Syria Leone

[ruksak]

Quote by: The Decider All the more reason for Bush to speak eloquently and accurately--it's embarrasing when a tin-horn tyrant sounds more educated than our Commander-in-Chief.

Well at least Achmindinijinidinihinijad sounds "eloquent and educated" when denying the holocaust and preaching the genocide of many cultures.

I again must ask which is more of an egregious error.

Geographical errors in nations that change their name every 10 years.

A mad man with nuclear aspirations that preaches death to all Non-Islamic peoples.

If you can find Sierra Leone on a map I would certainly not call you stupid.

If you say that the holocaust was a lie perpetuated by Jews and Zionist, I will not only call you stupid. I will call you abhorrently, dangerously, retarded.

[Milton Bradley]

Syria as a heart attack.


Fool me once, ...

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: ruksak I find it amusing that all this attention is focused on Bush for a few geographic errors, when a man stood in front of them that preaches that the holocaust never happened.

Beyond the shock factor of the original statement, has anybody ever persued that topic with a line of questions getting him to vsubstantiate those views?


I thought his physics analogy was quite fair. ( To paraphrase, he said " because we understand much of physics, do we close the book, and stop investigating physics?" )


This topic does seem to get special treatment, just like Isreal itself is always a "unique situation", and anybody, anywhere that says one thing even remotely negative about Isreal, or Jewish people is automaticall labeled an anti-semite.


Opps, now I must be an anti-semite as well. ( Nevermind that assume as much requires you to forget whos side I am accused taking when I oppose them. )

Quote by: ruksak Hang your heads in shame.

Perhasps I will be compelled to do that when all the facts are in, just like 9/11.


:rolleyes:

[ruksak]

Wait?


Are you saying that you leave open the possibility that Achmidinijad is onto something, in regards to the holocaust?

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: ruksak Are you saying that you leave open the possibility that Achmidinijad is onto something, in regards to the holocaust?

Absolutely. If he has documented, verifiable evidence of discrepancies in what we are being told and taught about the Holocaust, I'd like to hear about it.

In addition, there seems to be some dispute about the correct translations of some of the quotes attributed to Ahmadinejad. On the subject of the existence of Israel, a quick Google will show everything from a claim that Israel should "be wiped off the map" to claims that he was quoting Khomeini and said, ""The Imam [Khomeini] said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."

The same goes for his Holocaust quotes. Everything from he "called the extermination of six million Jews during World War II "a myth", to, "Ahmanedijad NEVER said the holocaust didn’t happen. His concern was that scholars should have the right to investigate what appears to be number fudging among those who have been using the holocaust to blackmail the nations of the world and to justify the genocide of Palestine".

Is there something wrong with keeping an open mind on these issues?

[ruksak]

Quote by: Zee Is there something wrong with keeping an open mind on these issues?

yes

[Matt W]

The joys of 'freedom of speech' eh? And this coming from a fervant defender of 'the American way'...nice! :eek:

[ruksak]

Quote by: Matt W The joys of 'freedom of speech' eh? And this coming from a fervant defender of 'the American way'...nice! :eek:

Look man, keeping an open mind is one thing. But to do so in the favor of a man that has, without question, called for the extermination of all Jews; upholds the murder of homosexuals as just; denies women of their human rights; funds terrorist groups, is without justification.


The answer is NO, you don't keep an open mind toward whether or not the Nazis attempted genocide. Especially when the only people that do so are ardent racist and outspoken anti-Semites.

To do so is careless, stupid, ignorant and dangerous.

[Mr. Jaggers]

deleted

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: ruksak Look man, keeping an open mind is one thing. But to do so in the favor of a man that has, without question, called for the extermination of all Jews; upholds the murder of homosexuals as just; denies women of their human rights; funds terrorist groups, is without justification. The answer is NO, you don't keep an open mind toward whether or not the Nazis attempted genocide. Especially when the only people that do so are ardent racist and outspoken anti-Semites. To do so is careless, stupid, ignorant and dangerous.

Perhaps he knows something you don't know, and those quotes were an enraged over reaction to something they can actually prove, or something that just needs substantiating evidence.


It's a big crazy world out there, and after seeing some of the actions of your own government, I wager that a lot of it is going on under the collective radar. Add to that the fog of war, and the fog of time, and you have quite a lot to attempt to account for.

[gallo]

Actually, "keeping" an open mind is a bit ridiculous. Of course, one should have an open mind when gathering, and evaluating evidence and when drawing conclusions from that evidence. However, after that, an open mind should only apply to new evidence that has not been considered before. Thus, we need not "keep an open mind" about either Iranian or American Presidents since all we continue to get is affirming evidence. While "childrens" can learn, these two don't seem to be able to do so. Imagine the confusion of the people of both Syria and Sierra Leone, who can't be sure if they were being discussed. Or take the people of the Union of Myanmar, so named since 1989, a fact that our President and his administration don't seem to be aware of.

[Nono]

Quote by: ruksak Is this "proof" that GW is stupid?

No. That proof lies, abundantly, elsewhere.
But he shore is iggorant. Not that we didn't know that already, but this is such a pretty example.

Well he got elected President of the United States of America.

Certainly not in 2000. He was appointed by the Supreme Court. Don't you read the papers?

And it's highly doubtful he was elected in 2004 either.
The whole business is pathetic.

To call the leader of the free world "stupid", just sounds ignorant and it slams our nation as a whole.

Man, if the shoe fits, wear it.
("Leader of the free world" my ass. :rolleyes:)

Stupid people cannot be President of America.

What planet are you living on? Care to elaborate on your touchingly naive claim?

... all this attention is focused on Bush for a few geographic errors ...

Actually, it's focused on him for every damn-fool thing he's said and done in the past seven years. Don't you read the papers?

[ruksak]

Quote by: Nono What planet are you living on? Care to elaborate on your touchingly naive claim?

I suppose it would depend on which definition of "stupid" you want to apply to him. If you mean he is unintelligent, I beg to differ. It takes intelligence to maintain a Presidency for 8 years, despite your sorted opinions on his linguistic skills or foreign policies.

Actually, it's focused on him for every damn-fool thing he's said and done in the past seven years. Don't you read the papers?

....and we all know the media never lies. They always provide truthful, agenda free, non-biased reporting.

And it's highly doubtful he was elected in 2004 either. The whole business is pathetic.

You discredit yourself and our nation by consistently bending over to allow conspiracy theories to dictate your opinion. Consistently forming an opinion based on conjecture with no evidence whatsoever, is ...........stupid.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: ruksak You discredit yourself and our nation by consistently bending over to allow conspiracy theories to dictate your opinion. Consistently forming an opinion based on conjecture with no evidence whatsoever, is ...........stupid.

Hehehehehe, are they bending to unsupported theory ( nevermind actual proof, because neither side has much of that, but then we weren't melting building material in China before going on record for a lot of these issues like some people we know ), or were they won over by logical deduction, and the fact that the official story is equally, or perhaps even more outrageous than the conspiracy.


I think both sides should meet in the middle, and hire an outside investigation unit to offer up unbiased answers. Eh, that's probably too unreasonable as well, isn't it? Damn us, and our unreasonable nature.


( Edit ) Oops, I got my conspiracy theories crossed.


<----See that over there? I happen to live in Ohio, Province, in the Republic of Comerica, and I was there firsthand to see what a fraudulent scam the modern elections have become. It's a disgrace, and wreaks of corruption without even adding the element of electronic voting.


Diebold looks pretty shady from whatever light conditions we choose to view it under.


Go ahead, link us to some credible yet favorable information regarding electronic voting machines.


As I write this I'm struck as to why I haven't seen referendums for Instant Runoff Voting being circulated before this election.


I guess we're going to have to do that ourselves as well.


That's representation for ya.

[ruksak]

Quote by: Milton Badley nevermind actual proof

That about says it all, doesn't it?

Nevermind proof, aye.

Whats proof anyway? Just a buncha junk that we can see and read and in all its tangible goodiness, its just proof. Whats proof when you got theory. Hey, I'll side with theory over proof any day.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: ruksak That about says it all, doesn't it? Nevermind proof, aye. Whats proof anyway? Just a buncha junk that we can see and read and in all its tangible goodiness, its just proof. Whats proof when you got theory. Hey, I'll side with theory over proof any day.

Clearly that was sarcasm aimed at you.


If this were a debate about proof, we wouldn't be using electronic machines that can be tampered with by third parties right down to the paper trail.

[Nono]

Quote by: ruksak It takes intelligence to maintain a Presidency for 8 years, despite your sorted opinions on his linguistic skills or foreign policies.

All it takes is skilled minders and a ball-busting propaganda machine.

It's true that linguistic skills (or pretzel-swallowing motor skills) are an unreliable guide to intelligence.
Weren't you paying attention when I said the evidence for stupidity lay elsewhere?

....and we all know the media never lies. They always provide truthful, agenda free, non-biased reporting

Here you're indulging in the mother of all groundless conspiracy theories -- the "liberal media" one.

You discredit yourself and our nation by consistently bending over to allow conspiracy theories to dictate your opinion. Consistently forming an opinion based on conjecture with no evidence whatsoever, is ...........stupid.

Jeez, sorry boss. Saying that Bush failed to win either election is simply a sober reading of the facts. The US showed itself to be little better than a banana republic: in 2000 the Supreme Court, largely appointed by the candidtate's father and his political allies, stopped the pitifully inadequate count in a state governed by the candiate's brother, and flat designated him the winner before all votes were properly counted.
Pathetic.

As for 2004, read this: Was the 2004 Election Stolen? : Rolling Stone

You won't of course. Mustn't disturb one's fixed opinions.

But you might tell me this. If Kennedy's facts aren't rock-solid, I assume he'll have his ass in court for the rest of his life dealing with libel cases.
Is that the case? Well, what does that say about his facts.

If even one tenth of them were accurate, that'd be a gargantuan indictment of the election-stealing proclivities of the Republican party.

Shame!

[Chancellor]

Quote by: gallo Served my country in other ways.

That's nice.

I know where New Orleans is.

But many Americans don't.

After the hurricane Bush had a bit of trouble finding it - at least he took long enough to get there.

This little bit of stupidity on your part shows that you really don't know that dealing with the aftermath of hurricanes is the primary responsibility of affected local and state governments. It is not the President's responsibility to personally go to a disaster area and lead the recovery effort and the federal government really doesn't have the primary responsibility in such matters. If you want to blame someone, blame Mayor Nagin for not evacuating people (the man who referred to New Orleans as "chocolate city" and intended to establish a predominantly black population there after the hurricane).

I also know where Vietnam is. That's another place that Bush wouldn't know about.

Well, I guess in the minds of some it would seem that choosing to serve in the National Guard during an unconstitutional war shouldn't be considered serving your country. Let's not get on the subject of which presidential candidate served in Viet Nam (or the truth about how he got those purple heart medals).

[gallo]

Quote by: Chancellor That's nice.

Yes. It's more than the President did.

But many Americans don't.

And many Americans don't know where Syria Leone is either. My God! In front to the United Nations General Assembly! What an embarrassment he is to our country.

This little bit of stupidity on your part shows that you really don't know that dealing with the aftermath of hurricanes is the primary responsibility of affected local and state governments.

The worth of you remark is demonstrated by your necessity to make it an insult. Duly reported. I know who's responsibility it is.

It is not the President's responsibility to personally go to a disaster area and lead the recovery effort and the federal government really doesn't have the primary responsibility in such matters.

But Presidents have done so for as long as I can remember as part of the photo op in declaring a natural disaster. Instead, our President finally showed up only to declare that "Brownie" was doing a good job. It seems that to Bush, incompetence is doing a good job.

If you want to blame someone, blame Mayor Nagin for not evacuating people (the man who referred to New Orleans as "chocolate city" and intended to establish a predominantly black population there after the hurricane).

I wasn't blaming anyone but Bush for his show of disinterest in the disaster. I understand that he couldn't have done anything since he is so ineffective at any complex task. But still, Presidents traditionally go to disaster scenes. Perhaps he could have straightened out the Governor of Louisiana who did essentially nothing. The Texas National Guard had been activated (medical units, field kitchens, and transportation units) and were waiting at the Louisiana border even before the Louisiana National Guard had been activated. All that was necessary was a request from the Governor of LA to the Governor of TX to attach them to the LA National Guard. As I recall, that took about a week - how long did it take Bush to find New Orleans?

Well, I guess in the minds of some it would seem that choosing to serve in the National Guard during an unconstitutional war shouldn't be considered serving your country.

But Bush didn't oppose the Vietnam war. In fact he supported it and still feels that the US should not have withdrawn. My problem is that at a time when Reserve and National Guard enlistments were closed to all but those with prior active duty service, Bush got in. Fancy that. And even then he figured a way to avoid actually attending meetings for most of his enlistment.

Let's not get on the subject of which presidential candidate served in Viet Nam (or the truth about how he got those purple heart medals).

Let's see. Kerry actually served in Vietnam and actually was wounded. I see you are one of those who didn't support out troops back then. You were probably one of those Americans who spit on my uniform. Why else would you slight someone who actually served, was actually wounded and praise someone who ducked active service and then lie about his motivations? In your book no service and no wounds is more honorable than combat service and being wounded, and whether you like it or not, Kerry was wounded, how many times is irrelevant to your sniveling efforts to defend a coward.

I presume that you served in combat and were wounded else you would be a hypocrite to condemn a man who did.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: gallo Yes. It's more than the President did. And many Americans don't know where Syria Leone is either. My God! In front to the United Nations General Assembly! What an embarrassment he is to our country.

But I would expect Americans to know where a well-known major American city is located.

The worth of you remark is demonstrated by your necessity to make it an insult. Duly reported. I know who's responsibility it is.

If you know whose responsibility it is then why are you still blaming Bush?

But Presidents have done so for as long as I can remember as part of the photo op in declaring a natural disaster. Instead, our President finally showed up only to declare that "Brownie" was doing a good job. It seems that to Bush, incompetence is doing a good job.

So what if Presidents have done so for as long as you can remember. I would prefer that Presidents just stay the hell away and let the local folks do their job.

I wasn't blaming anyone but Bush for his show of disinterest in the disaster. I understand that he couldn't have done anything since he is so ineffective at any complex task. But still, Presidents traditionally go to disaster scenes.

Hence my earlier comment that you saw fit to report. Is it really your contention that the only way a person can show interest in a disaster is to show up at the disaster site? Considering all that goes into the President going anywhere, do you really think it would have been helpful to the relief workers for the President and his entourage to show up (not to mention all the security precautions beforehand)? It doesn't matter that presidents "traditionally" do this or that.

Perhaps he could have straightened out the Governor of Louisiana who did essentially nothing.

Why should he? There is nothing in Article II of the Constitution that lists straightening out governors as one of the President's duties. Maybe the people of Louisiana should have given their governor the collective swift kick in the backside she so clearly needed.

The Texas National Guard had been activated (medical units, field kitchens, and transportation units) and were waiting at the Louisiana border even before the Louisiana National Guard had been activated. All that was necessary was a request from the Governor of LA to the Governor of TX to attach them to the LA National Guard.

And why did it take the Governor of Louisiana so long to make the request?

As I recall, that took about a week - how long did it take Bush to find New Orleans?

He had no real reason to even go there and his presence there would have placed an undue burden on all concerned. The best thing he or any President could do was to stay away from the disaster site.

But Bush didn't oppose the Vietnam war. In fact he supported it and still feels that the US should not have withdrawn.

Yes, well, Bush is one of those global interventionists that feels the United States must butt its nose into other countries' internal affairs.

My problem is that at a time when Reserve and National Guard enlistments were closed to all but those with prior active duty service, Bush got in. Fancy that. And even then he figured a way to avoid actually attending meetings for most of his enlistment.

And how many other rich kids were able to get in? I suspect plenty.

Let's see. Kerry actually served in Vietnam and actually was wounded.

The issue is the nature of the wounds and how long he actually spent in Viet Nam.

I see you are one of those who didn't support out troops back then.

Maybe you should get your eyes checked. Considering that I started kindergarten in 1968, I wasn't quite old enough to support or not support our troops. But your silly comment does raise the question of whether one must support the government's unconstitutional military actions in order to support the men and women who choose to serve in the armed forces.

You were probably one of those Americans who spit on my uniform. Why else would you slight someone who actually served, was actually wounded and praise someone who ducked active service and then lie about his motivations?

See above. Since I don't equate an individual's choice to serve in the military (or conscription into the military) with the government engaging in unconstitutional miltiary adventures, your statement is unwarranted. I slight Kerry's service because of information about the nature of that service (and because he later testilied to Congress). Bush didn't duck military service by serving in the National Guard and if you check the records, he fulfilled his service obligation.

In your book no service and no wounds is more honorable than combat service and being wounded, and whether you like it or not, Kerry was wounded, how many times is irrelevant to your sniveling efforts to defend a coward.

That depends on the nature of the wounds and how they were received. Even snopes.com revealed that Kerry's wounds were not very serious and not enough to take him off duty (Urban Legends Reference Pages: John Kerry's Service Record) - I'm not giving credence to the swiftboat group that opposed Kerry in the 2004 election. It seems to me that the Purple Heart was given out way too liberally during the Viet Nam war.

I presume that you served in combat and were wounded else you would be a hypocrite to condemn a man who did.

I was in the Navy and I was in the Gulf during the Gulf war. The closest I came to combat was scud missiles flying overhead. However, given my location at the time, if those who fired the missiles at the barracks in Dharan, Saudi Arabia had aimed just a hair to the left, you and I wouldn't be having this conversation. And, no, it is not hypocritical to condemn a man like John Kerry whose wounds were so minor that he wasn't even prevented from returning to duty.