Mandatory knowledge

[Pointer]

If you're gonna claim that your IQ ranks above more than 90% of the population, go right ahead. Anyone here have a Mensa membership?

Didn't make that claim and I don't wanna...
The tests I've taken have put me in the top 2 percentile of the nation's college graduates... Which means damned little to me, inasmuch as most college graduates are dipsticks anyway...
As I said before...IQ is good only for accumulating knowledge and wisdom.
As to Mensa... Out of curiousity, I tested and passed the MINIMUM acceptible entry level... I chose not to apply because I didn't want to be a member of an organization where I would be the "least of these my brethren"... That's why I "toy around" with you...

Wanna fork over your IQ scores? How about your degrees? Papers you've published?

Did that in an earlier post that you apparently didn't read... and anyone with money can be published... I have several associates who have published their own works... and the only prerequisite to being published by the big print media, is "will the book SELL and produce a profit? It doesn't matter if the writing "sux" or if the words are true... just the bottom line counts... Any twit can be published... "Madonna" for example, inserts photos of her naked crotch and her book sales skyrocket... Now she's writing "children's books"... go figure...

Pulled troops from Afghanistan where a real threat was located to attack a country that was little threat to us.

The Taliban mostly escaped to Iran and Iraq... only a small number are still in Afganistan and a few more escaped to Pakistan.

Used a ridiculously low number of troops. Thought "stay the course" was a valid strategy then lied about never saying that in the first place.

I agree with this quote with the exception of the blue highlighted portion... references please.
Frankly, I think it's Bullsh**...

Only Congress can declare war.

"Miz" Clinton and all of her fellow liberals voted in favor of it... now they say they were duped... Being so easily duped is hardly a requisite recommend for leadership positions...

No WMDs were found. (Repeated...ad infinitum)

The WMD's were used in Iraq and there is more than ample proof of that...
It took 9 months of trying to get the corrupted UN leadership to respond to the threat... and in the meantime all evidence was moved out of Iraq and is believed to be in Syria with a "s-load" of the cash embezzled from the Food for Oil program...

Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.

I don't believe anyone of importance said he did... It was known that he was harboring terrorists and we were at war with terrorists because of 9/11... The Liberals knew that our "declaration" stated that "any" country which harbors terrorists is considered a terrorist nation... They weren't duped. They found themselves between the "rock and the hard place" and they knew exactly what they were doing...

It should be obvious to anyone who is not "in denial" that if a powerful dictator who has used WMD's on human beings and tortured (That's REALly tortured) his own citizens en masse, and buried them alive by the thousands... and gotten into "cahoots" with a severely corrupted UN... IS, IN FACT, A VERY REAL THREAT TO THE UNITED STATES AND TO THE WORLD IN GENERAL...

I repeat... Like American Idol rejects... those who reject this very plain message, are in denial and simply will not accept the reality that they're not as correct as they wannabe...

 

[kiov]

I think that most people believe a kind of "story" that they are taught from tender years in their families. The dem story is probably something like, "We are all in this together and we have to help out those who are undergoing hardship. This will mean sacrifices to help those less fortunate than us." The repub story is something like, "People need to make themselves, and should not rely on government to help them. If trys to take care of people, it just makes them weaker and doesn't really help them." Or some variations on those two. Most people then take all the various information they get and use it to "prove" that their ingrained story is correct. Some people think for themselves and break out of these "stories", but they are few. This is why both parties act in a similar manner--villifiying the other party. This is also why most will just vote on party lines. Thinking the other side is bad or evil is a gross oversimplification. My mother thinks all republicans are bad and liars (ah, but she keeps her shotgun loaded!). She is obviously not able to see things clearly. My father has come around to seeing some sense in my joining the NRA and my belief in the 2nd amendment, which initially alarmed my whole family. Some on this forum think all democrats are fools or worse. They are also, in my opinion, unable to see or judge clearly. There are good republicans and good democrats. There are good ideas in both parties. Labels of "liberal" or "conservative" are very misleading and unhelpful. I would suggest arguing specific issues rather than generalizations which are so simplified as to become meaningless.

 

[DonR101395]

Pulled troops from Afghanistan where a real threat was located to attack a country that was little threat to us. Used a ridiculously low number of troops. Thought "stay the course" was a valid strategy then lied about never saying that in the first place. Stupid: check.

Riddled with little fact and much opinion? I don't want to check, you made the claim, back it up with fact not your ranting opinion.

Only Congress can declare war. Resolution was as shady and contrary to the Constitution as Illinois prohibiting concealed carry. Broke international laws in both the invasion and the occupation and in torturing prisoners. Illegal: check.

We never declared war. Once again, where are your facts not your liberal opinion on what is torture and illegal. I didn't make the claim you did, how about some fact?

Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. No WMDs were found. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. No WMDs were found. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. No WMDs were found. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. No WMDs were found. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. No WMDs were found. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. No WMDs were found. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. Unjustified: check.

Yep, he violated the cease fire and weapons policies he agreed to for over 10 years. Once again your opinion gets the best of you.
Everything you have posted is opinion. If he has or had done anything illegal he would be at a minimum out of office. Remember Nixon?

 

[STAGE 2]

Back to the topic at hand, its my constitutional right to be stupid. I can vote for someone because I like the way they part their hair, or what their policies are or (aghast) what their religion is. I can play enney meeny miny moe in the ballot box if thats what I decide is best.

Thankfully I have never decided to exercise this constitutional right (with respect to stupidity) hence my conservatism.

Bottom line freedom is just that. No law.

 

[badbob]

I can't help but think about what George Carlin said, "We all agree that the average American is dumber than s$$$, right? Well...half of them are dumber than that!"

badbob

 

[wayneinFL]

I just watched the video in post #10.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uPcthZL2RE

I ran into this in front of WalMart recently. I noticed people stopping to sign a petition at the front of the store. The kid was saying something about "protecting our public parks and natural areas", and he had a steady flow of suckers lining up to sign. He summoned me to sign it as well, and I stopped and read the petition.

The petition demanded county and city boards put any rezoning issue up to the citizens for a vote. That's right. If I want to put two houses on my 5 acres, not only do I have to get my nosy neighbors to agree to it, I have to get my county commission to agree to it, and with this amendment, I would have to get the entire county to vote for it.

I asked the man distributing the petition if that was a good idea, and he knew nothing of the amendment, or even what rezoning was. And I was the first one who had asked him about it. I had to show him the language in the text. He himself had never read the document he was asking people to sign.

So not only is he a dumb voter, but so are all these other well-meaning people who signed the petition.

I had always been adamantly opposed to any sort of intelligence test for a
voting right, but I have to admit, there is a real problem in this country with people who do not stop to consider all the ramifications of any issue they vote on.

I voted this year to raise the amount of votes needed for florida residents to pass an amendment to Florida's constitution. When you look at the kinds of amendments that have been voted in the last 20 years, it becomes apparent the public cannot be trusted to govern themselves. Sorry if that sounds a little cynical.

Things need to change. It is the duty of every American to educate themselves as to the workings of our govenment, and educate themselves on all sides of the issues that are being raised and voted on. Unfortunately, there are too many who shirk the responsibility that comes with being an American citizen.

 

[WeedWacker]

I motion that a petition be written that a politician must stand by their word and perform what they say in campaign and be impeached if they go against their word. Candidates like John Smelly... er Kerry and his trusty side by side on his belly in the woods would have to tell ppl what they were really up to if they wanted to get into office. Then again the ACLU would probably make a loophole for their candidate that rules out those they don't want in office.

 

[USN_JWS]

I motion that a petition be written that a politician must stand by their word and perform what they say in campaign and be impeached if they go against their word. Candidates like John Smelly... er Kerry and his trusty side by side on his belly in the woods would have to tell ppl what they were really up to if they wanted to get into office. Then again the ACLU would probably make a loophole for their candidate that rules out those they don't want in office.

Yeah, theACLU would be on that like stink on $^!+

 

[waynedm]

How about we just get somebody from this forum to run and we all vote him/her in? It would be cool to see a pistol range on the White House lawn.

 

[Pointer]

Interesting that Gore is the largest stock holder of Occidental Oil. That is very hypocritical

And Kerry/Heinz are the tomato king/queen...
Catsup, tomato sauce, and illegal Mexican labor etc... hmmmmmmmmmm?

 

[HiltonFarmer]

Aside from Hillary, I was talking to a friend in the great state of Texas yesterday and I asked him who would be the Brain from Pinky and the Brain of cartoon fame between GW Bush and Tony Blair of the UK?

He said, well GW wouldn't be the Brain but he's no Pinky either! Could Hillary be any worse?

HiltonFarmer

 

[Pointer]

Could Hillary be any worse?

Absolutely...
She's a leftist...
She's anti-military...
She said she will "cut and run" (From Iraq) if she becomes President...
She said she was stupid enough to be "duped" by the present administration...
And she kept FBI files on her enemies... which miracluously turned up in her White House bedroom...
AND she was married to "Slick Willey"...

Could Hillary be any worse?

She already is...

 

[Lord_Nikon]

She's a leftist...

True, she's a bit (okay, a lot) too left-wing for me.

She's anti-military...

No, she's against the Iraq war. There is a difference.

She said she will "cut and run" (From Iraq) if she becomes President...

Fine by me, I think we need to get out.

She said she was stupid enough to be "duped" by the present administration...

So, in my opinion, were plenty of members of Congress. Look at how overwhelming the USA PATRIOT Act vote was, and how many people are now outraged with how it's being used.

And she kept FBI files on her enemies... which miracluously turned up in her White House bedroom...

Yeah, that's pretty shady.

AND she was married to "Slick Willey"...

I really hope you meant that as a joke. I really don't think guilt-by-association is a good way to judge someone's character.

All told, do I want Hillary as President? No. Do I think she's the epitome of evil? No. Thus, unless there is a law of nature that says "Pointer is always right," I think a little qualification is in order.

 

[Pointer]

No, (she's not anti-military) she's against the Iraq war.

She is ANTI-military!
She has been heard by her own White House MILITARY STAFF saying so...
She tried to get an order put through to require ALL WH military staff to wear only civies in the WH so she would not have to acknowledge them, or even know who they are...
She is ANTI-military!

So...unless there is a law of nature that says "You are... always right," I think a little qualification is in order.

There is a book I borrowed from a friend... written by a Colonel who was required to carry the "Atomic Football" within the immediate reach of President Clinton at all times...

The Colonel's revelations are more than just a little interesting.

Perhaps someone reading this post knows the title I'm referring to???

Dereliction of Duty.
Thank you Stage2 .

Fine by me, (We cut and run) I think we need to get out.

I never want to see this country refuse to win a war again...
Viet Nam was quite enough for me and to "cut and run" would be a insult to the soldiers who died and those who were wounded trying to WIN and a disservice to their families...

Not to mention the general citizenry of the United States.

 

[Lord_Nikon]

Pointer: I don't get it, the only point I made that you rebutted was that she isn't anti-military.

 

[MemphisReason]

"I never want to see this country refuse to win a war again...
Viet Nam was quite enough for me and to "cut and run" would be a insult to the soldiers who died and those who were wounded trying to WIN and a disservice to their families...

Not to mention the general citizenry of the United States."


No one does. That's why we shouldn't get involved in geo-political wars like this one in which the leaders were unwilling to listen to better plans, resistant to criticism, and remained willfully ignorant of the country in regards to the people. Iraq was never our responsibility to begin with. We should have never gone in and invading it was an insult to the military and the American people.

Please refrain from using Fox news sound bites in your arguments.

 

[SecDef]

Pointer is picking and choosing what he responds to. It's a popular method of argument.

Pointer, you are obviously intelligent, but you lack wisdom as a lot of what you are saying lacks depth You complain about slogans and wish-think then turn around and use it yourself. You are all over the map logically and mostly incoherent. Take your point about the reference to H.Clinton wanting military to dress as civilians. Even if true, that means nothing about whether she is pro or anti military. Heck, that isn't even a defined TERM in this context.

Eisenhower refused to salute military when he was president. He considered himself a civilian. Do you think that he as a former General was anti-military? No, he wasn't, that was just how he chose to handle things. Hillary's actions are neither pro or anti in the context you bring them up in, so using them to justify your position is nonsense.

Why is there the thought that patriotism is down in the U.S.? Being against a war does NOT mean being against the troops. Being against ALL war may be construed as such, but that is anti-military, not anti-troop. Being against a concept is not the same as being against the people caught up IN that concept.

Pointer, I've got a problem with the way you present your arguments. On the one hand, you say that Bush is at fault for being dishonest, then on the other hand you fault Clinton for being duped. By that, if taken to it's logical conclusion, you are saying that ANYONE THAT SUPPORTED THE WAR IS NOT FIT TO BE PRESIDENT. Now, I don't think that is what you are TRYING to say, but that's is exactly what is coming out.

You continue to sloganize withdrawal of troops as "cutting and running" which is about as black and white as you can get in a sea of gray. Have you ever heard the term "tactical retreat" or do you subscribe to the viewpoint that once engaged with an enemy, a soldier must fight until one side or the other is dead, even if he runs out of ammo, and is the only one left against 1,000 of the enemy. It is nether cowardly or unpatriotic for him to withdrawal and regroup. Some people call that redeploying.

The war is Iraq is not winnable. There is no metric available that would say that "yes, we won". If after 5 years, there is still not one battalion of Iraqi troops ready to stand on its own, how can we say that there will EVER be any? If you do not ask yourself "at what cost do we continue sending troops in to slaughter", if you don't ask what the GOAL of sending someone into harms way is, if you blindly trust the opinion of advisers that have been proven wrong repeatedly (we will be welcomed, insurgency is on their last legs, the war will be up to maybe even 6 weeks, the war will be paid for by Iraqi oil, we know where the WMDs are, etc etc etc) then you are not supporting the troops. You are sending them to die.

I'm sorry if you feel like I am attacking you, but you are the most vocal in this thread, so the largest target. Don't take it personally, I just wanted to use this forum to reiterate that in life, especially in politics, there is RARELY black and white. Life is all about shades of gray, or if you are in SF, rainbows.

 

[STAGE 2]

Pointer, the book you are referrring to is Dereliction of Duty.

And to the rest who think the Clintons are ambivilant about military, there are droves of documented incidents verified by staff where both her and Bill are on record displaying their hatred of the military.

Secret service agents, former cabinet members, former political advisers and other staff have documented this repeatedly.

Thats neither here nor there when talking about Iraq, but it is the truth.

 

[Pointer]

Please refrain from using Fox news sound bites in your arguments.

I didn't... and I don't...
I expound my own opinions, not other peoples slogans... OR I designate them as QUOTATIONS.

Secret service agents, former cabinet members, former political advisers and other staff have documented this repeatedly.

Very true... the book Dereliction of duty gives multiple examples of the Clinton's utter disdain of the military...and the intelligence community.

Pointer is picking and choosing what he responds to. It's a popular method of argument.

I nearly always respond to everything said that I think is incorrect or distorted... and your's is a popular Liberal method of changing the subject...

Pointer, I've got a problem with the way you present your arguments. On the one hand, you say that Bush is at fault for being dishonest, then on the other hand you fault Clinton for being duped.

This is another Liberal method of subject twisting and spinning... If you don't understand something, I said and if you want to, then all you need to do is ask... Don't reinterpret by guessing that I mean something I didn't actually say...

I generally give credit to the reader to understand what I am saying and so I tend to make the mistake of not explaining myself fully... I am a little lazy with that, and I will try to be more careful in the future for your sake...

Take your point about the reference to H.Clinton wanting military to dress as civilians. Even if true, that means nothing about whether she is pro or anti military.

Agreed... but read the book I referenced and it will make perfect sense... even to your judgmental attitude...

Even if true...

Are you insinuating that I would deliberately mislead the reader... like Liberals do?

 

[Lord_Nikon]

Pointer, I'm going to end my involvement in this conversation by pointing out one problem:

Liberal is not, in my opinion, a dirty word. I don't believe that someone is terrible because they consider themselves liberal. Such judgment based on labeling is the same tactic used by gun control advocates, regardless of political leanings.

And by the way, no, I'm not liberal.