To quote Penn Jilette:
"I don't wanna sound like Mel Gibson's dad here, but we can't find any evidence of that. None. Really, none. Floods we find, but enslaved jews in Egypt? Nowhere outside of the [*beep*] Bible."*


That's a bit of a stretch - even the most negative reports don't get any further than 1 million deaths Saddam was responsible for, and that includes 500,000 Iraqis wo died in the war with Iran and those who died during the Gulf War. Source.*

<font size=0> * Penn & Teller's Bullshit, Season 2, episode 6.
** I don't necessarily imply that I agree with all of John F. Burns's calculations and conclusions (even though Saddam was a cruel dictator either way, period), just that this is one of the more extreme death counts I was able to find.</font>

[ 06-26-2004, 04:14 AM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

Well that's my sense of humour theory shot down in flames!

Once again, my point is wht can they use images of Hitler in their video, but cry foul when it was used by a Democrat on MoveOn.org? It's part of a pattern of hypocrisy.

Mark

Well, if you have clips or footage of Hitler in a political campaign ad, and in the same ad show clips or footage of your political opponenets, the intentions are clear. ;)

[ 06-26-2004, 07:56 AM: Message edited by: Stratos ]

Why didn't you follow you own advice? But NO you had to throw in that last part about: "it was never alive to begin with." The smilie doesn't cut it, it's just an attempt to diguise the below-the-belt parting shot as a joke. Why should anybody be willing to listen to any agruements posed, when there is a accusation about them not listening, meaning they are hard headed and close minded yet a parting shot has to be fired? If there is such and open mind why make a parting shot? If there is confidence in one's position why stoop to making a cheap parting shot? Just some questions to think about, if they are answered or not doesn't matter.

[ 06-26-2004, 11:59 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

For you Magik (and others as well if they wanna answer), what previous president has been a bad one (if any) and why ?

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
Jimmy Carter comes to mind as being the president with the singular worst record while in office in modern times. During his term the economy was truely aweful with double digit inflation, double digit unemployment, our military was cut and training was ignored to the point were the US could not even fly it's helicopters in dusty areas without having them crash....Economicly and Militarily he failed big time, he was unable to do anything about the Hostages in IRAN (and please do not bring up all those conspiracy theories about Reagan arranging that before he became president)

Lyndon Johnson was not great success either he was one of the direct causes of the mess the US Military was in in Vietnam, I think the two of them are without a doubt the two true failures while in office.

As matters of opinion on philosophical matters I think President CLinton was a bad president...Nuclear secrets being sold, Missile tech being sold to china and a complete failure to realize the significant threat terrorists posed for the nation....however he did manage some good things while in office...he didn't stop the GOP on their Welfare reform and also supported most of the GOP's contract with America...or at least didn't oppose it..and basicly took a hands off approach to the economy...so its hard to evaluate his goodness or badness as a president...(and really you need to wait 10 or 12 years for some things to come out to make a really informed decision as there are ALWAYS secrets involved that the press and public do NOT know about).

For winning the War and getting us out of the Depression Roosevelt was a good president...however he got us into a really bad situation we face now with too many people thinking welfare is a way of life...and HE is directly responsible for the Soviets posing as greast a threat to the world as they did since Against the advice of his security advisors he put Soviet Spies into positions of power in the government and allowed them access to our biggest military and technology secrets....the press used to really lambaste anyone brought this information up, but in 1990's secret government documents were released that proved beyond a doubt that those people were in FACT soviet spies...and Roosevelt had been told as much....so was he a good or bad president? I would say for building the Soviets into what they were by allowing Spies into the government....I think that makes him guilty of a serious crime.....so anyway....as for presidents before World War II...there were many bad ones..but I don't have my history notes handy to delve into to relate the hows and whys.</font>


</font>[/QUOTE]

Well that's my sense of humour theory shot down in flames! </font>[/QUOTE]<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
You have a sense of humor?</font>

And here I thought you of all people had at least some sense of humour...
Look, I don't *care* about debating abortion; I don't think I ever *really* debated it with someone in my entire life. I don't *care* about the tiresome and circular semantic nitpicking as to in what status the foetus is considered to be alive or not (I think that entire discussion is retarded to begin with, hence the remark). I may be pro-choice by default because I'm of the opinion that every person has to decide for themselves whether they think having an abortion is a moral thing to do or not, depending on the circumstances; but I'm not the kind of person to force my views on this particular matter onto others.
The remark was a playful, lighthearted joke. Nothing less, nothing more.

[ 06-26-2004, 01:29 PM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

Well that's my sense of humour theory shot down in flames! </font>[/QUOTE]<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
You have a sense of humor?</font> </font>[/QUOTE]you want him to get it out ?