Vladimir Putin, George Bush, and Fidel Castro all have Regime Change in 2008 in common. With the exception of Russia, the group was starting to resemble the Axis of Feeble. Two unelected dictators who made careers of taking away their subject's liberty and promising security in exchange are both standing down to peaceful transition in the Americas.

2008 looks to be a very bad year for Evil.

I was just watching BBC hardtalk, a ridiculously left program by any measure. It was funny to watch the female host acknowledge that Shrub poured almost 15 billion US Dollars into Africa for humanitarian efforts including the combat of HIV and AIDS. This amount is more than any preceding U.S. President by more than double and has actually stabilized the spread of AIDS in several African nations, providing treatment to more than a billion people, as opposed to the 50,000 people treated during the Clinton administration.

Sounds like evil to me. By the way, are you trying to deny Dubya was elected by large majority of the population AND the electoral college in 2004?

We are lucky to be here with Bush leading us for the past eight years.

Originally Posted by cbwm

Sounds like evil to me. By the way, are you trying to deny Dubya was elected by large majority of the population AND the electoral college in 2004?

A lot of people will deny that. I'm not one of them, much as I'd like to be. Are you acknowledging that there's severe doubt as to the democratic value of being elected president by the Supreme Court? That seems tacit in your question.

If you are referring to the 2000 decision regarding the requirement of the Florida government to meet the deadlines they set for themselves in the recounting process, I'd say that decision was fair, wise, and democratic. Gore lost fair and square. Get over it.

Originally Posted by RezTech

We are lucky to be here with Bush leading us for the past eight years.

I agree. Bush has been a great President. I support and respect him as do our great Nation's veterans and military.

Originally Posted by cbwm

If you are referring to the 2000 decision regarding the requirement of the Florida government to meet the deadlines they set for themselves in the recounting process, I'd say that decision was fair, wise, and democratic. Gore lost fair and square. Get over it.

Then why the two step? Even you don't believe it. Refusing to allow votes to be counted is the type of democracy Joe Stalin would be proud of. So is the loser getting the prize. Frankly, so is the winner getting 5 votes, several of them from "Activist Judges" appointed by the winner's father.

Bush has been the worst president of the last 100 years, and thank God his time has come to an end. If America can survive just one more year of lame duckery, we'll have a president who isn't an alcoholic. More importantly, we'll have a president who you aren't personally sworn to defend American democracy against - although it's funny how many of the reasons you list for owning a gun have come to pass. President wants your phone calls spied on, along with your library borrowing habits, and somehow you're happy to trade freedom for the promise of security, as long as the person taking your freedom away says "The terriers hate us for our freedom, so we'll abolish freedom."

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

Then why the two step? Even you don't believe it. Refusing to allow votes to be counted is the type of democracy Joe Stalin would be proud of. So is the loser getting the prize.

I guess I missed the piece of history you are referring to. Let me list the facts:

1) Bush won the original Florida vote count. If you need proof, you might note that Gore was in the process of conceding.
2) Gore notes the election is close (a little over 500 votes) so asks for recounts in heavily democratic favored districts only.
3) Bush responds asking that if votes are to be recounted in the heavily Democrat leaning districts, they need to be recounted in every district.
4) Stock market begins to crash as confidence that the nation will have a chosen leader by the 15th of January begins to come under question.
5) As December ends, Supreme court decides that there is no way possible to recount every district in Florida prior to the deadlines set by state law, so they stop the recounts and demand the totals be certified.


You might note that under no circumstance did Gore ever lead the vote count. You might also note that the supreme court only mandated the state follow their own state election law, far from an activist decision. So all your allegations are patently false, especially that the looser got the prize. The only prize the looser got was the Nobel Peace Prize and what a pathetic joke that was.

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

Bush has been the worst president of the last 100 years, and thank God his time has come to an end.

Certainly your opinion and I can respect that. Frankly, Bush may be remembered as one of America's greatest presidents, and I'm sure that doesn't sit well with you. I'm still interested to see how you spin Bush's outrageous donations to the human aid cause in Africa as "Evil".

If Bush wasn't really elected in 2000, doesn't that mean he could technically run for a second term in 2008? </joke>

Originally Posted by RezTech

We are lucky to be here with Bush leading us for the past eight years.

Originally Posted by GeekGal

I agree. Bush has been a great President. I support and respect him as do our great Nation's veterans and military.

I thought that the original statement was said with an anti-Bush tone - "we are lucky to still be alive with Bush having led us for the last 8 years" was how I read that.

BBC Hardtalk isn't a "ridiculously" left programme actually - I watched that whenever I get the chance and I can't really see much political bias in it at all - I've seen politicians from both sides of the spectrum on there and they both seem to get a fair hearing.

I'm glad Bush is leaving - he's certainly left a legacy behind (make no mistake about that), but whether he'll be remembered as a great patriotic American or simply as a warmongerer backed by a lot of strongly right wing religious hicks from the Bible belt is something else. The US deficit has increased dramatically under him and the US military seems to be absorbing an absurd amount of the budget (someone told me 50% of the US budget was spent on the military ).

Originally Posted by whym

I thought that the original statement was said with an anti-Bush tone - "we are lucky to still be alive with Bush having led us for the last 8 years" was how I read that.

Well, the sentiments of the posts that followed I'm sure remain the same regardles

Originally Posted by whym

BBC Hardtalk isn't a "ridiculously" left programme actually - I watched that whenever I get the chance and I can't really see much political bias in it at all - I've seen politicians from both sides of the spectrum on there and they both seem to get a fair hearing.

I suppose this falls under the area of opinion, and mine differs from yours, but I tend to classify slant in news broadcast based on the types of questions they ask, the guests they are willing to field, and the topics they tend to cover. For instance, if your organization thought Hitler was cool, you might run a debate about the merits of the Nazi regime (something no credible news outlet would do), and bring in an educated neo-Nazi (Mike Metzger comes to mind) and present him as equally credible. When you are all done, you could rightly say you gave both sides equal time.

Originally Posted by whym

Whether he[Bush] will be remembered as a ... warmongerer backed by a lot of strongly right wing religious hicks from the Bible belt is something else.

Speaking as a non-religious moderate from the liberal state of California, and for most of my moderate and conservative friends, I can say we fit none of those stereotypes, and yet we support him. I can also say that all, not most, of my liberal friends despise him as if he killed their firstborn. Truth be told, the more I know about him, the more I like him. Lets also not forget that history is written by the victors. If McCain wins this election, I'd say odds are the history books treat Bush pretty well.

Originally Posted by whym

I'm glad Bush is leaving - he's certainly left a legacy behind (make no mistake about that), but whether he'll be remembered as a great patriotic American or simply as a warmongerer backed by a lot of strongly right wing religious hicks from the Bible belt is something else. The US deficit has increased dramatically under him and the US military seems to be absorbing an absurd amount of the budget (someone told me 50% of the US budget was spent on the military ).

Ha! I love the notion that the only people that could possibly like Bush are right-winged, hicks that love Jesus.

Originally Posted by cbwm

I This amount is more than any preceding U.S. President by more than double and has actually stabilized the spread of AIDS in several African nations, providing treatment to more than a billion people, as opposed to the 50,000 people treated during the Clinton administration.

Since you like stats so much, I'm going to fire one at you. According to The UN revision population database, the population of Africa was 922 million in 2005 and is expected to reach 1.032 billion - 1.045 billion in 2010, depending on the variant used to calculate population growth.

It would only be possible for Dubya to treat 1 billion people in Africa if, to quote a song from the movie Team America: World Police...

Everyone has AIDS!
AIDS, AIDS, AIDS, AIDS!
AIDSAIDSAIDSAIDSAIDSAIDS!

(One of the all-time great movies, for those who haven't seen it yet. The gratuitous sex scene is one of the funniest things I've ever watched.)

While the continent does have a problem with AIDS and other STDs, this is completely silly and unrealistic. Even if transient workers such as missionaries, soldiers and other foreign "imports" are factored in, there's no way this could possibly be true. Oh wait...it came from the media. It has to be true then!

I'm glad Bush is leaving - he's certainly left a legacy behind (make no mistake about that), but whether he'll be remembered as a great patriotic American or simply as a warmongerer backed by a lot of strongly right wing religious hicks from the Bible belt is something else.

HEY! Yew! ENGLISH boi! Gitcher *** back here so's I can whup ya wit' mah belt for talkin' bad 'bout the PREZ-uh-DENT! We don't take KINDLY to those that don't take KINDLY to the PREZ-uh-DENT 'round these parts!

**** Brits! Go back down to Canada 'er sumpin'!

Just quoting from the liberal media =) Either I misquoted, or they have their facts wrong.

Dude, if you think the conservative media is more accurate, you're off the deep end.

Mainstream media does not get their stories straight. They don't fact check. They simply report quasi-researched pseudo-stories with as much sensationalism as they can cram down the world's collective throat and present this as "news". Liberal, Conservative, whatever...it doesn't matter. And if you repeat it, then you're nothing but a media parrot who doesn't stop to think things through and see them to a logical conclusion.

This is why mainstream media cannot be trusted as an accurate news source...period.

Speaking of high standards for accuracy in news, both Mark Foley and John McCain are democrats according to Fox. It's a 50/50 guess, and they manage to get it wrong every time it suits their agenda. You don't have to look any further than the New York Post to see Murdoch's opinion of QA is much less than Steve Ballmer's.

Originally Posted by ADAM Web Design

Dude, if you think the conservative media is more accurate, you're off the deep end.

Mainstream media does not get their stories straight. They don't fact check. They simply report quasi-researched pseudo-stories with as much sensationalism as they can cram down the world's collective throat and present this as "news". Liberal, Conservative, whatever...it doesn't matter. And if you repeat it, then you're nothing but a media parrot who doesn't stop to think things through and see them to a logical conclusion.

This is why mainstream media cannot be trusted as an accurate news source...period.

Well I'm glad to see you backed up your argument with facts and statistics as usual! I'm convinced. By the way, I was quoting BBC.

Edit: My bad, it just occured to me that you probably consider BBC the "Conservative Media" /chuckle.

Originally Posted by cbwm

Edit: My bad, it just occured to me that you probably consider BBC the "Conservative Media" /chuckle.

Guess that's right

Actually...I did. Not only did I use a statistic from a source that would have no reason to lie about it or distort it, but I used it to prove that the statistic you cited couldn't possibly be true. Go back and read...it's right there, and I've even sourced it with a link so you can prove it to yourself (as opposed to you, who just seems to pull random numbers out of the air without sourcing them.)

I don't have an opinion on what side of the fence the BBC is on. Quite frankly, I don't care what side of the fence they're on. They're mainstream media; their goal is to reach as many subscribers/readers/viewers/etc. as possible; and they lie, or at the very least don't bother to fact-check. You just posted a classic example.

Statistics are only useful if they accurately portray the scenario to which they are attributed. Adobe claims 98% of computers worldwide are willing and able to use Flash. 98%. Sounds good, right?

WRONG. An experienced designer would be able to tell you that, while Flash has probably reached the point where it is bundled on the majority of machines, it certainly isn't at 98% yet. It's still an add-on, as opposed to a default install; and a lot of large corporate environments don't allow browser addons (which certainly takes up a lot more than the 2% required to prove that pseudo-stat wrong.) In fact, a bit of further investigation reveals this:

The majority of respondents answer from their home computer; however, responses from respondents answering using a work computer are not excluded.

That's going to skew the statistic right there; work computer security is usually far more intense and subject to scrutiny than home computer use is. If the survey were balanced to reflect the number of work computers vs. the number of home computers (which would probably be somewhere in the 60/40 to 50/50 range), that 98% would come down significantly.

Still not convinced? Try Alexa Rank. See whether or not its stats are skewed.

A statistic is only as good as the process by which it is gathered, and most statistics now are gathered far too quickly and via means that ultimately establish nothing. And media, with their biases and twists on things, will never be in a position where they have to fact-check or provide reliable information, since too many people simply accept them at their word.

Sure you used facts to prove that I misstated (which I promptly admitted to) about over a billion people being treated by Bush's generous donations on behalf of the U.S. to Africa human aide causes. I stated I was watching BBC hardtalk and posting based on what I saw. I'm sure I could look up the transcript online and find out where the misstatement occured, but I won't bother. It doesn't change the fact that Bush has been the U.S. President who has most aided humanitarian causes in Africa(A fact the lefties here have yet to lump down).

You, on the other hand, made the following statement (which I quoted in my original response) which completely lacks any factual backing. Check it:
Originally Posted by ADAM Web Design
Dude, if you think the conservative media is more accurate, you're off the deep end.

Mainstream media does not get their stories straight. They don't fact check. They simply report quasi-researched pseudo-stories with as much sensationalism as they can cram down the world's collective throat and present this as "news". Liberal, Conservative, whatever...it doesn't matter. And if you repeat it, then you're nothing but a media parrot who doesn't stop to think things through and see them to a logical conclusion.

This is why mainstream media cannot be trusted as an accurate news source...period.


Finally, HOW DARE YOU TALK ABOUT ADOBE AND SOFTWARE IN THE POLITICS AND RELIGION FORUM! THIS IS NO PLACE FOR THAT KIND OF DISCUSSION!


Did I mention Bush has been our greatest president in the last 100 years?