Yahoo! answers and a Truth of Fiction site....true journalistic integrity....whats a matter, couldnt find it in wikopedia? By the way, you have gone with the standard from the Liberal Playbook, when you cant win a debate, try to attack and discredit all that oppose your view....well done
I find it rather sickening to think that these two are the best candidate each party can offer. I vote None of the Above
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ Jun 9 2008, 02:44 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I find it rather sickening to think that these two are the best candidate each party can offer. I vote None of the Above</div> Welcome to every four years.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Jun 9 2008, 02:57 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ Jun 9 2008, 02:44 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I find it rather sickening to think that these two are the best candidate each party can offer. I vote None of the Above</div> Welcome to every four years. </div> I've been saying that since the first Presidential election you and I could vote in
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Jun 9 2008, 12:18 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>IIRC, doesn't BG7 have the book in question?</div> He claims that hes read the book....May I point out that he didnt remember any of the 3 quotes before he found his research that stated 2 of the 3 were in the book....so why should we assume that he would remember the third? the bottom line is that of the 1st 100 sites that came up when I googled the quote, 2% disputed it, 98% confirmed it....
I don't think he has the entire book embedded into his memory. I would put my money on BG7 being correct in this case, he's been more specific on this point.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jun 8 2008, 10:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Winston Churhill was a torrie, no?</div> OK, I should have said modern Tories. They just seem to be too much about keeping the rich rich and the poor poor. Granted, the Labour Party (who I would support as left-wing by default) have not been much better, and they have moved to the right over recent years which has helped. But I'm just against a lot of things that the Tories stand for, such as always trying to maintain tradition, Euro-scepticism (isolationism). I suppose it was Thatcher who really made the mess, and I consiider myself lucky not to have lived a day of my life whilst she was PM (she resigned the day before I was born - obviously scared of me ) but I fear for British politics that the two major parties seem to be converging on the middle ground of politics rather than offering a true left/right wing stance. And that is why we need PR or a hybrid system in the UK, but I digress. I'm not too sure on the exact stances of Obama and McCain at the moment, but just based on the overall Party stereotype I would vote for Obama, though he does remind me a little too much of David Cameron - pledging "change" but not really stating what the changes will be.
I'd vote for Obama because it'd make me seem fashionable and would give me a handy defense against accusations of racism.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (chingy0007 @ Jun 9 2008, 08:50 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jun 8 2008, 10:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Winston Churhill was a torrie, no?</div> OK, I should have said modern Tories. They just seem to be too much about keeping the rich rich and the poor poor. Granted, the Labour Party (who I would support as left-wing by default) have not been much better, and they have moved to the right over recent years which has helped. But I'm just against a lot of things that the Tories stand for, such as always trying to maintain tradition, Euro-scepticism (isolationism). I suppose it was Thatcher who really made the mess, and I consiider myself lucky not to have lived a day of my life whilst she was PM (she resigned the day before I was born - obviously scared of me ) but I fear for British politics that the two major parties seem to be converging on the middle ground of politics rather than offering a true left/right wing stance. And that is why we need PR or a hybrid system in the UK, but I digress. I'm not too sure on the exact stances of Obama and McCain at the moment, but just based on the overall Party stereotype I would vote for Obama, though he does remind me a little too much of David Cameron - pledging "change" but not really stating what the changes will be. </div> Word. I want the same in Canada too.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thrilla @ Jun 8 2008, 07:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jun 8 2008, 08:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Maybe he should have served one term in the senate then ran? Get some accomplishments under his belt...</div> Why? So he could have voted on more issues and sponsored a few more bills? I'm having a hard time thinking of just one thing that a Senator has accomplished on their own thats of any significance. </div> McCain-Feingold. From that one piece of legislation alone, you get that McCain is willing to work across the aisle (with Feingold), that he's willing to take on the fat cat insiders who buy politics and politicians, and that he's willing to break ranks with his party (good of country over good of party). It's not just about sponsoring bills and voting on issues, though it'd be nice to see how a candidate did those things when he had to actually govern. It's about building relationships that he can use to get his agenda passed. It's about building an organization of staff members who can basically take over the top jobs at the white house. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Governors and Mayors do get things done.</div>That has nothing to do with my experience point. I was only saying that veteran officials are less likely to be motivated in office. More going through the motions than anything else. Whether they are congressman, senators, mayors, governors, etc.. That's one of the reasons term limits exist. </div> Term limits don't exist in most of the places that count (like congress). You might look at NYC before and after Rudy. Before, it was a city on the verge of bankruptcy and was generally an open sewer (trash bags piled 15 feet high on the corners); after, it was one of the best cities in the USA. Back to my previous point about relationships. Bush brought in his staff from government at Texas. Clinton brought in his staff from Arkansas. Reagan, his staff from California. Who is Obama's staff? <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>As for his associates, how'd you feel if he made his pastor secretary of state? That's the kind of people he's hung with...</div>I don't know anything about the guy besides 3-4 minutes of his 30 year career as a Pastor that was taken out of context. I wouldn't want any Pastor as an elected official, but he couldn't be any worse than some of the cabinet members Bush has appointed. </div> It's likely to be just as bad as the cabinet members Bush has appointed, or worse - the ones that Clinton appointed. A lot of Clinton's guys and gals were indicted or investigated by special prosecutors for good reason. The basis that he isn't Bush isn't enough of a reason to vote FOR him. Noam Chumpsky isn't Bush, either, and I wouldn't want any part of him; what I know about Wright is that he sounds a lot like Chumpsky. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Going to Iraq, he'd at least see first hand whether it's worth staying.</div>That's dumb. if he didn't think we should have gone do begin with, why would something he saw over there all of a sudden make him think its worth staying? </div> The anti-war movement has spent $billions putting down the war, the USA, and the progress that's been made there. It's one thing to ride that publicity to victory in presidential elections, and another to look at the facts on the ground in Iraq today. If you do look at the situation in Iraq today, you might get the sense that the war is almost won there, and that staying a couple more years seals the deal. http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=14690674 Al-Qaeda facing alienation from fellow jihadists: Expert Monday, 09 June , 2008, 11:11 New York: Al-Qaeda is said to have lately started attracting alienation from fellow jihadists because of its brutal campaign in Iraq, as most of its victims around the world are Muslims, as also that the terror network has continued to target civilians for slaughter in the West, writes Cruickshank in the New York-based Daily News. Cruickshank is a fellow at the New York University Centre on Law and Security and the co-author of the current cover story “The Jihadist Revolt against Bin Laden” published in the New Republic. According to him, among the jihadi leaders who have openly attacked al-Qaeda in the recent past, include Salman al Oudah, a Saudi cleric with a large international youth following and whose fiery anti-American audiotapes in the 1990s were a huge inspiration for Bin Laden and his circle, Sayyid Imam al Sharif, the Egyptian spiritual godfather of al-Qaeda, and Noman Benotman, a former leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. While mainstream Muslim leaders have long criticised al-Qaeda, these critics have the jihadist credentials to make their criticisms bite, wrote Cruickshank. According to the writer, recent polls show that al-Qaeda has haemorrhaged support in places where its terrorist campaign has reached people's doorsteps. By one measure, pro-al-Qaeda sentiment is now down to 10 per cent in Saudi Arabia - and has dropped from 70 per cent to 4 per cent in the Northwest Frontier Province of Pakistan. The number of al-Qaeda sympathisers in Britain fell dramatically after the 2005 London bombings. According to him, this “tectonic shift” beneath the headlines in the wider war on terrorism could within a few years significantly lower the likelihood of terror returning to New York’s streets.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (chingy0007 @ Jun 9 2008, 06:50 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jun 8 2008, 10:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Winston Churhill was a torrie, no?</div> OK, I should have said modern Tories. They just seem to be too much about keeping the rich rich and the poor poor. Granted, the Labour Party (who I would support as left-wing by default) have not been much better, and they have moved to the right over recent years which has helped. But I'm just against a lot of things that the Tories stand for, such as always trying to maintain tradition, Euro-scepticism (isolationism). I suppose it was Thatcher who really made the mess, and I consiider myself lucky not to have lived a day of my life whilst she was PM (she resigned the day before I was born - obviously scared of me ) but I fear for British politics that the two major parties seem to be converging on the middle ground of politics rather than offering a true left/right wing stance. And that is why we need PR or a hybrid system in the UK, but I digress. I'm not too sure on the exact stances of Obama and McCain at the moment, but just based on the overall Party stereotype I would vote for Obama, though he does remind me a little too much of David Cameron - pledging "change" but not really stating what the changes will be. </div> I think you folks over there are just now starting to experience what the USA has been about all along. We have states like Virginia and Texas, who should be considered like countries in Europe (France, Germany, GB, etc.). The union of these states here was to make a common currency and to make it so your marriage in one state is recognized in another, so you don't need a passport to go from state to state, and to provide common defense and ambassadors. That kind of thing. The "traditionalist" view here is to recognize the states as states and the powers they should have as if they were euro countries. The american version of social democratic movement would eliminate this distinction for the most part. I can't say that I'm immersed in your politics - far from it. What I have read of Churchill's quotations, I'd consider myself that kind of torrie
On the subject of Iraq and Al-Qaeda, terrorism etc, has anyone ever seen the TV Show Sleeper Cell? I think it's really good, really insightful into the World of Islam. For example, you get the extreme view from the terrorists that is seen in the media anyway, but you also get the view of the vast majority of Islam. For example, they say the greatest jihad is the war you fight within yourself, to battle your own faith and to stay true to Islam. That there was once a warrior fighting in the name of Islam, and that he was about to kill a Crusader, when the Crusader spat in his face. Then the warrior felt hatred for the crusader so could not kill him, else it would be murder since he was no longer just fighting to protect the faith. Please don't think I'm preaching, I'm a solid atheist, but I think it's interesting to get a different perspective on Islam other than the negative view we see all to often in the media. For anyone in the UK reading this, Sleeper Cell is on FX (Sky 15-something I think) on Tuesday nights around 11, watch it if you have the chance.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jun 9 2008, 03:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (chingy0007 @ Jun 9 2008, 06:50 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jun 8 2008, 10:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Winston Churhill was a torrie, no?</div> OK, I should have said modern Tories. They just seem to be too much about keeping the rich rich and the poor poor. Granted, the Labour Party (who I would support as left-wing by default) have not been much better, and they have moved to the right over recent years which has helped. But I'm just against a lot of things that the Tories stand for, such as always trying to maintain tradition, Euro-scepticism (isolationism). I suppose it was Thatcher who really made the mess, and I consiider myself lucky not to have lived a day of my life whilst she was PM (she resigned the day before I was born - obviously scared of me ) but I fear for British politics that the two major parties seem to be converging on the middle ground of politics rather than offering a true left/right wing stance. And that is why we need PR or a hybrid system in the UK, but I digress. I'm not too sure on the exact stances of Obama and McCain at the moment, but just based on the overall Party stereotype I would vote for Obama, though he does remind me a little too much of David Cameron - pledging "change" but not really stating what the changes will be. </div> I think you folks over there are just now starting to experience what the USA has been about all along. We have states like Virginia and Texas, who should be considered like countries in Europe (France, Germany, GB, etc.). The union of these states here was to make a common currency and to make it so your marriage in one state is recognized in another, so you don't need a passport to go from state to state, and to provide common defense and ambassadors. That kind of thing. The "traditionalist" view here is to recognize the states as states and the powers they should have as if they were euro countries. The american version of social democratic movement would eliminate this distinction for the most part. I can't say that I'm immersed in your politics - far from it. What I have read of Churchill's quotations, I'd consider myself that kind of torrie </div> I'll be honest, I don't know much about the politics from Churchill's era, but what I do know is that he was an incredible leader who had charisma in abundance and could really pull people together, but I'm not 100% sure exactly what he stood for. When I was studying for my Politics exam a few weeks ago,m reading about traditional conservatism, I was a lot more sympathetic towards it than I am for modern Conservatism as displayed by the Conservative Party today. I just think that, in this day and age, principles such as collectivism should be placed a lot higher than individualism, but I know that that is unlikely to ever be true in the USA as it conflicts with the American Dream, that underlies a lot of things in the country.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TheBeef @ Jun 9 2008, 02:22 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Jun 9 2008, 12:18 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>IIRC, doesn't BG7 have the book in question?</div> He claims that hes read the book....May I point out that he didnt remember any of the 3 quotes before he found his research that stated 2 of the 3 were in the book....so why should we assume that he would remember the third? the bottom line is that of the 1st 100 sites that came up when I googled the quote, 2% disputed it, 98% confirmed it.... </div> So you remember every line from every piece of text you've ever read? I am not going to remember quotes that are 1.) Not in the book and 2.) A brief snippet, taken out of context, that doesn't reflect the message he was writing on those pages. As Mark Green would say, when you're in a hole, just stop digging. <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/d1wSZBTAXRs&hl=en"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/d1wSZBTAXRs&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> There is a reason they didn't cite page numbers.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (chingy0007 @ Jun 9 2008, 07:26 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>On the subject of Iraq and Al-Qaeda, terrorism etc, has anyone ever seen the TV Show Sleeper Cell? I think it's really good, really insightful into the World of Islam. For example, you get the extreme view from the terrorists that is seen in the media anyway, but you also get the view of the vast majority of Islam. For example, they say the greatest jihad is the war you fight within yourself, to battle your own faith and to stay true to Islam. That there was once a warrior fighting in the name of Islam, and that he was about to kill a Crusader, when the Crusader spat in his face. Then the warrior felt hatred for the crusader so could not kill him, else it would be murder since he was no longer just fighting to protect the faith. Please don't think I'm preaching, I'm a solid atheist, but I think it's interesting to get a different perspective on Islam other than the negative view we see all to often in the media. For anyone in the UK reading this, Sleeper Cell is on FX (Sky 15-something I think) on Tuesday nights around 11, watch it if you have the chance.</div> My understanding is that Jihad doesn't mean "war" but rather to spread the word of Allah, or to do his work.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (chingy0007 @ Jun 9 2008, 07:30 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jun 9 2008, 03:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (chingy0007 @ Jun 9 2008, 06:50 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jun 8 2008, 10:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Winston Churhill was a torrie, no?</div> OK, I should have said modern Tories. They just seem to be too much about keeping the rich rich and the poor poor. Granted, the Labour Party (who I would support as left-wing by default) have not been much better, and they have moved to the right over recent years which has helped. But I'm just against a lot of things that the Tories stand for, such as always trying to maintain tradition, Euro-scepticism (isolationism). I suppose it was Thatcher who really made the mess, and I consiider myself lucky not to have lived a day of my life whilst she was PM (she resigned the day before I was born - obviously scared of me ) but I fear for British politics that the two major parties seem to be converging on the middle ground of politics rather than offering a true left/right wing stance. And that is why we need PR or a hybrid system in the UK, but I digress. I'm not too sure on the exact stances of Obama and McCain at the moment, but just based on the overall Party stereotype I would vote for Obama, though he does remind me a little too much of David Cameron - pledging "change" but not really stating what the changes will be. </div> I think you folks over there are just now starting to experience what the USA has been about all along. We have states like Virginia and Texas, who should be considered like countries in Europe (France, Germany, GB, etc.). The union of these states here was to make a common currency and to make it so your marriage in one state is recognized in another, so you don't need a passport to go from state to state, and to provide common defense and ambassadors. That kind of thing. The "traditionalist" view here is to recognize the states as states and the powers they should have as if they were euro countries. The american version of social democratic movement would eliminate this distinction for the most part. I can't say that I'm immersed in your politics - far from it. What I have read of Churchill's quotations, I'd consider myself that kind of torrie </div> I'll be honest, I don't know much about the politics from Churchill's era, but what I do know is that he was an incredible leader who had charisma in abundance and could really pull people together, but I'm not 100% sure exactly what he stood for. When I was studying for my Politics exam a few weeks ago,m reading about traditional conservatism, I was a lot more sympathetic towards it than I am for modern Conservatism as displayed by the Conservative Party today. I just think that, in this day and age, principles such as collectivism should be placed a lot higher than individualism, but I know that that is unlikely to ever be true in the USA as it conflicts with the American Dream, that underlies a lot of things in the country. </div> "We are Borg. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile." -- Star Trek TNG "An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." -- Churchill "I am fond of pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals. " -- Churchill "If the human race wishes to have a prolonged and indefinite period of material prosperity, they have only got to behave in a peaceful and helpful way toward one another. " -- Churchill Peace!
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jun 9 2008, 12:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (chingy0007 @ Jun 9 2008, 07:26 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>On the subject of Iraq and Al-Qaeda, terrorism etc, has anyone ever seen the TV Show Sleeper Cell? I think it's really good, really insightful into the World of Islam. For example, you get the extreme view from the terrorists that is seen in the media anyway, but you also get the view of the vast majority of Islam. For example, they say the greatest jihad is the war you fight within yourself, to battle your own faith and to stay true to Islam. That there was once a warrior fighting in the name of Islam, and that he was about to kill a Crusader, when the Crusader spat in his face. Then the warrior felt hatred for the crusader so could not kill him, else it would be murder since he was no longer just fighting to protect the faith. Please don't think I'm preaching, I'm a solid atheist, but I think it's interesting to get a different perspective on Islam other than the negative view we see all to often in the media. For anyone in the UK reading this, Sleeper Cell is on FX (Sky 15-something I think) on Tuesday nights around 11, watch it if you have the chance.</div> My understanding is that Jihad doesn't mean "war" but rather to spread the word of Allah, or to do his work. </div> Struggle is implicit in any real definition of Jihad, whether one is speaking of 'traditional' Jihad in a warmaking context, or the 'Greater' Jihad that revolves around introspection and inner struggle. An interesting article on the subject by Daniel Pipes may be found here: http://www.danielpipes.org/article/990 An excerpt: <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Jihad did have two variant meanings through the centuries, one more radical, one less so. The first holds that Muslims who interpret their faith differently are infidels and therefore legitimate targets of jihad. (This is why Algerians, Egyptians and Afghans have found themselves, like Americans and Israelis, so often the victims of jihadist aggression.) The second meaning, associated with mystics, rejects the legal definition of jihad as armed conflict and tells Muslims to withdraw from the worldly concerns to achieve spiritual depth.</div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Jun 9 2008, 12:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jun 9 2008, 12:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (chingy0007 @ Jun 9 2008, 07:26 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>On the subject of Iraq and Al-Qaeda, terrorism etc, has anyone ever seen the TV Show Sleeper Cell? I think it's really good, really insightful into the World of Islam. For example, you get the extreme view from the terrorists that is seen in the media anyway, but you also get the view of the vast majority of Islam. For example, they say the greatest jihad is the war you fight within yourself, to battle your own faith and to stay true to Islam. That there was once a warrior fighting in the name of Islam, and that he was about to kill a Crusader, when the Crusader spat in his face. Then the warrior felt hatred for the crusader so could not kill him, else it would be murder since he was no longer just fighting to protect the faith. Please don't think I'm preaching, I'm a solid atheist, but I think it's interesting to get a different perspective on Islam other than the negative view we see all to often in the media. For anyone in the UK reading this, Sleeper Cell is on FX (Sky 15-something I think) on Tuesday nights around 11, watch it if you have the chance.</div> My understanding is that Jihad doesn't mean "war" but rather to spread the word of Allah, or to do his work. </div> Struggle is implicit in any real definition of Jihad, whether one is speaking of 'traditional' Jihad in a warmaking context, or the 'Greater' Jihad that revolves around introspection and inner struggle. </div> on point.
