Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 6/15/05 05:09 PM, MembrsOfBushWhackers wrote: "For the last several days I have seen Internet and tabloid rumors relating to me and Senator John Kerry."

Those Internet Tabloid Rumorsshe's talking about is the Drudge Report.
Obvious.

Prove it.

The difference is Drudge said Kerry was going to pick Hillary where as other news outlets just talked about all the possibilities.

Drudge referred to it as intense speculation. His source was the one who said it was a sure thing. See for yourself.

I make a point to not even look unless the source is credible. I don't look at the washingtontimes.com, abortionismurder.com, or any other propaganda sites used as sources here.

If something is true, it is true, no matter where it came from. What you are doing is called ignoring reality.

At 6/15/05 03:08 PM, MembrsOfBushWhackers wrote: No, he wouldn't. He's just some dude with a website. He can post whatever crap he wants, he has no real credibility. Everyone knows what Drudge posts is gossip and not fact. Last year he was trying to allege Kerry had an affair, which of course was not true.

He did not personally allege anything; he merely reported it. February 12, 2004 he broke the story with this article. Take special note of the part that says: A serious investigation of the woman and the nature of her relationship with Sen. John Kerry has been underway at TIME magazine, ABC NEWS, the WASHINGTON POST, THE HILL and the ASSOCIATED PRESS, where the woman in question once worked.

If he had an agenda to fry Kerry then explain why on February 16, 2004 he linked to this article.

There was no evidence Kerry would pick Hilary, the only people who thought about that possibility (as fact) were gossipers like Drudge.

Both CNN and Fox News ran hour-long segments about the different Democratic possible veep picks - funny thing was how CNN included Bill Clinton. The New York Daily Times and the Christian Science Monitor also ran articles talking about Hillary as a veep pick. And, outside of wires, those are just the periodicals I read and watch!

No, it's not. The Washington Times is a blatently conservative piece of garbage owned by a man who wears a crown, and considers himself the messiah. He believes he has reformed Hitler and Stalin in the spiritual world and they call him humanity's savior.

""Fifteen years ago, when the world was adrift on the stormy waves of the Cold War, I established The Washington Times to fulfill God's desperate desire to save this world."
Sun Myung Moon (R - Bat Shit Insane)

Everyone knows about that stuff; you missed the point completely. The news is still accurate and therefore valid. Unless you disagree with what is written in that article?

At 6/15/05 12:25 PM, MembrsOfBushWhackers wrote: I've seen him openly admit that like 70% of the crap he gets from his sources are not true.

Are you kidding me? Next time before you post something a friend of a friend told you, go through this easy reasoning guide!

1) Does it make sense? In this case, if Matt Drudge "openly admitted" that "like" 70% of his information from sources is not true, then he would more than likely lose hits to his website and people would no longer buy his book. So why would he do it?

2) Can you find it on Google? Oh yeah, and you have to find it on a "real" and "good" news source.

3) Did you misinterpret it? All journalists get a lot of bogus tips. What matters is if they publish it or not. And, like I said before, considering the scrutiny Drudge gets, if he published something blantantly erroneous, he would get jumped on by the press.

Last year he said he was sure Hillary Clinton would be Kerry's VP pick.

He was not the only one.

Ahhhhhhhhh! Run! Democrats! They have no power whatsoever, yet we can blame them for everything that goes wrong!

Not exactly. They do have the power to do nothing at all. I hope The Washington Times is a "real" source.

Anyone want to tell me what is actually wrong with having national debt? Unless, of course, you have a fear of big numbers I do not see what is wrong.

At 6/15/05 01:56 PM, TheShrike wrote: Well, that settles it. Logic and Reason:1, Right-Wing Fundamentalist Christianity:0.

What's wrong? HAVE YOU NEVER HEARD OF A MIRACLE!?!?!?!?

At 6/14/05 11:16 PM, Jimsween wrote: I'm not sure too many people here would consider the drudge report a good source. There should be at least one legit news outlet that has seen this, if it was real.

Now you change the criteria from "real" to "good." Forget it, you're not worth the trouble.

He's not going to write and seem not offended, that defeats the purpose of him writing. And 'perhaps' being neutral isn't going to sway you from meh to I hate kerry bush is great. His motives are pretty clear, we know he really likes bush and really dislikes kerry, so you can't really be sure he was offended, he could very likely just be using a political ploy.

You can make all the conjectures you like, but what matters is what is written. What I gave you was a simple cause-effect relationship between what Kerry said and the consequences of his saying it. Quit playing stupid.

I think you covered all his problems with that blanket accusation. Media= Iraq war, ratins, social security Democrats=ratings, social security

I did not blame the problems of the Iraq war on the media... I said the media is ignoring Iraq. Why? Because it's not selling anymore. I did blame part of the ratings problems on the media for ignoring Iraq. I never made any connection between the media and Social Security.

I absolutely blame the Dems for the problems plaguing Social Security reform. The Democratic leadership is REFUSING to budge on the President's plan and at the same time REFUSING to provide an alternative, and it has been almost two months now!

You seem to like Howard Dean. On May 22nd this year, he said on Meet the Press, "That's why we don't come up with a plan, because whatever plan we come up with, the President is just going to say, 'Oh, we're not going to do that, we're not going to do this.'" Gotta love that guy.

And since the Dems refuse to do anything at all, it makes the President look bad, despite the fact that he is doing everything he can.

What other problems of his havent you blamed on the democrats and the media?

Illegal immigration? Job loss? Trade imbalance with China? Increasing numbers of AIDS infections?

At 6/14/05 07:37 PM, Jimsween wrote: Uhh yeah sure, my point is not one real news source can back up these quotes.

And I suppose that depends on your definition of "real news source." I think the accepted definition is one that provides accurate news - and considering the scrutiny Drudge gets, it is hard to believe he would screw up without getting pounced on.

So then it's not really a consequence, since he was clearly doing it to support Bush rather than because he was genuinely offended.

Who are you to question his motives? I think he was genuinely offended, and the text supports that assessment. Afterall, wouldn't you be upset if someone undercut your nation's contributions? Perhaps he was undecided or neutral until that comment. If that is true, then certainly John Kerry, who boasted about how foreign leaders wanted him to win, certainly paid the consequence of his comment when a respect leader of an allied nation slams him like that.

Okay, so not just the democrats fault, also paritally the media's fault.

And also not the source of all his problems, just his dip in ratings... unless you think his only problem is low ratings.

At 6/14/05 07:05 PM, Jimsween wrote: It would most certainly seem that there is, but all I see it on is things like the drudge report and blogs for bush.

It is old news. Most of the articles those blogs linked to are now gone. But, by the way, Drudge rocks.

And at that, it seems very suspiscious that the Polish president would use this as an oppourtunity to Insult Kerry.. and praise Bush?

Maybe he supported Bush's reelection? Imagine that!

It's no red herring, I'm showing a precedent. There is a precedent that our leaders can say things like that irregardless of the consequences.

I just showed you consequences.

"I would attribute that to the Iraq media blackout and the Dems cockblocking Social Security reforms."

"I think you would see a much higher approval rating if people had a better idea of what was going on. As it is now, it looks like Bush is doing absolutely nothing."

"I said they were just as believeable as someone saying all of Bush's problems are the democrats fault."

At 6/14/05 06:28 PM, Jimsween wrote: Did it really? The only person I heard claim that were republicans.

"POLISH PRESIDENT SLAMS KERRY AFTER DEBATE SNUB"

There is more where that came from, but I am sure you know how to use Google, too.

The democrats are not the first to use generalizations. The republicans have often said what it is Liberals and Democrats are using generalizations.

I am pretty sure we are talking about Howard Dean. I am not here to defend Republicans. Nice try though; I do admire those red herrings.

I didn't say they were appropriate, I said they were just as believeable as someone saying all of Bush's problems are the democrats fault.

But no one said that. Quit building straw men out of my arguments. I said his approval ratings are understandably low because of the aforementioned logical factors.

At 6/14/05 06:33 AM, MembrsOfBushWhackers wrote: Dean said the Republicans are a white christian party. 84% of Republicans votes come from white christians. I don't see the problem.

Exactly the problem. Remember when Kerry was running and made comments about how we were alone in the war in Iraq and we had no help? That little generalization upset many people, especially foreign leaders who had invested not only millions of dollars in money and supplies, but also the lives of their countrymen.

Lashing out in anger-filled, bitter tirades obviously has not helped in the past and it will not help Dean or the Democratic party now. Hasty generalizations that undercut 16% - if that is in fact true (I could find no hard numbers) - is not going to win any votes. Generalizations are deliberately deceptive, i.e. lies, and are just as dangerous as exaggerations, misstatements, misrepresentations, and all its other counterparts not indicative of the whole truth.

The bottom line is his comments were inappropriate, and trying to excuse them is disgusting.

At 6/14/05 01:56 AM, Jimsween wrote: The republican party is for white people, and that the republicans have never had working jobs.

Obviously that is not entirely true. It is a demeaning generalization, and it is one that people, other than hard left dems, will not take lightly.

At 6/13/05 06:44 PM, Jimsween wrote: Not any more than what Dean said.

And what would that be?

At 6/13/05 02:06 PM, Jimsween wrote: Just the kind of response I would have expected.

But valid nonetheless.

At 6/13/05 04:21 AM, Jimsween wrote: It seems to be working. Bush's approval rating is the lowest ever and the republicans haven't been able to get anything done.

I would attribute that to the Iraq media blackout and the Dems cockblocking Social Security reforms. According to an article in the Washington Times:

The poll by independent pollster John Zogby for the Cato Institute, which is being released today, found that when voters understood the benefits of personal investment accounts, including a better financial rate of return than the current system, the Bush plan was supported by 52 percent of Americans and opposed by 40 percent.

I think you would see a much higher approval rating if people had a better idea of what was going on. As it is now, it looks like Bush is doing absolutely nothing.

At 6/7/05 10:35 PM, smeagol1 wrote: well in just saying that it should be a job because many people in the world have intrests in this study.so why not make it a job?

I am sure many people consider it their "job."

At 5/14/05 01:29 AM, Hyper_Child wrote: I HATE THE USA...so when im out of college im moving to canada.....where there are beavers, maple syrup, and weed in coffee shops

Good riddance.

At 5/15/05 07:48 PM, Proteas wrote: I'm more apt to believe something she says about our political future in this country than some random pundit on CNN.

Yup, that's my girl!

At 5/14/05 11:15 PM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote: people like us.

No one really likes you; you're just inconsequential so no one bothers with you.

At 5/13/05 01:52 AM, MoralLibertarian wrote: Let's see...yeah, he sounds like a good pick too. Governors are always a good choice.

Yeah, they are like mini presidents.

Actually, governors have the highest chance of winning the primaries. But, then again, westerners have the lowest chance.

At 5/13/05 01:14 AM, MoralLibertarian wrote: How about Representative Tom Tancredo of Colorado?

How about Governor Bill Owens of Colorado? He is the best governor around today and by far the best Colorado has ever seen.

At 5/12/05 09:56 PM, FAB0L0US wrote: And if you are realy a libertarin I dont understand how you could support him. HUGE defecits. HUGE increase in goverment. Hes not exactly the poster boy of small goverment.

He got results. Look at what happened to the economy and our military strength during his time in office. The man was a genius.

At 5/3/05 02:42 AM, TovaryshIvan wrote: Obviously they are going to have more accumulated wealth, technology and resources than any other empire previous to it. Because this is the 21st century we have the capability to draw on much more resources, and in larger quantities. They couldn't amass such wealth back then anyways, And obviously with the technology.
That statement is just a complete dumbass obvious statement.

That does not mean it is not important and a good point to bring up. People often cite history to predict America's eventual downfal, but they leave out factors like that.

At 4/27/05 04:12 AM, altanese_mistress wrote: Why would "power to the people" be good?

Did you completely miss American history in school?

At 4/25/05 09:15 PM, altanese_mistress wrote: And I did not say I wanted to see the Soviet Union's greatness reborn; I want to see Russia's greatness reborn. I want the feared and respected Russia that Tsar Peter the Great built. That Tsarina Catherine the Great loved more then anything. That Vladimier Lenin lead into the 20th century.

You mean an oppressive, corrupted, imperialist totalitarian state? Yeah, sounds great.

At 4/25/05 05:05 AM, altanese_mistress wrote: And with the creation of the atomic bomb, man made his own means of destruction. Yes, very helpful indeed.

Or is it just the opposite? With the advent of the atomic bomb, not only did we pave the way to nuclear energy and other useful applications, but also the means to end all major wars. Suddenly the leaders of the world are forced to solve their problems outside of war because they realize how easily it could deteriorate into a nuclear war, thus, at the least, probably ravaging their nation. Look at history and find all the erroneous, petty, and outright bogus reasons nations have warred and billions of innocents have been killed. The atomic bomb is the great equalizer that prevents this senseless bloodshed.

At 4/25/05 03:38 AM, altanese_mistress wrote: If numbers mean nothing then how come time and time again poorly armed dissedents have been able to overcome great militarys? The Marxists were armed with torches and farm tools against a modernized army and they still won the Russian Revolution.

The Bolsheviks only won because of two reasons. First, and most importantly, they had the support of the people. The opposition did not have widespread support and were crippled by being limited to areas where they had support, mainly Moscow, and lack of supplies. Second, the opposition was poorly led, disorganized, and unable to coordinate. If the opposition had support of the people the Bolsheviks would have won following a bloody battle. If the opposition had better leadership and communication, it would have been a Bolshevik bloodbath and no amount of numbers would have helped.

Same goes for all sorts of revolutions and wars. How could the Japanese have been so deadly from 1900-1945 when they were using outdated weaponry the whole time?

What are you talking about? The Japanese had one of the most powerful navies in the world and, by World War II, a formidable air force and very well trained army. Besides, Japan has anything but numbers on its side. In the Sino-Japan Wars (wars between Japan and China), in particular the one in 1937, I think somewhere around 30 million Chinese were killed. Despite the Chinese having a huge numerical advantage they lost to Japan.

What matters most is numbers and will to fight. America won most pacific battles, but if they had invaded the Japanese Isles instead of dropping the atomic bomb (like cowards)

If anything I guess you could call the Japanese cowardly for surrendering. Creating and dropping the atomic bomb did so many good things for the world.

they would have gotten the crap kicked out of them.

A million American lives were estimated to be lost in a land invasion of Japan. That is not exactly staggering and would not have changed the end results of the war except for the body count, monetary cost, and time wasted. Like I said, creating and dropping the bomb was in the best interest of everyone in the world.

At 4/24/05 04:47 PM, ikasu7 wrote: Russia hates China if Russia helped anyone it would be us

Not quite.

At 4/24/05 03:03 AM, TovaryshIvan wrote: crap

Read: Straw Man Fallacy.

At 4/19/05 11:03 PM, TovaryshIvan wrote: I'am not saying you do it all the time buddy, There are people that say that sort of shit all the time. Ignorant, arogant Americans most likely like yourself.

I am far from ignorant, and not so arrogant, but I do know my country is far from "pathetic."

For your smart ass 'pinko' comment.
Good one there cappy pig.

I thought it better than "moron."

At 4/19/05 09:44 PM, TovaryshIvan wrote: All this if we don't like you we will just bomb you shit.

Yeah, because we do that all the time. Everyone carries a bomb on them and launches it at whoever they do not like. Hell, when I was three I launched my first bomb on the playground at a kid that beat me in handball.

Wake up you morons, And stop glorifying the pathetic country you live in.

Shut up, pinko.