FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Dems: these are merely the facts





S3nd K3ys
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/letters/articles/2005/09/18/as_a_leader_george_bush_was_a_flop_and_i_feel_betrayed/

Quote:
CONSERVATIVE FRIENDS have been sending me long, detailed e-mails about the government's response to Hurricane Katrina. They are all designed to place the blame on New Orleans Mayor C. Ray Nagin and Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco, while exonerating President Bush. These electronic messages have certainly been impressive and revealed previously unknown facts. After reading them, I acknowledge the timelines of what happened, when and who knew what, and when and who signed what and when. My friends are right that state and local government were the first lines of defense -- and they failed. This represents a systemic failure of government at all levels.

While their details are valid and their points well made, these are merely the facts. Facts usually matter far less than perception, and perception is often reality.
HuH? Shocked

I always knew the liebs believed that, but I didn't really think I'd ever see one admit to bleieving it...

How in the fawk can you ever get thru to someone who flat out states that they could care less about the facts, it's only what they FEEL that matters?
xalophus
What was the need of creating a separate thread for this ?
Weren't we discussing it someplace else already ?

Quote:
state and local government were the first lines of defense -- and they failed. This represents a systemic failure of government at all levels.

Typical selective reading.
Let me highlight the parts that you chose to omit -
Quote:
a systemic failure of government at all levels.

more from this article -
Quote:
In this crisis, George W. Bush failed the perception test. As columnist Charles Krauthammer says in the Sept. 9 Washington Post, Bush was ''late, slow, and simply out of tune with the urgency and magnitude of the disaster." For whatever reasons, Bush did not realize the magnitude of the disaster, make it his first priority, and take visible action. He did not give the American people confidence that someone competent was in charge and about to make things better. While he may indeed have taken action and signed orders during this time makes no difference. These things are not visible to the American people. What does matter is that he was in the wrong places at the wrong times. He said the wrong things in the wrong tone of voice. He demonstrated -- consistently -- the wrong emotions.

The perception is that he let the American people down, and we as a nation are very unforgiving of such a perceived betrayal.

It's common sense that any orders that he signs hold no meaning if the federal agencies don't do their job.

The "order signing" was right in place.
However, the ground action was missing.

If you believe that the federal agencies did a "heck of a job", then you can either go through the previous thread about federal response on Katrina, or we can do it right here, one more time.


Mayors & governors get the blame for local governments' failure.
What is so wrong with blaming the president for federal agencies' failure ?


And that's exactly what this article says -
Quote:
The person who does matter is George W. Bush, and that it why he is drawing so much ire.



S3nd K3ys wrote:
How in the fawk can you ever get thru to someone who flat out states that they could care less about the facts, it's only what they FEEL that matters?

The statement the author makes about facts and perceptions is about why, he thinks, is "the rage directed at President Bush".

I don't think anybody here but the non-"libs" talks loud without facts, or turns a deaf ear towards the other side's arguments.
Any argument from the "libs" over this has been based on facts.
Once again, you can either go through the other thread on federal response on Katrina, or I can re-post the facts here, all over again.

And I really don't understand how this discounts the blame that the President righteously deserves.


S3nd K3ys wrote:
I always knew the liebs believed that, but I didn't really think I'd ever see one admit to bleieving it...

The so called "libs" have always accepted the local governments' failure. You can either read the other thread, or I can quote it here.

But the non-"libs" never let anything tarnish the image of dear president.
Even when they accepted the federal agencies' failure, Bush is still scot-free !

Now we know why you didn't post it in the other thread,
It is because you are not willing to put this right after the post where you accept (however little) failure on the part of federal agencies ?

This sums up your attitude - (This, I have to quote from the other thread)
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Agreed. Most of my statements concerning the feds were in reference to the Pres, but you're right... FEMA is a federal agency and has some serious issues.

It's those dolts that simply lay the blame on the pres without any real knowledge of what's really going on, or, for that matter, what the 'chain of command' is.

Some here would have you believe it's the Pres's job to be in the trenches doing the dirty work, and that, if there's any kind of 'situation', that he should NOT go on with his day to day things.

Kind of like when he takes a 5 week vacation, some turds want to make it seem like he's not doing anything during that period, or that the Dems never take vacations or play golf etc.



I say "How in the fawk can you ever get thru to someone who flat out denies to accept the president's responsibility, despite knowing that the federal agencies did a bad job" ???

Federal agencies failed, but Bush was great !
Let's blame it all on the 'chain of command' !
Any body who does otherwise is a "dolt" or "turd".


By the way, it's spelt "lib" not "lieb".
Unless, ofcourse, if that's how you debate. By calling names.
gonzo
S3nd K3ys wrote:


I always knew the liebs believed that, but I didn't really think I'd ever see one admit to bleieving it...



Don't worry. The past "doesn't matter". So in the future they can either deny saying it or disclaim it as outright irrelevant.


...

Bush's alleged failures are in that past. Why can't they let it go? hmmmm.

Maybe their perceptions are defective? yah think? Remind them that perceptions of a thing is NOT the thing itself. Perceptions of facts ARE NOT themselves facts necessarily. Liberalese is infurriatingly dim.


Requiring basic logic skills starting in elementry school would essentially eliminate liberalism in future generations. Since many of the "feel it" people would never pass final exams they'd be substially less of a bother in society.

Liberalism ought not be tolerated.



Quote:
How in the fawk can you ever get thru to someone who flat out states that they could care less about the facts, it's only what they FEEL that matters?


Hit him. Deny hittting him. Hit him again. Deny that he felt you hitting him. This usually refutes relativism in an entertaining way.
lib
gonzo wrote:
Bush's alleged failures are in that past. Why can't they let it go? hmmmm.

Bush's alleged failures are in the past? If you have been reading the threads these past few days, you'd know that there has been some pretty good debating about Bush's failures regarding Katrina and the feds' "quick" reponse. Yes, the past. Katrina happened a looong time ago now, didn't it? Let's all forget it, because it's in the past. So, a few hundred people died. But that doesn't matter, because it's in the past!

You know, generally, they say people learn from the past. Yes, let's all forget the past. Let's all make the same mistakes. Let's all have another World War, because we've forgotten the past mistakes. yay! Rolling Eyes

gonzo wrote:
Requiring basic logic skills starting in elementry school would essentially eliminate liberalism in future generations.

So far, on this forum, all I've seen the "logical" conservatives do is-
1. Deny all kinds of facts that are anti-Bush
2. Protect Bush and show pure denial even though Bush took responsibility for his failure (regarding the Katrina Feds' response... you're going to have to read the other threads, I don't have enough time to quote them)
3. Keep their eyes and ears closed to everything the liberals say, and scream "Lieberals! Lieberals!" or "Liberal media! Bias!" ... I think I've made this point in another thread, but I think I won't need to quote it if I leave you to read the other threads in this forum.

Oh, and guess how children start out at school... by thinking outside the box... by accepting new ideas... by keeping their minds open. If conservativism is all about closing your eyes, your ears, and your mind (like most of them have been doing to ALL of the liberals' ideas) then a conservative school would be a very very sad place.
xalophus
gonzo wrote:
Don't worry. The past "doesn't matter". So in the future they can either deny saying it or disclaim it as outright irrelevant.

Is that your belief or do you have any basis for drawing this conclusion ?

gonzo wrote:
Bush's alleged failures are in that past. Why can't they let it go? hmmmm.

Guess who's in a hurry to make people forget !
And Guess who still refers to a confession as an "allegation" !

By the way, it is the conservatives here, who have repeatedly brought up this discussion.

gonzo wrote:
Maybe their perceptions are defective? yah think? Remind them that perceptions of a thing is NOT the thing itself. Perceptions of facts ARE NOT themselves facts necessarily.

The author was stating why the people are unhappy with Bush.
It's been taken out of context and your own thoughts very conveniently added to it.
It's not the people's perceptions but your interpretation that's defective.


Whatever happened to the facts that prove that Bush administration did a poor job ?
Whatever happened to the fact that Bush accepts this ?
you call them perceptions too ?
Hit him. Deny hittting him ?

If that's perceptions then, then let's hope people base their mandate on these "perceptions" and not on your "facts".

gonzo wrote:
Liberalese is infurriatingly dim.

Requiring basic logic skills starting in elementry school would essentially eliminate liberalism in future generations. Since many of the "feel it" people would never pass final exams they'd be substially less of a bother in society.

And your assumption is ?
And the "basic logic" behind that assumption is ?

Liberals lack logic ?
Albert Einstein was a liberal.

By the way, If you demand a change in what is taught in the schools, then by the very definition you're a ****** liberal.


gonzo wrote:
Liberalism ought not be tolerated.

That's a very nice thing to say (if nothing it certainly tells a lot about you),

But is there any specific reason for this intolerance ? the "basic logic" ?
Apart from the fact that you are not a liberal and that you cannot tolerate those who do not share your political opinions ?
Or is it just the way you feel ?

It's intolerant people like you who ought not be tolerated.


gonzo wrote:
Hit him. Deny hittting him. Hit him again. Deny that he felt you hitting him. This usually refutes relativism in an entertaining way.

No...screw them. Deny screwing them. Screw them again. Deny that you were ever supposed not to screw them.

And I'm not surprised to hear that you find it "entertaining".
I'm sure that the people of New Orleans have learnt to distinguish facts from perception after this.


Since they cannot disprove Bush administration's faults in any way, the "logical" and "bright" conservatives are hiding behind making fun of anybody who speaks against him.


So the Bush administration screwed up. so what ?
But if you blame Bush for any of it, you're a ****** liberal
S3nd K3ys
lib wrote:
gonzo wrote:
Bush's alleged failures are in that past. Why can't they let it go? hmmmm.

Bush's alleged failures are in the past? If you have been reading the threads these past few days, you'd know that there has been some pretty good debating about Bush's failures regarding Katrina and the feds' "quick" reponse. Yes, the past. Katrina happened a looong time ago now, didn't it? Let's all forget it, because it's in the past. So, a few hundred people died. But that doesn't matter, because it's in the past!

You know, generally, they say people learn from the past. Yes, let's all forget the past. Let's all make the same mistakes. Let's all have another World War, because we've forgotten the past mistakes. yay! Rolling Eyes

gonzo wrote:
Requiring basic logic skills starting in elementry school would essentially eliminate liberalism in future generations.

So far, on this forum, all I've seen the "logical" conservatives do is-
1. Deny all kinds of facts that are anti-Bush
2. Protect Bush and show pure denial even though Bush took responsibility for his failure (regarding the Katrina Feds' response... you're going to have to read the other threads, I don't have enough time to quote them)
3. Keep their eyes and ears closed to everything the liberals say, and scream "Lieberals! Lieberals!" or "Liberal media! Bias!" ... I think I've made this point in another thread, but I think I won't need to quote it if I leave you to read the other threads in this forum.

Oh, and guess how children start out at school... by thinking outside the box... by accepting new ideas... by keeping their minds open. If conservativism is all about closing your eyes, your ears, and your mind (like most of them have been doing to ALL of the liberals' ideas) then a conservative school would be a very very sad place.


Hey, lib.

How about replying to the topic? The topic of this thread is that it is admittedly acceptable for the lieberals to lie in order to promote a certain desired 'perception'.

Lets try to stay away from the typical lieberal method of changing the subject when you dont' agree with the topic or can't argue it.

Thanks.
lib
S3nd K3ys wrote:
How in the fawk can you ever get thru to someone who flat out states that they could care less about the facts, it's only what they FEEL that matters?

I forgot to add this line which would have been a direct answer to that question, and therefore have been an argument in the same discussion:

"How the fawk can you get through to someone who -
lib wrote:
1. Deny all kinds of facts that are anti-Bush
2. Protect Bush and show pure denial even though Bush took responsibility for his failure (regarding the Katrina Feds' response... you're going to have to read the other threads, I don't have enough time to quote them)
3. Keep their eyes and ears closed to everything the liberals say, and scream "Lieberals! Lieberals!" or "Liberal media! Bias!" ... I think I've made this point in another thread, but I think I won't need to quote it if I leave you to read the other threads in this forum.
Wink

And since this became a part of the discussion:
gonzo wrote:
Requiring basic logic skills starting in elementry school would essentially eliminate liberalism in future generations. Since many of the "feel it" people would never pass final exams they'd be substially less of a bother in society.

I argued about that too, see:
lib wrote:
Oh, and guess how children start out at school... by thinking outside the box... by accepting new ideas... by keeping their minds open. If conservativism is all about closing your eyes, your ears, and your mind (like most of them have been doing to ALL of the liberals' ideas) then a conservative school would be a very very sad place.
shr3dd
Bush accepted the responsibility of a federal agency, I accept this. I have never said Bush was flawless, no politician is. Bush was being blamed for not doing something that he didn't even have to do. It is local and state's job to respond first, Bush responded at about the same time they did. Bush ordered things to be done, and if they didn't get done, don't you think the low-level employees who he ordered to do something would be at fault for the job not getting done? Bush appointed a shitty FEMA director because he was a "friend of a friend" which I think is why he took responsibility. Bush didn't accept the blame for local and state gov't not doing their job.

Perception is something that varies from person to person. A man on LSD can perceive a blank wall to be vividly colored while in fact it is a plain white wall. So should we take that man's perception and mandate that it is a vividly colored wall? The constitution wasn't written based on perceptions, but facts. Facts are what we need to be concerned about. Fact is Bush ordered a lot more to be done about Katrina that wasn't done. Partially due to one of Bush's apointed federal agency heads, partially due to local and state governments being incompetant.

Most cons wouldn't scream "liberally biased media" if it wasn't true. In the 5 years Bush has been in office not one good thing was shown about him in almost any news broadcast. You libs claim FOX News is biased to the right side, so why does FOX news show the bad thigns that happen in Iraq? Why does FOX news show Bush admitting his failures? CNN shows nothing but whatever will turn the people away from Bush. CNN's "polls" (which are mostly taken online) ONLY voter's are those who visit CNN.com and wish to take the poll. This doesn't reflect the opinion of the American people. It only reflects the opinions of lefties who watch CNN because they bash Bush.

I'm a logical conservative and if Bush screws up, I'll say Bush screwed up. So if you blame Bush for something that he actually does wrong, I would consider you observant and logical. If you blame Bush for something that isn't his fault, you are a ******* liberal.

Children who start out in school have no box to think in. They are consistently being presented with thoughts and ideas that they have never been exposed to, it can't be in the box if you haven't been able to put it in the box. They accept new ideas due to them being young and naive, and simply because that's how everyone is when they are a child.

Katrina is in the past, fact. New Orleans recovery will be ongoing and present for a long time to come. Here's hoping they don't get another hurricane this destructive.

Not all liberals are morons, sadly most college professors are liberals. A great deal of liberals have skewed thinking, and are willing to sacrifice things for their own goals. Certain ones lie to make the right look bad, certain ones would lay down their lives for trees or animals. All liberals cannot accept the fact that just because we live in a more advanced society, doesn't mean that the same rules of nature apply now as they did in previous civilizations (Roman Empire, Greek Empire, etc.).

Another problem I have with liberlas is they always opt to maintain or increase welfare spending. If a leech is on your leg, are you going to rush more blood to it? I'm not saying everyone on welfare is a leech, the disabled and mothers who's husbands took off after they had kids are different. Single mothers who stay single and relentlessly pop out kids are leeches. Instead of spending welfare cash on bling-bling and spinning rims, how about birth control so you can stop spitting out kids and get a job so you can support yourself? That will NEVER happen. If you give a man a fish, he'll eat it and won't catch his own. Liberals would rather keep giving their fish away and turn a blind eye to them not trying to learn how to fish themselves. The vast majority of those on welfare are PARASITES and you ******* democrats keep feeding them. Someone who gets all their expenses paid for them will never try to stand on their own, ever. I say we cut these people's welfare (not the disabled and not those who truely deserve it) and they will either get a job or starve. Remember how callous and cold hearted I am because I think people should support themselves?

i am sorry I went on another rant, but Liberals blame Bush for more things than he is actually at fault for. After all, the federal government only has to respond to a disaster if local and state gov't are unable to, and only after local and state gov't has already attempted to respond.

edit by mOrpheuS - let's try not to swear, please.
use the *'s appropriately Smile
hedgehog2
Why are the conservatives always so ready to wrong the liberals, and then when we do the same, thye have fit? This is a problem. If you can't take it don't dish it out.
S3nd K3ys
Nicely said, shr3dd. I may have to quote you on some of that. Wink

hedgehog2 wrote:
Why are the conservatives always so ready to wrong the liberals, and then when we do the same, thye have fit? This is a problem. If you can't take it don't dish it out.


Why do lieberals continue to claim they're telling the truth when there's proof they're lying?

Trying to change righties 'perception' via saturation??? Shocked
shr3dd
I am so ready to wrong the libs when I feel they have done something wrong. Libs accuse Bush of doing things wrong just because they want to bash Bush.

Thanks S3nd, quote away, the more it's said/read the better chance truth will prevail.
gonzo
lib wrote:
If conservativism is all about closing your eyes,... then a conservative school would be ....


If you were a flying pig I could shoot you down, exsanguinate you, distribute your marinated ribs to the poor, and hang your head on my living room wall.

A strawman fallacy can be entertaining. Please refrain from using one again in this thread.




S3nd K3ys wrote:


How about replying to the topic? The topic of this thread is that it is admittedly acceptable for the lieberals to lie in order to promote a certain desired 'perception'.

Lets try to stay away from the typical lieberal method of changing the subject when you dont' agree with the topic or can't argue it.

Thanks.


here, here!

:beer:


Very Happy




shr3dd wrote:
Perception is something that varies from person to person.


Truth doesn't vary. This is why one ought rely on truth as opposed to (collective) perception.

A thing is what it is whether or not you like it.



Quote:
CNN shows


CNN once showed US Army troop movements via satellite imagery. The Communist News Network has no integrity.


Quote:
I'm a logical conservative and if Bush screws up, I'll say Bush screwed up.


I'm not a Bush apologist. He screwed up when he offered a last minute endorsement to queer unions before the election.


Quote:
So if you blame Bush for something that he actually does wrong, I would consider you observant and logical. If you blame Bush for something that isn't his fault, you are a fucking liberal.


How many logically consistent liberals do you know? Wink


Quote:
Children who start out in school have no box to think in.


That box imagery is tiresome. But I'll play this time. We all live in the same BIG box: the universe. Some people (liberalists) deliberately self-inflict damage to the right odering of their faculties: they want a thing to be other than it is. And while it's nice to have aspirations at times it is pointless to want something to be other than it is. Not to fall when jumping off a tall building is a clear mark of disfunction.


Quote:
They accept new ideas due to


They trust athoritative sources as being true. It takes some longer than others to develop right judgement. All the more reason to prevent any taint of liberalism in our schools.


Quote:
Not all liberals are morons


Some are sharp, and possess some stores of information, but it's how they act that's at fault. They all lack wisdom.

Quote:
the same rules of nature apply now as they did in previous civilizations


Ah Natural Law. Liberalists really hate that.



Quote:
welfare spending


It effects no good well and it certainly isn't fair.

welfare : charity :: socialism : christianity



Quote:
I went on another rant


Rant away. It's cathartic.


All opinions are NOT equally valued. Many opinions are PATENTLY false. Liberalists, as a consequence of free will, are entitled to be wrong. They are NOT, however, entitled to inflict their PATENTLY false and evil ideology on others, much less innocent children.
lib
shr3dd wrote:
Bush accepted the responsibility of a federal agency, I accept this. I have never said Bush was flawless, no politician is. Bush was being blamed for not doing something that he didn't even have to do. It is local and state's job to respond first, Bush responded at about the same time they did. Bush ordered things to be done, and if they didn't get done, don't you think the low-level employees who he ordered to do something would be at fault for the job not getting done? Bush appointed a shitty FEMA director because he was a "friend of a friend" which I think is why he took responsibility. Bush didn't accept the blame for local and state gov't not doing their job.

OK, one more time... here's the part I enjoyed:
shr3dd wrote:
Bush appointed a shitty FEMA director because he was a "friend of a friend" which I think is why he took responsibility. Bush didn't accept the blame for local and state gov't not doing their job.

That's your "perception", now here are the facts:
Quote:
"Katrina exposed serious problems in our response capability at all levels of government, and to the extent that the federal government didn't fully do its job right, I take responsibility," Mr Bush said at a news conference.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4243678.stm or http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/09/13/national/w090358D94.DTL&feed=rss.news, just in case you deicde to dismiss one of those sources as "liberal media"

shr3dd wrote:
Perception is something that varies from person to person. A man on LSD can perceive a blank wall to be vividly colored while in fact it is a plain white wall. So should we take that man's perception and mandate that it is a vividly colored wall? The constitution wasn't written based on perceptions, but facts.
You're right. So, let's accept the facts: Bush took responsibility

shr3dd wrote:
I'm a logical conservative and if Bush screws up, I'll say Bush screwed up. So if you blame Bush for something that he actually does wrong, I would consider you observant and logical. If you blame Bush for something that isn't his fault, you are a ****** liberal.
Just for the record, when was the last time you admitted Bush screwed up? I mean, you're still denying he took responsibility or you're trying to put words into his nouth by "thinking" he's taking responsibility for something far less than what he actually took responsibility for.

Oh, and another very interesting quote:
shr3dd wrote:
Fact is Bush ordered a lot more to be done about Katrina that wasn't done.
Is he the president of the most powerful nation in the world, or a little kid who goes to bed crying because no one will listen to what he's saying? A lot was ordered, but not done? So what did the President do when it wasn't done? He's the president, for crying out loud! He has to get things done!

shr3dd wrote:
Most cons wouldn't scream "liberally biased media" if it wasn't true. In the 5 years Bush has been in office not one good thing was shown about him in almost any news broadcast. You libs claim FOX News is biased to the right side, so why does FOX news show the bad thigns that happen in Iraq? Why does FOX news show Bush admitting his failures? CNN shows nothing but whatever will turn the people away from Bush. CNN's "polls" (which are mostly taken online) ONLY voter's are those who visit CNN.com and wish to take the poll. This doesn't reflect the opinion of the American people. It only reflects the opinions of lefties who watch CNN because they bash Bush.
For the record, hardly ANY sources in these debates have been from CNN. Very Happy

shr3dd wrote:
A great deal of liberals have skewed thinking, and are willing to sacrifice things for their own goals. Certain ones lie to make the right look bad, certain ones would lay down their lives for trees or animals. All liberals cannot accept the fact that just because we live in a more advanced society, doesn't mean that the same rules of nature apply now as they did in previous civilizations (Roman Empire, Greek Empire, etc.).

Now, let's look at the thinking of the conservatives:
Quote:
All conservatives would reject the premise, "change for its own sake." Etymologically, conservatism implies that conservatives seek to conserve the existing social order, or to conserve an ideal social order now in decline. That can take a radical form, and there are historical examples of radical conservatives. The Roman conservative Cicero was willing to excuse violence as a method of bringing back what he saw as the old Roman virtues.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism

And then this part: (which clearly brings out the partiality you give to each other)
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Hey, lib.

How about replying to the topic? The topic of this thread is that it is admittedly acceptable for the lieberals to lie in order to promote a certain desired 'perception'.

Lets try to stay away from the typical lieberal method of changing the subject when you dont' agree with the topic or can't argue it.

Thanks.

Bang on target, here's shr3dd's "on-topic reply":
shr3dd wrote:
Another problem I have with liberlas is they always opt to maintain or increase welfare spending. If a leech is on your leg, are you going to rush more blood to it? I'm not saying everyone on welfare is a leech, the disabled and mothers who's husbands took off after they had kids are different. Single mothers who stay single and relentlessly pop out kids are leeches. Instead of spending welfare cash on bling-bling and spinning rims, how about birth control so you can stop spitting out kids and get a job so you can support yourself? That will NEVER happen. If you give a man a fish, he'll eat it and won't catch his own. Liberals would rather keep giving their fish away and turn a blind eye to them not trying to learn how to fish themselves. The vast majority of those on welfare are PARASITES and you ****** democrats keep feeding them. Someone who gets all their expenses paid for them will never try to stand on their own, ever. I say we cut these people's welfare (not the disabled and not those who truely deserve it) and they will either get a job or starve. Remember how callous and cold hearted I am because I think people should support themselves?

i am sorry I went on another rant,


And in reply to this,
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Nicely said, shr3dd. I may have to quote you on some of that. Wink


And just to emphasize,
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Lets try to stay away from the typical lieberal method of changing the subject when you dont' agree with the topic or can't argue it.

Oh no! Did shr3dd just admit to going on an off-topic rant? And if one person patting him on the back for that off-topic rant was not enough, here's another one:
gonzo wrote:
S3nd K3ys wrote:
How about replying to the topic? The topic of this thread is that it is admittedly acceptable for the lieberals to lie in order to promote a certain desired 'perception'.

Lets try to stay away from the typical lieberal method of changing the subject when you dont' agree with the topic or can't argue it.

Thanks.



here, here!

:beer:
That was the reply to my post, here is the reply to shr3dd's rant:
gonzo wrote:
shr3dd wrote:
I went on another rant

Rant away. It's cathartic.


Great. Ask the lib why he was off-topic but pat the con's back for being off-topic, and encourage it, it's cathartic for the con.

Anyway, in reply to what my earlier post had to do with the topic, I replied:
lib wrote:
S3nd K3ys wrote:
How in the fawk can you ever get thru to someone who flat out states that they could care less about the facts, it's only what they FEEL that matters?

I forgot to add this line which would have been a direct answer to that question, and therefore have been an argument in the same discussion:

"How the fawk can you get through to someone who -
lib wrote:
1. Deny all kinds of facts that are anti-Bush
2. Protect Bush and show pure denial even though Bush took responsibility for his failure (regarding the Katrina Feds' response... you're going to have to read the other threads, I don't have enough time to quote them)
3. Keep their eyes and ears closed to everything the liberals say, and scream "Lieberals! Lieberals!" or "Liberal media! Bias!" ... I think I've made this point in another thread, but I think I won't need to quote it if I leave you to read the other threads in this forum.
In fact, everything in my first post was an argument to the points made by S3nd K3ys or by gonzo, but perhaps it's a little sifficult for you to see that, seeing as how you're all biased against my username.

gonzo wrote:
how they act that's at fault.
Yes, look at the way you all act: Deny everything the liberals say. For proof, just read the post above in which you're still protecting the president even after he took responsibility for the government's failure.
gonzo wrote:
I'm not a Bush apologist. He screwed up when he offered a last minute endorsement to queer unions before the election.
This after my it's already been established that the President did screw up, and that is why he apologized.

gonzo wrote:
Truth doesn't vary. This is why one ought rely on truth as opposed to (collective) perception.

A thing is what it is whether or not you like it.

Yes, and are you not perceiving when you think something to be the truth? Do you know the real reason the US is in Iraq? We could be there for so many reasons, but the government's not likely to come out and release an official statement that "We're in Iraq to control world economy", even if they were. Sometimes, you need to think by yourself to more explanations than what's officially offered, rather than just accepting whatever's being fed to you. And you claim it's the Liberal media feeding to the people the things they want to hear. Well, you're being fed what you want to hear from Republican media and the white house.

The church, when it had complete authority over the people, stated that the universe was geo-centric. Yes, this was the "truth" as stated by the people in command then. It took someone to think differently to what we now know is the real truth. Are you getting my point here? I can't make it simpler than this.

gonzo wrote:
Liberalists, as a consequence of free will, are entitled to be wrong.

And apparently, cons, as a consequence of their ideology, are not allowed to open their minds to new ideas and accept new methods which could, God forbid, improve everyone's quality of life.
xalophus
shr3dd wrote:
Bush was being blamed for not doing something that he didn't even have to do. It is local and state's job to respond first, Bush responded at about the same time they did. Bush ordered things to be done, and if they didn't get done, don't you think the low-level employees who he ordered to do something would be at fault for the job not getting done?

Liberals blame Bush for more things than he is actually at fault for. After all, the federal government only has to respond to a disaster if local and state gov't are unable to, and only after local and state gov't has already attempted to respond.

Please don't spread the misconception that the federal agencies had no serious responsibility in the disaster relief.
They are the last line of disaster response.
We are not discounting the local governments' failures, let's also not dismiss it as a minor mistake if the Bush administration fails to its part well.
You make it sound as if their responsibility was next to nothing.

And let's not separate Bush from the federal agencies.
A football team coach is not supposed to be playing the game, yet he resigns after his team's dismal performance. (and I'm not saying that I demand Bush to resign for this, that's something that the people decide)
If you thinks that Bush's only responsibility is to sign orders and not caring about their execution, you are a ******* conservative.

shr3dd wrote:
Perception is something that varies from person to person. A man on LSD can perceive a blank wall to be vividly colored while in fact it is a plain white wall. So should we take that man's perception and mandate that it is a vividly colored wall? The constitution wasn't written based on perceptions, but facts. Facts are what we need to be concerned about. Fact is Bush ordered a lot more to be done about Katrina that wasn't done. Partially due to one of Bush's apointed federal agency heads, partially due to local and state governments being incompetant.

Before you all again use this against the "libs".
Let me bring it to notice here that the notion that blaming Bush has anything to do with people's percepcetions (people opposing cons in this debate) perceptions, has been concocted by you.

Let me make it clear how it's been spun out of context -
Quote:
In the meantime, my friends should not be shocked, perplexed, or angry about the rage directed at President Bush.

The original context is an attempt at understanding why the people's anger is directed at Bush.
S3nd K3ys wrote:
they could care less about the facts, it's only what they FEEL that matters?

You make it sound like a liberal ideology.

I do not blame Bush due to what I perceive he did.
I blame Bush for what I know his administration didn't do.


The next time any of you try to sell the "perception vs fact" stuff as a liberal ideology, please publish the basis of your belief as well.


shr3dd wrote:
Most cons wouldn't scream "liberally biased media" if it wasn't true. In the 5 years Bush has been in office not one good thing was shown about him in almost any news broadcast. You libs claim FOX News is biased to the right side, so why does FOX news show the bad thigns that happen in Iraq? Why does FOX news show Bush admitting his failures? CNN shows nothing but whatever will turn the people away from Bush. CNN's "polls" (which are mostly taken online) ONLY voter's are those who visit CNN.com and wish to take the poll. This doesn't reflect the opinion of the American people. It only reflects the opinions of lefties who watch CNN because they bash Bush.

And when libs scream Bush's failures, it is a lie ?
Yet when we argue on Bush administration's work in Katrina, nobody ever cites CNN to back their claims.

I can quote several cons here using biased media for backing their claims.
I challenge any of you to prove if I've ever used biased media for backing mine.

I'm not here to justify the neutrality of CNN or FOX,
But as long as nobody listens to them, or bases their beliefs on them, I don't see the relevance of talking about them here.

shr3dd wrote:
I'm a logical conservative and if Bush screws up, I'll say Bush screwed up. If you blame Bush for something that isn't his fault, you are a fucking liberal.

Just like I said before.

A president righteously deserves the blame for his agencies failure.
But the cons here are not ready to let anything be said against their dear pres.

Like I said,
His administration may screw up.
But don't blame Bush for it.


shr3dd wrote:
Another problem I have with liberlas is they always opt to maintain or increase welfare spending. If a leech is on your leg, are you going to rush more blood to it? I'm not saying everyone on welfare is a leech, the disabled and mothers who's husbands took off after they had kids are different. Single mothers who stay single and relentlessly pop out kids are leeches. Instead of spending welfare cash on bling-bling and spinning rims, how about birth control so you can stop spitting out kids and get a job so you can support yourself? That will NEVER happen. If you give a man a fish, he'll eat it and won't catch his own. Liberals would rather keep giving their fish away and turn a blind eye to them not trying to learn how to fish themselves. The vast majority of those on welfare are PARASITES and you fucking democrats keep feeding them. Someone who gets all their expenses paid for them will never try to stand on their own, ever. I say we cut these people's welfare (not the disabled and not those who truely deserve it) and they will either get a job or starve. Remember how callous and cold hearted I am because I think people should support themselves?

i am sorry I went on another rant

I agree with you about the "leeches".
But we don't nuke the entire city to kill the theives hiding there.

It may be true that welfare is being spent also on certain people who don't deserve it.
Similarly you must realise that when you talk about letting the welfare-dependents people "starve", many of them are not leeches.


shr3dd wrote:
Bush appointed a shitty FEMA director because he was a "friend of a friend" which I think is why he took responsibility. Bush didn't accept the blame for local and state gov't not doing their job.

A president must own the responsibility for all federal agencies, whether or not the director was appointed by him.
Don't glorify Bush for accepting it.
And he most definitely is not being blamed for the local governments failure.


In the end, I am actually glad that the federal agencies' failure is being acknowledged. (although grudgingly)
There was a time when the cons were trying to make them look good by saying that the federal response was adequate.
For all the ruckus that they make about facts, they were not ready to accept the facts until the president himself accepted responsibility.


And even now, they are blaming the libs.
What did the libs do ?
made the president accept responsibility ?
xalophus
gonzo wrote:
lib wrote:
If conservativism is all about closing your eyes,... then a conservative school would be ....


If you were a flying pig I could shoot you down, exsanguinate you, distribute your marinated ribs to the poor, and hang your head on my living room wall.

A strawman fallacy can be entertaining. Please refrain from using one again in this thread.

Denial is comforting to someone faced with uncomfortable and painful facts.
Please refrain from selling your denial defense mechanism as a truth or established fact.



gonzo wrote:
How many logically consistent liberals do you know? Wink
gonzo wrote:
Some people (liberalists) deliberately self-inflict damage to the right odering of their faculties: they want a thing to be other than it is. And while it's nice to have aspirations at times it is pointless to want something to be other than it is. Not to fall when jumping off a tall building is a clear mark of disfunction.
gonzo wrote:
They trust athoritative sources as being true. It takes some longer than others to develop right judgement. All the more reason to prevent any taint of liberalism in our schools.
gonzo wrote:
it's how they act that's at fault. They all lack wisdom.
gonzo wrote:
Ah Natural Law. Liberalists really hate that.
gonzo wrote:
welfare : charity :: socialism : christianity


gonzo wrote:
Truth doesn't vary. This is why one ought rely on truth as opposed to (collective) perception.

It's ironic that despite being the biggest advocate of "truth" and "facts" here,
you yourself have only got your perceptions of liberals to offer as an argument.
gonzo
lib wrote:
now here are the [tangential] facts:
Quote:
"Katrina exposed serious problems in our response capability at all levels of government, and to the extent that the federal government didn't fully do its job right


Yay, now it's time for a discussion of the RIGHT purpose of goverment. I think you've confused the state with your mommy.



lib wrote:

shr3dd wrote:
A great deal of liberals have skewed thinking...Certain ones lie to make the right look bad.

Now, let's look at the thinking of the conservatives:
Quote:
Etymologically [which sidesteps the issue]..., conservatism implies ..Roman conservative Cicero .[/b]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism


Thank you for that fine example of liberalist skewed "thinking". You are using a liberalist infested "encyclopedia" to "prove" somethingorother about conservatives. So pretty much you're going to tell conservatives what their values are, and then refute them as opposed to addressing the clearly delinated values of a conservative per se? Brilliant!!


lib wrote:

S3nd K3ys wrote:
How about replying to the topic? .


gonzo wrote:
shr3dd wrote:
I went on another rant

Rant away. It's cathartic.



Whose topic is this again? Hint: look at the first post.



lib wrote:

gonzo wrote:
how they act that's at fault.
Yes, look at the way you all act: Deny everything the liberals say


And I did this when?

lib wrote:

gonzo wrote:
I'm not a Bush apologist. He screwed up when he offered a last minute endorsement to queer unions before the election.
This after my it's already been established that the President did screw up, and that is why he apologized.


Uh he what? Did you even listen to his words, or were you just expecting him to apologize for his rightous intolerance of gross sexual deviancy so that's all you heard?


lib wrote:

gonzo wrote:
Truth doesn't vary. This is why one ought rely on truth as opposed to (collective) perception.

A thing is what it is whether or not you like it.

Yes, and are you not perceiving when you think something to be the truth?


No. That's not perception. Every action of the soul is NOT perception.


lib wrote:
Do you know the real reason the US is in Iraq?


Yes. It's not a secret. The reasons have been outlined numerous times on television. Do you have one?



lib wrote:
We could be there for so many reasons


And we could all go to Maui.


lib wrote:
"We're in Iraq to control world economy", even if they were.


Wow, that's some mighty fine creative, conditional language you have there. I hope you're not planning to use a baseless asertion as a foundation for a future argument.



lib wrote:
Sometimes, you need to think by yourself


And I suppose you have you're own unique thinking that's the same as ever other socialism. "Think for yourself". There's already plenty of socialists. Your thoughts are not unique. Since uniqueness is apparently so valuable to you, you should really put more effort into it.



lib wrote:
you claim it's the Liberal media feeding to the people the things they want to hear.


No I'm not-uniquely claiming that liberalism is patently evil.


lib wrote:
what you want to hear from Republican media


I want objective truth. Since that's what they tend to offer I'm quite happy to listen. And for your vocabulary refresher: listen is not a synonym for assent.


lib wrote:
The church


By which you mean the Catholic church, author of the Bible several hundred years after Christ, and keepers of the Tradition of Christ, instituted by the son of God?


lib wrote:
when it had complete authority over the people


I'd really like to hear your liberalese definition of authority to see if you're anywhere near the page.


lib wrote:
stated that the universe was geo-centric.


Oh, good, a discussion of modes. Are you sure you want to go there?


lib wrote:
Are you getting my point here? I can't make it simpler than this.


You haven't made a cogent assertion yet. Were you planning to soon?



lib wrote:
[ideads which could] improve the quality of life


Please do make a list of these stellar ideas!


lib wrote:

gonzo wrote:
Liberalists, as a consequence of free will, are entitled to be wrong.

And apparently, cons, as a consequence of their ideology, are not allowed to open their minds to new ideas and accept new methods which could,
[/quote]

If by open mind you mean the liberalese desire to deny the nature of language, logic, and truth, then no, I don't have an open mind.
S3nd K3ys
gonzo wrote:
...

Yay, now it's time for a discussion of the RIGHT purpose of goverment. I think you've confused the state with your mommy.


...



BUAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!1



OMG! I'm fawking dying over here!



I'm so lucky my boss isn't here yet!
shr3dd
xalophus wrote:
Please don't spread the misconception that the federal agencies had no serious responsibility in the disaster relief.


Please visit the thread http://www.frihost.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=10861


xalophus wrote:
But we don't nuke the entire city to kill the theives hiding there.


No we don't, but we do reform the welfare system hoping to conduct "parasitical elmination" from the program. Governmental aid was designed for people who need it, and now it's being abused. Americans need to learn how to stand on their own to feet. Those who are actually disabled should continue to get aid, because they can't stand on their own. If there we either no, or significantly reduced leeches then the people who need aid could get better assistance.

Okay I'm not going on another rant. My previous rant was cathartic because your blind liberal eyes couldn't see that it related to faults of liberals. I wasn't straying too far from the topic. In case you still don't get it, I was saying campaigning liberals promise more welfare handouts to these parasitical scumbags in order to win over minority vote.

xalophus wrote:
Deny everything the liberals say.


We don't deny everything libs say, we just deny what we know to be false or fallacy. It's not our fault that the majority of what you say happens to fall under those two categories.
lib
gonzo wrote:
Whose topic is this again? Hint: look at the first post.

OK, so here's a new concept. The cons start a thread, and the cins can do whatever they want with it, especially if the libs have got a point. Hypocrites. I won't say it again and again and again... a lib goes off-topic, bash him. But a lib does, then ****** him, eh? It's a sad sad situation you have to come down to this when you have nothing else to argue about or have nothing to prove your case.

gonzo wrote:
liberalist infested "encyclopedia"

Maybe you've never been to www.wikipedia.org Go see it sometime... anyone can edit the points and the paragraphs, and by anyone, I mean free-thinking liberals and dumb, thick-headed, close-eyed cons. The perfect example of "closed eyes/closed mind"
("No, that site has some bad things about cons, it's lib-infested!!!")

gonzo wrote:
Yay, now it's time for a discussion of the RIGHT purpose of goverment. I think you've confused the state with your mommy.

It's already been established, repeated, that the Hurricane Katrina was something the local governments couldn't handle. The feds failed to react quick enough. But plainly, here is more denial that the federal Government really did mess up, and Bush screwed up with the relief effort.

gonzo wrote:
And I did this when?

All over your posts. This one, the one before. More example of "closed eyes" -- "Libs suck. Bush was great. The relief effort was just fone, though so many people died and Bush took responsibility for the government's failure to react on time."

gonzo wrote:
Yes. It's not a secret. The reasons have been outlined numerous times on television. Do you have one?

TV? One the one hand you're talking about liberla media influening the people. The government is only telling the people what it wants. I cannot say this in simpler words.
And yes, I have mentioned why I think the US is in Iraq, and I knew you won't accept that, period.

gonzo wrote:
Since uniqueness is apparently so valuable to you, you should really put more effort into it

I wasn't necessarily talking about unique thinking. I was talking more along the lines of thinking beyond what the government is telling you to think and believe.

gonzo wrote:
I want objective truth. Since that's what they tend to offer I'm quite happy to listen. And for your vocabulary refresher: listen is not a synonym for assent.

What you believe to be the truth is basically just your own perception of it. I've quoted sources to facts everywhere possible in this thread. Just because the Republican media reports something, it doesn't make it the truth. Oh, and you generally do offer assent to the media when you do read/listen to it. Maybe reaching this conclusion required a little more thinking.

gonzo wrote:
If by open mind you mean the liberalese desire to deny the nature of language, logic, and truth, then no, I don't have an open mind.

By an open mind, I basically meant the ability to accept new ideas, something different than what you see or hear on TV or on the Republican Media, but judging by your posts,
gonzo wrote:
I don't have an open mind.


S3nd K3ys wrote:
BUAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!1


OMG! I'm fawking dying over here!

Hmmm... more back-patting and useless posts without any arguments being made... way to go! Very Happy

shr3dd wrote:
Governmental aid was designed for people who need it, and now it's being abused.
I agree to this. A lot of times, wefare/governmental aid is taken advantage of.
S3nd K3ys
shr3dd wrote:

We don't deny everything libs say, we just deny what we know to be false or fallacy. It's not our fault that the majority of what you say happens to fall under those two categories.


'tis true...

And lib is so upset he twitched when he hit the submit button and hit it twice. Very Happy
S3nd K3ys
lib wrote:
...
S3nd K3ys wrote:
BUAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!1


OMG! I'm fawking dying over here!

Hmmm... more back-patting and useless posts without any arguments being made... way to go! Very Happy
...


There can be no argument to the fact that what he said was fawking funny!

Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy
tidruG
S3nd K3ys wrote:
...submit button and hit it twice.

Taken care of Wink
S3nd K3ys
tidruG wrote:
S3nd K3ys wrote:
...submit button and hit it twice.

Taken care of Wink


Very Happy

lib wrote:
...What you believe to be the truth is basically just your own perception of it. ....


Here we go again... Rolling Eyes This is the second time a liberal (from a different board) has tried to say that perception is fact. I'm starting to realize that you mean "if we lie to you enough, it will eventually become true". Same old BS the media has been doing for a long time; tell half truths or comlpete lies, or fail to report the entire truth, and hope that people don't see things for what they really are.

Pathetic.
shr3dd
lib wrote:
The feds failed to react quick enough.


The one thing I hate about liberals:they consistently ignore the truth when it's put right in front of their eyes.

IT IS NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS JOB TO RESPOND AT ALL. I don't know why Bush has it in his head that it's his job to provide relief. Federal relief is NOT their DUTY, it's CHARITY.

Wow, a conservative criticizing Bush? Satan just put on a parka.
I call it as I see it, and a good benefit is it confuses liberals.
xalophus
shr3dd wrote:
xalophus wrote:
Deny everything the liberals say.


We don't deny everything libs say, we just deny what we know to be false or fallacy. It's not our fault that the majority of what you say happens to fall under those two categories.

Perhaps a misquote, but I never said that.
Anyhow, I'll just like to point out that if you say that federal agencies had no serious responsibility in disaster relief,
then you indeed are denying everything a liberal says.

It's not our fault that majority of facts happen to tarnish the image of your dear president.

Let me show you -
shr3dd wrote:
Bush was being blamed for not doing something that he didn't even have to do
xalophus wrote:
Please don't spread the misconception that the federal agencies had no serious responsibility in the disaster relief.
shr3dd wrote:
Please visit the thread http://www.frihost.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=10861
shr3dd wrote:
IT IS NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS JOB TO RESPOND AT ALL

I think you'll agree that this amounts to denying.

This I have taken from fema.gov -
Quote:
The Congress hereby finds and declares that--


because disasters often cause loss of life, human suffering, loss of income, and property loss and damage; and
because disasters often disrupt the normal functioning of governments and communities, and adversely affect individuals and families with great severity;


special measures, designed to assist the efforts of the affected States in expediting the rendering of aid, assistance, and emergency services, and the reconstruction and rehabilitation of devastated areas, are necessary.

More
Quote:
MAJOR DISASTER. "Major disaster" means any natural catastrophe (including any hurricane, tornado, storm, high water, winddriven water, tidal wave, tsunami, earthquake, volcanic eruption, landslide, mudslide, snowstorm, or drought), or, regardless of cause, any fire, flood, or explosion, in any part of the United States, which in the determination of the President causes damage of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant major disaster assistance under this Act to supplement the efforts and available resources of States, local governments, and disaster relief organizations in alleviating the damage, loss, hardship, or suffering caused thereby.

And More
Quote:
The President shall direct appropriate Federal agencies to provide technical assistance to State and local governments to insure that timely and effective disaster warning is provided.
http://www.fema.gov/library/stafact.shtm

Read the full text of the act, it has a few hundred paragraphs about a President's and the federal agencies' responsiblities in disaster preparedness and relief.


shr3dd wrote:
I don't know why Bush has it in his head that it's his job to provide relief. Federal relief is NOT their DUTY, it's CHARITY.

Perhaps even he did not have this in his head, until the mass criticism.



And this, my friend, is what is meant when someone says that you deny everything that a liberal says.
And especially if it harms your dear president's image in anyway.



Denial - a psychological defense mechanism in which a person faced with a fact that is uncomfortable or painful to accept rejects it instead.

The three types of denial -
- deny the reality of the unpleasant fact altogether (simple denial) "Bush did great"
S3nd K3ys wrote:
"Mr. Bush's performance last week will rank as one of the worst ever during a dire national emergency," wrote New York Times columnist Bob Herbert in a somewhat more strident expression of the conventional wisdom.

But the conventional wisdom is the opposite of the truth.


- admit the fact but deny its seriousness (minimization) "It wasn't so bad, only a "few" people died"
S3nd K3ys wrote:
death toll in the mid-hundreds instead of the 10,000 like that dumbass mayor predicted. Turns out Bush and the feds were right to not panic and over-react.


- admit both the fact and seriousness but deny responsibility (Transference) "Not Bush's job. It's not duty, it's charity."
S3nd K3ys wrote:
It is all on the local government, not the Feds.
shr3dd wrote:
IT IS NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS JOB TO RESPOND AT ALL


The basic idea ?
shr3dd wrote:
To those who think Bush is at fault? You are a f****** liberal. (Thanks S3nd K3ys, got that from your sig Wink )
lib
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Here we go again... This is the second time a liberal (from a different board) has tried to say that perception is fact. I'm starting to realize that you mean "if we lie to you enough, it will eventually become true". Same old BS the media has been doing for a long time; tell half truths or comlpete lies, or fail to report the entire truth, and hope that people don't see things for what they really are.

Pathetic.

Hmmm... you know what? I've never really had to explain the same thing to people more than twice before. The government is not likely to come out and say things that are derogatory to it or to the government. That's why information is "classified". The government releases information which may be fact which the media reports and we do accept it as truth. However, it need not be the complete truth, get it? Case in point is the service papers of George W Bush when he served in the National Guard. When the papers were available to the puclic in 2002, they had the name of James Rath clearly mentioned, whereas the papers released in 2004 did not. Go read up on it. So, even if Bush attacked Iraq for reasons other than what he claimed, you aren't likely to find out till that information becomes unimportant enough to declassify. Uptil that moment, the reasons currently being fed to you are "the truth". Get it now?

And I don't see where I have said that perception is fact or it's more important than truth. All I was saying was that we need to just accept that there could be more to an issue than meets the eye, and sometimes perception could be the truth. However, those are only rare sometimes.

shr3dd wrote:
The one thing I hate about liberals:they consistently ignore the truth when it's put right in front of their eyes.

So far, you've been doing that just fine, as is well brought out by xalophus in his post above. On the one hand, you blame the liberals of ignoring the truth, on the other hand, you deny comepletely. As S3nd K3ys said,
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Pathetic.
S3nd K3ys
lib wrote:
...
Hmmm... you know what? I've never really had to explain the same thing to people more than twice before. ...
...


Hmmm... you know what else? You've probably never had to deal with people that can think for themselves and read between the lines before. Perhaps you live a sheltered life.

At any rate, my point was that Democrats typically believe that they can keep feeding the same lies/half-truths to people and that they'll eventually take it for fact.

For example... while the NOPD was keeping the Red Cross and Salvation Army away from the NO Superdome, the press was screaming about hundreds of bodies stacked in the corridors.

The actual body count...... 6
4 natural causes
1 suicide
1 overdose

Rumors of deaths greatly exaggerated

Do you think the lamestream media will make corrections to thier hysterical and completely inaccurate reporting ? No. Because that would mean less cannon fodder in thier bid to make Bush look bad.
Related topics
Money for education or war.
Nobody can explain this!
Global Warming Source..
This is Ashis Kumar
The DaVinci Code - by Dan Brown
PS3 Fails
Muslim speaks out...
Qin Shi Huang : Discussion about his Tomb
The new philosophy I'm trying to adopt: Anti-Humanitarisim
Torture your mother?
Talk between Muslim and Atheist.
proof we all didnt just "Happen" by chance.
Death of the Author (God)
Creationism & ID (split from sticky)
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.