[Talon Karride]The unflappable delusions of many Republicans

[Darth Wong]

Why do they so strongly oppose high taxes for the wealthy? Because they all think they're going to be wealthy someday, or because they're already wealthy, or because their parents are wealthy. And the people who don't make that much money obviously didn't try hard enough, so they're beneath contempt. Fuck 'em.

And this is you, Mike Wong, trying to pass off value-laden bullshit as a balanced assessment of Republican opinion.

Prove that wrong. If it's so wrong that it's "insane", you should be able to do a lot better than calling it "value-laden".

It seems dodgy at first, but one has to wonder what that squarish protrusion on his back is, because it sure as hell looks suspicious and I can't imagine what other apparel a normal person would wear that produces a squarish bulge in the middle of his back.

And this is you, Mike Wong, giving credit to loony conspiracy theories from helplessly biased left-wing sources.

Prove any part of that statement factually incorrect.

Obviously, the concept of burden of proof does not occur to you. The "experts" cited by cnsnews based their argument upon claims which were factually wrong. This throws their expertise into doubt and their conclusions into the shitter.

Not to mention the fact that White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett said that "they were found in Jerry Killian's personal records". I guess he's in on the forgery too, right?

And this is you, Mike Wong, furiously wanking to reports later found to be forgeries.

Explain why this was an unreasonable statement given the information available at the time. Also notice how, when it came to light that it was indeed a forgery, I accepted that, unlike you who still refuses to admit that it was a costly mistake to invade Iraq. That's the real difference between a doctrinaire nutcase and a rational human being, Tiger-boy: an ability to accept new information.

Of course, I wouldn't expect you to understand that. You honestly seem to think that you can prove someone an "insane liberal" by accusing him of making "value-laden statements", being "suspicious" of George W. Bush for acting and looking like he was wired, and taking the White House Communications Director at his word, even while you continue twirling in your insane vortex of self-delusional rantings about how the Iraq war was a brilliant move whose justifications were all completely valid.

Prove it. I know you have trouble with this whole concept of backing up your claims rather than simply repeating them with more verbiage added, but for once, just try.

After 1991, we were compelled to keep troops in the Middle East to contain Saddam – actions that led to widespread discontent on the part of Islamic fundamentalists who resented the American presence (which was, ironically, linked to provided for common security).

Perhaps George Bush Sr. shouldn't have promised to pull those bases out of Saudi Arabia after the operation, then.

And they won't have much incentive to terrorize us if we stop shitting in their drinking water. The fact that they will terrorize each other and themselves is, quite frankly, not our problem. Ideally they would stop, but the notion of forcibly "converting" them to our way of life is not even vaguely realistic. And as we have seen, the cure can easily become worse than the disease.

Which is why they were bombing us in 1993, correct?

How does that statement in any way refute mine? Did we ever stop being Israel's Big Brother or interfering in the Middle East?

Which is why TIME Magazine reported that the Iraqi insurgents were ready to “follow us home” even if we disengaged, correct?

Again, how does that statement in any way refute mine? Is this not the direct result of our interference, once again?

We can never fully disentangled ourselves from the Middle East. At best, we can return to the pre-Iraq status-quo, in which our activities are still seen as undue meddling and our attempts to pursue our interests in the region – as every other nation does – are seen as intolerable, and worthy of violent retribution. You don’t seem to understand that these societies breed terrorists that go after the United States.

So let's just give them a hundred times more motive! Yes, that's just brilliant. You should ask for a Nobel prize.

[HyperionX]

Damn, this just exploded beyond all my intentions. *runs and hides*

[MKSheppard]

Damn, this just exploded beyond all my intentions. *runs and hides*

*pulls out laser-sighted .45 Longslide Colt (as guranteed by his 2nd
amendment rights) and shoots Hyperion in the back of the head once,
and then empties the rest of the clip into him*

[Edi]

Damn, this just exploded beyond all my intentions. *runs and hides*

You tossed one of these and didn't realize that an explosion would result?

Edi

[KrauserKrauser]

A vast minority of assholes does not a crooked system make. The true problem with welfare is that it removes people from the system if they get a job that pays barely more than the checks. Think about it: Would you work 40+ hours a week for a paltry sum, or would you rather not do anything and recieve the same amount?

What you would propose raising the minimum wage? Ok, I’m all for that if we eliminate welfare and decrease the taxes the same amount to lessen the burden on the businesses that will now have their profit margins reduced. What you don’t want to get rid of a failing system? Then quit yer bitchin’.

Children can not consent. And let's say you allow marriage between two people of the same gender... it's still two people, fuckwit! It has NOTHING to do with marrying more than one person! So you're right, they're not the same leaps in logics as beastiality or marrying a RealDoll... they're different leaps in logic!

Hmmm lets try this out. Ok, marriage is the “joining” of a man and a woman currently. By adding gay marriage the statement would change to marriage is the “joining” of a person and anotehr person. Hmm one change in the meaning. Ok let’s try this, marriage is the “joining” of a man and two women. How is this a more significant change? What it alters the structure of the meaning of marriage? Well so does gay marriage. If we can add gay marriage to the mix, why not the others, they are all simply deviations from the accepted tradition? Oh, that would make it harder to swallow by the overall conservative American base? Better change it real slow like so they don’t notice.

Fuck global warming. Even without that in mind, the amount of toxins industries are emitting are not good for the environment. Please do not be so ignorant as to claim otherwise.

Toxins are bad. I agree. We already have laws on the books that limit the amount and type of toxins released into the environment. Company’s break those laws? Then enforce them, don’t write new ones without fully enforcing the old ones *cough* Gun control *cough*.

Yes, because all unwanted pregnacies are the results of druken one-night stands. Let's say a couple that gets by, but can't afford any long-term expenses are having safe-sex and the condom breaks. I guess it's too bad that they love each other and lost the statistical draw, eh? I wouldn't stop at labeling you a prude, bastard.

Yup, they lose at life. They should recognize the risks and take alternate methods to expressing their love for each other/getting their rocks off. Oral sex is highly gratifying as well as Doing it in the butt. Even if they still get preggers, why is it so horrible to hold them accountable to their actions? They knew the risks. It’s not like adoption isn’t always an option. Oh she wants to keep the baby? Well suffer the consequences. Life is rough, get used to it.

Oh, come on! You honestly think Kerry would pull our troops out of Iraq?

On multiple occasions Kerry has stated that he would have all the troops out of Iraq between 3-6 months after he is elected. The fact that he is no longer saying that now because the American people don’t want that does not disprove the fact that he said it. Kerry has not proven to hold any sort of standard position on Iraq. For all I know if the polls said that he should turn it into a big ass theme park, he would probably say he would.

You know, if the tax burden on the wealthy was increased, the problems with the deficency could just about be dealt with... assuming spending wasn't increased without thought about current deficit. You see, once you're making $64,000 a year, you don't get any more income take taken away from you. Can you concieve of the amount of revenue that could be collected, were income tax applied to the whole of, say, Oprah Winfrey's yearly income? That's just one of thousands of millionaires... not to mention all those folks making six-figures.

So says the person that supports Kerry, who paid a whopping 12% income tax compared to Bush’s 25+%. Get over yourself, both sides have rich supporters and they all avoid paying more taxes because they got that money fair and square and hate taxes just as much as me. Let’s talk fair tax plan and we’ll make sure that everyone is paying a representative share in taxes.

Gay-marriage bans are a form of gender discrimination; the only difference between a straight marriage and a gay one is the gender of one of the partners. This is exactly the reasoning one of the state supreme courts used to legalize gay marriage before the legislature stepped in. This rationalization does not even remotely apply to any of the other examples you cited.

Does it list anywhere in the constitution that marriage is a right? No? Then the 10th amendment would place the right to legislate that to the states. If the federal government wishes to inact laws overriding that, then the states should appeal to the Supreme Court to have those laws repealed as they are unconstitutional. Were it to be added to the constitution, then it means that a great majority of the populace (67%) wants this to be the law of the land. Since that is not the case now, it should be handled by the states.

Of course the Earth has a weather cycle. That doesn't change the fact that the determination of whether global warming is real is unaffected by the question of whether we made it happen. If it's happening, and if it's going to harm our society, then we should try to do something to slow it down.

That’s right. If it’s happening. Those same scientists that are predicting global warming now, were predicting global cooling 20 years ago. I don’t know what type of proof would be sufficient for me to believe that actions such as the Kyoto accords are necessary, but were I to see it, I would be willing to consider them.

Your position is logically inconsistent. If a fetus has human rights, then it's wrong to abort it even in cases of rape. If a fetus does not have human rights, then there's no reason to ban it regardless of whether you think the woman has been "responsible" enough.

My argument would be logically inconsistent were it the pro-life stance based on human rights. However, I approach it more on a personal responsibility requirement. In cases of rape/molestation and life of the mother, the preggers lady had no choice in the creation of life and therefore I can condone their choice for an abortion. In all cases of consensual sex resulting in pregnancy, I don’t see why either party gets a bye on the consequences of their actions in the form of an abortion. If it’s not economically feasible to raise a kid, then adoption agencies exist. I’m pretty much a bastard on this point but, oh well, Fuck ‘em.

Simply adjusting the taxes and benefits is an obviously workable solution, but people refuse to accept that reality because "do not raise taxes, ever" and "do not cut social security, ever" are two pillars of the conservative and old-person political platforms, respectively. Doesn't change the fact that it's the only solution which is guaranteed to work.

Guaranteed to work? Sure. Best option? IMO, No. Adjusting the benefits is easily demagouged and will not get the acceptance by the elderly that would be necessary for the changes. Then all we have left is raising taxes to be able to pay for it as the remaining option. If we could avoid this by privatization or the like, why shouldn’t we do it? It will be demagouged by the media and never pass? Oh well, guess we’re screwed.

It's amazing how easily you could transplant this conversation to the Vietnam era.

Sure, and by the admission of General Giap(sp?), commander of the NVA, without the support of the Anti-war movement *cough* Kerry, is a big fucking douche bag lying traitor for his actions AFTER the war *cough* the North would have lost. I’ll gladly use history to justify staying in Iraq and finishing the job.

I never said it was bad to be wealthy; I said it was bad to be wealthy and refuse to pay higher taxes than some poor shmuck working 70 hours a week in a garage, even though you can afford it far more easily while retaining a much higher standard of living. Must I show mathematically how a 40% tax rate on a guy making $500,000/yr will still leave him much better off than a 30% tax rate on a guy making $50,000/yr?

You equated wanting to be rich with not caring about those that are not rich without the qualifying statement that you have added. And yes, that 500k person would still retain a higher SOL, and is already paying more taxes than the schmuck at the same tax rate. He makes more money and therefore pays more in taxes. The problem does not originate from a tiered income tax but in the existence of loopholes and tax shelters that allow someone like, I don’t know, let’s say Teresa Heinz Kerry only pay 12% income tax on her $5+ million total income. The more I learn about tax law, the better the fair tax plan sounds.

Just keep in mind the mathematics of the situation: if you need X dollars to run your government, and you reduce the share of X that any particular group pays, then one of two things will happen:

• You bring in less than X, thus causing a budget deficit.
• Everybody else must pay more in order to bring up your revenues to X.

No doubt a conservative will simply say that tax cuts will make the economy go into overdrive and thus eliminate this dilemma, but that assumes you are above the optimum tax rate. If you are already at or below the optimum tax rate, then tax cuts are purely destructive to the operation of the government.

That's why I voted for the tax-cutting Conservative Party in Ontario three times in a row, because I felt that our tax rate was far above the optimum. Subsequent events bore out that interpretation, as Conservative tax cuts in Ontario (and spending cuts) allowed them to take a $12 billion/yr deficit inherited from the previous government and turn it into a balanced budget over a few years. But the US is starting out at a much lower tax rate than Ontario was, and the tax cuts do not seem to be having the projected effect. Doctrine must eventually give way to results, and the wisdom of tax cuts depends on the situation.

Hey, words I understand! If we are not to propose tax cuts, then let’s cut spending. Simple words! Sadly neither candidate this year is fiscally conservative, and both will increase spending without regard to the deficit. So instead, I will vote for the devil I know.

Oh and to the pinkocommietreehuggerleftwingliberalsocialistanarchist person that wrote the OP, Fuck ‘em.

[Edi]

A vast minority of assholes does not a crooked system make. The true problem with welfare is that it removes people from the system if they get a job that pays barely more than the checks. Think about it: Would you work 40+ hours a week for a paltry sum, or would you rather not do anything and recieve the same amount?

What you would propose raising the minimum wage? Ok, I’m all for that if we eliminate welfare and decrease the taxes the same amount to lessen the burden on the businesses that will now have their profit margins reduced. What you don’t want to get rid of a failing system? Then quit yer bitchin’.

False dilemma. It's not either-or, fixing a welfare system is a complicated task and this simplistic thinking of yours is completely inadequate. You need to close loopholes that allow exploitation of the system, you need to make working more attractive than lying around, and you need to cut out administrative bloat from the system that is eating up money and resources and producing nothing. Furthermore, the main goal of the welfare system (even a limited one) is to keep social order and provide some kind of a minimum safety net so that people won't be starving in the street. If that means that companies cannot be allowed absolute maximizing of profits at the expense of the greater good, then fuck the companies up the arse, we're not talking about that much of an additional onus on them given how scarce the US welfare system is. If you had something like many European countries do, then a selective application of the axe with brutal force would be more appropriate.

Hmmm lets try this out. Ok, marriage is the “joining” of a man and a woman currently. By adding gay marriage the statement would change to marriage is the “joining” of a person and anotehr person. Hmm one change in the meaning. Ok let’s try this, marriage is the “joining” of a man and two women. How is this a more significant change? What it alters the structure of the meaning of marriage? Well so does gay marriage. If we can add gay marriage to the mix, why not the others, they are all simply deviations from the accepted tradition?

Were you born this stupid or did you have to practice? I'll lay it out for you: The only difference between a traditional marriage and a gay marriage is the gender of one of the two people involved. A marriage in the secular western countries is a civil contract between two people. It has been taken to mean a civil contract between a man and a woman, but there is absolutely no fucking reason why it shouldn't be between two women or two men. If you've got an objection that is logically consistent within the framework of "civil contract in secular society", I'd very much like to hear it, because freedom of association and to decide one's own affairs through contracts etc (as long as you are not breaking a law while doing so) tend to be heavily protected.

By contrast adding a third or fourth or fifth person to the mix is a fundamental alteration of the whole premise (the premise being contract between two people). Marriages between adults and children, or between children? Children are not mentally competent to give consent, hence such contracts are invalid by default, to prevent exploitation. Incest? There are several logically valid reasons why incestuous marriages should not be allowed, chief among them likely adverse effects on any resulting children. So strike that out. What about pedophilia? See above about children and consent. Bestiality? Well, animals are not persons in the legal sense, hence are incapable by definition of giving consent in a matter like this.

Do you really need such elementary concepts as these carefully explained to you every time, preferably with bright colors and pretty pictures, before you grasp them?

Oh, that would make it harder to swallow by the overall conservative American base? Better change it real slow like so they don’t notice.

Yeah, all the liberals are out to have polygamy, polyandry, incest, pedophilia, child marriages and bestiality legalized, they're just doing it slow so that the conservatives can be fed one little piece at a time.

Why don't you try something more original the next time around, like addressing the point and trying to actually think before spewing bullshit? You know what they say, it's better to keep your mouth shut and let people wonder if you're an idiot than to open it and remove any doubts.

Yes, because all unwanted pregnacies are the results of druken one-night stands. Let's say a couple that gets by, but can't afford any long-term expenses are having safe-sex and the condom breaks. I guess it's too bad that they love each other and lost the statistical draw, eh? I wouldn't stop at labeling you a prude, bastard.

Yup, they lose at life. They should recognize the risks and take alternate methods to expressing their love for each other/getting their rocks off. Oral sex is highly gratifying as well as Doing it in the butt. Even if they still get preggers, why is it so horrible to hold them accountable to their actions? They knew the risks. It’s not like adoption isn’t always an option. Oh she wants to keep the baby? Well suffer the consequences. Life is rough, get used to it.

This is a characteristic example of the lack of empathy DW spoke about in his first post. You know, having an abortion is taking personal rsponsibility for the resultant situation, it just happens to be different from what you personally prefer, and I don't see any reason why the whole society should bow to your personal preferences unless you've go something more substantial to back them up.

I also suspect that you have no fucking idea about what it's like to be in a difficult situation, when you have barely enough money to keep a roof over your head and food in your mouth and then suddenly facing the prospect of having to take care of a child. I don't either, I've got my parents to thank for more than I can even begin to think about, but I also have friends who haven't had it so good, and I've seen enough down on their luck people to have some inkling of what is involved. Maybe it's that quality I mentioned earlier, empathy, I've got some measure of that so I don't condemn people out of hand for something like this. You, on the other hand, are by your own words an asshole where this issue is concerned.

Gay-marriage bans are a form of gender discrimination; the only difference between a straight marriage and a gay one is the gender of one of the partners. This is exactly the reasoning one of the state supreme courts used to legalize gay marriage before the legislature stepped in. This rationalization does not even remotely apply to any of the other examples you cited.

Does it list anywhere in the constitution that marriage is a right? No? Then the 10th amendment would place the right to legislate that to the states. If the federal government wishes to inact laws overriding that, then the states should appeal to the Supreme Court to have those laws repealed as they are unconstitutional. Were it to be added to the constitution, then it means that a great majority of the populace (67%) wants this to be the law of the land. Since that is not the case now, it should be handled by the states.

You've conveniently forgotten the 14th amendment (or whatever the number was) which does not limit constitutional rights only to those things specifically mentioned, much as you'd like to pretend otherwise on the issue of gay marriage.

Of course the Earth has a weather cycle. That doesn't change the fact that the determination of whether global warming is real is unaffected by the question of whether we made it happen. If it's happening, and if it's going to harm our society, then we should try to do something to slow it down.

That’s right. If it’s happening. Those same scientists that are predicting global warming now, were predicting global cooling 20 years ago. I don’t know what type of proof would be sufficient for me to believe that actions such as the Kyoto accords are necessary, but were I to see it, I would be willing to consider them.

Are you familiar with the concept of "more accurate data in greater quantity"? Because compared to 20 years ago and 40 years ago, that's exactly what we've got today, and according to that more accurate data, there seems to be a general warming trend. It could be reversed temporarily if there was a massive volcano eruption or something like that, but human activity is contributing to the conditions that favor warming.

Your position is logically inconsistent. If a fetus has human rights, then it's wrong to abort it even in cases of rape. If a fetus does not have human rights, then there's no reason to ban it regardless of whether you think the woman has been "responsible" enough.

My argument would be logically inconsistent were it the pro-life stance based on human rights. However, I approach it more on a personal responsibility requirement. In cases of rape/molestation and life of the mother, the preggers lady had no choice in the creation of life and therefore I can condone their choice for an abortion. In all cases of consensual sex resulting in pregnancy, I don’t see why either party gets a bye on the consequences of their actions in the form of an abortion. If it’s not economically feasible to raise a kid, then adoption agencies exist. I’m pretty much a bastard on this point but, oh well, Fuck ‘em.

You're big onpersonal responsibility, sure, as long as people only take responsibility in the way YOU prefer. Newsflash: Having an abortion is a response to the situation and taking responsibility for the consequences of one's actions. It's just that those consequences are a different set than having the baby, but having an abortion is not by default an irresponsible action like you dishonestly try to claim. And yes, you really are a first-order prick about this issue.

Edi

[Axis Kast]

Loony conspiracy theories? Did you even watch that debate? Why the fuck did he say "let me finish" when neither the moderator or Kerry was making a *sound*? That he was 'wired for sound' is not exactly a fringe theory in light of that fact.

Yes, yes it is. If he was wired for sound, why the hell did Bush stumble so badly? That he is simply a poor debater is far, far more likely than that he stumbled over some kind of audio concoction siphoned him by his aides.

Prove that wrong. If it's so wrong that it's "insane", you should be able to do a lot better than calling it "value-laden".

The fact that you are actually confident that it serves the purpose of rational, balanced discourse proves your stupidity.

Prove any part of that statement factually incorrect.

I don’t need to prove it factually incorrect; all I need to do is point out that you jumped on theories that came out of far-left tracts known to be hostile to conservatives. You knew of their bias, and still you embraced their revelations and presumptions as if they were fact.

Explain why this was an unreasonable statement given the information available at the time. Also notice how, when it came to light that it was indeed a forgery, I accepted that, unlike you who still refuses to admit that it was a costly mistake to invade Iraq. That's the real difference between a doctrinaire nutcase and a rational human being, Tiger-boy: an ability to accept new information.

Of course, I wouldn't expect you to understand that. You honestly seem to think that you can prove someone an "insane liberal" by accusing him of making "value-laden statements", being "suspicious" of George W. Bush for acting and looking like he was wired, and taking the White House Communications Director at his word, even while you continue twirling in your insane vortex of self-delusional rantings about how the Iraq war was a brilliant move whose justifications were all completely valid.

You mean while you and the rest of the liberal looneys here at SD.net tried to concoct bogus, amateur “typewriter” theories and clung to Dan Rather furiously until the last possible minute? You’ve begun to mistake logical debate for rabid, mindless bluster.

Perhaps George Bush Sr. shouldn't have promised to pull those bases out of Saudi Arabia after the operation, then.

Yes; because that would have sent a great message to Saddam Hussein. No-Fly Zones, anyone?

How does that statement in any way refute mine? Did we ever stop being Israel's Big Brother or interfering in the Middle East?

Our support for Israel is a sore point in the Middle East, not the chief – or even a significant – cause of terrorism. Osama bin Laden hates the United States because of its constant involvement throughout the Middle East, and despite some new rhetoric about the right of the Palestinians to have a homeland and furious wanking about the “evil” of the Jews, most Palestinian groups have sought to distance themselves from him for years.

Again, how does that statement in any way refute mine? Is this not the direct result of our interference, once again?

Because leaving Iraq now and “playing fair” from today forward isn’t a realistic option.

So let's just give them a hundred times more motive! Yes, that's just brilliant. You should ask for a Nobel prize.

It’s the only long term solution to the problem, Wong. And notice how you didn’t even try to defend your crackpot theory on fuzzy-wuzzy “equality economics.”

[BoredShirtless]

Loony conspiracy theories? Did you even watch that debate? Why the fuck did he say "let me finish" when neither the moderator or Kerry was making a *sound*? That he was 'wired for sound' is not exactly a fringe theory in light of that fact.

Yes, yes it is. If he was wired for sound, why the hell did Bush stumble so badly?

Because the input wasn't in time with his output, thus confusing the chimp?

That he is simply a poor debater is far, far more likely than that he stumbled over some kind of audio concoction siphoned him by his aides.

Even poor debaters don't address air as if air was interrupting their thoughts. Clearly, if you have a person talking in your ear, and you're talking at the same time, if you're not in sync then it can be confusing.

[Darth Wong]

Prove that wrong. If it's so wrong that it's "insane", you should be able to do a lot better than calling it "value-laden".

The fact that you are actually confident that it serves the purpose of rational, balanced discourse proves your stupidity.

In other words, you can't prove that statement wrong, so you just hurl more bilious vitriol.

Prove any part of that statement factually incorrect.

I don’t need to prove it factually incorrect; all I need to do is point out that you jumped on theories that came out of far-left tracts known to be hostile to conservatives. You knew of their bias, and still you embraced their revelations and presumptions as if they were fact.

Oh really? So the word "suspicious" means "it's a fact" now? Fascinating. Yet again, I note that when challenged to prove that the statement was incorrect, you made up excuses.

Explain why this was an unreasonable statement given the information available at the time. Also notice how, when it came to light that it was indeed a forgery, I accepted that, unlike you who still refuses to admit that it was a costly mistake to invade Iraq. That's the real difference between a doctrinaire nutcase and a rational human being, Tiger-boy: an ability to accept new information.

Of course, I wouldn't expect you to understand that. You honestly seem to think that you can prove someone an "insane liberal" by accusing him of making "value-laden statements", being "suspicious" of George W. Bush for acting and looking like he was wired, and taking the White House Communications Director at his word, even while you continue twirling in your insane vortex of self-delusional rantings about how the Iraq war was a brilliant move whose justifications were all completely valid.

You mean while you and the rest of the liberal looneys here at SD.net tried to concoct bogus, amateur “typewriter” theories and clung to Dan Rather furiously until the last possible minute? You’ve begun to mistake logical debate for rabid, mindless bluster.

I do like the way you lump everyone into a single group; everyone who disagrees with Tiger-boy must be a "liberal looney", eh? I also like the way you completely ignored the substance of that rebuttal, which was the fact that unlike you, I did not tenaciously cling to Rather when it became apparent that his story was fraudulent. In fact, if you actually read my posts on the matter rather than being your usual lying sack-of-shit self, you would know that I quickly moved to the DoD documents and pointed out that their contents were being obscured by the publicity storm over Rather.

Perhaps George Bush Sr. shouldn't have promised to pull those bases out of Saudi Arabia after the operation, then.

Yes; because that would have sent a great message to Saddam Hussein. No-Fly Zones, anyone?

Ever heard of this thing called an "aircraft carrier"? Or honouring your promises? Breaking a promise made by a head of state sends a message too, moron.

How does that statement in any way refute mine? Did we ever stop being Israel's Big Brother or interfering in the Middle East?

Our support for Israel is a sore point in the Middle East, not the chief – or even a significant – cause of terrorism. Osama bin Laden hates the United States because of its constant involvement throughout the Middle East, and despite some new rhetoric about the right of the Palestinians to have a homeland and furious wanking about the “evil” of the Jews, most Palestinian groups have sought to distance themselves from him for years.

How is this paragraph supposed to support your assertion that "America's constant involvement throughout the Middle East" is a good idea? And once again, how does that statement refute mine? I know this concept of answering direct questions and challenges is still quite foreign to you, but that doesn't mean I'll stop asking.

Again, how does that statement in any way refute mine? Is this not the direct result of our interference, once again?

Because leaving Iraq now and “playing fair” from today forward isn’t a realistic option.

"From today forward"? I thought you were defending your statement based on "since 1991". But feel free to continue moving the goalposts; it only makes you look more ridiculous than ever, Tiger-boy.

So let's just give them a hundred times more motive! Yes, that's just brilliant. You should ask for a Nobel prize.

It’s the only long term solution to the problem, Wong. And notice how you didn’t even try to defend your crackpot theory on fuzzy-wuzzy “equality economics.”

Perhaps you could explain what's wrong with my economic ideas then, rather than just hurling the usual anti-liberal propagandistic labels. Or is that too complex for you to handle?

[Edi]

Prove any part of that statement factually incorrect.

I don’t need to prove it factually incorrect; all I need to do is point out that you jumped on theories that came out of far-left tracts known to be hostile to conservatives. You knew of their bias, and still you embraced their revelations and presumptions as if they were fact.

Wrong as usual, Kast-Iron Skull, what he said is that the wire theory sounds dodgy, but that the visible bulge and Bush's strange behavior are enough to warrant suspicion. He did NOT state as fact that Bush was wired, he just said that it was possible. So you're caught redhanded in another lie, fucker.

Edi

[Talon Karrde]

Why do they so strongly oppose high taxes for the wealthy? Because they all think they're going to be wealthy someday, or because they're already wealthy, or because their parents are wealthy. And the people who don't make that much money obviously didn't try hard enough, so they're beneath contempt. Fuck 'em.

And this is you, Mike Wong, trying to pass off value-laden bullshit as a balanced assessment of Republican opinion.

Prove that wrong. If it's so wrong that it's "insane", you should be able to do a lot better than calling it "value-laden".

Note how Mike never has to prove his statement, while continually pushing for others to "back it up." When he's called on it, he then changes his battle cry to "disprove it." Seems to me whenever the shoe falls on the other foot he changes tactics.

It seems dodgy at first, but one has to wonder what that squarish protrusion on his back is, because it sure as hell looks suspicious and I can't imagine what other apparel a normal person would wear that produces a squarish bulge in the middle of his back.

And this is you, Mike Wong, giving credit to loony conspiracy theories from helplessly biased left-wing sources.

Prove any part of that statement factually incorrect.[/quote]The point is that if you honestly fall into believing such a conspiracy theory in the first place, your are somewhat deranged.

[Darth Wong]

Does it list anywhere in the constitution that marriage is a right? No?

Irrelevant. The federal government recognizes marriage for the purposes of income tax and numerous other considerations. It does not have to be explicitly enumerated as a right.

That’s right. If it’s happening. Those same scientists that are predicting global warming now, were predicting global cooling 20 years ago.

Provide your source. They have been predicting global warming for as long as I can remember this debate going on.

My argument would be logically inconsistent were it the pro-life stance based on human rights. However, I approach it more on a personal responsibility requirement.

So your position is that anything which mitigates or alters the natural consequence of personal irresponsibility must be outlawed? Think carefully before you answer, because I can swamp you with a list of utterly absurd consequences if you press ahead with this principle.

Guaranteed to work? Sure. Best option? IMO, No. Adjusting the benefits is easily demagouged and will not get the acceptance by the elderly that would be necessary for the changes. Then all we have left is raising taxes to be able to pay for it as the remaining option. If we could avoid this by privatization or the like, why shouldn’t we do it? It will be demagouged by the media and never pass? Oh well, guess we’re screwed.

Generally speaking, given a choice between an option that will work and an option that is largely a construction of fantasy-land thinking, one should go with the one that works. The Bush plan is for every single person in America to become an expert investor. Good luck.

Sure, and by the admission of General Giap(sp?), commander of the NVA, without the support of the Anti-war movement *cough* Kerry, is a big fucking douche bag lying traitor for his actions AFTER the war *cough* the North would have lost. I’ll gladly use history to justify staying in Iraq and finishing the job.

Oh yes of course, because no one in America had a problem with these casualties besides the "anti-war movement". Interesting view of history; too bad it bears no resemblance to reality.

You equated wanting to be rich with not caring about those that are not rich without the qualifying statement that you have added.

Wrong. I equated wanting to be rich without paying a higher tax rate than a poor person as not caring, which it most certainly is.

And yes, that 500k person would still retain a higher SOL, and is already paying more taxes than the schmuck at the same tax rate. He makes more money and therefore pays more in taxes.

How does that address the fact that he can easily afford a higher tax rate than the poor shmuck?

The problem does not originate from a tiered income tax but in the existence of loopholes and tax shelters that allow someone like, I don’t know, let’s say Teresa Heinz Kerry only pay 12% income tax on her $5+ million total income. The more I learn about tax law, the better the fair tax plan sounds.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the existence of loopholes and tax shelters is not contingent upon graduated income tax. So this is what we call a "red herring".

Hey, words I understand! If we are not to propose tax cuts, then let’s cut spending. Simple words! Sadly neither candidate this year is fiscally conservative, and both will increase spending without regard to the deficit. So instead, I will vote for the devil I know.

The one who generated some of the largest spending increases in history. Great plan.

[Darth Wong]

And this is you, Mike Wong, trying to pass off value-laden bullshit as a balanced assessment of Republican opinion.

Prove that wrong. If it's so wrong that it's "insane", you should be able to do a lot better than calling it "value-laden".

Note how Mike never has to prove his statement, while continually pushing for others to "back it up." When he's called on it, he then changes his battle cry to "disprove it." Seems to me whenever the shoe falls on the other foot he changes tactics.

And like Kast, you also fail to provide an alternate motivation, while pretending that you can accuse someone of being "insane" without backing it up (and no, backing up it does not mean "I think your statement is insane"; it means proving it). Better luck next time, moron.

And this is you, Mike Wong, giving credit to loony conspiracy theories from helplessly biased left-wing sources.

Prove any part of that statement factually incorrect.

The point is that if you honestly fall into believing such a conspiracy theory in the first place, your are somewhat deranged.

Yet another moron who doesn't understand that if you say it's "insane" merely to be suspicious of something, you had better come up with a better reason than simply repeating yourself. I know it's hard to do better than mindless sloganizing when you're a retard, but please try.

[Talon Karrde]

Prove that wrong. If it's so wrong that it's "insane", you should be able to do a lot better than calling it "value-laden".

Note how Mike never has to prove his statement, while continually pushing for others to "back it up." When he's called on it, he then changes his battle cry to "disprove it." Seems to me whenever the shoe falls on the other foot he changes tactics.

And like Kast, you also fail to provide an alternate motivation. Better luck next time, moron.

Let's see here....

Without anything to back up your wankery about Republicans saying to the poor "fuck em'" or that Republicans want lower taxes for the rich because they all have some delusion they will some day be rich, you seem to think this is sound logic and a fair assessment. When someone terms this as an "insane" statement, you resort to demanding that he disprove it. How exactly does one disprove the dumb-fuckery presented by such and ignorant and baseless accusation in the first place?

[Darth Wong]

Without anything to back up your wankery about Republicans saying to the poor "fuck em'" or that Republicans want lower taxes for the rich because they all have some delusion they will some day be rich, you seem to think this is sound logic and a fair assessment.

Since morons like you literally say "fuck 'em" by wanting to take away the social services they use while diverting vast funds to big corporations as long as they have something to do with the military, this is hardly "wankery". And yes, most right-wingers do either expect or hope to be rich someday; if you wish to disprove that they even hope to be rich, go ahead and try.

When someone terms this as an "insane" statement, you resort to demanding that he disprove it.

Exactly; if you say something is "insane", you must show that it is false. Simple logic unless you're an idiot.

How exactly does one disprove the dumb-fuckery presented by such and ignorant and baseless accusation in the first place?

By showing that it is inconsistent with reality, which you have failed to do.

[DPDarkPrimus]

I’m all for that if we eliminate welfare and decrease the taxes the same amount to lessen the burden on the businesses that will now have their profit margins reduced. What you don’t want to get rid of a failing system?

Perhaps because businesses are not going to create jobs just because you give them tax breaks. But more importantly, because I feel that people who genuinely need welfare to support their family deserve help. You know, to protect their fundamental rights?

Hmmm lets try this out. Ok, marriage is the “joining” of a man and a woman currently. By adding gay marriage the statement would change to marriage is the “joining” of a person and anotehr person. Hmm one change in the meaning. Ok let’s try this, marriage is the “joining” of a man and two women. How is this a more significant change? What it alters the structure of the meaning of marriage? Well so does gay marriage. If we can add gay marriage to the mix, why not the others, they are all simply deviations from the accepted tradition? Oh, that would make it harder to swallow by the overall conservative American base? Better change it real slow like so they don’t notice.

You're still on the same fucking slipperly slope as before.

Toxins are bad. I agree. We already have laws on the books that limit the amount and type of toxins released into the environment. Company’s break those laws? Then enforce them, don’t write new ones without fully enforcing the old ones *cough* Gun control *cough*.

Even when enforced, the fines and other penalties are paltry. Companies break the laws because they stand to lose more profit if they obey it. They've weighted the costs and gains.

Yup, they lose at life. They should recognize the risks and take alternate methods to expressing their love for each other/getting their rocks off. Oral sex is highly gratifying as well as Doing it in the butt. Even if they still get preggers, why is it so horrible to hold them accountable to their actions? They knew the risks. It’s not like adoption isn’t always an option. Oh she wants to keep the baby? Well suffer the consequences. Life is rough, get used to it.

You really are an asshole. I don't even see why I should bother refuting some of the oldest arguements around.

On multiple occasions Kerry has stated that he would have all the troops out of Iraq between 3-6 months after he is elected. The fact that he is no longer saying that now because the American people don’t want that does not disprove the fact that he said it.

On multiple occasions Bush and Cheney stated that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and that they were linked with al-Quieda. That fact they are no longer saying that does not disprove the fact they said it.

Sorry, did you have something to prove, other than trying to make an ignorant appeal?

Kerry has not proven to hold any sort of standard position on Iraq. For all I know if the polls said that he should turn it into a big ass theme park, he would probably say he would.

At least then he would have a plan, unlike Bush.

Does it list anywhere in the constitution that marriage is a right? No? Then the 10th amendment would place the right to legislate that to the states.

Just like Americans don't have a right to privacy, right? I mean, it's not stated in the Constitution.

[Axis Kast]

In other words, you can't prove that statement wrong, so you just hurl more bilious vitriol.

You want me to prove that I support tax cuts for the wealthy because it’s an effective method of jump-starting investment in the economy (which, by the way, we desperately need) rather than because I have some inexplicable desire to be shafted by those wealthier than I am? You know, Wong, people often take a particular stance because they find it practical, not because they have an innate, seething hatred for anyone less fortunate.

Oh really? So the word "suspicious" means "it's a fact" now? Fascinating. Yet again, I note that when challenged to prove that the statement was incorrect, you made up excuses.

Karrde said it all: you jumped on a suggestion form nothing but indisputably biased sources and then you and yours concocted ridiculous, amateur conspiracy theories to explain something that can far more easily and rationally be understood as a man, under intense pressure, tripping over his own words.

I do like the way you lump everyone into a single group; everyone who disagrees with Tiger-boy must be a "liberal looney", eh? I also like the way you completely ignored the substance of that rebuttal, which was the fact that unlike you, I did not tenaciously cling to Rather when it became apparent that his story was fraudulent. In fact, if you actually read my posts on the matter rather than being your usual lying sack-of-shit self, you would know that I quickly moved to the DoD documents and pointed out that their contents were being obscured by the publicity storm over Rather.

Oh, bullshit. You waited as long as possible before turning against the man who made a career assailing the credibility of conservative presidents – often through cheap camera tricks and monopolization of dialogue following their press releases.

Ever heard of this thing called an "aircraft carrier"? Or honouring your promises? Breaking a promise made by a head of state sends a message too, moron.

Times change; leaders must be adaptable. An aircraft carrier isn’t necessarily in the position to constantly deploy the number or types of planes required for the missions over Iraq post-1991.

How is this paragraph supposed to support your assertion that "America's constant involvement throughout the Middle East" is a good idea? And once again, how does that statement refute mine? I know this concept of answering direct questions and challenges is still quite foreign to you, but that doesn't mean I'll stop asking.

You’re obfuscating, dipshit. You wouldn’t have brought up Israel unless you were referring to it as a source of Bin Laden’s anger. But, of course, it’s not the reason he attacked us on 9/11.

"From today forward"? I thought you were defending your statement based on "since 1991". But feel free to continue moving the goalposts; it only makes you look more ridiculous than ever, Tiger-boy.

All of your suggestions are founded on the presumption of returning to a “square one” where we can have amicable, fruitful discussion with murderous regimes that actually sponsor attacks on Americans. But please, don’t let me deny you your fuzzy-wuzzy delusions.

Perhaps you could explain what's wrong with my economic ideas then, rather than just hurling the usual anti-liberal propagandistic labels. Or is that too complex for you to handle?

Governments in the Middle East won’t give the money they make in your “fair deals” to their people, moron.

[Talon Karrde]

Without anything to back up your wankery about Republicans saying to the poor "fuck em'" or that Republicans want lower taxes for the rich because they all have some delusion they will some day be rich, you seem to think this is sound logic and a fair assessment.

Since morons like you literally say "fuck 'em" by wanting to take away the social services they use while diverting vast funds to big corporations as long as they have something to do with the military, this is hardly "wankery". And yes, most right-wingers do either expect or hope to be rich someday; if you wish to disprove that they even hope to be rich, go ahead and try.

I've literally said "fuck 'em" huh? Please tell me when, since I have literally said this. And who the fuck wants to take away these social services? Reform, yes. Abolish, no.

And once again, we have a claim based on absolutely no burden of proof, but you seem to ignore your own rules of debating engagment when it comes to yourself. Please, show me proof the Republicans want to "DIVERT vast funds" to corporation because they are connected with the military.

And again, all right-wingers want to be rich someday says you. You immediately use "disprove my statement" as the defense to your original statement that wasn't backed up in the first place. In other words, I can say whatever the fuck I want with no proof, and you must disprove it to be false if you disagree, while I myself don't have to offer a lick of proof.

How exactly does one disprove the dumb-fuckery presented by such and ignorant and baseless accusation in the first place?

By showing that it is inconsistent with reality, which you have failed to do.[/quote]And again, you never present any proof of your original accusation, but demand disproof from the alternative argument.

[Darth Wong]

In other words, you can't prove that statement wrong, so you just hurl more bilious vitriol.

You want me to prove that I support tax cuts for the wealthy because it’s an effective method of jump-starting investment in the economy (which, by the way, we desperately need) rather than because I have some inexplicable desire to be shafted by those wealthier than I am?

Yes, because there is no evidence that it jump-starts the economy, nor is it likely that you have no ambitions, hopes, or dreams of ever becoming wealthy.

Karrde said it all: you jumped on a suggestion form nothing but indisputably biased sources and then you and yours concocted ridiculous, amateur conspiracy theories to explain something that can far more easily and rationally be understood as a man, under intense pressure, tripping over his own words.

Look up "suspicious" in the dictionary, moron. Believe it or not, it's not the same thing as "fact".

Oh, bullshit. You waited as long as possible before turning against the man who made a career assailing the credibility of conservative presidents – often through cheap camera tricks and monopolization of dialogue following their press releases.

Yet again, you make the accusation, you prove it. So far you've done a piss-poor job of proving any of your statements.

Ever heard of this thing called an "aircraft carrier"? Or honouring your promises? Breaking a promise made by a head of state sends a message too, moron.

Times change; leaders must be adaptable. An aircraft carrier isn’t necessarily in the position to constantly deploy the number or types of planes required for the missions over Iraq post-1991.

Wow, leaders must be "adaptable" over time? I guess you'd call that "flip-flopping", right? But it doesn't change the fact that Bush Sr. must have known at the time he made the promise that he had no intention of keeping it, thus maintaining a long history of living up to Osama Bin Laden's predictions and thus making it easier for him to recruit new people to his side.

How is this paragraph supposed to support your assertion that "America's constant involvement throughout the Middle East" is a good idea? And once again, how does that statement refute mine? I know this concept of answering direct questions and challenges is still quite foreign to you, but that doesn't mean I'll stop asking.

You’re obfuscating, dipshit. You wouldn’t have brought up Israel unless you were referring to it as a source of Bin Laden’s anger. But, of course, it’s not the reason he attacked us on 9/11.

It is how he recruits people; all of his speeches are filled with talk of Israel, although you appear too dense to admit that.

"From today forward"? I thought you were defending your statement based on "since 1991". But feel free to continue moving the goalposts; it only makes you look more ridiculous than ever, Tiger-boy.

All of your suggestions are founded on the presumption of returning to a “square one” where we can have amicable, fruitful discussion with murderous regimes that actually sponsor attacks on Americans. But please, don’t let me deny you your fuzzy-wuzzy delusions.

Who needs "amicable, fruitful discussion", moron? All we want is arms-length dealings, in case you're too dense to read simple English.

Perhaps you could explain what's wrong with my economic ideas then, rather than just hurling the usual anti-liberal propagandistic labels. Or is that too complex for you to handle?

Governments in the Middle East won’t give the money they make in your “fair deals” to their people, moron.

Too bad that was not my theory, you idiot.

[Darth Wong]

I've literally said "fuck 'em" huh? Please tell me when, since I have literally said this. And who the fuck wants to take away these social services? Reform, yes. Abolish, no.

"Reform" as in "slash". And yes, that is saying "fuck 'em", whether you admit it or not.

And once again, we have a claim based on absolutely no burden of proof, but you seem to ignore your own rules of debating engagment when it comes to yourself. Please, show me proof the Republicans want to "DIVERT vast funds" to corporation because they are connected with the military.

They've already done so, moron.

And again, all right-wingers want to be rich someday says you.

You're seriously going to tell me that any normal person does not hope to be rich someday?

Speaking of "delusional" ...

And again, you never present any proof of your original accusation, but demand disproof from the alternative argument.

I already have, moron. The Republicans have already funneled vast funds to big corporations, they have already shoved through a tax-cut plan which shifts the burden of government funding to the lower and middle classes over its duration, and no honest person can seriously doubt that most people do hope to become rich.

[Vympel]

Yes, yes it is. If he was wired for sound, why the hell did Bush stumble so badly?

How about the possibility that the guy coaching him through his answers wasn't a debating genius either? Maybe it was you on the other end, and you're just getting defensive at being found out. Did Dubya tell you off after the debate for not "letting him finish"?

That he is simply a poor debater is far, far more likely than that he stumbled over some kind of audio concoction siphoned him by his aides.

It's slightly more likely, however, in view of his already noted odd behavior and the previous incident with Chirac of France where by accident his audio feed got fed through to the networks so they could hear whoever was feeding him lines saying those lines before Bush was, you trying to dismiss it as something out on the looney fringe is simply laughable.

[Talon Karrde]

I've literally said "fuck 'em" huh? Please tell me when, since I have literally said this. And who the fuck wants to take away these social services? Reform, yes. Abolish, no.

"Reform" as in "slash". And yes, that is saying "fuck 'em", whether you admit it or not.

It would be nice if you would back this up.

And once again, we have a claim based on absolutely no burden of proof, but you seem to ignore your own rules of debating engagment when it comes to yourself. Please, show me proof the Republicans want to "DIVERT vast funds" to corporation because they are connected with the military.

They've already done so, moron.[/quote]So, now I believe it's time to tear a page from your book. Let's see... when asked to provide proof for an outrageous statement, you merely re-state it in a different way and offer no proof. Way to be consistent.

And again, all right-wingers want to be rich someday says you.

You're seriously going to tell me that any normal person does not hope to be rich someday? [/quote]Point conceded.

And again, you never present any proof of your original accusation, but demand disproof from the alternative argument.

I already have, moron. The Republicans have already funneled vast funds to big corporations, they have already shoved through a tax-cut plan which shifts the burden of government funding to the lower and middle classes over its duration, and no honest person can seriously doubt that most people do hope to become rich.[/quote] You seem to the "proof" is synonomous with "since I said it's ALREADY happened, I don't need to show proof." WRONG. You haven't proved it's already happened, you've merely stated it. Please show me this tax-cut you refer to. I've seen in no way that it has shifted the burden of government funding the lower and middle classes. Considering that the top 1% tax bracket still pays 20% of the taxes in this country, I find that to be an odd statement.

[Darth Wong]

"Reform" as in "slash". And yes, that is saying "fuck 'em", whether you admit it or not.

It would be nice if you would back this up.

So you DENY that right-wingers want to slash welfare? Let me get you on record denying this.

They've already done so, moron.

So, now I believe it's time to tear a page from your book. Let's see... when asked to provide proof for an outrageous statement, you merely re-state it in a different way and offer no proof. Way to be consistent.

One word: Haliburton. Next dumbshit retort, please.

And again, all right-wingers want to be rich someday says you.

You're seriously going to tell me that any normal person does not hope to be rich someday?

Point conceded.

That's amazing.

I already have, moron. The Republicans have already funneled vast funds to big corporations, they have already shoved through a tax-cut plan which shifts the burden of government funding to the lower and middle classes over its duration, and no honest person can seriously doubt that most people do hope to become rich.

You seem to the "proof" is synonomous with "since I said it's ALREADY happened, I don't need to show proof." WRONG.

How is that wrong, moron? If It's already happened, it's a matter of public record and is far easier to substantiate unless you just want to be be a pedantic shithead, which is what you're obviously going for.

You haven't proved it's already happened, you've merely stated it. Please show me this tax-cut you refer to. I've seen in no way that it has shifted the burden of government funding the lower and middle classes.

Strawman fallacy; the tax burden shift phases in between now and 2010, at which point the crushing debt repayment from today's deficits will start to become a serious problem. Even Bush is smart enough to delay the worst news until after the election. Look up the bill yourself.

Considering that the top 1% tax bracket still pays 20% of the taxes in this country, I find that to be an odd statement.

According to the US Federal Reserve Board, they hold around 34% of the wealth, so you'll have to forgive me if I'm not particularly impressed by the fact that they pay 20% of the taxes.

[Darth Wong]

BTW, this thread was started over Republicans and Republican-apologists who doggedly cling to a dogma even after it has been disproven, such as the claim that the Bush Administration's invasion of Iraq was justified by its WMD arsenal. I'm still waiting to see one of you provide evidence that any of the prominent posters on this board are half that nuts.

Kast has been reduced to saying that my statements employ "bias" and are not "balanced", and Talon Karrde actually found himself denying that normal people want to become rich before pulling back from the brink.

[Axis Kast]

Yes, because there is no evidence that it jump-starts the economy, nor is it likely that you have no ambitions, hopes, or dreams of ever becoming wealthy.

It’s a point of macroeconomic fact, you fool: with more money on hand, and guarantees that there will be less impediments to spending this money, firms and individuals are more likely to invest. Hence, allowing the wealthy – those with the most money – to invest it as readily as possible is a boon to all Americans. John F. Kennedy put it best: a rising tide lifts all boats.

Look up "suspicious" in the dictionary, moron. Believe it or not, it's not the same thing as "fact".

It’s not your suspicion that’s biased, Wong; it’s the source of that suspicion – a bunch of over-the-top publications with a left-wing bias so great, it’s impossible not to notice and cringe.

Yet again, you make the accusation, you prove it. So far you've done a piss-poor job of proving any of your statements.

Wong, anyone who reads this website is treated to your ridiculous harangues against the universal evil of FOX News and your constant arguments that the media is a conservative-dominated ring to reelect George W. Bush. That’s not a point in dispute by anybody with half a brain.

Wow, leaders must be "adaptable" over time? I guess you'd call that "flip-flopping", right? But it doesn't change the fact that Bush Sr. must have known at the time he made the promise that he had no intention of keeping it, thus maintaining a long history of living up to Osama Bin Laden's predictions and thus making it easier for him to recruit new people to his side.

I’ve never accused John Kerry of being a piss-poor candidate because he “flip-flops”; I’ve accused him of being a piss-poor candidate because I don’t think the “nice guy” approach will encourage Europe to make a reevaluation of its strategic interests, nor do I think protectionism is a good idea.

As for George Bush, Osama bin Laden would have attacked us regardless of one individual statement to the international community. Focusing on that statement as a realistic fulcrum for bin Laden’s anger is a weak – and pathetic – attempt to play word games over policies that you can’t actually assail in the first place. We needed a deterrent to Saddam, and aircraft carriers weren’t it.

It is how he recruits people; all of his speeches are filled with talk of Israel, although you appear too dense to admit that.

But Israel isn’t the source of his anger, nor will obtaining a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (which would be virtually impossible to do even if we cut off all aid to Israel, because that would just put reactionaries in power) end his brand of terrorism. No. The real source is the stagnant nature of the Middle Eastern nations – which only regime-change can address.

Who needs "amicable, fruitful discussion", moron? All we want is arms-length dealings, in case you're too dense to read simple English.

And you won’t fucking get it. The problem in the Middle East is that the populations suffer greatly under their current leadership. And that leadership won’t provide improvement no matter how much money it recieves.

It's slightly more likely, however, in view of his already noted odd behavior and the previous incident with Chirac of France where by accident his audio feed got fed through to the networks so they could hear whoever was feeding him lines saying those lines before Bush was, you trying to dismiss it as something out on the looney fringe is simply laughable.

His odd behavior is far more simply explained by his nervousness and poor oratory skills than by conspiracy theories purporting that he tried to “cheat” his way through the debates.

Furthermore, a press conference with Jacques Chirac and a heavily-moderated debate with John Kerry are two very different animals.