DescentBB

I saw these bumper stickers plastered on the back window of a pickup truck:

"Clinton Lied, No one Died"
"Bush Lied, People Died"
"Kerry-Edwards 2004"


I'm not taking a partisan stance on this here, I just started thinking when I saw this?

Why do they think that Clinton didn't lie about OTHER things, which might have involved people dying?

And why are they saying lying is acceptable?

And do they realize they're calling Kerry a liar by association anyhow?

Main Entry: pro·pa·gan·da
Pronunciation: "prä-p&-'gan-d&, "prO-
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin, from Congregatio de propaganda fide Congregation for propagating the faith, organization established by Pope Gregory XV died 1623
1 capitalized : a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions
2 : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
3 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect

I don't like politics for 1 reason.

They are all LIARS.

there are words that mean what this is. but my vocabulary ejects useful words like those like water from a freaked out sea cucumber.

"to exaggurate to make a point"

hyperbole

but none of that was my point

bumper stickers are cowardly... kinda like me.

in fact i'm going to make a real catchy one:

"clinton did nothing about 900,000 Rwandans being hacked to death by machete."

TheCops wrote:...."clinton did nothing about 900,000 Rwandans being hacked to death by machete."

Well he did show up holding a bible at a predominantly black church one time. So get off his back you race baiting cracker!

Will Robinson wrote:So get off his back you race baiting cracker!

c'mon will.
what's any of this have to do with the fact that asian women taste better?

to be fair, the whole administration knew about the rwandan genocide, and no one seemed to want to do anything about it.


fucked up, yeah. 100% clinton's fault? no

well,
i was being "political" vertigo___ with my "oh, so kooky, sense of humor".

it's 2004 now.
i’ve been “given” the choice to vote for 2 completely ridiculous platforms.

go me.

Should we start doing a body count sarting at the first WT bombing throught the Kobar Towers, USS Cole, Bosnia, Somalia, Kenya...even Ruby Ridge and Waco could be thrown into the pot. Yup, ole herr Clinton was a real piece of work.

Oh and asians women may taste better but scandanavians give better milk.

ummmm...woodchip...every single american that died in those events that you listed has yet to even get close to the soldier death count, so i don't know what you're saying. how about dafur right now? 9/11 happened on bush's shift...

Zuruck wrote:ummmm...woodchip...every single american that died in those events that you listed has yet to even get close to the soldier death count, so i don't know what you're saying. how about dafur right now? 9/11 happened on bush's shift...

Zuruck, how many soldiers do you think have died in Iraq? How many people do you think died on 9/11?
when was Bush elected and when did the alQueda plan for 9/11 start? When has america cared to save black and brown people the way we fight to save white people *under any administration*??

Could you be more wrong on every count if you tried?

yea probably, but that's the point. what the hell do any of us actually know? not much beyond what our respective parties decide to tell us on an average day

Zuruck wrote:that's the point. what the hell do any of us actually know?

Ahhh... this explains a lot... Zuruck is clueless, so he assumes the rest of us are too.

There's this little thing called "research" that some of us do from time to time. Maybe you should take it up.

yea zuruck...
"research" all day long, that's almost like living.

research what? the spoonfed nonsense on the websites that you think are the truth? c'mon lothar, i think you're an idiot, but don't prove my point.

Yea, dude, research is, like, sooo uncool.

yea well bash research to you and lothar and the rest of your cronies is reading fox news, drudge report, hannity, and rush limbaugh. how is that research? spouting whatever it is that you think is fact is fine by me, post until your heart is content with mindless garble after garble. Will says "more votes from dead people go to Democrats, so they are filled with corruption", to this, I agree, but I also think Republicans are guilty of the same thing. There was no research behind that, and even if you found something, it would be from RNC website and you would act like it's truth. Any site that disputes that you will do one of two things. 1, give me a conservative site that refutes it, or 2, say it's liberal brainwash garbage and I'm stupid for looking at it.

bash, be smarter. what research can you really do...you already think that the US had no major role in the Iran Iraq war. And you're dumb because of it.

Zuruck wrote:Any site that disputes that you will do one of two things. 1, give me a conservative site that refutes it, or 2, say it's liberal brainwash garbage and I'm stupid for looking at it.

Why not just do as I suggested? Don't take any one source for the gospel truth, instead do a couple of different searches of news stories on "registration fraud", "voter fraud" and "election fraud" and compare?

Basically any objective search will show the disparity between the two.

bash wrote:Yea, dude, research is, like, sooo uncool.

it's even more uncool to spend your life trusting the information you are "researching" if, in the end, it was all a calculated manipulation.

oh cool! the x-files are on!

What's really uncool is to not try because there may be a failure in your future.

Yeah, research of allegedly questionable sources is always unnecessary when you can just talk out of your ass.

Scholarship is a way of life, not just an activity. When I say "you should try doing research", what I really mean is, you should try living like a scholar.

What does that mean?
1) Instead of taking things at face value, look for both strengthening and balancing information. (This doesn't take a whole lot of time, especially not with the advent of google.)
2) Think through issues to make sure your explanation actually makes sense with respect to all the facts.
3) Continually revise your understanding as new facts and ideas come to light.
4) Make it a habit to think about how certainly you know things. Trust things to the degree they deserve to be trusted. (Blind skepticism and blind faith are equal errors.)
5) Discuss ideas with others who are doing the same.

If you make this a habit -- which doesn't necessarily mean you spend all day researching, it just means you keep your brain active when you're analyzing new facts, and you research when it's clear you don't have all the information -- you CAN know a lot more than what your respective political parties tell you.

research to you and lothar and the rest of your cronies is reading fox news, drudge report, hannity, and rush limbaugh

I don't actually read any of those, though google searches occasionally take me to fox for transcripts and video.

Research, to me, is simply digging for more information. My own brain is my #1 research tool -- continual analysis of new information is the key to scholarship. Looking at new information and how it matches up with things I've seen with my own eyes (for example, people's statements about political speeches, vs. what I saw watching the speeches and what I can see re-watching them) is the main thing to do here. Google is my #2 research tool -- if I want more information, all I have to do is search to see what's out there. Discussion is my #3 research tool -- whether it's here or on political websites. Discussion lets me pool what I've researched with what others have researched.

That's one of the things that really frustrates me about you, Zuruck -- and about a lot of others here. I wouldn't be talking to you if I didn't want to know what information you have. If I wanted to just listen to my own side, I wouldn't hang out here. But I'm interested in learning, refining my ideas, and pitting them against the best counter-arguments anybody else has -- because that's the best way to gain more certain knowledge.

The problem is, it's pretty hard to find people who are willing to engage what I say. There are a lot of you here who are perfectly willing to take cheap shots at tangential points, but very few who ever engage the main ideas I put forth. It didn't used to be that way -- there used to be several people on the left who'd engage what I said, do their own research, and give me legitimate information with which to form a more educated opinion. But now all I can get is a bunch of people who scream about fox news and Rush (though I don't watch / listen / read those), or who engage tangential points, or who try to draw every discussion into a "WMD / Iraq" framework. You're not helping me think or learn if you're not willing to think and learn yourself -- and that takes an attitude of scholarship.

It's not about time commitment, as cops seems to think -- it's about an attitude of caring about truth and analyzing information. Seriously, you should try it sometime -- get out of your little bubble and dig deeper. It'll be good for you, and whatever you manage to learn can help the rest of us too.

Pebkac wrote:Yeah, research of allegedly questionable sources is always unnecessary when you can just talk out of your ***.

what of it?
i just hate to think i'll be excluded from your "reindeer games".
heh.

Cops, you're starting to remind me of a certain comedy show guy who rode his little tricycle around in circles and then fell over. Try posting a actual coherent thought for a change, it might be exhilirating.

Lothar is correct about the left leaning members of this board. Hopefully after this thread they will actually try to defend their statements in a more cognizant manner.

woodchip wrote:Cops, you're starting to remind me of a certain comedy show guy who rode his little tricycle around in circles and then fell over. Try posting a actual coherent thought for a change, it might be exhilirating.

i just knew you would be the one!

ok, i'm funna stuff some suppositories up my ass while masturbating to brit hume giving a lecture on "the pros and cons of speaking with sausages in your mouth... yet, coming off as a stable man footed in reality."

you guys can't decipher someone being a smarta$$? are you serious? are you gonna blame the "liberal media" for my antics?

i thought so.... because the thread is about bumper stickers.

You're getting geeked, aren't ya Cops.

wow, i never thought i'd see disagreement = incoherencey.

something new to learn each day.

Now I think we should make fun of Ferno for his nonsensical one-liners.

edit: Oh well I guess I'm one to talk.

Lothar wrote:The problem is, it's pretty hard to find people who are willing to engage what I say. There are a lot of you here who are perfectly willing to take cheap shots at tangential points, but very few who ever engage the main ideas I put forth.

To be honest, a lot of this is just time constraint. In another thread (the Chaney one), I posted a 3 liner, and you responded with an almost 30 liner. You introduce new ideas, new facts, new questions, new comments, which is all-good; but it is like throwing a huge log on a dwindling fire.

It is no secret that writing is not a strength for me, I somewhat fake it now by putting my long posts in word, running the spell checker, proof reading it a few times, and I still miss a lot. So it takes me some time to make a reply that is about the same size as yours. So I do it, submit it, and then you post a reply that is 3x as long as my long post! I literally finished reading your last reply, opened word, and started reading your reply again so I could respond --- turned off my computer and went running. Thatâ??s exactly how it happened. Essay swapping is all-good (and don't get me wrong, sometimes I do like doing that), but other times I just want to respond to point-by-point. (I mean look at the size of your post in this thread compared to the average here)

I know it isnâ??t, but sometimes when I read your long posts I feel like it is your intent to drown out the other person. A forfit by quantity. I know I would respond to alot more of your points, if they weren't all bunched up in one massive post. I'm not saying you are bloviating, everything is usualy relavent, all the points are usually good, the questions are always well put: But sometimes I'm just not in the mood to write that much. I appear to have taken the exception now

Obviously my sarcasm was lost on you Jeff.