefty poster if she would prefer an American defeat in Iraq, just so that Bush would be denied a victory.  She said yes.  She would rather see anything besides a Bush victory, anywhere.

She was typical - BDS.

The Left sees America as the biggest problem the world has.  They are fools but they love their thoughts.  Now, their egos are so wrapped up in Obamamania they will deny any shortcoming. 

Dan has his problems: religious, political, psycosexual?  I hear there are some good meds out there for ya dude.  They seem to be working for Exterminator.  He's still delusional but under control. 

Quote from: awol on January 21, 2009, 08:58:56 PM
someone needs a timeout! ;D

seriously, if you are letting this affect your health, you might wanna step back from it for a while, dan.

i did for a couple weeks, posted only fluff for a while, and now i feel rejuvinated.


hookt on foniks werkt fer mee.

No worries.   :smile:

Quote from: Exterminator on January 21, 2009, 07:42:59 AM
:rolleyes:  I wouldn't expect anyone who believes that to be able to create a complete sentence and you didn't disappoint.

What do you mean...you say below that Bush already won those wars?

Which two...the one in Iraq that is ongoing or the one in Afghanistan in which the Taliban currently control over 70% of the country?  Were there others?

OMFG!  You'd better go hide; quick!   :eek:

You are kidding me! There has not been an attack on our soil since 9-11. That attack was planned and put together under the watchful eye of Bungling Bill Clinton and addled algore. I don't expect this democrap to be any better.

Quote from: dan foster on January 21, 2009, 08:41:36 PM
You join the ranks of right wingers as one of the funiest I have seen, beyond the oreallys and manity's.  To claim those "liberals" were wanting terrorist attacks is just about as outrageous as one can get.  Bush was the least learned president to take office.  Now, please, go join the other 19 percenters that think he was "a nice guy" and leave the actual running of THIS new democracy to the smart people that won.

Might I point out that bush actually lost both Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention the rest of the world.

Completely irresponsible. If Bill Clinton had even a fraction of the conviction of George Bush, we probably wouldn't have been attacked on 9/11 because he would have taken the fight to the terrorists after the first WTC bombing. What would the country be like today if we hadn't had to live through 9/11, the hundreds of billions it cost us, the war in Iraq. Just think about it....people like to call Bush an idiot, when they should really be pointing the finger at Clinton. Not to mention that Clinton's forced legislation and strong arming the lending institutions into giving mortgages to people who have no business borrowing money is the root of what got us into the Mortgage Crisis which is not a total economic fiasco. So, say what you want about Bush....you moron, it's miss guided and irresponsible. Just shut up and be happy you have had someone protecting you these past 7 years.....and that it wasn't Bill Clinton.

Quote from: Doc on January 22, 2009, 11:21:58 PM
You are kidding me! There has not been an attack on our soil since 9-11. That attack was planned and put together under the watchful eye of Bungling Bill Clinton and addled algore. I don't expect this democrap to be any better.

There have been plenty of attacks on our soil since 9/11, granted, not by Al Queda but a student shooting up a college or someone shooting up a shopping mall is proof positive that nothing can ever be done to prevent terrorist type attacks.

As far as your contention that the 9/11 attack was planned and put together during Clinton's tenure, you are partially correct.  Planning did start in 1999 but pretending that everything was in place prior to Bush taking office is nothing short of dishonest and the level of activity and "chatter" would have been significantly higher (ergo, significantly more detectable) in the months leading up to the attack.  In fact, that date wasn't even chosen until 3 weeks prior to the attack and the plane tickets weren't purchased until two weeks beforehand.  The specifics of the plan were hashed out while Bush was in office and he had prior knowledge; the responsibility for failing to act falls squarely on his shoulders.

Quote from: Doc on January 22, 2009, 11:49:03 PM
Completely irresponsible. If Bill Clinton had even a fraction of the conviction of George Bush, we probably wouldn't have been attacked on 9/11 because he would have taken the fight to the terrorists after the first WTC bombing.

Ridiculous.  It isn't as though there are people wandering around wearing "I'm a terrorist" t-shirts making them easy to identify.  Willingness to act without listening to advisors or considering consequences is not conviction; it's stupidity.

QuoteWhat would the country be like today if we hadn't had to live through 9/11, the hundreds of billions it cost us, the war in Iraq.

A lot richer.

QuoteJust think about it....people like to call Bush an idiot...

Because Bush is an idiot although I'm sure he seems like a pretty smart guy to you.

QuoteSo, say what you want about Bush....you moron, it's miss guided and irresponsible.

Classic...an illiterate who can't even spell 'misguided' calling someone else a moron. 

(http://keithgrossman.com/brain.jpg)

Quote from: Doc on January 22, 2009, 11:49:03 PM
Completely irresponsible. If Bill Clinton had even a fraction of the conviction of George Bush, we probably wouldn't have been attacked on 9/11 because he would have taken the fight to the terrorists after the first WTC bombing. What would the country be like today if we hadn't had to live through 9/11, the hundreds of billions it cost us, the war in Iraq. Just think about it....people like to call Bush an idiot, when they should really be pointing the finger at Clinton. Not to mention that Clinton's forced legislation and strong arming the lending institutions into giving mortgages to people who have no business borrowing money is the root of what got us into the Mortgage Crisis which is not a total economic fiasco. So, say what you want about Bush....you moron, it's miss guided and irresponsible. Just shut up and be happy you have had someone protecting you these past 7 years.....and that it wasn't Bill Clinton.

You really are funny.  9/11 was on Bush's watch, under the careful eye of his Nat'l Sec Advisor, Candy Rice.  They both missed the "bin laden determined to attack the US" in the intel briefs as neither one of them could read.

As for clinton; he did take the fight to bin laden with cruise missiles, Dr Dolt.

Quote from: Doc on January 22, 2009, 11:49:03 PM
Completely irresponsible. If Bill Clinton had even a fraction of the conviction of George Bush, we probably wouldn't have been attacked on 9/11 because he would have taken the fight to the terrorists after the first WTC bombing. What would the country be like today if we hadn't had to live through 9/11, the hundreds of billions it cost us, the war in Iraq. Just think about it....people like to call Bush an idiot, when they should really be pointing the finger at Clinton. Not to mention that Clinton's forced legislation and strong arming the lending institutions into giving mortgages to people who have no business borrowing money is the root of what got us into the Mortgage Crisis which is not a total economic fiasco. So, say what you want about Bush....you moron, it's miss guided and irresponsible. Just shut up and be happy you have had someone protecting you these past 7 years.....and that it wasn't Bill Clinton.

Do you write the news for Fox Noise?  I bet you are under the desk when Manity is on.

:biggrin:

They have already started Sandy..Obama will be blamed for most of the mess that we are in..economy,the war etc.. :yes:

Quote from: Sandy Eggo on January 20, 2009, 03:23:15 PM
My prediction? That won't be the case. Next week, the same people who has been claiming that the shrub did a great job and everything is peachy-keen will be blaming Obama for the mess our country is in.

Quote from: WVaGAL on January 27, 2009, 02:40:53 AM
They have already started Sandy..Obama will be blamed for most of the mess that we are in..economy,the war etc.. :yes:

Try the Democrapic Congress...same ones that have been there for the last two years screwing things up.

Quote from: me on January 27, 2009, 04:09:24 AM
Try the Democrapic Congress...same ones that have been there for the last two years screwing things up.

People this dumb should not be allowed to vote.

Quote from: me on January 27, 2009, 04:09:24 AM
Try the Democrapic Congress...same ones that have been there for the last two years screwing things up.

You have a point there. Most of the time they are too busy racing to the nearest open microphone so they can hear themselves talk, for which I am grateful. Unfortunately, when they actually DO something it's, typically, exactly the wrong thing.

Quote from: Ghost of Jaco on January 27, 2009, 10:00:05 AM
You have a point there. Most of the time they are too busy racing to the nearest open microphone so they can hear themselves talk, for which I am grateful. Unfortunately, when they actually DO something it's, typically, exactly the wrong thing.

Like handing 12m over to Barney Franks.   :rolleyes:

Quote from: me on January 27, 2009, 10:03:51 AM
Like handing 12m over to Barney Franks.   :rolleyes:

Hey, it takes a lot of money to keep homosexual prostitutes a secret!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barney_franks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barney_franks)

Interesting info re: Franks, the Bush administration, and the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac debacle at that url as well, btw.

Quote from: Ghost of Jaco on January 27, 2009, 11:38:57 AM
Hey, it takes a lot of money to keep homosexual prostitutes a secret!

Indeed it does! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Gannon)

Quote from: Exterminator on January 27, 2009, 01:08:38 PM
Indeed it does! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Gannon)

heheh! There's "creeps" around every corner, ain't there?

$12 million, eh? Think I'll call my broker. Time to invest in KY jelly. Ma needs a new pair of work boots! :razz:
Calculating Pa

Quote from: Ma and Pa on January 27, 2009, 02:39:13 PM
$12 million, eh? Think I'll call my broker. Time to invest in KY jelly. Ma needs a new pair of work boots! :razz:
Calculating Pa

:biggrin:

Quote from: Henry Hawk on January 07, 2009, 09:25:20 AM

I will 100% admit, that I have not agreed with several things that Bush did.  My point IS, that unders these harsh times, I don't think there would have been anybody, that would have made things much better than they are....and I know this is just MY OWN speculation.

I think that congress as a whole...has been a failure...NOT just the presidency....

This was all posted after the fact in an effort by you to alvage any credibility whatsoever after the obvious disaster that is his legacy.  Nice try.   :rolleyes:

Quote from: Exterminator on June 10, 2013, 09:35:57 AM
This was all posted after the fact in an effort by you to alvage any credibility whatsoever after the obvious disaster that is his legacy.  Nice try.   :rolleyes:

It doesn't go back any further, but believe more or NOT, I was vocal against his spending and his immigration.  I never thought of him as a great conservative.......we was a decent moderate at the best.  I liked him, and still do, but he could have been MUCH MUCH better.  He made plenty of mistakes. 

With that said, I don't think he was CROOKED as this POTUS is.....

Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 10, 2013, 09:45:02 AM
It doesn't go back any further, but believe more or NOT, I was vocal against his spending and his immigration.

No, really, you weren't.

QuoteWith that said, I don't think he was CROOKED as this POTUS is.....

Put down the crack pipe.   :rolleyes:

Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 10, 2013, 09:45:02 AM
It doesn't go back any further, but believe more or NOT, I was vocal against his spending and his immigration.  I never thought of him as a great conservative.......we was a decent moderate at the best.  I liked him, and still do, but he could have been MUCH MUCH better.  He made plenty of mistakes. 

With that said, I don't think he was CROOKED as this POTUS is.....

  :haha:  :haha:  :haha:  That is the best joke you ever told.  :haha: 

  George W and his administration was the most crooked, thieving and immoral with the killing of 4,500 of our troops and mutilating 35,000 more.  I know you're joking and lying.   :yes: :rant: