[CreepingDeth]

Yeah, here's how it breaks down.
1. Old facts
2. Maybe a picture of questionable source
3. Talk about prongs
4. Reference Bush 17.32 times
5. Mention Kerry 3.4615 times
6. Hint at behind closed door meeting
7 Talk about the intrological galaxies and alphatronic rockifications and humanoid spacifications and some quadraloglical, chemical war crimes with some tetralogical cosmopolitans with rockificiations, space stations and flying saucers with other populations on other planets across 12 galaxies that were top secret by the CIA behind closed doors in Washington outdating the automobile society and outdating those international airlines.

Set.

You could also have the second reply and state something about t some telepathic scientific inventions with some rhetorical treasons committed with slanders just...with extra sensory perceptions brainwashing me with numerous grand thefts and embezzlements, just trying to create some minor laryngitis or some permanent laryngitis against my campaigns, committed by the CIA and Bill Clinton and just former presidents George Washington and Ben Franklin with some resurrections that were top secret behind closed doors in Washington. But also I think most of the protesters here today that came out today I think they were also on behalf of my protest.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
No not the number of them. No one said that.

It's what is inside that counts.

You post a lot of Anti-Bush tripe conspiracy "i think Bush is teh suck" threads.

Ones that add nothing new. It's the same rant.

what is the acceptable ratio of pro-bush to anti-bush threads? Who decides? Why?

[Zimphire]

Lerk it isn't about pro-or anti bush threads.

But anyhow, nevermind.. just go on.

I don't want to be in this skit anymore.

[CreepingDeth]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Lerk it isn't about pro-or anti bush threads.

But anyhow, nevermind.. just go on.

I don't want to be in this skit anymore.

Are you kidding? Every day there's Bush job numbers, Ashcroft is the anti-chirst, the lies of Republicans, etc.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
Are you kidding? Every day there's Bush job numbers, Ashcroft is the anti-chirst, the lies of Republicans, etc.

It's about the content, the conspiracies. Anti-Bush thread in itself is not bad if it is legit and not redundant.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Lerk it isn't about pro-or anti bush threads.

But anyhow, nevermind.. just go on.

I don't want to be in this skit anymore.

you wrote 90% of the skit yourself, btw.
I"ve never asked you to post in my threads.

You yourself said I should curtail the number. When I point out you have the same number as I, you say, no, its the antibush content. When I say what is the proper ratio, you say it isn't about that.

so tell, me, then, what IS it about?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
It's about the content, the conspiracies. Anti-Bush thread in itself is not bad if it is legit and not redundant.

who decides what's legit? you? Can you give me an example of your criteria that doesn't involve because I criticize the Bush administration?

[Zimphire]

Not the number of posts Lerk. The number of redundant petty, conspiracy threads.

Post ALL YOU WISH.

Really, if I knew you were going to go all drama on me I'd have not said a thing.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:

so tell, me, then, what IS it about?

The fact that you're working for the DNC, moveon, or some other similar group?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
The fact that you're working for the DNC, moveon, or some other similar group?

Not true, so it can't be a "fact", sorry. I contribute on a variety of political boards, like this one, but I am a member of no organization like what you assume.

got anything else?

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Not true, so it can't be a "fact", sorry. I contribute on a variety of political boards, like this one, but I am a member of no organization like what you assume.

got anything else?

No, just the "group affiliation thingy". I still believe it though.

[Spoogepieces]

Or the fact that he never posts positive threads. It's always some conspiracy, some anti-Bush rant, blah blah blah.

Give enough monkeys enough typewriters = Lerkfish.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Spoogepieces:

Give enough monkeys enough typewriters = Lerkfish.

That made no sense.

[Spoogepieces]

Oh, come on. Haven't you heard the theory that if you gave enough monkeys enough typewriters that they could randomly produce Shakespeare (i.e. the theory that non-teleological random chance plus natural laws could result in something coherent)?

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by Spoogepieces:
Oh, come on. Haven't you heard the theory that if you gave enough monkeys enough typewriters that they could randomly produce Shakespeare (i.e. the theory that non-teleological random chance plus natural laws could result in something coherent)?

Bush? Coherent? Hehe.




















SWIFTBOAT

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=557746

As a FORMER Bush supporter, I appreciate your post lerkfish.

I gain a great deal of disrespect for those who support W without even thinking about it, or knowing why.

I posted 7 possible reasons someone might support the President, but none of them are good reasons.

I believe many people simply go along because he talks tough.

If he wins, we will ALL regret it and those of you who support him without GOOD cause, do NOT say you weren't warned.

Someone should write a book, styled after JFK's, ("Why England Slept") and call it, "Why America Slept."

He's a lying, thieving, cheating manipulator. If he wins, America will only be getting what it deserves.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Not the number of posts Lerk. The number of redundant petty, conspiracy threads.

Post ALL YOU WISH.

Really, if I knew you were going to go all drama on me I'd have not said a thing.

You don't seem to get it, Zimphire. Lerkfish is trying to warn you and all of us, of danger. But you refuse to open your eyes. OR you persist (like W) in going headlong into dangerous waters. Never waver? Don't ever reconsider your position? Full speed ahead? Ready, Fire, AIM???

[PacHead]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Lerkfish is trying to warn you and all of us, of danger. But you refuse to open your eyes. OR you persist (like W) in going headlong into dangerous waters.

We are not cowards, we will face the enemy head on. Dangerous waters ? That's ok, we know how to swim. Bring it on. Danger ? bah - The enemy will find out what danger is, those primitive savage terrorists, and cave dwellers such as al-qaeda do not scare us.

I appreciate lerks concern, and after careful consideration, I disagree. And my eyes are wide open, I couldn't be seeing any clearer than I do, that's why I believe in the things I do. Will the war get worse ? You betcha. WW III ? perhaps. Whatever it takes.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
Yeah, here's how it breaks down.
1. Old facts
2. Maybe a picture of questionable source
3. Talk about prongs
4. Reference Bush 17.32 times
5. Mention Kerry 3.4615 times
6. Hint at behind closed door meeting
7 Talk about the intrological galaxies and alphatronic rockifications and humanoid spacifications and some quadraloglical, chemical war crimes with some tetralogical cosmopolitans with rockificiations, space stations and flying saucers with other populations on other planets across 12 galaxies that were top secret by the CIA behind closed doors in Washington outdating the automobile society and outdating those international airlines.

Set.

You could also have the second reply and state something about t some telepathic scientific inventions with some rhetorical treasons committed with slanders just...with extra sensory perceptions brainwashing me with numerous grand thefts and embezzlements, just trying to create some minor laryngitis or some permanent laryngitis against my campaigns, committed by the CIA and Bill Clinton and just former presidents George Washington and Ben Franklin with some resurrections that were top secret behind closed doors in Washington. But also I think most of the protesters here today that came out today I think they were also on behalf of my protest.

The quoted post (above) is EXACTLY the mindset and the segment of the electorate the administration is hoping to appeal to.

People who can't be bothered by details and who want things nice and simple. I used to make a TON of money selling cars to people like that. While they thought I was a straight talkin good ole boy, I was conspiring against them. I took their money and put them in big debt. AND THEY LOVED ME!

The President and his band actually DO those things you criticize and are COUNTING on you to say, "don't confuse me with the facts!"

What would you do or say AFTER you discovered you'd been duped???

NOTHIN!

Why?

Cuz it'll be too late after the election.

And NONE of you will have the courage to say you were wrong.

[Spoogepieces]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
You don't seem to get it, Zimphire. Lerkfish is trying to warn you and all of us, of danger. But you refuse to open your eyes. OR you persist (like W) in going headlong into dangerous waters. Never waver? Don't ever reconsider your position? Full speed ahead? Ready, Fire, AIM???

Then give me a bloody better alternative than Kerry.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by Spoogepieces:
Then give me a bloody better alternative than Kerry.

It's a bit too late for that now isn't it ? Anyhow, I thought you said you were so right wing, that you would make me look like a bleeding heart liberal.

[Spoogepieces]

Originally posted by PacHead:
It's a bit too late for that now isn't it ? Anyhow, I thought you said you were so right wing, that you would make me look like a bleeding heart liberal.

I voted for Clinton the first time around because he seemed to be a better choice at the time than Bush, Sr. Just because I'm a right wing conservative doesn't imply that I always vote that way.

But you're talking to a die-hard Reagan fan who worked both elections to get him elected from the state convention to the national convention.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Spoogepieces:
Then give me a bloody better alternative than Kerry.

As is often the case in American politics, we can only choose between the lesser of two 'evils.'

This, I believe is what's behind the slogan, "Anbody But Bush."

After looking into the 'crooks' and 'nannies' of the this referendum, I feel genuinely frightened at the prospect of W in the Oval Office with nothin to lose!

How else do you explain the EXTREME passion against him?

Where there's smoke, there's fire. Well, you might want to answer some questions for yourself before November.

I won't tell you where, for fear you'd question my source(s).

If you do your job as a citizen, you'll become informed.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
This, I believe is what's behind the slogan, "Anbody But Bush."

If you do your job as a citizen, you'll become informed.

Yeah, and it seems like the ridiculous "ABB" strategy is failing. And how should we "do our jobs as citizens", inorder to become informed ? Watch a Michael Moore movie ?

[PacHead]

Originally posted by Spoogepieces:
But you're talking to a die-hard Reagan fan who worked both elections to get him elected from the state convention to the national convention.

Reagan helped bring down the "Evil Empire". Are you not in favor of bringing down the newest "Evil" that threatens us ? Or perhaps you don't see it as a threat ? This new "Evil" is far more dangerous then the commies, IMO. At least the Commies were somewhat rational, and not suicidal maniacs.

[Spoogepieces]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
How else do you explain the EXTREME passion against him?

The same way you explain the EXTREME passion against Kerry.

[Spoogepieces]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Are you not in favor of bringing down the newest "Evil" that threatens us ? Or perhaps you don't see it as a threat ? This new "Evil" is far more dangerous then the commies, IMO. At least the Commies were somewhat rational, and not suicidal maniacs.

The Russians also had children and loved them just as we do. A nation with something to lose won't act irrationally. The Russians respected us and we respected them. So in the end nobody blew anyone up.

But now we face a menace with no real central authority, no real precise locations to target with our strategic rocket forces, and one that doesn't think anything of taking children and killing them for sport.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by Spoogepieces:
The same way you explain the EXTREME passion against Kerry.

I don't agree with this. Most people don't hate Kerry. As for myself, I think he'd just do a lousy job.

The same can't be said for the other side. They are frothing at the mouth Bush haters, many of them.

[Spoogepieces]

There's more hate than you care to acknowledge. But most conservatives don't sit around on forums spewing out anti-Bush or anti-Kerry conspiracy theories on a daily basis like one poster here likes to do. We recognize that the ballot box is the best place to show displeasure with a candidate.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by Spoogepieces:
The Russians also had children and loved them just as we do. A nation with something to lose won't act irrationally. The Russians respected us and we respected them. So in the end nobody blew anyone up.

But now we face a menace with no real central authority, no real precise locations to target with our strategic rocket forces, and one that doesn't think anything of taking children and killing them for sport.

Yes, I agree, except I suspect that clearer targets will present itself in the future, such as Iran supporting terrorists, and Syria etc. This is the govts itself supporting it, and that is a clear and definable target, if they don't change their evil ways. You can't go supporting terrorists, while hiding out in Damascus, and think that nobody is going to strike back, IMO.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Spoogepieces:
I voted for Clinton the first time around because he seemed to be a better choice at the time than Bush, Sr. Just because I'm a right wing conservative doesn't imply that I always vote that way.

But you're talking to a die-hard Reagan fan who worked both elections to get him elected from the state convention to the national convention.

I campaigned for Nelson Rockefeller in 1968. Nixon in 1972.
Ford in 76. I LOVED Reagan. Voted for him twice. Then for "41" and Ross Perot and Bob Dole. In 2000, I went for Al Gore and in November it will be John Kerry.

W is mean spirited, shallow, dogmatic and because of his business interests and business associates (past, present and future) he has not represented you and I as well as he woulda, coulda and shoulda.

[Spoogepieces]

None of them ever realy do much once in office, however, being a Southerner myself I simply cannot trust a man from Massachusetts.

I know where Bush stands on most issues and that makes me feel better than the Senator from Massachusetts.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Yeah, and it seems like the ridiculous "ABB" strategy is failing. And how should we "do our jobs as citizens", inorder to become informed ? Watch a Michael Moore movie ?

Actually, that wouldn't be a bad start if you want to know your 'opposition.' But then you might read, www.howardstern.com (his site documents the case against W pretty well), or the books by John Dean, Sen Robert Byrd, Sen. Bob Graham, former administration official Richard Clarke, or anything by Pat Buchanan...for a start.

If you wanted to learn more about the video game, "Pacman," what would you do? You'd just start ANYWHERE.

By the way...

I believe if we REALLY wanted to ease tensions with the rest of the world (including terrorists) we would treat the Israelis AND the Palestinians as two brothers who were fighting and we were their parent.

Treating them fairly and equally is in keeping with our national ideals and self image and will signal that the terrorists no longer have to "act out" in order to get a fair shake.

As it is now, they feel hopeless.

We should GO AFTER the terrorists, but we can prevent the rise of new terrorists by improving our relations with the countries and religions who feel oppressed by us.

They feel hatred for us because we give $$ and sell arms to Israel which Israel uses to kill Palestinians.

Israel has a right to live in peace and security. Palestinians do, too. But in the never ending cycle of tit for tat, eye for eye, SOMEONE has to be a NEUTRAL 3rd party.

President Bush's (fawning? drooling???) friendship and support for Israel means the other side (spelled: terrorist spawning grounds) CAN'T and won't trust us, now.

President Bush has the wrong idea.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Spoogepieces:
There's more hate than you care to acknowledge. But most conservatives don't sit around on forums spewing out anti-Bush or anti-Kerry conspiracy theories on a daily basis like one poster here likes to do. We recognize that the ballot box is the best place to show displeasure with a candidate.

Spooge, IMO the venom against Bush is because he represents a real danger to many people, where Kerry is more or less seen as an uninspired candidate by some folks.

The best place to show displeasure is at the ballot box in the same way that Paul Revere could have simply gotten his own musket out to combat the Redcoats alone.

The warning is going out in hopes that the real patriots here will at LEAST do a bit of web surfing to learn THEIR OWN truths, and NOT what we're being fed by an administration that has shown itself unworthy of our trust.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by PacHead:
We are not cowards, we will face the enemy head on. Dangerous waters ? That's ok, we know how to swim. Bring it on. Danger ? bah - The enemy will find out what danger is, those primitive savage terrorists, and cave dwellers such as al-qaeda do not scare us.

I appreciate lerks concern, and after careful consideration, I disagree. And my eyes are wide open, I couldn't be seeing any clearer than I do, that's why I believe in the things I do. Will the war get worse ? You betcha. WW III ? perhaps. Whatever it takes.

The dangerous waters include NOT ONLY terrorists.

Think back to the days of the American Revolution. The Boston Tea Party was staged by colonists who were being oppressed by sever taxation without representation. We were getting screwed by the King of England and we had NO SAY in the matter. We felt hopeless and made a statement in the only way we could. The King responded in force with the mightiest Army and navy in the world. Yet, we won.

The Israeli's rightfully got our support all these years (since 1948) but THEY oppress the Palestinians. The Palestinians feel hopeless because they can't get a fair shake from Israel and WE treat Israel like the fair haired son but the Palestinians like a step child.

So, what do they do, they respond with terrorism. Which is met by the Israeli's with military retaliation -- using OUR M-16's and tanks and F-16's -- which is seen by the Palestinians as OUR support for Israels oppression of them.

Being that the Palestinians are mostly Muslim and Islamic codes suggest a 'rightful' reason for war is to come to the aid of other Muslims who are being persecuted, we have a mess that Bush is making worse.

The Bush foriegn policy creates more terrorists each day.

It's NOT a matter of courage or cowardice. It's a matter of being fair and SMART!

YES, we should track down the terrorists and dispose of them. But we should also PREVENT problems before they happen.

The dangerous waters have to do with Bush's policies ALL ACROSS THE BOARD!

He's taking away our Constitutional rights and you don't even seem to care.

No one has lost their job over the botched job of protecting America from 9/11. There were warnings. John Ashcroft didn't want to hear anything about terrorism before 9/11. Ashcroft, however WAS VERY concerned with covering up the bare breasts of the statue of justice in the Justice Dept. lobby and spent thousands of dollars getting the breasts covered up.

The amount of money being made in Iraq by Cheney's pals and Bush's pals is obscene.

Pac, I don't know what to say.

[chris v]

The thing that gets me is-- Lerk posts facts, and he's accused of hate.

Facts are such hateful things.

[OldManMac]

Facts are hard to deal with for a lot of people. They invade their comfort zone, and that has to be kept inviolate at all costs. People have trouble dealing with things they don't understand, so they tend to ignore them, or strike back.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Actually, that wouldn't be a bad start if you want to know your 'opposition.' But then you might read, [url]www.howardstern.com[/url

I don't think I want to get my political analysis from Howard Stern. Thanks.

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
I don't think I want to get my political analysis from Howard Stern. Thanks.

Why not? Looks like he might be better than the sources you're using now!

[UR-20]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:

I believe if we REALLY wanted to ease tensions with the rest of the world (including terrorists) we would treat the Israelis AND the Palestinians as two brothers who were fighting and we were their parent.

Treating them fairly and equally is in keeping with our national ideals and self image and will signal that the terrorists no longer have to "act out" in order to get a fair shake.

I see them as two fighting school kids, and we get to play principal. It doesn't matter if we interject now, they just "settle" their differences when we're not looking.
And come to think of it, why should we have to interject in the first place?
It's obvious that they hate each other, why the heck do we have to get in the middle of it
and take a few stray punches every now and again?

Another thing, everyone keeps calling Kerry a flip flopper, wtf was Bush doing?!?
"Osama bin laden" (can't find him) "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction" (can't find those) "Iraq was planning to buy uranium" (a lie) "The Iraq people have lived under the tyranny of Sadam Hussein for long enough, and because of us the world is a safer place for democracy." Oh wait he wasn't flopping between two decisions..he was just giving himself a TON of wiggle room.. Now that's smart!

We should GO AFTER the terrorists, but we can prevent the rise of new terrorists by improving our relations with the countries and religions who feel oppressed by us.
They feel hatred for us because we give $$ and sell arms to Israel which Israel uses to kill Palestinians.
Israel has a right to live in peace and security. Palestinians do, too. But in the never ending cycle of tit for tat, eye for eye, SOMEONE has to be a NEUTRAL 3rd party.

President Bush's (fawning? drooling???) friendship and support for Israel means the other side (spelled: terrorist spawning grounds) CAN'T and won't trust us, now.

President Bush has the wrong idea.

Exactly!

[lurkalot]

Originally posted by Aberdeenwriter:
"I believe if we REALLY wanted to ease tensions with the rest of the world (including terrorists) we would treat the Israelis AND the Palestinians as two brothers who were fighting and we were their parent."

Why the parent? Did "we" spawn either of them? Why not portray "we" as another brother? Do we have any authority over either complex and diverse group within which often contradicting dynamics exist and conflicting goals are strived for by smaller groups inside the whole? Which Israelis do we approach -as their parent? Which Palestinians? Who speaks for them all? Is their process of representation truly representative?
Who is "we" anyway? "We" can't even have a civilized discourse on an anonymous website. We the U.S.? We the rest of the world? The U.N.? Who speaks for "us"? How representative of us are any of these entities?

Originally posted by UR-20:
I see them as two fighting school kids, and we get to play principal. It doesn't matter if we interject now,...

Why the principal and not another student? We're not even in a higher grade based on our own problem solving skills and methods. What can we teach "them" that we don't need to learn ourselves first. We're in no position to teach let alone place ourselves in charge of a school or the entire education system. Where does the schoolyard begin anyway?

Originally posted by Aberdeenwriter:
"We should GO AFTER the terrorists, but we can prevent the rise of new terrorists by improving our relations with the countries and religions who feel oppressed by us."

Good ideas but how will we do that if you can't even write your own message without placing "us" in a paternalistic position of authority and superiority? Isn't that part of the objection of those who feel oppressed?

Erhm.. Excuse my infantile rant. Dinner is ready. Carry on.

[UR-20]

Originally posted by lurkalot:


Why the principal and not another student? We're not even in a higher grade based on our own problem solving skills and methods. What can we teach "them" that we don't need to learn ourselves first. We're in no position to teach let alone place ourselves in charge of a school or the entire education system. Where does the schoolyard begin anyway?

Ok you just reminded me of a school thing from a long time ago.
Back when I was in high school we had "Conflict managers" which were just other students assigned to deal with problems, fights etc. They clearly had no idea what they were doing, and no plan of how to completely resolve the "conflict" once and for all. Kinda like now.
But you're right, our country is so F-ed up what gives us the right to say to everyone else "No, you're doing it wrong!"

[Macpilot]

I say more power to Lerkfish and anyone trying to bash Bush. I found those numbers very interesting.

And how about everyone just calming down a little and offering real facts to counter his claims?

So far I have seen nothing from the Bush supporters here.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
I don't think I want to get my political analysis from Howard Stern. Thanks.

Ahhh, why not?!? All of his guest "anal-ysts" have such great "ass-ets".