Originally Posted by cbwm

Frankly, Bush may be remembered as one of America's greatest presidents, and I'm sure that doesn't sit well with you.

Oh, it sits fine with me - I needed a good laugh, and I thank you for providing it. It's long been known the strategy for the Bush Administration to look forward to future revisionist historians to invent a positive legacy.

Originally Posted by cbwm

I'm still interested to see how you spin Bush's outrageous donations to the human aid cause in Africa as "Evil".

If you want to see spin, my friend, all you have to do is turn on Fixed News and wait for the No Spin Zone program. Again, Orwell would be proud of the abuse of language. Honestly if you expect people to describe real humanitarian aid (fighting AIDS versus bombing Iraqi children) as evil, you're very out of touch, and a worthy Republican, part of the 1/5 of America that still approves of GWB.

A broken clock has the right time twice a day. If you think Bush handing out tax dollars makes him a hero, (1) you are what Fox Noise tells you a liberal is defined as, and (2) you better be worshiping Microsoft for Bill Gates's humanitarian donations, which eclipse those of Mr Bush.

But since you like statistics, let's look at some. I hope this doesn't bother you, but I'm actually going to provide a direct quote from the source, and I'm going to provide a way to go verify things with the source. I know it's easier to spin something by just making numbers up, so please forgive me.

http://www.brookings.edu/articles/20...rica_rice.aspx

June 27, 2005 —

The Bush Administration Record The Bush Administration has significantly increased aid to Africa, but that increase falls far short of what the President has claimed. U.S. aid to Africa from FY 2000 (the last full budget year of the Clinton Administration) to FY2004 (the last completed fiscal year of the Bush Administration) has not "tripled" or even doubled. Rather, in real dollars, it has increased 56% (or 67% in nominal dollar terms). The majority of that increase consists of emergency food aid, rather than assistance for sustainable development of the sort Africa needs to achieve lasting poverty reduction.





President Bush has thus far rejected Blair's call to double aid to Africa, as well as the benchmark set by the OECD and signatories to the Monterrey Consensus, which called on developed countries to devote 0.7% of their gross national income to overseas development assistance by 2015. In declining to commit to either of these targets, President Bush frequently states that his Administration has "tripled" U.S. assistance to Africa over the past four years to $3.2 billion. On June 7, 2005, the President also announced that the U.S. will spend an additional $674 million, which consists of previously appropriated emergency humanitarian food aid. The U.S. recently agreed with G-8 partners to cancel the multilateral debt owed by 18 Heavily Indebted Poor Countries, a positive step forward.

I know, I know. 56 % and G-8 both have a liberal bias. Can't trust anything that includes the number 56 % because THE KENNEDYs have mind control over 56 %.

Dammit, John, you can't do that. You can't actually source a statistic. Statistics come from the same place that we use TP to clean.

I can't debate anything with you anymore, man. You don't play by the rules.

Originally Posted by ADAM Web Design

Dammit, John, you can't do that. You can't actually source a statistic. Statistics come from the same place that we use TP to clean.

I can't debate anything with you anymore, man. You don't play by the rules.

Haha, I actually picture you in a cheer leaders outfit waving pompoms. Here is something for you. The date on the quality link provided by John is June 27th, 2005.

Here are a few links that are a bit more up to date:

New York Sun - Feb 15th 2008

Oh, this one is great. The F'n Guardian. These are the same people who encouraged their readership to call Ohio or Iowa voters, I forget which, telling them to vote for John Kerry. What a fiasco that was. Obviously left wing and not fans of Dubya.

The Guardian

Here are a few choice quotes from the guardian.

Bill Clinton's legacy in Africa was the debacle of Somalia and the abandonment of Rwanda's Tutsis to the 1994 genocide.

The $15bn (£7.6bn) President's Emergency Plan for Aids Relief (Pepfar) is in its fifth year and has been hailed as a "revolution" that is transforming healthcare in Africa and has been praised as the most significant aid programme since the end of colonialism.

They go on to point out how Bush's aide program has 1.4 million people being treaded for HIV vs. the 50,000 people who got treatment during Clinton's term. Oh, and Bush's approval rating in Africa.... 80%.

To clear up a few of your other misstatements John, Bush still had a 36% approval rating last time I checked. I aint had me much edjumacation, but that seems to be over a third, not less than a fifth. If you want approval ratings around a fifth, you have to look to the Democrat run congress.

A large part of Bush's low approval rating amongst the party faithful is this type of spending. Anyhow, take another whack at spinning the Africa thing negative. I'm sure Adam will cheer you on.

An uneducated population and therefore a population that would likely be more suggestible than the more educated North American population likes Bush. Let him go and run for election there and see how far he gets.

Originally Posted by ADAM Web Design

An uneducated population and therefore a population that would likely be more suggestible than the more educated North American population likes Bush.

Out of all that, you come up with Bush is popular in Africa because the people are uneducated? Again, ignoring the facts that fly in the face of your opinion. Something I left out of my previous post is the percentage of people receiving HIV care now(1.4 million), as opposed to Clinton's term(50,000). Lets see, add the 4, carry the two, and you end up with....

28 times more people.

yeh.. 28x. 2800%.

It seems even the uneducated population of Africa can figure out that that is a good thing.

Originally Posted by ADAM Web Design

Let him go and run for election there and see how far he gets.

Obviously an ex-U.S. President would never run for public office in a country outside the U.S. for much the same reason a non-U.S. citizen would never vote in a U.S. Election. It's not their place to do so.

No...I ignored a series of pseudo-statistics, mixed with a series of conflicting opinions, that create a story that doesn't add up, and yet another example of lack of journalistic integrity.

Anne Smith, the head of CHF in Kigali - who says she is personally keen on a change in the White House - says the unprecedented amount of money provided by Pepfar has changed how Rwanda deals with Aids.

Okay...so the US government has done this wonderful thing and has helped all of these African people. Why would the head of one of the organizations who use this bountiful gift want to do anything to change the ruling governor that brought it in?

Dr Francois Venter, head of the HIV Clinicians Society in South Africa, where Pepfar is providing 200,000 people with ARVs, is one of a number of Aids doctors almost disbelieving in praise of Bush. "I look at all the blood this man has on his hands in Iraq and I can't quite believe myself but I would say it's a bold experiment from the last people in the world I would expect to do it, and it is saving a lot of lives. To intervene on such a scale and make such a difference is huge," he said.

Again, this doesn't make sense. The guy who took 5000 of his own countrymen's lives in a single day and continues to be responsible for the deaths of so many is actually encouraging life. Makes you wonder why a leader would do that.

Democrats have also criticised the large numbers of "faith-based" organisations funded by Pepfar, such as Phillips' Eastern Deanery Aids Relief Programme, which distributes ARVs to 7,000 people in the poorest parts of

So "faith-based" organizations are in on this one, eh? Let's see if we've seen this pattern before. Third-world underdeveloped nation is sick and needs help. Caucasian Christian forces come in and "save the day". Hmmm...where has that happened before? Oh yeah...Nigeria, 1998. And for a good few hundred years before that, until the 50s and 60s.

And Dave Chappelle has fodder for his comedy act. "So, what did ya do today, whitey? Oppress a new land and make the citizens there Christians against their will?"

The only reason Bush hasn't screwed this up, and won't screw it up, is simply because he'll run out of time. At any rate, he's got about 1.4 million patients (assuming this statistic is right, and there's no indication of any sources or any way to know where the number actually came from) ready for mental conditioning. Hopefully the next guy in charge won't take advantage of this.

You are nothing if not consistent. I appreciate that about you.

Originally Posted by ADAM Web Design

No...I ignored a series of pseudo-statistics, mixed with a series of conflicting opinions, that create a story that doesn't add up, and yet another example of lack of journalistic integrity.

No facts. Your opinion. And I've done nothing but cite a story printed in your left wing lunatic fringe journal. I'm sure it pained them to print it.

Originally Posted by ADAM Web Design

Okay...so the US government has done this wonderful thing and has helped all of these African people. Why would the head of one of the organizations who use this bountiful gift want to do anything to change the ruling governor that brought it in?.....
Again, this doesn't make sense. The guy who took 5000 of his own countrymen's lives in a single day and continues to be responsible for the deaths of so many is actually encouraging life. Makes you wonder why a leader would do that.

I didn't print your quote from the Guardian but obviously there are people who feel like you do. Bush is a murderer.. blah blah blah... like you expect someone to wage a completely bloodless war. And a guy who took 5000 of his own countrymen's life in a single day? Again, left wing psychobabble lacking any substance. It still doesn't change the impact of the bottom line effect Bush has had on Africa.

Originally Posted by ADAM Web Design

So "faith-based" organizations are in on this one, eh? Let's see if we've seen this pattern before. Third-world underdeveloped nation is sick and needs help. Caucasian Christian forces come in and "save the day". Hmmm...where has that happened before? Oh yeah...Nigeria, 1998. And for a good few hundred years before that, until the 50s and 60s.

Wow, lets jump to the worst of possible conclusions that dont match up with the real impact being made on the continent, without any real facts to back it up, outside the mention of faith-based organizations being included.

Originally Posted by ADAM Web Design

And Dave Chappelle has fodder for his comedy act. "So, what did ya do today, whitey? Oppress a new land and make the citizens there Christians against their will?"

And if Bush hadn't provided the aide, he would be the bad man for not doing anything about a horrible humanitarian situation ignored by the Clinton administration. Obviously no set of facts would be good for you here.

Originally Posted by ADAM Web Design

The only reason Bush hasn't screwed this up, and won't screw it up, is simply because he'll run out of time.

Again, factless left wing psycho speak that contradicts the facts. This program is/was a 5 year program that is now nearing it's end. I look at the article John posted, where your wonderful left wing media tried to declare it failed before real effects could be seen. Not so easy for them now. They have to try to muddy the waters of his success by trying to call him a mass murderer in the same breath they acknowledge his program has been the most outstanding success on the continent in a century.

Originally Posted by ADAM Web Design

At any rate, he's got about 1.4 million patients (assuming this statistic is right, and there's no indication of any sources or any way to know where the number actually came from) ready for mental conditioning. Hopefully the next guy in charge won't take advantage of this.

Two points. One, if it is in print and doesn't agree with your opinion, its validity is highly questionable according to you. You are consistent.

Two, there is only one reason I would approve of my government spending this much of our money this way. Africa is not our problem to solve. That reason, is mental conditioning, and lets hope our next president takes full advantage of it. Africa is the place where Bill Clinton watched our embassies be bombed by an organization that found very fertile ground in the horrible humanitarian conditions in Africa. This coincides with the U.S. statistics indicating violent crime is more directly tied to employment than it is to gun control. The fact that Bush gets this, and uses this kind of aide as another battlefront(perhaps the most effective battlefront) in the war on terror is all the indication you need to know this is a guy who gets it.

By the way, since Bush is a mass murderer in your book, Harry Truman must comparable with Adolf Hitler to you.

That reason, is mental conditioning, and lets hope our next president takes full advantage of it. Africa is the place where Bill Clinton watched our embassies be bombed by an organization that found very fertile ground in the horrible humanitarian conditions in Africa. This coincides with the U.S. statistics indicating violent crime is more directly tied to employment than it is to gun control. The fact that Bush gets this, and uses this kind of aide as another battlefront(perhaps the most effective battlefront) in the war on terror is all the indication you need to know this is a guy who gets it.

Actually, it's all the indication that we need to know that you're someone who doesn't. There isn't a factoid or pseudo-statistic that you can come up with that will ever justify this stance.

Originally Posted by ADAM Web Design

Actually, it's all the indication that we need to know that you're someone who doesn't. There isn't a factoid or pseudo-statistic that you can come up with that will ever justify this stance.

What you think you haven't been mentally conditioned to defend Microsoft, buy consumer products you don't really need, or spew left wing diatribe without any knowledge of the real facts? There are always many forces at play to influence how you think. Some are arguably beneficial to society, some are neutral, and some are very very negative. The forces I'm concerned with, and the ones that should concern you as well, are the ones that would have you think strapping a bomb to your chest and igniting it in an area filled with unarmed people is ok. Are you trying to say you are against mentally conditioning people against this type of behavior? You might want to call Microsoft before answering, to make sure you are posting what it is you really want to say.

You're stretching, and you know it.

Anyone who knows anything about me at all, or that has read most of the posts on this forum made by me, knows that I'm anything but the byproduct of mental conditioning. I examine things, strip them of their biases as much as I can, ignore that which I cannot strip of bias and evaluate objectively (e.g. mainstream media) and form my own conclusions. I don't say something just because someone else said it; I say it because it makes sense. John, Forrest, and whym are all very similar in that regard (among others); we don't agree on everything, but at least when they talk, I can respect where they're coming from.

You, on the other hand, parrot the standard anti-MS party lines and pro-Bush statements, creating an odd and interesting juxtaposition in the process. You've said nothing new since you got here. You've added nothing new since you got here. You likely won't add anything new at any point. Your take on things is distorted and flawed. And you're the only one who doesn't see it. The "real facts" are twisted, distorted, and spoonfed to you. And you happily swallow them down without any thought as to their source or how true they actually are. Right-wing, left-wing, centrist media are all guilty of this...it doesn't matter.

You call it left-wing, and that amuses me more than anything. I'm probably more right-wing than you are, because I'm exercising my right to analyze, look more deeply into a problem or issue, and find that much of what is presented as fact is false. I don't accept what a government official tells me simply because they told it to me; they're people too, and they screw up just as much (if not moreso) as private citizens.

There's a great quote I was subject to recently that goes along these lines:

But I've been in the stats game long enough to know that there are no stats anywhere in existance that aren't skewed.

Therefore, I take all stats presented to me with a grain of salt and utilize my knowledge to form a basis of conclusion.

You obviously know very little about the Internet, and SEO in particular, and that's okay. I'm not going to criticize you for that. But study it for a few months. Study the so-called stats, and the numbers, and the claims...then look more deeply into them to verify their validity. You'll be surprised how many of them are completely invalid. Again, that's not right, that's not left, that's not center...that's simply deeper examination.

You, on the other hand, are a government-supporting left-wing-without-realizing-it robot.

Why would any true right-winger have any interest in helping out Africa unless they chose to, instead of having a government spend their money on it? That's at best a Socialist cause.

Or why would any true right-winger wish to allocate government resources on an internally manufactured war in a foreign land that should conceivably have nothing to do with them, when there are far more pressing economic (i.e. capitalistic) issues at home that the government should be focusing on?

If the citizens voted to participate in things like Africa and the war...well, fine. This is the problem with present-day so-called democracy...citizens really don't get to participate on a level in which they should. Decisions are made for the people, not by the people.

Guess you like being told what to do and how to think by the powers that be, though. All hail brainwashing.

Adam, Adam, Adam. Only in Canada I think. I was going to stop reading after this statement:

Originally Posted by ADAM Web Design

I'm anything but the byproduct of mental conditioning.

but I couldn't help but continue. We are all products of mental conditioning. I think it is safe to say, raised in the right environment, you would definitely be the guy volunteering to wear the custom made exploding vest.

Originally Posted by ADAM Web Design

I examine things, strip them of their biases as much as I can, ignore that which I cannot strip of bias and evaluate objectively (e.g. mainstream media) and form my own conclusions.

I've rephrased this a bit, for the sake of accuracy. Try this on for size.

I examine things, strip them of the facts which disagree with my opinion, ignore that which I cannot strip to make fit, and then evaluate objectively to form my own conclusions

You mentioned I've added nothing new here, but in saying that, you only prove I have added something... a disenting opinion, and one based on fact.

Originally Posted by ADAM Web Design

You, on the other hand, are a government-supporting left-wing-without-realizing-it robot.

Did you hear Barack Obomber is cozy with a left wing extremist who claims to be involved in several government bombings? I am government supporting. Is that a bad thing? Are you government opposition?

Originally Posted by ADAM Web Design

Or why would any true right-winger wish to allocate government resources on an internally manufactured war in a foreign land that should conceivably have nothing to do with them, when there are far more pressing economic (i.e. capitalistic) issues at home that the government should be focusing on?

You are dellusional. The idea that the war against AlQueda is internally manufactured is a purely left wing talking point. Are you off your meds?

You never did share your viewpoints on Harry Truman. worse than Adolph Hitler?

You're out of your tree, man. Seriously.

As far as the Truman-Hitler thing is concerned, I don't really have a viewpoint on World War II for one simple reason: much like everything else presented, I don't believe we were ever presented with all of the facts. I won't condone the actions of Hitler, assuming they are true...and there's reasonable evidence to suggest that they are. Gassing an entire group of people because of their religion isn't cool.

But...I've never studied Harry Truman or his particular period in US history, so I've got nothing to compare...and no, I'm not about to start.

As far as me being pro-government vs. anti-government, I don't support anything beyond minimal levels of governance. Legislate; do not operate. It's that simple.

Humanitarian effort for potential brainwashing (something you've conceded): operation, and ultimately one that will prove to be one of the more disgusting operations in US government history (provided of course, what you said comes true and the next president picks up where Bush left off that way).

Stepping into a country and trying to fight a war that has nothing to do with you: operation. If they attack, you can defend. Don't go across the border and start up. By the way, I feel the same way about the Canadian role in World War II...if you're not attacked, let the parties involved fight it out and at best, go over to play peacekeeper and protect the civilians. There's nothing to suggest that this is occurring, nor will it ever.

As far as the war against "al-Qaeda" being purely manufactured, where is any evidence to suggest it's not? How about the so-called "hijackers" that turned up alive? How about the scientific evidence to the contrary? How about an eerily similar incident with Cory Lidle crashing into a building and nothing happening to the building? There is legitimate scientific and other evidence to show that there is and was a crime perpetrated on 9/11, but not by the people named. And there isn't a shred of evidence to suggest otherwise, other than what we've been told.

Mind you, I do believe that the Middle Eastern population is guilty of one thing, and that's creating the set of circumstances by which they can be named as potential suspects in a situation just like the aforementioned. I believe that there are Muslim people out there who are messed up in the head that way. I also believe there are Christian people who are messed up in the head that way, Jewish people that are messed up in the head that way, and people messed up in the head that way in just about every other major religion. But that doesn't justify any of the blood on Bush's hands right now...and that even comes from the article that you posted.

The man is a coward and a mass murderer, and that's his legacy.

Originally Posted by ADAM Web Design

I won't condone the actions of Hitler, assuming they are true

Wow! Holocaust denial?

Originally Posted by ADAM Web Design

But...I've never studied Harry Truman or his particular period in US history

Harry Truman is the Democrat that dropped nuclear weapons on two Japanese cities.

Originally Posted by ADAM Web Design

Humanitarian effort for potential brainwashing (something you've conceded)

I didn't concede it, I said I would expect it. Perhaps you didn't consider that the very act of providing the aide has an opinion/mind changing effect, as evidenced by Bush's popularity in Africa. On the same token, I keep hoping we will start pumping oil out of Iraq.

Originally Posted by ADAM Web Design

Stepping into a country and trying to fight a war that has nothing to do with you: operation. If they attack, you can defend. Don't go across the border and start up. By the way, I feel the same way about the Canadian role in World War II...if you're not attacked, let the parties involved fight it out and at best, go over to play peacekeeper and protect the civilians. There's nothing to suggest that this is occurring, nor will it ever.

Pick up a history book some time, and you might feel different.

Originally Posted by ADAM Web Design

As far as the war against "al-Qaeda" being purely manufactured, where is any evidence to suggest it's not? How about the so-called "hijackers" that turned up alive? How about the scientific evidence to the contrary? How about an eerily similar incident with Cory Lidle crashing into a building and nothing happening to the building? There is legitimate scientific and other evidence to show that there is and was a crime perpetrated on 9/11, but not by the people named. And there isn't a shred of evidence to suggest otherwise, other than what we've been told.

I see Fahrenheit 911 passed your test of credibility(Some surprise there). Yeh, you form your own opinions based on the "Credible" evidence. I suppose the video of Osama admitting to it was doctored? Let me guess, we bombed our own embassies in Africa? You may not be aware of this, but "true believers" like yourself are actually in the extreme minority. I saw you earlier posted names of the many people who post here who think like you do. I'm sure most of them are cringing when you post this kind of nonsense as if it had any merit. Lump in Holocaust denial, and you eliminate any need for a counter argument as you pretty much destroy your own credibility.

By the way, Truman was one of the greatest humanitarians of the 20th century. That tile may go to Dubya for the 21st. **** compassionate conservatives.

No wonder you can't tell what the truth is. You can't even read. You accuse others of filtering out that which is inconvenient to them, yet you go one step further and distort the meaning of something to the point where it is convenient to you.

I never denied the Holocaust. What I said was that the information that we are presented is one side of the story, and that there's missing information. Let's assume we accept the Wikipedia entry, which more or less resembles the North American version of events, as fact. Let's consider the last few days of Hitler's life. His country was being invaded, so he married a woman and then he and his new wife shot themselves the next day. Does that not seem like someone who was suffering from some form of a mental illness to you?

That's not a justification for anyone to issue orders to kill six million people...but why didn't anyone see it? Why didn't anyone stand up and say "wait a minute...this doesn't make sense"?

Bush is actually in a somewhat similar position to Hitler, and that's where some parallels can be drawn. A man is in power who iclearly, based on his speeches, suffers from at least some mental deficiencies ("I think we can all agree that the past is over") who has decided that a war needs to be fought on a group of people based on ethnic and religious backgrounds. "These Muslims are evil. Bomb them. Kill them. (Oh, and if we get some oil out of the deal, that's just a bonus.)" Does that not sound eerily similar to the message that Hitler is believed to have spread himself? If so, why are people still listening to this man?

You had the right idea when you compared a president to Hitler. You just picked the wrong president. How's your goose-step these days?

When you question whether the actions of Hitler, as commonly understood to be true, which you clearly did, you lump yourself in with the Holocaust deniers. Was it really 6 million? Your buddy Ahmadinejad likes to ask the same types of questions. Perhaps he is your "credible" source.

Originally Posted by ADAM Web Design

Bush is actually in a somewhat similar position to Hitler, and that's where some parallels can be drawn.

And you are in a somewhat similar position to Ted Bundy, Charles Manson, and Jeffry Dahmer. You are an everyday citizen of your country. You are very convinced of your beliefs. There is little anyone could say to sway you from your beliefs. I'm sure there are many more parallels to be drawn. Wheeee! I like this kind of reasoning! Get a grip man.

Originally Posted by ADAM Web Design

A man is in power who iclearly, based on his speeches, suffers from at least some mental deficiencies ("I think we can all agree that the past is over") who has decided that a war needs to be fought on a group of people based on ethnic and religious backgrounds. "These Muslims are evil. Bomb them. Kill them. (Oh, and if we get some oil out of the deal, that's just a bonus.)" Does that not sound eerily similar to the message that Hitler is believed to have spread himself? If so, why are people still listening to this man?

Wow, that quote does sound evil! Too bad those words, nor anything like them, were ever uttered by Bush. I've noticed that you are now also a psychologist who can judge whether a man is mentally deficient based on whether is speech disagrees with your views. I suppose that puts me, and 90% of the planet who disagrees with your tinted view on things, in the loony bin as well. Again, when you start arguing with misquotes(not even a misquote, but pure fiction), you discredit yourself and your cause.

When you question whether the actions of Hitler, as commonly understood to be true, which you clearly did, you lump yourself in with the Holocaust deniers. Was it really 6 million? Your buddy Ahmadinejad likes to ask the same types of questions. Perhaps he is your "credible" source.

No...no I don't. What I do is ask "why is this true?" "Are there other parties, particularly those close to Hitler, who need to share some of the blame and aren't mentioned throughout the course of history?" In other words, there are missing elements to the story, and Hitler may not be FULLY responsible. Partly...probably. Fully...the possibility does exist. You just don't want to acknowledge it because you would rather hear a surface explanation provided to you by others who didn't bother to research thiings and analyze them properly...much like you do. You just accept and repeat.

It's a similar question that I would ask of those surrounding Bush..."how can those close to him not see that the man has cognitive issues?" You claiim there's one misquote? Fine. Let's assume that's true.

Here are a few more examples. And you can't say that he was misquoted...he was caught on camera with a clear camera angle, and clearly people heard Bush say this live...unlike pretty well all of the so-called al-Qaeda tapes, which are conveniently grainy, shot in a cave or a dark room, and inconclusive at best as to what actually happened. It's like watching surveillance video in a convenience store.

The only person here who has discredited himself is you, by placing eternal faith in a man who wants to put food on people's families.

Fool us once with your inane rhetoric, cbwm...shame on...shame on you. Fool us twice...won't get fooled again!

Your God is a fraud, and those who follow him are clods.

Originally Posted by ADAM Web Design

No...no I don't. What I do is ask "why is this true?" "Are there other parties, particularly those close to Hitler, who need to share some of the blame and aren't mentioned throughout the course of history?" In other words, there are missing elements to the story, and Hitler may not be FULLY responsible. Partly...probably. Fully...the possibility does exist. You just don't want to acknowledge it because you would rather hear a surface explanation provided to you by others who didn't bother to research things and analyze them properly...much like you do. You just accept and repeat.

I also accept that fire burns, that if I jump off a cliff I will fall, that if I don't eat I will eventually starve, and yes, that Hitler is responsible for the deaths of millions of innocent people. I accept these things without further research based on the perponderance of evidence in support of them. I also did not need to research to know Bush never said "These Muslims are evil. Bomb them. Kill them." as you alleged.

I'm not opposed to additional "research" on any subject, even the mostly widely accepted facts. What I am opposed to are the wild statements that fly in the face of mountains of evidence, without a shred of proof, or worse yet with fabricated proof like your bogus Bush quote. Your statement "I won't condone the actions of Hitler, assuming they are true" also falls into that category. It wasn't a statement of whether Hitler was fully responsible, or only partially responsible. It was a statement questioning whether or not he committed the horrid atrocities whose pictures fill our history books.

I noticed you tried to back away from your use of a fabricated quote by saying he might as well have said "These Muslims are evil. Bomb them. Kill them." because he said "Putting food on the family". Obviously there is no logic to that at all. Then you somehow try to discredit the footage of Osama owning up to the tower bombings because it is grainy, and the footage of Bush getting toung tied is clear? Therefore, Osama good(framed), and Bush bad. Jesus, by that logic, given the difference in video quality Keith Olberman must sit at Satan's right hand, and O'Reilly at his left (Actually, I think they do).

Today would be a good day for you to start embracing the "Official" version of stories, as told in the history books, and seen on the history channel, even if there are some parts of those stories that may be discredited at a later time through diligent research. The world may very well be ending tomorrow, but I'm not sure how many days it makes sense to stand on the street corner with a sign saying, "The world will end tomorrow" until you are one day proven to be right. Mostly you just end up looking like a lunatic, and a poor one at that.

By the way, did you notice Democrat super delegate Senator Lieberman endorsed John McCain for President today? You should answer my poll, and don't try and claim you'll move to Canada.

Okay...when you learn how to read and understand when I'm paraphrasing vs. when I'm actually quoting someone come back and post something. Maybe then it will be intelligent (not bloody likely.)

Until then, your literacy skills need to be greatly refined and there's no way an intelligent debate on any topic can occur with you. You either need an optometrist, a reading primer, or a lobotomy. I can't really figure out which, to be honest, I don't care, and therefore I'm no longer interested in anything you have to say since it's worthless.

You fail at life.