Hilarious new Shrub quote

[glacier]

Bush does math, too.

 

"y the way, we rank 10th amongst the industrialized world in broadband technology and its availability. That's not good enough for America. Tenth is 10 spots too low as far as I'm concerned." - Minneapolis, Minn., April 26, 2004

 

Alright, gotta weigh in a bit here. Bush may well be 'dumb like a fox,' as my mom would say, but his utter lack of communication skills make me wince every time I hear him speak - whether or not I agree with the topic. It's one thing to speak simply so as to not put off an audience, but another to not be able to speak well or think on one's feet other than a hackneyed repeat of your original talking point.

 

The hallmark of the great statesmen was their articulate speaking and writing in both formulating and defending their ideas. I see none of that in either of the two cretins running for president at this time. Due to the overall dumbing down of our society and lack of critical thought fostered by everything from the PC movement to assessment-based education, I don't see that we will demand much of our leaders in the coming years.

Edited May 11, 2004 by glacier

[chucK]

The main thing that bugs me about Kerry is that he says whatever his audience wants him to say. As such, you never know what he actually believes, or will do.

 

Just curious what is one example? Or are you just repeating the (deceptive) Bush/Cheney ads?

 

And even if you are right, as opposed to voting for a guy that you have watched in office for four years and know with certainty that he has continually distorted the truth AND has royally screwed our country?

 

I think it's an easy choice, even if Kerry has committed the sin of actually talking to the public about what they want and vowing to do it.

 

Empty promises versus obvious disregard for sound leadership decisions? I'll take the former.

 

Scary unknown versus horrible known? I'll take the former.

[Martlet]

The main thing that bugs me about Kerry is that he says whatever his audience wants him to say. As such, you never know what he actually believes, or will do.

 

Just curious what is one example? Or are you just repeating the (deceptive) Bush/Cheney ads?

 

And even if you are right, as opposed to voting for a guy that you have watched in office for four years and know with certainty that he has continually distorted the truth AND has royally screwed our country?

 

I think it's an easy choice, even if Kerry has committed the sin of actually talking to the public about what they want and vowing to do it.

 

Empty promises versus obvious disregard for sound leadership decisions? I'll take the former.

 

Scary unknown versus horrible known? I'll take the former.

 

Yeah, things are pretty bad now. Unemployment rate dropping, economy picking up, terrorism at it's lowest point in 24 years. I don't know how we survive.

[chucK]

I'm not so sure about how much the prez affects and can affect the economy, but

 

terrorism at it's lowest point in 24 years.

 

!!

[Martlet]

I'm not so sure about how much the prez affects and can affect the economy, but

 

terrorism at it's lowest point in 24 years.

 

!!

 

Yeah, I was laughing too! Isn't that good news!

[chucK]

Where do they categorize all the wounded and killed in Iraq? I didn't see them in that list.

 

Maybe you should also write, "Less dead in Vietnam-style quagmires than in the 60's, a time that liberals celebrate!"

Edited May 11, 2004 by chucK

[JoshK]

I'm not so sure about how much the prez affects and can affect the economy, but

 

terrorism at it's lowest point in 24 years.

 

!!

 

Yeah, I was laughing too! Isn't that good news!

 

Can you honestly say you feel safer now as an American both domestically AND traveling abroad then you did 10 years ago? Fuck no. You are one ignorant son of a bitch.

 

Why dont you go take a look at that article I just posted about poor Nick Berg. I'm sure if he was here he'd spit on you and the state department's distortion of statistics. And don't give me shit about how he was in a war zone. We created that war zone and we sent our citizens to fight there. Both he and the other private citizens there can't do their jobs safely since our mission to "liberate" Iraq has simply inflamed the whole region and cause their citizens to hate us even more.

[Martlet]

I'm not so sure about how much the prez affects and can affect the economy, but

 

terrorism at it's lowest point in 24 years.

 

!!

 

Yeah, I was laughing too! Isn't that good news!

 

Can you honestly say you feel safer now as an American both domestically AND traveling abroad then you did 10 years ago? Fuck no. You are one ignorant son of a bitch.

 

Why dont you go take a look at that article I just posted about poor Nick Berg. I'm sure if he was here he'd spit on you and the state department's distortion of statistics. And don't give me shit about how he was in a war zone. We created that war zone and we sent our citizens to fight there. Both he and the other private citizens there can't do their jobs safely since our mission to "liberate" Iraq has simply inflamed the whole region and cause their citizens to hate us even more.

 

He was in Iraq, you moron. There is quite a difference between traveling abroad and working in a war zone. Are you so fucking stupid you can't tell the difference? Seriously. Are you really that dumb.

 

Just because you don't LIKE the statistics, doesn't make them any less accurate. I don't care how you FEEL, those are the facts.

[JoshK]

He was in Iraq, you moron. There is quite a difference between traveling abroad and working in a war zone. Are you so fucking stupid you can't tell the difference? Seriously. Are you really that dumb.

 

Just because you don't LIKE the statistics, doesn't make them any less accurate. I don't care how you FEEL, those are the facts.

 

Re-read my post you moron. I addressed your very reply. I SAID I KNOW HE WAS IN A WAR ZONE. A WAR ZONE OF OUR OWN CREATION AND INABILITY TO DO WHAT WE SAID WE WOULD: BRING STABILITY.

 

You don't know what the hell you are talking about, give it up. As AlpineK pointed out there is a reason none of the conservatives on here are backing up. I argue all the time with fairweather, GregW et al, and while we may be on totally opposites of the political spectrum, at least I am arguing with intelligent people who actually have a clue on world matters.

 

Also, if you dont think "statistics" can be played to your advantage, go back to civics class. The state department is headed by a bush appointee and is there to conduct foreign affairs as the president sees fit. In other words, it's a political and partisan driven machine. I'll leave it to your brilliance to go figure out a million and one ways you can make various numbers show whatever you want.

[Martlet]

He was in Iraq, you moron. There is quite a difference between traveling abroad and working in a war zone. Are you so fucking stupid you can't tell the difference? Seriously. Are you really that dumb.

 

Just because you don't LIKE the statistics, doesn't make them any less accurate. I don't care how you FEEL, those are the facts.

 

Re-read my post you moron. I addressed your very reply. I SAID I KNOW HE WAS IN A WAR ZONE. A WAR ZONE OF OUR OWN CREATION AND INABILITY TO DO WHAT WE SAID WE WOULD: BRING STABILITY.

 

You don't know what the hell you are talking about, give it up. As AlpineK pointed out there is a reason none of the conservatives on here are backing up. I argue all the time with fairweather, GregW et al, and while we may be on totally opposites of the political spectrum, at least I am arguing with intelligent people who actually have a clue on world matters.

 

Also, if you dont think "statistics" can be played to your advantage, go back to civics class. The state department is headed by a bush appointee and is there to conduct foreign affairs as the president sees fit. In other words, it's a political and partisan driven machine. I'll leave it to your brilliance to go figure out a million and one ways you can make various numbers show whatever you want.

 

How the hell can you compare someone killed in a warzone to the statistics of reduced terrorism? Truly you can't be that stupid. Please tell me our public education system hasn't failed again. I guess there's at least "one child left behind".

 

And yes, the state dept. makes up statistics. Those are all false. Time to tune your tinfoil hat, moonbat.

[JoshK]

Ugh, you really don't read. I repeat again: there are plenty of ways to show factual numbers to prove one point or another. You can use the same numbers to prove completely opposite points. I forget the damn expression about statistics: something like there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.

 

and get a new insult moron.

 

answer my fucking question...do you even climb?

[Martlet]

Ugh, you really don't read. I repeat again: there are plenty of ways to show factual numbers to prove one point or another. You can use the same numbers to prove completely opposite points. I forget the damn expression about statistics: something like there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.

 

and get a new insult moron.

 

answer my fucking question...do you even climb?

 

Can you give me some examples of using those figures to prove exact opposite points, please?

[JoshK]

Nope, I'm done yelling at a brick wall. Feel free to reply and say something about how I concede the point to you and I was wrong and all that. I'm going to go do something better with my time now...

[Martlet]

Nope, I'm done yelling at a brick wall. Feel free to reply and say something about how I concede the point to you and I was wrong and all that. I'm going to go do something better with my time now...

 

Thanks, I will. You know you couldn't do it. You were talking out your ass again. Typical liberal moonbat....and so young.

 

What a shame.

[rbw1966]

Question: are the people who beheaded him terrorists or enemy combatants or both?

[Martlet]

Question: are the people who beheaded him terrorists or enemy combatants or both?

 

I'm not sure what the technical answer would be. Do we know who did it, even? I haven't read the article yet.

[iain]

Question: are the people who beheaded him terrorists or enemy combatants or both?

 

I believe they are itty-bitty bits of sand now.

[cj001f]

Question: are the people who beheaded him terrorists or enemy combatants or both?

 

I believe they are itty-bitty bits of sand now.

Like Osama is?

[j_b]

I'm not so sure about how much the prez affects and can affect the economy, but

 

terrorism at it's lowest point in 24 years.

 

!!

 

Yeah, I was laughing too! Isn't that good news!

 

cherry picking of the data! the number of dead us citizens has increased by 50% since 2000

 

Total US Citizen Casualties Caused by International Attacks, 1996-2003 Listed by Year

 

1996 25

1997 6

1998 12

1999 5

2000 23

2001 1241

2002 30

2003 35

 

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2001/html/10315.htm

with additions for subsequent years as found in other reports

 

as far as number of incidents, here is what explain in part the drop since 2001: "The main reason for the decrease was the sharp drop in oil pipeline bombings in Colombia (41 last year, compared to 178 in 2001)."

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2002/html/19980.htm

 

finally here is an interesting figure that debunks the justification for the "war on terror":

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2003/31751.htm

did you notice how the previous high (mid-80's) was during reagan, another "tough guy" ....

 

so .... terrorism is at lowest point in 24 years but it has continually decreased over that time period! yet the number of us casualties has increased by ~50% since bush2

 

also this same link was originally used by lars a few weeks ago ...

[Martlet]

I'm not so sure about how much the prez affects and can affect the economy, but

 

terrorism at it's lowest point in 24 years.

 

!!

 

Yeah, I was laughing too! Isn't that good news!

 

cherry picking of the data! the number of dead us citizens has increased by 50% since 2000

 

Total US Citizen Casualties Caused by International Attacks, 1996-2003 Listed by Year

 

1996 25

1997 6

1998 12

1999 5

2000 23

2001 1241

2002 30

2003 35

 

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2001/html/10315.htm

with additions for subsequent years as found in other reports

 

as far as number of incidents, here is what explain in part the drop since 2001: "The main reason for the decrease was the sharp drop in oil pipeline bombings in Colombia (41 last year, compared to 178 in 2001)."

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2002/html/19980.htm

 

finally here is an interesting figure that debunks the justification for the "war on terror":

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2003/31751.htm

did you notice how the previous high (mid-80's) was during reagan, another "tough guy" ....

 

so .... terrorism is at lowest point in 24 years but it has continually decreased over that time period! yet the number of us casualties has increased by ~50% since bush2

 

also this same link was originally used by lars a few weeks ago ...

 

But my point still stands!

[j_b]

errr ... no! your point was that bush was responsible for a drop in terrorist events when, in fact, the number of us casualties due to terror has increased by 50% under bush (excluding 9/11, which is arguably due to this administration policies in afghanistan). moreover, terrorism has essentially continually decreased over the past 24 years (well that is, except for the last 3) which puts a serious dent in the justification for the "war on terror"

[rbw1966]

When did 35 become lower than 5?

[Martlet]

When did 35 become lower than 5?

 

When did you decide to just "skip to the meat" and not read the link?

[rbw1966]

I read the link. Of particular interest to me, since I am a US citizen is:

 

"There were 82 anti-US attacks in 2003, which is UP SLIGHTLY from the 77 attacks the previous year, and represents a 62-percent decrease from the 219 attacks recorded in 2001." (Emphasis mine).

 

I'd be interested to see data from the previous decade for comparison. The anti-US terrorist attacks are what I am most concerned about since I travel abroad often.

 

 

Also of interest:

 

"Note

 

Most of the attacks that have occurred during Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom do not meet the longstanding US definition of international terrorism because they were directed at combatants, that is, US and Coalition forces on duty. Attacks against noncombatants, that is, civilians and military personnel who at the time of the incident were unarmed and/or not on duty, are judged as terrorist attacks."

 

I assume the beheading is now classified as a terrorist attack then.

[Martlet]

 

I assume the beheading is now classified as a terrorist attack then.

 

Wasn't this: "There were 190 acts of international terrorism in 2003, a slight decrease from the 198 attacks that occurred in 2002, and a drop of 45 percent from the level in 2001 of 346 attacks. The figure in 2003 represents the lowest annual total of international terrorist attacks since 1969." interesting though?

 

I don't know what they classify the beheading.