watch the clip, its self explanotory
http://bushin30seconds.com/view/01_small.shtml
btw u need quicktime

boy that really is anti-bush.. it really pierces the heart in that one..

I can't wait till the next election! Hopefully those with the right common sense will vote Bush off!

*sniff* that really hurts...*sniff* i agree with slythe BUSH sould be kicked out or at least voted out

<font color=skyblue>I may be misreading some of your posts...does anyone not realize that the footage is fake?


</font>

[ 01-19-2004, 01:01 PM: Message edited by: Larry_OHF ]

yeah we know, we know....well i know yet it still pierces my heart to see that, there is such a possibility..

<font color=skyblue>What is sad is that there really are countries where their leaders allow exactly what you see here to happen. </font>

you lot all seem to think it means bush would have children working (really young). to me it looks like its saying that it is the childeren of today who will pay off the debt tomorrow. aka, when they grow up :rolleyes:

well, i know its not real, but just the possibility of that hurts. Thats what i mean.

<font color=skyblue>There is no "possibility" in the United States of children working like you see in that video. Zero Alpha made a true summary of what the vid portrayed...the children of today will suffer the mistakes of the older generation in the tomorrow. That is true for all countries and all families in the world, as it has always been. The rising generation will always have to bury the dead and then clean up after them. We are always improving and learning better ways to do things.</font>

[ 01-19-2004, 02:07 PM: Message edited by: Larry_OHF ]

actually, Zero Alpha is right. The older generation has to make way for the new generation. The new generation will either suffer or prosper because of the action of the older generation. A repeated cycle if i may say so.

But, no matter what, bush has to voted out during the next election. America has already suffered enough from bush.

[ 01-19-2004, 02:18 PM: Message edited by: The Fallen One ]

Is anyone really stupid enough to get the message from this ad that kids will have to be put to work, watch it agian, as many times as you have to until you understand that the message is that todays kids in the US will have to work harder and have a lower standards of living thanks to a Bush.

And I have to quote Larry
"We are always improving and learning better ways to do things."

That is one of the "funniest" sentence I have read all this year.
We are still fighting wars.
We are still polluting the planet and squandering it's limited resources for very little gain
We have no solutions to overpopulation and world hunger.
People freedom is being limited, everyone is a suspect, big brother is everywere. But it's okey because we have "reality" shows to distract them and keep them happy and occupied
We will have used up all oil, the main fuel resource in 20-30 years and we are not doing anything to find a new one.


Just where is the improvement?

Might I ask why you say we're doing nothing to find a new one, hmm? Because I'm rather certain you're wrong on that. Could give us a bit of something to back up that assertion, please?

Also... I must say, I find it interesting that you seem to be saying people haven't made any progress. The world still has quite a few problems, but no progress? Then why, exactly, aren't there secret police agents at our doors with clubs threatening to torture our families to death, like in the good ol' USSR, and why can we even post thoughts of this nature here? Why aren't there, unless the meaning of the word is stretched grotesquely, serfs anymore in a large section of the world? Why don't I have to look forward to only around 40 years of life before I die? Things aren't perfect, but they've certainly improved over much of the past.

And Bush is ultra-cool and hip, you darn people. 4 more years! [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[ 01-19-2004, 05:21 PM: Message edited by: Encard ]

<font color=skyblue>Thanks, Encard. You said it more politely than I would have. [img]smile.gif[/img]
</font>

[quote]Originally posted by Encard:

Quote:

Originally posted by Jorath Calar: [qb] And Bush is ultra-cool and hip, you darn people. 4 more years! [img]tongue.gif[/img]

N0000000000000000000000000000!

*Cough cough* do you not remember?
"Rarely is the question asked 'Is our children learning?'"
Lets get a president with proper grammer!

<font color=skyblue><font size=1>
Edited to remove the annoying page expansion, because there were too many O's.</font></font>

[ 01-20-2004, 06:37 PM: Message edited by: Larry_OHF ]

that's a really long negative!! LOL, Bush has the worst grammar I've heard, and that's bad considering my area!

Bush can find my vote after he finds all those WMD that were an 'Imminent Threat' to America. After he finds all that Uranium that Sadam was buying from Africa. Bush knows that after 9/11, Americans have become a Gullible people who are easily misled.

That explains his confidence in relection.

(It also explains his Smirk.)

Let's see...

First off, that Bush has made grammatical mistakes doesn't get you far onto the path of proving that he's a bad president. It doesn't mean that he's incapable of effectively performing the duties of that office, and I've certainly heard people who speak worse than he does. They're by no measure all stupid.

Next up, for the WMD issue... I'm a bit hesitant to say much at the moment, since I can't remember in detail all I've heard about that. I believe they actually have found some indications that Saddam had then, but I'm not certain, so I'll leave that for the moment. However...
Ehm, what? I certainly don't agree that people have suddenly become more gullible due to 9/11. Might I ask where you're getting this? Because the only thing I can see for you to have based this assumption on is the difference between your opinion and that of Bush's supporters, which doesn't appear to me to be all that valid. If I'm wrong, please correct me, of course.

[ 01-20-2004, 06:25 PM: Message edited by: Encard ]

So what is government policy going to be if G.W is voted off? So far all I'm hearing are rabid exclamations of 'Vote Bush off! Vote Bush off!'. But what do you want the new government to do if and when Bush is outvoted? Do you even have a plan? Any workable policies that will solve the problems you say Bush has made?

I am not a Bush supporter. If I were an American citizen I would most likely never vote Republican (unless the candidate seriously broke with conservative party policy, which defeats the purpose of being Republican anyway). But so far all I'm hearing from his opponents is a pathetic whimper of discontent. Do you realise how weak you look when your entire campaign revolves around bitching about a single figurehead? Do some research, look into workable government policies. Make a stand-alone campaign that does not need to bitch about conservatives to gain support. Above all, get involved in the political process. Don't sit around hoping that some smiley-faced politician is going to have the same goals and ideas that you do. I'll do the same when it comes to my country's elections.

If you oppose Bush, but don't propose any viable alternative to his government, you've already lost the election. But it still might not be too late...

[ 01-21-2004, 05:44 AM: Message edited by: The Hierophant ]

Lets' not forget what hes' done to the clean air act.Paybacks to all his rich business friends that have weakened our enviromental laws leading to more polution.Cut back finacial aid to vets.Etc,etc.Please vote anyone but Bush!!

If you can read this post, you are not the president :D :D :D

Read the books:

Farenheit 451 and 1984

George Orwell and Ray Bradbury predicted our future but the dates are all wrong. The U.S. will be turned into a world where no one is sad because all greivances are censored. Black people don't like Uncle Tom's Cabin or Huckleberry Finn? Ban it. Whites don't like The Poisonwood Bible? Ban it. The world will become a waxed expressionless face and the government will be playing Big Brother with the country and the world. The U.S. government is tripping over itself and will eventually fall into the black pit all around it.

Life's a bitch huh?

[ 01-20-2004, 07:53 PM: Message edited by: Dalamar Stormcrow ]

Perhaps you could be a bit more specific? Now, if you were to say exactly what it is he's done to the Clean Air Act that you don't like, perhaps I might agree with you... But as it stands, I'm not sure just what you're talking about. Just saying that he's made weakened it doesn't give enough information to rally support.

Also...

So... You're saying that it's better to vote for someone who you know absolutely nothing about than for Bush? Sorry, but I don't see the country in ruins at the moment. I also don't see indication that it's about to do so. Now, of course, I might be wrong... However, even if you don't approve of a number of Bush's policies, voting for a random candidate doesn't mean they'll be better. There's at least as great a chance they'll be worse than better, I would hazard.

On a final note for the moment, I must say that I largely agree with what Hierophant said. Whether or not you approve of Bush, it seems like a distinctly poor choice to base an entire political philosophy on that. Do those of you who've already posted about your hatred of Bush have an actual, specific plan on what would be a better course of action than what Bush is doing? I don't mean something like, "We shouldn't have gone into Iraq," or "Help the environment," or whatnot. I mean something that concrete that could, with perhaps a little bit of tweaking, be turned into a legitimate law. Altrhough I've seen a lot of people criticize Bush (here and in other places), very few I've spoken to seem to have any real idea about what would be a better way of going about the business of government.


Editting this in now that I've seen the latest post.

So... What point do further insults prove, I'm curious? [img]tongue.gif[/img]

And why, exactly, do you say that? Some evidence would be greatly appreciated, since I'm having a hard time remembering the last time I heard of a book (or most anything, for that matter) being censored.

[ 01-20-2004, 08:03 PM: Message edited by: Encard ]

And why, exactly, do you say that? Some evidence would be greatly appreciated, since I'm having a hard time remembering the last time I heard of a book (or most anything, for that matter) being censored. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Huck Finn was censored but saying why would probably get me a ban. Poisonwood Bible was banned for a while in some European country in the Slavic region. Uncle Tom's Cabin was banned up until the 60's. Some proff, if not enough please inform me why not. Plato was banned in Greece for the thought of a one all-powerful God and no demi-gods.

And why do you think Bush invaded Iraq? Oil. I see Korea as a much larger threat with nuclear LRMs, but there is a POSSIBILITY of WMD's even existing there. I'm suprised Bush hasn't framed Saddam yet. Korea could blow everyone in the U.S. to smithereens but Iraq has nothing.

And a $1 trillion dollar deficit. There was a deficit before, but it seems Bush has SEVERLY added to that deficit. And yes it is better to vote randomly but also keeping in mind of not voting Bush. Sure it may still hurt us, but I would choose a lesser evil than the greater evil.

And a qoute from Dubya himself:

There is a saying in Tennessee, it's probably in Texas, but i know it's in Tennessee. Fool me once, shame on.........you. Fool me.....twice.......cant.....get fooled again.

I can't see the video it dosen't come up when I try and watch it all I get is a song??? So I don't know what i'm missing....

Btw should I provide more evidence about the video not coming up [img]tongue.gif[/img] jk

[ 01-20-2004, 09:54 PM: Message edited by: Blind_Prophet ]

If you vote randomly, there's no guarantee whatsoever you're picking the lesser evil. You could as easily end up voting for someone worse than for someone better. Bush is far from the worst candidate out there, at least in my opinion.

Next... Can you perhaps come up with some proof that Bush's main reason for invading Iraq was oil, hmm? Because I've yet to see anyone, anywhere, give any. The most I've seen is accusations of the type you've made, supported at most by conjecture and guesses. At the moment you haven't given a real reason to believe that, only a theory.

North Korea... Perhaps the reason we didn't go in with military force is that they do already have nuclear arms? Iraq (at least allegedly... for the moment let's avoid the debate of whether it was accurate or not) was supposed to, from what I remember hearing, have been able to acquire the capability to build nuclear weapons within approximately 6 months. So, a preemptive strike would have removed the threat of that. Attacking North Korea could result in them using weapons they already have, which would be problematic.

Also... Framed Saddam? For what? He's done enough that it'd be hard to frame him for much of anything. Or do you mean that Bush would lie about Saddam having nuclear weapons? I'm rather curious, how would you know, if Bush were to proclaim that inspectors had found WMDs in Iraq today, whether it was fact or fiction? Would you simply assume it was a lie? Because I don't see much of a way for you to find out conclusively whether or not Saddam had been "framed," as you put it, and I don't see a good reason to simply discount what the president says.

And, lastly... Your examples of censorship don't seem to be very recent. Two of them you've said were censored for a time, but that changed in the recent past, which shows improvement if anything. Also, wondering, how recently was the Poisonwood Bible banned in Slavic countries? because if you mean during the time of the USSR, well... That's gone now as well, so again, if anything, we're showing improvement. Plato being censored in ancient Greece is too far in the past to serve as a valid example for modern society; it's like using Roman slavery to try and prove that slavery exists here today. And, lastly, if you can't tell me when and how Huck Finn was censored, I don't see how I can very well take that as a good example. If you really don't feel that you can post it here, I'd appreciate it if you could please at least PM me a bit of information on that.

[ 01-20-2004, 10:03 PM: Message edited by: Encard ]

Just for fun i found a website about books being banned or censored. http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/banned-books.html

Hmm... Interesting website, Blind Prophet. I find it interesting that so many things mentioned there were banned for indecency/obcenity or similar accusations, and more recently unbanned. Although at the moment I've skimmed the site rather than reading it fully, so of course I could be wrong, it seems that a majority of what's mentioned there was banned a fair while ago, and unbanned since then. Loosening standards or coming closer to necessary freedom? Interesting debate, although it's not touched on much at the page you linked.

Interestingly, the things I remember not being unbanned at the moment seem to largely be those related to the creation of weaponry or drugs, or that seem to have a main purpose of furthering other illegal acts. Although of course you could make a case for that being legitimate material, I can't honestly say that it's a pervasive attempt Big Brother Government to brainwash humanity. It seems a good bit more like attempt by the government to protect the health and safety of its citizens. I can't say for certain if the government's going about things the right way, but it's certainly not some sort of bloated book-burning monster intent on doing us harm.

I also remember seeing a comment about some people alleging that the Bible is banned in American schools... Personally, at least, I've seen nothing to support this. Furthermore, that doesn't seem to go with what I remember seeing in some Supreme Court opinions I've had a chance to look through... For example:

I remember seeing a number of other things to this affect... So, my guess is that although people may challenge the schools' use of the Bible (or other religious texts) in class, as long as it's not being put to use to promote religion it should survive in court.

Anyways, interesting site. Thanks again for linking to it.

[ 01-20-2004, 10:32 PM: Message edited by: Encard ]

No problem encard.

First, over a month ago Bush quietly pulled all WMD detection teams out of Iraq. The result? Mission Failure. Not that they had a chance to succeed to begin with: There were no weapons to find. There is no evidence that there Ever were weapons to find. Basically, America was 'Misled' into war.

Now you say you want a policy instead of complaints about a figure head. Well, shouldn't we actully oust the crooks before we talk about next quarters goals? Shouldn't we actually pull the rattler off our leg before discussing the various treatments for snake venom?

Like the metaphors you're using, I don't think your argument is sound. Whether or not you agree with Bush's policy, government is not somewhere that you can think now and act later. Why? Two main reasons, as pertaining to the topic at hand.

First, you're not simply removing Bush if you vote him out of office, you're replacing him. Although whether Bush is good or bad is always open to debate, same as with any president, he's certainly not the worst person to hold the office. Replacing Bush does no good whatsoever without solid guarantee that he's being replaced by someone better. Without a comprehensive plan of action for that person to follow, then no such guarantee exists.

Furthermore, a worthwile plan of action takes a fair while to work out. Once a candidate's elected is far too late to work out a good plan; yes, you can still do it, but there'd presumably be a good-sized period of government stagnation until that occurred. Or, of course, a plan might be formulated hastily and fail because it wasn't carefully thought out. Dislike of one candidate does not mean that another is better; voting purely on that basis is very dangerous gambling.

On a last note for the moment... I'm going to have to check up on the WMD information soon. I believe I remember hearing in the State of the Union speach that a number of WMD programs had been located, possibly along with some WMDs... I'm not sure on the specifics of that, however, so as I said, I'll take a look around shortly.

Look at public schools or my argument in the U.S. becoming an emotionless face. You can't speak of your religious beliefs in public schools, and history books almost absolutley refrain from calling Jesus an actual God, that Mohammed rose into heaven, just so no one would be offended. The world works while we play. Why do you think the Middle East hates us?

...And yet, wasn't that the rallying cry when the Lewinsky Affair was all the rage?

If I had to support a plan instead of a charismatic candidate, then I'd probably support Gen. Clark. And yes his military experiance gives him more credibility than Bush's National Guard service <cough, cough> in Texas.

Dalamar, in my experience, I can't remember a single time when anyone was in any way discouraged from speaking of their religious beliefs in class. In fact, a number of discussions, particularly recently, have revolved around religion. Also, what I can remember of my history books' (admittedly brief) coverage of religion seems fair, as I can't remember any promoting or degrading any particular sect. Perhaps you could say a bit more about your own experience (as I assume that's where you're coming from with your position)?

If you'll remember, I haven't commented on the Lewinsky Affair... I think that might have also had something to do with then-president Clinton having lied under oath, however. Whether he should have actually been impeached for that or not, I'm not certain... I'm not exceedingly familiar with the legal requirements for that to occurr. *shrug*

Clark... Interesting fellow. I don't personally know too much about him. However, I'm curious... I remember hearing a number of things about Clark having blatantly switched position on several issues without any real reason, which seems somewhat damaging to his credibility. The most recent instance of this I can remember is his being accused of suddenly changing his stance from pro-war to anti-war during the near past, on a news program I saw a small portion of... Perhaps you could clarify here a bit? Since I presume that you have something to say on the matter, if you support him.

[ 01-21-2004, 05:41 PM: Message edited by: Encard ]

Yes, he was accused of switching his stance on the Iraq war, but he did not really. As far as other issues I have found nothing to substantiate the claim that he has blantantly switched positions on anything else, though his opinion of the current administration has fairly well gone downhill since his early 2001 words of praise and confidence in the then new Bush administration.

Here is a link to the Drudge report concerning Clark's alleged war flip-flop:

http://www.drudge.com/discuss/viewMessage.php/10860

Here is a link to news stroy about a Dem debate where he was confronted with some of these accusations by his rivals:

http://www.freep.com/news/politics/dems10_20031010.htm

Finally, here is a link to Clark's official campaign page:

http://clark04.com/issues/

wow! This is turning out to be quite a debate. And to think that i just wanted people to check out that little clip :D

Hmm... The first two links you have actually seem to make it sound like Clark did suddenly shift position on the war. Perhaps you could explain why you say he didn't? Because it's not really the message I got from that information.

I also have to say I'm curious about something... I looked at Clark's issues page you gave in the last link. Some of the stuff on the war section seems a tad bit odd... I'm wondering, for example, how he plans on doing background checks on Iraqi former soldiers. I mean, did Iraq keep good enough records on its soldiers for the US to be able to do that? I was under the impression that it was rather chaotic... Also, how lightly-equipped are the light forces he wants to use more of (point 2, bullet two)? Since just a couple sentences before that he said that unarmored humvees are putting Americans at greater risk... Does he mean pure infantry, or something else, or what? I'm wondering whether you might know enough about his plan to tell me.

<font color=skyblue>This now belongs in the Current Events world, methinks.</font>

Please provide 1 example of where President Bush said there was an Imminent threat. You will find he said if we wait for an Imminent threat, (State of the Union 2003) it will be to late. The only people that even used the term Imminent threat were and are the liberals. The very people that said there had to be an Imminent threat to begin with now are saying the President said there was one. When the President CLEARLY stated, that if we wait until our cities are threaten by WMD's it will be to late.

So there is NO misunderstanding, The people calling for the Imminent Threat threshold, which is not the threshold President Bush called for! Are now saying he did call for that threshold.


HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM I believe the term Gulluble was used exactly where and to whom does the term exactly fit? [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img]

You might want to check the rest of the site as well, there are more anti-Bush ads there. I seriously doubt that their simplistic rhetorics and easy scoring will shut up any Bush-apologists, but some of them are amusing nonetheless. [img]smile.gif[/img]

http://bushin30seconds.com/