Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News > Things get bigger if ya cuts 'em!
Reload this Page Reply to Thread
FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

Thread: Things get bigger if ya cuts 'em! Reply to Thread
Title:
Message
Image Verification
Please enter the six letters or digits that appear in the image opposite.


Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

Topic Review (Newest First)
Jan 24th, 2004 05:21 PM
Anonymous
Quote:
Originally Posted by The One and Only...
Soldiers in the military are trained to die. That's their job.
No, they're trained to fight/survive. Otherwise, their training would consist of learning to make themselves easy targets for enemy fire, and how to kill themselves with their own rifles.

Of course, Bush seems to believe their only purpose is to die, and is trying to instill that upon the troops by cutting their funding here and there.
Jan 24th, 2004 12:44 PM
The One and Only... This comment has little to do with the war.

Soldiers in the military are trained to die. That's their job. The day the military becomes a gigantic workfare program is the day that we don't need one.
Jan 24th, 2004 03:27 AM
thebiggameover that old dude must have died. now there just a red x there...
Jan 23rd, 2004 11:34 PM
Anonymous
Quote:
Originally Posted by The One and Only...
I really don't see how much different this lie, if you could call it that, is any worse than what average politicians spew from their mouths during election season...
Well let me summarize: When your state's governor is running for reelection, and says that he'll increase spending on education, and then doesn't once he's elected, no one is dead.

Compare that to lying about something to start a war, and the body count is slightly higher than zero.

Moreover, the governor lying about his plans for education might irritate the voters, whereas the president lying about WMDs has thoroughly pissed off most of the world. And don't give me any of that "those countries already hated us" BS.
Jan 23rd, 2004 07:26 PM
The One and Only... Define responsible, because there is more than one way in which the term is applied.

I really don't see how much different this lie, if you could call it that, is any worse than what average politicians spew from their mouths during election season...
Jan 23rd, 2004 05:17 PM
sspadowsky
Quote:
Originally Posted by doofus
All I care about is policy. Anything else is null, void, and intellectually bankrupt.
Oddly enough, that's a startlingly good description of Bush Administration policy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by doofus
In addition, he did not say that all things a underling does falls under the leader. He said that a leader must be responsible. He did not say for what.
This is idiotic beyond belief. If a leader is responsible, the fact that he is the leader, means he is responsible. He oversees what is carried out. That's what leaders do, which is why they are called leaders. Again, prickiness for prickiness' sake.
Jan 23rd, 2004 04:28 PM
kellychaos So explain Bush's departure from the mainstream of the current administration ... a point at which he really stuck his neck out and opposed their will. Name one time.
Jan 23rd, 2004 04:25 PM
The One and Only... FDR WAS a figure head. Replace him with "FDR's administration". I don't feel like throwing in all the extra words.

I support most of Bush's policies, so I wouldn't call them him a "poor-assed" leader. Compared to Clinton, he's a miracle.
Jan 23rd, 2004 04:11 PM
Buffalo Tom Do you realize you've contradicted yourself in your very post? First, you criticize us for not being critical of FDR, implying he was personally responsible for the some of the supposed ruinous policies you have cited.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The One and Only...
You people praise FDR without knowing what he did. Sad, really.
Then you say a leader is just a figure-head, as an apology for the poor leadership of George Bush.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The One and Only...
Tom, the leader is nothing more than a figure head. All I care about is policy.
Which is it, Cliff? If you believe a leader is only a figure-head, then the language you have used to criticize FDR's presidency, speaking as if he was the sole impetus behind the New Deal, points, at the very least, to your sloppy thinking process. If you believe a leader has much to do with the formulation of his/her administrations's policies and setting the tone of conduct of his/her administration, then you must accept that Bush is a poor-assed leader for your country for the reasons I've cited already.

Geez, man, you really should stop pretending you're George F. Will on This Week.
Jan 23rd, 2004 03:45 PM
The One and Only... You people praise FDR without knowing what he did. Sad, really.

The TVA destroyed farmland. Farmland that tenant workers - predominantly black, and obviously in heavy poverty - labored over. Unfortunately, the government only compensated land owners.

Tom, the leader is nothing more than a figure head. All I care about is policy. Anything else is null, void, and intellectually bankrupt.

In addition, he did not say that all things a underling does falls under the leader. He said that a leader must be responsible. He did not say for what.
Jan 23rd, 2004 10:50 AM
mburbank Fifteen year olds who use the phrase "And to be quite frank"... Laws.

It seems to me the bulk of your intellect occupies itself almost exclusively with narcisism. Your posts mostly boil down to 'look at me, I'm wonderful.'

Imagine what you might learn if you freed all the energy you spend on self congratulation and directed it toward inquiry.
Jan 23rd, 2004 10:39 AM
Buffalo Tom Got any laissez-faire cookies for sale, Cliff?
Jan 23rd, 2004 10:20 AM
Brandon YOU KNOW WHO I HATE?

FRANKLIN DELANO ROOSEVELT!

YOU KNOW WHAT I LOVE?

LAISSEZ-FAIRE CAPITALISM!
Jan 22nd, 2004 10:17 PM
phnompehn
Quote:
Originally Posted by The One and Only...
He was either horribly misinformed or utterly sick.
How dare he be the victim of things he didn't control! I have half a mind to build a time machine, go back to the Depression, and bitch slap him. I'd say "Bitch! Stop being all sick and stuff all the time! What do you think you are? A polio patient?!"
Jan 22nd, 2004 08:41 PM
Buffalo Tom
Quote:
Originally Posted by The One and Only...
All that aside, Buffalo Tom, your remark about the responsibility falling on the leader is your personal opinion. I highly disagree. And to be quite frank, I really don't care if Bush lied or not, because that is not how I grade presidents anyway. This is why I think that Nixon is one of best presidents we've ever had.
Your arrogance and stupidity again blind you to the obvious. What I wrote about leadership is also the view shared by your fellow enfant terrible, George Dubya. In 2000, Bush campaigned on the idea that he would bring change to the White House, after 'an era of tarnished ideals'. This is lifted directly from Bush's speech at the 2000 GOP convention:

Quote:
Our nation's leaders are responsible ... to confront problems, not pass them on to others.

And to lead this nation to a responsibility era, a president himself must be responsible.
It's clear that your president is, at best, a moron, and, at worst, a hypocrite, when his altruistic words are juxtaposed with all the equivocating and finger-pointing he is currently doing with regards to the faulty intelligence issue. I have a warped sense of morality? Cliff, you shouldn't use words whose meanings you cannot even begin to comprehend.
Jan 22nd, 2004 08:12 PM
sspadowsky Where you're making the mistake is in assuming that you know what you're talking about.

What do you mean by "how much damage the TVA caused"? Environmentally? Don't give me that shit, Mr. the-air-is-cleaner-than-it-was-500-years-ago, because 1) you've already demonstrated your disregard for the environment by subscribing to that crap, and 2)It got "results," which is a presidential quality that, as we all know, gives you quite a stiffy.

The more you post, the more it becomes clear that you don't know shit. You're just a little hermit who's looking for someone to argue with. Likely it's the only social interaction you get.
Jan 22nd, 2004 07:15 PM
The One and Only... I'd assume that you know what I am talking about.
Jan 22nd, 2004 07:07 PM
Anonymous
Quote:
Originally Posted by The One and Only...
All that aside, Buffalo Tom, your remark about the responsibility falling on the leader is your personal opinion. I highly disagree.
Certainly nothing wrong with that. Of course, if you're ever in a leadership position (which seems unlikely) and your underlings screw up big time, I think you'll find that your boss will be slightly less than understanding on the matter.

Quote:
Furthermore, you still have not made a convincing case. Look at Bush's opposition and how much they have lied about already. Look at former presidents - hell, look at Bill Clinton. I'm not talking about is BJ, either. Look at any politician, really - remember California?
One, my boy, a big part of presenting an effective argument is presenting. After you say "look at [someone]" you are supposed to list examples of what you want the audience to look at. I know that you don't present facts as well as you present your pseudo-intellectual drivel, but you should at least try. Of course, that's just my opinion. You may not want to try at all.
Jan 22nd, 2004 06:29 PM
The One and Only... Hoover was a joke. He was just a pre-New Dealer.

You guys need to read about FDR. He was either horribly misinformed or utterly sick. I'm serious. Are you aware of the damage the Tenesse Valley Authority caused? Are you aware that giving unions so much power inevitibly led to less work? Are you aware that we could have avoided Pearl Harbor had we increased our military capabilities as a preemptive measure? For that matter, are you aware that we gave Japan many reasons to attack us, such as our trade embargo on them?


All that aside, Buffalo Tom, your remark about the responsibility falling on the leader is your personal opinion. I highly disagree. And to be quite frank, I really don't care if Bush lied or not, because that is not how I grade presidents anyway. This is why I think that Nixon is one of best presidents we've ever had.

Furthermore, you still have not made a convincing case. Look at Bush's opposition and how much they have lied about already. Look at former presidents - hell, look at Bill Clinton. I'm not talking about is BJ, either. Look at any politician, really - remember California? Oh, yeah, I forgot; you wanted to keep him in power because he sided with your political views.

I have a warped sense of reality? No, I don't - I know reality. You just have a warped sense of morality.
Jan 22nd, 2004 02:43 PM
mburbank Well, yeah, when you put it that way, but he still could take FDR in a fight! FDR was SUCK, man! He didn't have no RESULTS! Yeah! Like Rutherord B. Hayes, man! That dude? Results KING! And Hoover? Man, they CALLED that guy Johnny Results and it wan't foir nothin' neither!
Jan 22nd, 2004 12:15 PM
Buffalo Tom Cliff, it's interesting that, in all your windblowing, you didn't directly address and refute Sspad's assertions. Instead, you try to bog down the discussion in a variation of the 'who's stronger, King Kong or Godzilla?' debate. So you don't deny that Bush has trampled on your constitution, that his proposed space program is a financial fiasco waiting to happen, that he dishonours the men and women in the military by ordering them to make the ultimate sacrifice while depriving their families of financial support, and that he's done nothing significant to encourage job growth, in fact overseeing the greatest number of lost jobs since the Depression?

The only claim you've argued against is that Bush lied to the American public about Iraq's WMD program, and it was a half-assed argument. To say that Bush didn't lie because he received faulty intelligence is flawed. Ultimate responsibilty for the conduct of any underling falls directly on the shoulders of a leader. All principled leaders know that. Even if it was faulty intelligence, Bush should have come out and publicly apologized for depending on such unreliable information. He's done nothing like that, to my knowledge; all I've read are brief mentions buried deep in articles that Bush admitted the intelligence he got was unreliable. If this situation is true, as you claim, then it's still a character failing the American people need to look hard at. This president seems eager to receive the kudos when something goes right, yet he has neither the humility nor the ethics to accept blame when the administration he constructed screws up.

However, we all know that the CIA submitted caveats expressing their misgivings about the reliability of all the intelligence reports they sent to the Oval Office prior to last year's invasion. It seems to me Bush did one of two things that led him to use the faulty intelligence in his argument for war. In the first scenario, he made the decision to willingly ignore the CIA for whatever reason; this points to a critical lack of good judgement, again another leadership failing. In the second scenario, he let the people in his inner circle of advisors at the White House convince him that the reports were nearly 100 % reliable. If this second scenario is true, then every American has to ask himself/herself whether he/she can trust a man who is so easily influenced by other people to go one way on a serious issue, when the evidence before him strongly points to the other way. Not to mention the issue of choosing a band of advisors whose analysis is faulty at best, if this second situation is true.

Your dismissive arrogance and stone-blind stupidity is a reflection of the arrogance and stupidity of the current American Administration you so futilely defend. It's no wonder that you have as warped a view of the world as you possess.
Jan 21st, 2004 09:47 PM
MEATMAN You are so fucking wrong thebiggameover!

We dropped two bigass bombs on Japan, not one.
Jan 21st, 2004 09:45 PM
Drew Katsikas
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebiggameover
Quote:
Originally Posted by The One and Only...
You could say that Japan attacked us, but - suprise! - if that were FDR's only motive, we would have attacked Japan.
so we didnt drop a big ass bomb on japan? just checking...
Bombing Japan was not FDR's decision.
Jan 21st, 2004 09:28 PM
MEATMAN Personally, I try to stay as far away from politics as possible. I keep thinking if I say something, it'll offend some "special interest" group. Or maybe it's because I'd rather not receive explosives via UPS.
Jan 21st, 2004 08:26 PM
thebiggameover
Quote:
Originally Posted by The One and Only...
You could say that Japan attacked us, but - suprise! - if that were FDR's only motive, we would have attacked Japan.
so we didnt drop a big ass bomb on japan? just checking...
This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:34 PM.

I-Mockery.com - Archive - Top

© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.