Member Discussions

You failed to actually look in the mirror at yourself pleading for the censorship of another POV.

Samson - censorship - Hitler (thanks Dulan for the inspiration, you got it right for once) :-)
Kris - censorship - Stalin

Two sides of the same coin. On one side a retard and on the obverse a huge ass.

Q.E.D.

I suggest we split Tyche in two halves, and give both of them a piece!

They can't even deal with a half a Tyche as they are prone to apolectic fits of profanity. I didn't even give them the 'unleashed' version of my license violations speech, just the kind and gentle one. ;-)

I think this means Samson gets to invoke Godwin's Law on you now, Tyche.

Wow, I think this thread makes one thing perfectly clear: That there are a lot of people with waaaay too much time on their hands!

Only response I have is to Tyche. Somehow I doubt you'd be as critical of me if I was a Bush supporter (gathering from your remarks critical of my support of Kerry).

Furthermore, I have not once tried to force Samson to take that site down. On the contrary, the longer he keeps it up, the more petty and immature it makes him look, particularly in the face of everyone listed in that phony log saying quite clearly that it never happened, and they never told Samson otherwise, in public or otherwise.

As for my intelligence, I may be an annoying dip*CENSORED*, but I'm smarter than I look. The only remotely relevant measurement I can provide would be my SAT scores, which totaled 1510, in the top 1% of the nation. That ain't bad for 4 hours sleep and not studying. :P


As for comparing me to Grem, I think he would agree that we're both just a couple of annoying dip*CENSORED*s. Get over it already.


--Kris


P.S. Vote Kerry, and remember: While they are picking apart his voting record, remember that Kerry was serving his country in the Senate, making the hard choices, while George W. Bush was wandering in a drunken haze until he was 40.


(Comment added by sir_kris on Tue Aug 31 4:01:39 2004)

Umm ok I didn't realize that would be censored. Instead of dipshit, then, let's just call it "dip-poop".

How comes the usa does not have a socialistic and communistic party?

That was a rhetorical question ofcourse, because having two right wing capitalistic parties, one claiming to be slightly conservative, and the other claiming to be slightly liberal, doesn't give much choice.

So I dare say it doesn't matter who you vote for, unless everyone votes nader, in which case they have a harder time husseling votes till either bush or kerry wins.

American politics in a nut shell =]

Wow, I think this thread makes one thing perfectly clear: That there are a lot of people with waaaay too much time on their hands!

For once, Kris and I agree on something. It's the end of the world!

Furthermore, I have not once tried to force Samson to take that site down.

No, you haven't, and I never said you did. I said you forced Geocities to take it down. I also accused them of being spineless wimps and will stand by that.
On the contrary, the longer he keeps it up, the more petty and immature it makes him look, particularly in the face of everyone listed in that phony log saying quite clearly that it never happened, and they never told Samson otherwise, in public or otherwise.

Except you weren't there and have no idea who told me what and what kind of proof may have been offered to me on either side. I've said before and I'll say it again: I don't care if it's accurate or not. I have 3 people claiming it is, 2 claiming it isn't, and one who won't say one way or the other. The more you harp about it, the more immature and stupid you look trying to keep it on the forefront. In the end, if it makes me look like some kind of fool for leaving it there and watching you all throw such a fit over it, that is my right.

I think this means Samson gets to invoke Godwin's Law on you now, Tyche.

Yep, I tend to agree, but invoking it won't necessarily stop him from making himself look just like the same kind of ass Kris is for even making the comparison like that. It never ceases to amaze me how this sort of charactarization of me always ends up happening when I'm not even to blame for whatever generated it. I certainly don't have the power to edit posts, let alone delete them, on the forum in question. So if that somehow makes me Hitler, so be it. Tyche knows where the truth lies, he just doesn't seem to want to admit it.

How comes the usa does not have a socialistic and communistic party?

There are both, although the 'socialists' don't seem to have a clue what socialism is. Read the thread, there are links to both parties.

.

Too lazy to look, a new thought just popped up in my head though, what the usa needs is a gay president =]

There can be no evidence to their accuracy, specifically because they are inaccurate (in that the meeting never even took place). Every single person who is alleged to have taken part (except for Asstinus, who originally created the faked logs and spammed the site) has said quite emphatically that there was no such meeting and the logs are completely fake. If those are the only people who are claimed to have been there, then how can anyone else have any credibility in saying otherwise?

As for the Geocities site, it wasn't just me to asked them to take it down. It was also Rogel and Ntanel, both representing seperate neutral parties (though they've both been targets of your hate flames in the past).


As for USA parties, there actually are Communist and Socialist parties in this country. You just don't hear about them because they don't get any votes. :P


--Kris


P.S. Yesterday, Bush said, regarding the war on teror, "We can't win it." Amid political fire, he did a complete 180 and said before the American Legion that we in fact can win it. If Kerry had done something like that, they'd immediately be on the air calling him a "flip-flopper"..... Et tu, Bushe?

And I have only the word of 2 people that the log is fake to go on. I have the word of 2 more that it's real. Only 2 people denied it outright on your forum, you and McCavity. The other two simply asked to be left out of it and didn't confirm or deny, so your claim about that is false on its face.

I came down on Rogel as well for moving to supress the site, you just aren't aware of it because I did so in a medium he frequents. Would have been pointless otherwise. As for Ntanel, he would probably be the only person with any legitimate claim to attempt to remove it. It changes nothing about how spineless Geocities is in these matters though. Two people who lie about something manage to aid a third in removing content they don't want to see online and succeed. If people like you represent the future leaders of this nation, we're already doomed before we start.

As for the Bush quote, get your facts straight before you rush to use it as an example. I heard the sound clip in question and it was clear that the interviewer was asking him if it could be won in the next 4 years, to which he answered it cannot. What's wrong? An honest president is too much for you to handle so you have to invent reasons to attack his integrity? When he addressed the legion, he didn't change his overall vision of where he sees things going. He just has to trust that whoever takes over in 2008 has the wisdom to continue the fight. We *CAN* win, it's more a question of do the future leaders after 2008 have the *WILL* to win.

John Kerry's positions on the issues change more often than the wind. That's not the kind of "leadership" I want to see in office for the next 4 years.

I think this means Samson gets to invoke Godwin's Law on you now, Tyche.

No, they have already established they both are stauch supporters of censorship and repression of free speech. They are simply arguing about which one's brown shirt has the best starched collars and which has the shiniest jack boots.

BTW, Welcome to TMC. I can't believe you signed up just to remind Samson to invoke Godwin's law. ;-)

Too lazy to look, a new thought just popped up in my head though, what the usa needs is a gay president =]

Like why?

Wow, I thought this conversation died ages ago.

I am lost here, is this a conversation about a network conspiracy issue or a campaign for president of the United States? I am sure it has nothing to do with any I3 or IMC2 protocols, other than the fact the networks use them.

At any rate, if you are still on this about logs on Geocities or Alsherok, maybe you should just move on. Debating the meaning of the freedom of speech when you have no control over the method of changing the definition of the term makes the conversation moot.

- Vote Nader!
"It is all the fun of voting without the annoying chance of directly contributing to whom becomes president. It is the indirect chance that gets you."

they have already established they both are stauch supporters of censorship and repression of free speech

I see no evidence to support this where I'm concerned. If you have some, feel free to post it now. Otherwise you're getting off track on an already off track post about an issue that should have been dead from the start. Making baseless accusations without proof only makes you look like what you're calling me.

Like why?

Ever after, army records, drugs usage, and sex lives would seem not as interesting, and they might dare discuss politics instead?

Ofcourse it would be very interesting if Bush wins and declares war on Iran, the war in Iraq is getting boring.

Feel free to check mccp at afkmud dot com and update mccp dot afkmud dot com slash if you have that much time on your hands =]

> Wow, I thought this conversation died ages ago.

Me too. Die, thread, die! *stabs thread* *kicks thread when it's down*

*drags in a decomposing horse*

John Kerry's positions on the issues change more often than the wind. That's not the kind of "leadership" I want to see in office for the next 4 years.

Can you quote any examples where this has occurred? Have you actually done any research on that or are you just repeating the TV ads? I'm genuinenly curious.

Political double-speak is certainly condemnable but the flipside of the coin is that sometimes people live and learn, and change their opinions.

I'm personally, in general, more in favour of people with a mind open for change than people who stubbornly "stay the course" no matter what. Turns out the world wasn't flat, after all.

*some sticks fall out of a nearby tree*

.

P.S. Just vote for someone, even if it's Donald Duck (the traditional protest vote back home, gets about 0.02% of the vote each time). Important thing is that you go in the booth.

All the people in the faked log have said that they never told you that it took place. How can someone who was not there say that it did, or are Rogel, Mccavity, Scynscapa, and myself all lying now, whereas the unnamed individuals who told you that were not?

As for the quote, I saw the Matt Lauer interview live as it happened. Here is a transcript (from http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5866571/):

Lauer: “You said to me a second ago, one of the things you'll lay out in your vision for the next four years is how to go about winning the war on terror. That phrase strikes me a little bit. Do you really think we can win this war on terror in the next four years?”

President Bush: “I have never said we can win it in four years.”

Lauer: “So I’m just saying can we win it? Do you see that?”

President Bush: “I don't think you can win it....


As you can see, he FIRST asked if it can be won in the next 4 years, to which Bush responded that he never said it could be won in the next four years. So Lauer got more general, and asked if we can win it period, and Bush said we can't.


My facts are straight. If you have a problem with them, I'd suggest you contact NBC, since they're the ones who created that transcript I used.


--Kris


P.S. A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush. Vote Kerry.


(Comment added by sir_kris on Thu Sep 2 0:45:13 2004)

To clarify, I saw the interview when it was first aired on the Today show. I'm pretty sure it was pre-recorded.

All the people in the faked log have said that they never told you that it took place.

No, they didn't all say it was fake. You're reading things into their posts which simply are not there. But that's ok, it's what you've been doing to us for the last 18 months or so. We're used to that.

It's the same thing as taking what Bush said and trying to twist it into something everyone knows he didn't mean, which is another tactic the liberal media is famous for using.

And if Kerry is still "living and learning" as Muir put it, he's not qualified to lead. He can't stick to a decision for longer than the political rally he's currently attending. He can't take a position longer than the speech he's currently reading. He even got himself caught on tape in what can only be described as a paradox. It's all out there plain as day if you want to educate yourself on what this man claims to stand for. Dick Cheney put it best last night in his speech when he said there are 2 John Kerry's.

If you want someone who can stand by what they say, then vote Bush. If you want someone who decides based on where he's speaking, vote Kerry. If you don't like either one of them, vote Nader. In any case, just get out and vote. If you don't, you have no business complaining about the outcome.

Vote for anyone as long as it's that poor strangled kitten.

(Comment added by cmdrkeen2 on Thu Sep 2 8:41:25 2004)

http://www.strangecosmos.com/images/content/15091.JPG

>or are you just repeating the TV ads?

Are the ads wrong in some way, or is that a case of the Ad Hominem fallacy? http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

Political TV ads (for both sides) tend to leave out critical info more often than including false info. Does anyone claim that the ads are wrong and that he DOESN'T often change his mind on issues mid-speech? The credibility of advertisers don't come into play if they stick with the truth. Nobody seems to debate on if he changes his mind alot... just that alot of people view that as a good thing. I happen to agree with you on that part: being open-minded is a good thing. But, complaining that X was mentioned in an ad is just as silly as complaining that Rupert Murdoch's company had the scoop when they reported on X.

Not everything that one person or entity says is wrong... if that were the case, all you'd have to do is get 2 always-wrong people and get them to take opposite sides of an issue, and that would tear apart the space-time continuum and destroy the galaxy. Hopefully terrorists won't get their hands on 2 opposing always-wrong people like John Kerry and Rush Limbaugh and then force them into the same room together, or existance doomed.



Vote for this kitten: http://www.strangecosmos.com/images/content/15091.JPG

And if Kerry is still "living and learning" as Muir put it, he's not qualified to lead.

That's pretty scary, you know, and of course you don't believe it yourself. Or would you say that there should have been no change in, say, security procedures after the terrorist attacks -if after all learning is a sign of incompetence?

[Kerry] can't stick to a decision for longer than the political rally he's currently attending. He can't take a position longer than the speech he's currently reading. He even got himself caught on tape in what can only be described as a paradox. It's all out there plain as day if you want to educate yourself on what this man claims to stand for.

No, see, you're still just repeating soundbites, and I didn't ask for that. I asked you to point out where this has happened -just to educate yourself (unless you still maintain learning is a sign of incompetence). If you can show me a contradiction, that's fine; but just claiming that it is so doesn't make it so.

The world wasn't flat after all. Now watch this swing!

.

It's funny; you quoted what I said, and then summarized it as something completely different. I said "All the people in the faked log have said that they never told you that it took place". Then you responded, "No, they didn't all say it was fake". In that text that you quoted, I never said they did say it was fake. I said that they never told you that it wasn't fake as you keep claiming. Re-read what I said, then re-read their posts.

The Republican convention will backfire on them. They're playing to Karl Rove's theory that independent, moderate voters in this country are extinct and should therefore be ignored. The strategy they're following in this convention is to be as negative as humanly possible (which is kinda sad for an incumbant), which rallies the radical, right-wing, Clinton-hating base. John Kerry realizes that there ARE still moderate, swing voters in this country, and he will not ignore them as Bush has.

Bush's strategy is not to win or take away voters. His strategy is to drive down voter turnout. One of his advisers said on CNN that they know they won't win any moderate voters, so they intend to dirty this campaign up as much as possible, hoping to encourage these moderate voters NOT to vote, but to just stay home. That is absolutely sickening to me. In 2000, they weaseled so that not all the votes would be counted. This time around, I guess they're hoping to avoid that by simply getting non-radical Americans not to vote in the first place.


Say no to the Bush tactics of hate and smear. Vote Kerry.

Bush's speech tonight sounded very much like his State of the Union speech earlier this year. After that speech, his poll numbers plummeted, as I suspect they will after tonight's flop, particularly with what is expected to be an extremely weak jobs report tomorrow, as well as Kerry's swift response right after the speech.

Here is the basic message that was conveyed from this week's convention: September 11th, 2001 is the ONLY issue, Kerry is bad, people who can't afford to pay their bills are girly men, Kerry is bad, homosexuals are selfish hedonists, Kerry is a selfish hedonist, therefore Kerry must be a homosexual, Saddam Hussein IS Osama Bin Laden, the War on Terror cannot be won, the War on Terror can be won, September 11th, 2001 is the ONLY issue, something about the economy, and, finally, Kerry is Satan.


While Bush is fighting the War on Homosexuality and reliving September 11th, 2001 over and over in some sort of alchohol-induced coma fanatasy, Americans will go to the polls this November and elect a president who doesn't think that Tony Blair is the King of New England.