95 Forum Posts by "Twinx0r"
Someone mind telling me what they think of my site on the DSM?
Oh, and.. Please pardon me, because I need to make a correction. There are mentions of recordings of private convos between Blair and the Prime Minister, but only DOCUMENTS of conversations between Blair and Bush.
Anyway, tell me what you think:
http://fapfap.org/
At 6/14/05 06:00 PM, PhysicsMafia wrote: and just who is goin to impeach and then bring them to court, the rest of the world couldnt stop them from going there, what makes u think they can punnish them?
I don't know how Britain impeaches their Prime Ministers, but in America, the House of Representatives calls for an independent investigation and the Senate runs the trial.
Oh, and.. One thing to clarify. When I say "replaced by a Democratic President", I mean IN THE NEXT ELECTION.
I've found the evidence that either the U.S. or U.K. could get, to impeach both Blair and Bush. And it's not the Downing Street memo.
I've been doing some research, and I came across an old story.
Apparently, documents in Iraq found that the Russians recorded private conversations between Bush and the Italian Prime Minister (Italy put out the bullshit intelligence about Niger's uranium), and also private conversations between Bush and Blair about the war in Iraq. The documents were dated March 3, 2002. (The same month as the Downing Street Memo)
The Russians also passed the intelligence along to Iraq. No one knows what's on these tapes, because Russia has officially denied it. Unofficially, however, I'm sure all of us can agree it's true (except for some Russians here, of course).
Well, Democrats have political cold feet about challenging the President, because they're worried that any investigation won't turn anything up (if all the documents are shredded or a partial judge is chosen, and so on). But if a Democrat was able to secretly meet with the Russian government and convince them to anonymously leak these tapes, they'd do it. Because it would guarantee that their biggest thorn, Bush, gets kicked out of office, and is replaced by a Democrat who is sympathetic to Russia. It would also be a huge boost to amount of Democrats in Congress, also being less critical of Russia. And, of course, the tapes don't prove that Russia gave the info to Iraq, necessarily. But it still would clearly implicate Bush, in the same way that the Watergate tapes implicated Nixon.
Here is a question for Conservatives: Why is Dan Rather more accountable than CBS?
With CBS, they were given forged documents by a National Guardsmen who also lied to them. But CBS's checking of the authenticity and correctness of the documents was poor, so they falsely claimed they were legitimate.
With the U.S. government, Bush had been repeatedly given false information, including forged documents about Niger's uranium. But the government's checking of the authenticity and correctness of the documents was poor, so they falsely claimed they were legitimate.
So...
Why is Rathers accountable, but the President is not? They're both identical situations. Rather (so far as we know) wasn't involved with CBS's fact-checking and Bush (so far as we know) wasn't involved with the FBI's and CIA's intelligence. And you'd think that the FBI, the CIA, and the President should be held to higher standards than Dan Rathers and CBS's fact-checking.
And why is Rathers accountable, but the President is not?
At 6/11/05 05:27 PM, EnergyClock wrote: I would like to know any many of you belive the science and religon don't need to contradict eachother. I believe Genesis is mainly metaphorical of what really happend and if you know enough about science and religon then you can see how they can go hand in hand.
No one believes science and religion conflict. They just argue over which takes greater predominance. Some people believe that if scientists prove something that proves their religious belief wrong, that the science is automatically flawed, in a way that is not yet determined. This isn't unreasonable, exactly, because many scientific experiments and ideas have been held to be true, but later disproven, like Freudian psychology. Even Piaget had some faulty experiments.
Others, however, believe that religion should be incorporated with modern science. They believe that no religious belief should ever contradict a scientific belief at all.
So, really. It's just about which you feel takes predominance:
If, when a scientific fact proves your religious belief wrong, should you:
1) Assume the science is wrong
2) Assume the religious belief is wrong
At 6/11/05 10:28 PM, Tyrant_Doomhammer wrote:At 6/11/05 07:15 PM, mofomojo wrote: yeah America is a democratic republic, where Canada is just a republicWrong. Canada is a Parliamentary Democracy.
Anway, America is technically a Federal Democratic Republic - Representitive, federal democracy so that you elect people to rule with limited power as opposed to direct mob-rule democracy (AKA, Platonian democracy).
Also called "participatory democracy."
And I don't know why you called it Platonian Democracy (if that's what they called it), because Plato lived in the time after Greece's participatory democracy had been replaced by the Roman Republic. And Plato, himself, advocated a Republic ruled by a "philosopher king", that lied to the public, if need be.
IllustriousPotentate and I debated this issue over AIM.
It's too long to post here, but I covered major points that defeat the idea that we should legalizing dueling.
http://fapfap.org/dueling.html
Fucking Jedi.
At 6/12/05 01:15 AM, capn_g wrote: Um, at what point was the definition of amorality called into question? What is being said is that concpets like morality and amorality aren't relevant to corporations because they don't operate with those terms in mind.
Amorality IS relevant to corporations, because everything in the entire world is either moral, immoral, or amoral. Corporations are neither moral, nor immoral, therefore they are amoral.
And the definition of amorality came into question when I said corporations are amoral, and in response, people made argumentative statements about corporations being amoral (which I've never disputed!)
Such as:
At 6/11/05 10:37 PM, Tyrant_Doomhammer wrote: No one says that corporations have to have morals. The purpose of a corporation is to make money for owners. That is the truth
At 6/11/05 10:37 PM, capn_g wrote: Corporations are about making money
I agree with those! I never disputed it! I asked Conservatives if they'd admit that corporations are amoral. In response, people told me it was!
Also, there's one point I forget to reply to.
At 6/11/05 10:40 PM, Tyrant_Doomhammer wrote: *Thanks for stating the libertarians and conservatives are neccesarilly the same or associated. Idiot.
They share the same pro-big business policies, idiot.
At 6/12/05 12:54 AM, _FLAGG wrote: My boss, at the bakery, is an uptight, neurotic cock. He bitches about things for no reason. But do you know what I say, when he comes down in my ass hard, for no reason? I say 'thank you sir', and 'I'm glad you showed me that, sir', and 'I really appreciate you're criticism, sir'.
And that directly conflicts with my morals. But, who gives a fuck? He signs my paychecks, so I do what I have to do.
Amoral people will always make more money than harshly moral people.
Welcome to capitilism.
I agree with you completely. Liberal reasoning for restricting companies is that companies are inherently amoral and will exploit the population for personal gain. Some Conservatives and Libertarians (influenced by Objectivism), however, claim that people in civilized societies are too inherently moral to do that, so regulation of companies is always, or almost always, bad.
At 6/12/05 12:37 AM, _FLAGG wrote: Fuck all that. You're a hypocrite.
On one hand, half of America bitches and moans and pisses in their panties about America not respecting other country's cultures.
And on the other hand, you bitch and moan and piss in your panties about Microsoft going out of their way to not offend other cultures.
So? That's what their country is, man. Just accept it, and stop being a hypocrite. You want Americans to respect other governments? Well that's what Microsoft is doing. You should be thankful that a big corporation is finally adhering to the concept of tolerating other countries.
I don't want the American government or Microsoft to pander to oppressive regimes. It's not "their country", it's the Chinese government's country.
As one person, on another forum put it:
"I am glad Microsoft is having to be subservient to someone. Now if only the EU wielded such power."
At 6/12/05 12:10 AM, Largo84 wrote: Hinduism makes the most scence out of all the other religions.
Krishna supposedly had over a thousand lovers. But he was fucking ugly and never got ANY of them pregnant.
Hindusim is full of shit. And I like meat. I'd butcher animals myself, if the government let me.
At 6/12/05 12:10 AM, Largo84 wrote: They belive that all the other religions belive in the same god,
but they are beliving the god in different forms.
Several religions believe that. Ba'hai teaches that and a lot of Wiccans claim to believe that.
This is the stuff that goes through my mind when Im high
Wow, you must've smoked some horrible shit. Because you aren't amusing and your typing isn't even that bad. Find a new dealer.
Jesus Christ, man. Even theliberals here are morons. That's really bad.
a·mor·al
adj.
1. Not admitting of moral distinctions or judgments; neither moral nor immoral.
2. Lacking moral sensibility; not caring about right and wrong.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=amoral
This BBS has text that's almost white on a background that's almost black. You have absolutely no excuse for misreading it, especially when I directed the question towards CONSERVATIVES.
At 6/12/05 12:37 AM, _FLAGG wrote: Fuck all that. You're a hypocrite.
On one hand, half of America bitches and moans and pisses in their panties about America not respecting other country's cultures.
And on the other hand, you bitch and moan and piss in your panties about Microsoft going out of their way to not offend other cultures.
Choose on side or the other. Or don't, and show yourself for what you really are.
It's not their fucking culture, you imbecile. The CHINESE PEOPLE don't give a fucking shit about seeing the words "freedom" and "democracy" on the screen. They aren't offended by freedom and democracy. It's the government, that's trying to stop separatists and rebels, as well as prevent the people from being envious of capitalism, the same way the USSR was.
Show myself for who I really am? OK. Here's a picture:
A picture of me for FLAGG
At 6/11/05 10:28 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: If you think it's a dumb thread, don't post. That's in the rules, genius boy.
Normally, I wouldn't. But since you're a moderator who also repeatedly locks threads, I feel obligated.
And it's not slippery slope, either, you pseudointellectual moron.
Slippery slope would be, "If we let them murder, then we might not have people to fill the jobs in the U.S. And if there's a lot more jobs than people, then everyone will choose the good jobs, and no one will pick up trash! So, if we legalize murder, we'll have a dirty country!"
What he said was SOME of the people who have family members that would murder are, without question, supported by the murderers. There's a complete difference. One is purely speculatory, one's making a statistical judgement based on fact. Don't use such terms if you don't know what they mean.
At 6/11/05 10:21 PM, FUNKbrs wrote:At 6/11/05 10:18 PM, fenrus1989 wrote: no because dueling is just stupid and a waste of life. your pretty much saying that if two adults want to murder or rape someone then it's okay. btw did you take into account families or children. what happens if there dad dies and the lose salary money.Rape? RAPE? HOW THE FUCK DO YOU GET RAPE OUT OF THIS?!
What kind of slippery slope blatantly logically false bullshit are you trying to pull on me here? If you're not going to even pretend to use logic in your arguments, don't bother expecting a reply.
Uhh. His logic, while poorly-typed, made perfect sense, dumbfuck.
Murder doesn't just affect the people who kill and are killed. It affects the families involved, both emotionally and financially. So, to protect the innocent people indirectly involved, murder should never be legal, in any form.
At 6/11/05 09:29 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: It was good enough for Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr who were members of the government. How come it's not good enough for us?
That was a myth.
If you're going to lock stupid threads, then don't start them, either.
http://news.moneycentral.msn.c...p;Date=20050610&ID=4884671
SO, CONSERVATIVES.. LIBERTARIANS...
WHATCHA THINK BOUT MICROSOFT NOW, HUH?!
Can you finally concede that corporations are amoral social structures?
Anyone who refuses to believe that should simply look at today's "Opinion" section:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/06/10/opinion/main700913.shtml
Not surprisingly, all of their articles are either politically-neutral or Conservative.
They bash Kerry by saying he's been desperately trying to stay in the national news, and ventures into "cuckoo clock territory", because of his statements that the Downing Street memo is important:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/06/10/opinion/main700913.shtml
They give some compliments to Hillary Clinton, but then say she doesn't really deserve any credit for her political accomplishments and that she secretly supports abortion:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/06/09/opinion/main700679.shtml
They criticize Kerry and Edwards for attacking the wealthy elite, while being wealthy themselves:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/06/06/opinion/meyer/main700011.shtml
And they say Howard Dean should be impeached:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/06/08/opinion/main700517.shtml
CBS? Liberal? Shut the fuck up!
A Conservative I know, in another forum, wrote this:
IT has always been my belief that the amount of proof from subjectives is justified not in the proof but by the person's beliefs. From the objective position proof has to be substantial enough to prove mens rea, the action in question actually happened, and that the action was illegal.
I'm going to use three cases of when a crime was committed by the president and analyze each to the best of my ability. I will use Nixon, Clinton, and Bush as they are seen as the "three liars" of American politics.
Richard Nixon platformed on a policy of honesty an openess. He had hundreds of "hippy protestors." When the Washington Post first broke the story, NO ONE believed it. First off the person confirming their information was a "shadow CIA informant." What the hell is that stuff, right? Imagine if I came out today with an article saying that an FBI member confirms that Elvis Pressley was a child molestor, would you believe it? Of course not, because it is so far from reality that it is almost impossible to believe. So Watergate comes out and near the end of Nixon's term a formal investigation is announced. To avoid impeachment he resigns and admits guilt. At that point only did everyone actually believe that Nixon did it.
In our second case we have Clinton. Clinton was a very liberal man. He played jazz, blues, and recognized by many as a "man of the people." As governor there were murmurs of him having sexual relations with other women. But his wife was actually very attractive woman. The list of people they named as involved, were not. It was so far from reality that only his political enemies pushed it. It wasn't until he was at the height of his power and nearing the end of his term did they push it again. They named out two women, Monika Lewinsky and Paula Jones. Neither of these women once again were very beautiful, and yet both of them made the claim. They proposed a lot of evidence that was shifty at best. One was a phonecall between Clinton and Lewinsky which was shown by a sound specialist to be a modified, as well showing how anyone can imprint the voice patterns of any phone call taken out of context on a tape. In a trial Lewinsky told everything, that was confirmed by many sources. But, just like Nixon what was said was only confirmable by very shifty sources. People only believed it when Clinton came out and said that he had an affair. Of course not everyone believed he actually had an affair as many will still say he was only having "oral sex" which isn't actually "sleeping with that woman."
Our third case is George W. Bush. Bush stated that he worked with the information that he had at the time and he could have never known the information was not good. A case has now been built to show opposite. A couple of men who were in that administration left it or were fired and came out a couple of months later with books explaining their experiences and building up a circumstantial unconfirmable case about Bush and the CIA. Many made claims that he baited the CIA to botch up the intelligence, nothing could back this up yet. The M16 reform could be the thing to bring him down though. Several incrimidating (of Tony Blaire) memos and notes have come present. Considering that both M16 and the CIA have been declared 'faulty and broken" though it is hard to even see it as confirmed evidence either (because both are known to be faulty and thus cannot truly be trusted).
My question to Republicans is, what measure will it take for you to believe that Bush did it?
To Democrats, is there anyone who is reliable enough anymore to actually confirm it?
At 6/10/05 09:55 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote: I'm responding to twinkies' stupid post in the thread that was locked.
You start with this:
Incorrect. You are clearly ignorant.
I never said the memo wasn't real. I'm just saying that it doesn't prove that Bush lied. It proves that the guy who wrote the memo thought that the intelligence of the Iraqi war was being fixed. That's a funny assumption, since British intelligence had more faulty intelligence than we did. It doesn't even prove that Bush sought out to manipulate Iraqi Intelligence, even if he did. There's no proof.
It was not an essay, dumbfuck. It was a secret document, ordered by the Foreign Secretary, and drafted by the aide. It was a summary of their discussions. And in their discussions, it was the Chief of MI-6 who said that after visiting Washington D.C., he learned that the U.S. was falsifying intelligence.
[b]CNN'S COVERING THE DOWNING STREET MEMO, AT 11:30 A.M. ON SUNDAY![/b]
http://www.afterdowningstreet....thread&order=0&thold=0
U.S. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., yesterday accused the Bush administration of "dishonesty, lack of candor, and lack of planning" in launching war on Iraq. (That's [i]two[/i] influential Senators, Kerry and Kennedy, speaking on it now).
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=art
icle&sid=174&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
Military families in Britain have also taken their case to the International Criminal court, attempting to get the Prime Minister Blair put on trial.
http://www.afterdowningstreet....thread&order=0&thold=0
There's also summary of all the current information and current events with the Downing Street memo, at:
http://www.afterdowningstreet....thread&order=0&thold=0
...As well as information on how to protest. I'll be in Washington D.C. on Monday, protesting outside the National Press Club award luncheon, where Cheney is giving an award for Journalism.
Okay. I am reading it now.
Alright. It was in response to Zen444's comment, "Now, the US is at it's weakest. There troops are in IRAQ. If we were to harness all our powers(Like Nuclear bombs and soldiers), we could wipe out that horrible country."
"I hope im not late, but I haven't heard of use nukeing Iraq you fucking moron, we are slowly sending SOME troops to Iraq... How 'bout you tell YOUR country that you turd."
Ok. Yeah. You're still retarded. For thinking that he was serious, and................
aslo 4 haveing teh grammor of a n00b!!!!!!!!1
HOW BOUT YOU TELL ME YOUR COUNTRY THAT YOU TURD!!!!!!!!!
Having a higher level doesn't mean you're better than me. It just means you've been here longer. With that kind of attitude and intelligence, I feel sorry for the people who have had to deal with you.
And therefore, on Newgrounds, I unofficially dedicate June 10th, as "Ignorance Day", in rememberance of the all decent threads hijacked and all the good conversations lost, as a result of MORONS LIKE YOU.
Now, for a moment of silence. Wait, not you, Iamrecognized. Oh, not you, either, The_Toller. Definitely not you, FAB0L0US. As a matter of fact, this moment of silence is for Evil_Marksmanship only. Permanently.
Now STFU and get a clue. So that your level 9 badge IS NO LONGER TAINTED BY THE STAIN OF YOUR IDIOCY.
At 6/10/05 05:15 PM, Evil_Marksmanship wrote:At 6/9/05 05:27 PM, Zen444 wrote: In response to the "Should the US Take over the world?"I hope im not late, but I haven't heard of use nukeing Iraq you fucking moron, we are slowly sending SOME troops to Iraq... How 'bout you tell YOUR country that you turd.
Now, the US is at it's weakest. There troops are in IRAQ. If we were to harness all our powers(Like Nuclear bombs and soldiers), we could wipe out that horrible country.
DOES ANYONE KNOW HOW TO READ?!?!?!??!?!??!!
Jesus Christ, man. You people are such.. fucking.. mongoloids, man, that I'm starting to believe that neoeugenics.com is actually correct, and Americans ARE getting more stupid, by the minute.
At 6/10/05 04:07 PM, _carnie_ wrote:At 6/10/05 03:04 PM, Twinx0r wrote: No, it doesn't, you imbecile. The National Debt is the amount of U.S. government bonds that the government sells to foreign countries (with interest), and we sell them because Republicans like to cut taxes, then borrow large amounts of money to pay for "accidental" expenditures. I'm being somewhat facetious, as Democrats sell bonds too, but Republicans like doing it at a lot more, historically, as they always want to cut taxes.Tsk, tsk tsk...
What's with the name calling? Does it make you feel smart and tough to toss around petty insults with the protection of the internet's anonymity?
Oh well, I digress...
Anyway- forgive the outdated stats, but if you pull up any impartial debt clock- I say impartial because there's a shitload of liberal and conservative leaning sites that skew the numbers to their side- you'll see the breakdown of the national debt. Here is a link that I've just found- although outdated (these percentages are from 1998), it does show the breakdown percentage-wise of the national debt. You'll notice that US Savings Bonds account for 3.3%, and Commercial banks, Savings & Loans & credit unions account for 4.2%. Again, this is as of December 1998, but it accurately depicts the make-up of the national debt.
If you'd like to have an intelligent discussion, we can do that- if you want to try and make yourself look like an ignorant, immature, partisan, egotistical asshole- you've got that covered.
Now, if it turns out that I am incorrect or mistaken, then so be it.
http://www.answers.com/national%20debt
"The noun national debt has one meaning:
Meaning #1: the debt of the national government (as distinguished from the debts of individuals and businesses and political subdivisions)"
http://slate.msn.com/id/1006352/
"When the government spends more than it collects in taxes, it covers the shortfall by issuing debt in the form of Treasury bills, notes and bonds, and U.S. savings bonds. This debt is purchased by, for example, individuals, or pension funds, or foreign investors."
Someone who would say, "oh if we pay off teh natoinal debt, we all hav 2 pay credit cards 2!!! o shet!!!", deserves to be pwned, as do you for defending his infantile argument, that would recieve much laughter, in the prensence of individuals who can read at a grade-level higher than a second grade. All because I am a Liberal. Furthermore, you misread the article, that you, yourself, posted, defended his absolute nonsense with more nonsense, and then call me ignorant?
From the site you quoted:
"[b]Q: To whom do we owe all this money? Who owns the Debt?[/b]"
Learn to fucking read and don't speak unless you know what you're talking about, and people like me won't [i]need[/i] to insult you. I only do it out of being annoyed. Offering replies that are "intelligent" and "worth posting" are part of the BBS rules.
At 6/9/05 06:43 PM, _carnie_ wrote: You all do realize that the national debt is more than just the government's debt? right? The US national debt contains my credit cards, your student loans, your grandma's mortgage, my neighbor's daughter's braces... Forcing america to 'pay off it's national debt' would involve each and every one of you americans who bash this country to immediately pay off all of your debt at the same time. Everything. All debt in the country.
No, it doesn't, you imbecile. The National Debt is the amount of U.S. government bonds that the government sells to foreign countries (with interest), and we sell them because Republicans like to cut taxes, then borrow large amounts of money to pay for "accidental" expenditures. I'm being somewhat facetious, as Democrats sell bonds too, but Republicans like doing it at a lot more, historically, as they always want to cut taxes.
If the U.S. were invaded the "National debt" wouldn't entirely apply. Theoretically, the invading force would take over all of our assets, and it would be up to that invading force to decide whether or not to take over our debts to foreign countries, or not. To avoid foreign enemies, they'd probably just take over our assets and.. yeah..
But no, no one could attack the U.S. right now. With China Vs. the U.S., it would be fairly tough to say. But I guarantee you that if China had at least one decent, European ally versus the U.S., they'd win.
Realistically, though, the NATO Alliance is strong, and our alliance with the European Union (sans France and Italy) is strong. And I think that even Italy would come to our aid if we were attacked, provided that the attacker wasn't one of their allies, although I'm skeptical whether France would get involved.
At 6/2/05 09:23 PM, Profanity wrote: Considering the fact that Bush is practically in bed with the Saud Royal Family, he's doing the best he can to keep us from having to purge our parking lot driveways of those pesky Hummer H2s and Lincoln Navigators.
I know. In so many pictures, Bush is walking around, holding hands with the the crown prince. You'd think it was his boyfriend, with him holding hands like that.. I bet the prince must go back to Saudi Arabia and brag, "Hehe. Ze stupid infidel holds my hand, like a little bitch! He's my BITCH!"
Bush plays "grab-ass" with the Saudis
He looks rather effeminate here
Another picture of Bush's effeminance, that only comes out when the Saudis are in town
This one surprisingly looks NORMAL
Bush is the Saudi's taxi-driver
Shaking hands with the Saudis a second time
At 6/9/05 08:09 PM, TimeFrame wrote: Great, more memos. Like the ones used against bush that were later disproven...interesting.
Blair has confirmed the authenticity of the memo, although somewhat subtly.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4503061.stm
At 6/9/05 09:42 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote: No leader wrote or approved that memo. It was one guys perspective. Doesn't prove shit. Sorry charlie.
Incorrect. You are clearly ignorant.
#1. Foreign Policy Advisor, David Manning, ordered the memo to be written.
#2. The memo was written, as a summary of their discussions, by Manning's Aide, Matthew Rycroft.
#3. In the memo, it was the head of MI-6, who said that "Military action was now seen as inevitable", and, "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
#4. It was the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS), who also said that the U.S. was planning military action.
#5. It was the Foreign Secretary that said that it seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided, and that the case was thin.
#6. It was the Attorney General that said that the case of the Iraqi war would not be legal, without WMDs.
#7. Blair confirmed its authenticity, although rather subtly. No one has denied its authenticity, either.
For any non-Brits or ignorant people in general, here is a breakdown of the people mentioned in the letter.
Individuals who put out the memo:
Foreign Policy Advisor, David Manning, who endorsed the memo
Matthew Rycroft, Manning's Aide who wrote the memo
Individuals who recieved the memo:
Defence Secretary, Geoff Hoon
Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw
Attorney-General, Lord Goldsmith
Cabinet Secretary, Sir Richard Wilson
Chair of the Joint Intelligence Committee, John Scarlett (currently head of MI-6)
Ex-Director of GCHQ, Francis Richards
Chief of Defence Staff (CDS), Admiral Sir Michael Boyce
Head of MI-6 ("C"), Sir Richard Dearlove (resigned in 2003)
Head of Defence Staff, Jonathan Powell
Director of Political & Government Relations, Sally Morgan
Head of Strategy, Alastair Campbell
I believe the Conservatives have been zinged again. This time, a double-zing.
Twinx0r: 3
Conservatives: 0
At 6/9/05 07:05 PM, darknezz1 wrote: You didn't really delete the porn you're talking about.
I didn't know about some of the stuff you said, could you get a news article?
Yes, I did. As for the news articles...
Columnist, Maggie Gallagher, was paid $21,500 to write a magazine article and make brochures for the Bush Administration's marriage initiative. Around the time, she also wrote two stories about it in her column. She never notified anyone that she'd recieved money, although they've never been able to 'prove' that she was given money to write the two columns.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36545-2005Jan25.html
http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/27/gallagher/
Armstrong Williams, a political commentator on television, was paid a quarter of a million dollars to talk about how great Bush's "No Child Left Behind" program is, despite the fact that it's been grossly ineffective due to lack of funding.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/w...1-06-williams-whitehouse_x.htm
With Tom DeLay, I'm surprised that you EVEN NEED a story on him, because the Republican Party has been pretty much just burying him. I don't believe that hardly anyone disputes that he's a crook. Take a look at the Wiki on Tom DeLay.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Delay
On the issue of Bush watering down the global warming research, hiring an OIL LOBBYIST as the head of White House council on environmental quality... Specifically, two examples are that he put "significant" and "fundamental" before "uncertainties" about climate research in one report. He also crossed out an entire paragraph on the projected reduction of mountain glaciers from warming, writing that it was "straying from research strategy into speculative findings/musings", despite the fact that he has absolutely no scientific education, whatsoever.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g8/story/0,13365,1502487,00.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8137646/
Bush's "town-meetings" have also been with screened audiences. Not any could attend, but rather, they distributed tickets to specific constituents. The Daily Show on Comedy Central marked the hilariously stark contrast between Bush's town-meetings, and Blair's town-meeting not too long ago, where anyone could attend, and many young, British students asked Blair very difficult questions, such as, "You LIED! Why did you LIE to us?!"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10969-2005Mar29.html
Lastly, the Bush administration admits to starting up an office for political propaganda in 2001, for psychological-warfare in Iraq called, "The Office of Strategic Influence." Secretary of State, Donald Rumsfeld, claims that the office was closed, but made several ambiguous comments that the closure was merely superficial (a name change), and that it is still being used right now. One retired Air Force Colonel released a rather large report, claiming that the false intelligence for Iraq was not accidental, but orchestrated. The news that the mainstream media covers also has to first be released by intelligence agencies and the military. So, he made up a list of 50 stories in the media, which were either fabricated or specifically released in order to influence America's view of the war in Iraq.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Strategic_Influence
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/2003-November/011397.html
At 6/9/05 10:32 AM, Maus wrote: You have child porn on your computer.
I don't know how old those girls are, and besides, I deleted it.
But here's the deal...
First of all, both of the people involved were Pakistani-Americans, the father is like 47, and his 23-year-old son was the one who reported that his father took him to terrorist camps.
The claims made are also rather extravagant. Claiming to have practiced shooting targets with pictures of Bush? The fact is: If he came back, there would have been some sort of specific plan. I don't believe that an ice cream truck driver would fly to Pakistan, for "terrorist training", so he could come back, with some vague, extremely ambiguous idea of what to do. If it was terrorist-related, I believe that there would've been specific targets, or a specific plot. The terrorists wouldn't have told him, "Ok, now! Go hit a hospital or a food store!" So far, all he's been charged with is lying to Federal authorities.
At the very least, even if he is guilty of being a terrorist, there's more to the story we aren't being told, as the FBI clearly cut him a deal. Because if he was a terrorist, they'd have charged him with more than just lying to Federal authorities. I also believe he was interrogated by the FBI as well. No one is required to take a polygraph, and they usually aren't admissable in court, because it tests nervousness just as much as it tests lying.
People better watch out! The terrorists are sending ice cream truck drivers to attack "large food stores"! :o
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=8741905
Does this make absolutely any sense to anyone else? For some reason, I refuse to believe that an American-born man of Pakistani descent would travel all the way to Pakistan, to train to be a terrorist, only to come back and have his son write the FBI a convenient, little affadavit.
I believe that Bush is abusing the FBI, which is the entire reason why both the Director of the FBI and the Director of the CIA resigned since Bush was elected in 2000. With the PATRIOT Act's renewal coming closer, this bizarre story is clearly politically motivated. The majority of terrorist crimes averted by the FBI go unreported. As we get nearer to the vote on the PATRIOT Act, expect them to start reporting plenty more of them, as well as having the terrorist threat level go up to orange.
I mean, really. So far, Bush's HHS secretary was caught using tax-money for political propaganda, his party's Senate Majority Leader (Tom DeLay) has a laundry list of investigations for improper use of campaign funds, and just recently, it was discovered that the head of the White House Council on Environmental Quality was a lobbyist for the oil companies, and also was creatively editing scientific reports on global warming... With all of that stuff, I wouldn't be surprised if Bush turns out to be another Nixon. Nixon was Republican too, you know. I just hope that, this time, we actually have a deep throat.
