Real Fiero Tech

Is it any wonder we've been getting our asses kicked by a total hack for 6 years?

Who the fuck is Tim Kaine and why do I care?

For Christ sake can we get a spokesman already? Where the fuck was Obama and who is the genius that didn't tap him for that job?

Fuckin amateurs.

haha... that was funny when bush said something like, "we need to extend the patriot act"... then all the dems start booing and he has to wait for them...

stupid bush, trix are for criminals

For sure. It's a shame that people identify Democratic ideals with those who pedal them; great ideals, idiots for representatives.

I'm not sure I even like Hillary at this point. Is she just posturing to suck in righty votes, or has she turncoated? I still don't see a good candidate for the Dems in 08, and the repub voters who largely disavow the criminal chimp will find new life in the next criminal RepubliNazi shoved in front of them by way of saying the Republican way is the correct way, even tho chimp was a bad president.

Either way, it's the American voters who establish garbage like we now have, then reaffirm it with another appointment. They will do it again too, as they seem to think voting Repub makes them somehow tough / voting Dem is somehow weak.

Fortunately the rate of degreed people is increasing, and those with college degrees tend to vote Dem. I think we're now up to 26% nationally. The only way out of this RepubliNazi trend is through education.

Hillary is definitely making a push to run for president and the media is doing everything to help. Did you notice how many times they kept showing her during the speech? Way more than anyone else. Every time the Dems would boo or sarcastically clap or whatever she was the first one they showed - trying to make her appear like their leader or something.

Here's why I think she will run. Many in the country are split over Bush. It seems most either hate him or love him and only a few 'tweeners. Hillary is like the polar opposite of Bush. I think the Dems are hoping if she runs she can get all of the Bush haters votes because they want an entirely new direction for the country and she will definitely provide that. Also a lot of people liked Bill so maybe she can carry that over. Just my theory. I think the next election we will see a huge turnout either way.

so your implying that the majority of republican voters are uneducated? I disagree with that.

V8Mikie wrote: Also a lot of people liked Bill

I bet hillary didnt.

p8ntman442 wrote:so your implying that the majority of republican voters are uneducated? I disagree with that.

They may be educated... just don't have very critical thinking skills

Your concerned leader

Diggity"Otherwise, why can't they see that both elections were proven frauds"Biggity

YOu're the fraud

DiggityBiggity wrote:Otherwise, why can't they see that both elections were proven frauds

DiggityBiggity wrote: They may be educated... just don't have very critical thinking skills

Wow, you've got balls.

allWorkNoPlay wrote:YOu're the fraud

DiggityBiggity wrote:Otherwise, why can't they see that both elections were proven frauds

Wow, great comeback...

Your concerned leader

Diggity"http://www.blackboxvoting.org"Biggity

The Dark Side of Will wrote:

DiggityBiggity wrote: They may be educated... just don't have very critical thinking skills

Wow, you've got balls.

Last my girlfriend checked, yeah

Your concerned leader

Diggity"Just speaking my mind"Biggity

V8Mikie wrote:Hillary is definitely making a push to run for president and the media is doing everything to help. Did you notice how many times they kept showing her during the speech? Way more than anyone else. Every time the Dems would boo or sarcastically clap or whatever she was the first one they showed - trying to make her appear like their leader or something.

Here's why I think she will run. Many in the country are split over Bush. It seems most either hate him or love him and only a few 'tweeners. Hillary is like the polar opposite of Bush. I think the Dems are hoping if she runs she can get all of the Bush haters votes because they want an entirely new direction for the country and she will definitely provide that. Also a lot of people liked Bill so maybe she can carry that over. Just my theory. I think the next election we will see a huge turnout either way.

I think I had too many doses of McCain..... it's all perspective.

Many in the country are split over Bush. It seems most either hate him or love him and only a few 'tweeners.

Right, but even the haters are pro Repub, so the drama will continue with the next criminal.

Hillary is like the polar opposite of Bush.

Really? She claims to be a proponent of the war. I don't think she is as liberal as many think.

I think the Dems are hoping if she runs she can get all of the Bush haters votes because they want an entirely new direction for the country and she will definitely provide that.

Respectfully, I think you have it all wrong. This is no longer about Bush, as he's just marking time, fucking up the country until he's out in Jan 2009. The Republican Bush haters will find a new reason to love the next Repub candidate and vote that way, then bitch about the direction of the country some more...

I think the next election we will see a huge turnout either way.

I agree, but the direction of country, given we have fair elections which I'm not totally convinced, is that we are headed for ultraconservatism - we're almost there now. See, the voters seem to think it's ok to dole out medical care not for all. They think it's ok to execute, even though "mistakes" which are really set-ups are uncovered all the time. So the voters of this country are the problem, not the Abramoff's.

The Dark Side of Will wrote:

DiggityBiggity wrote: They may be educated... just don't have very critical thinking skills

Wow, you've got balls.

Are you serious? I realize this isn't about you, Will, but you ignored the common defintion of, "Imerialist" becuase you thought it indicted the USA. Critical thinking requires the deduction "facts" and evidence to establish a probable conclusion, or something like that. WHen we rewrite the dictionary we lose that. It seems you and many Republicans arive at a conclusion, then look for evidence to support that, reject all other evidence.

EBSB52 wrote:
Are you serious? I realize this isn't about you, Will, but you ignored the common defintion of, "Imerialist" becuase you thought it indicted the USA. Critical thinking requires the deduction "facts" and evidence to establish a probable conclusion, or something like that. WHen we rewrite the dictionary we lose that. It seems you and many Republicans arive at a conclusion, then look for evidence to support that, reject all other evidence.

I think your trying to say

..Premis
+Premis
----------
conclusion

"If it seems like many republicans arive at a conclusion, then search for facts"

why dont you look at the last democratic presidential candidate. Maybee he should try to stop distorting the facts, and stick to one conclusion.

p8ntman442 wrote:

EBSB52 wrote:
Are you serious? I realize this isn't about you, Will, but you ignored the common defintion of, "Imerialist" becuase you thought it indicted the USA. Critical thinking requires the deduction "facts" and evidence to establish a probable conclusion, or something like that. WHen we rewrite the dictionary we lose that. It seems you and many Republicans arive at a conclusion, then look for evidence to support that, reject all other evidence.

I think your trying to say

..Premis
+Premis
----------
conclusion

"If it seems like many republicans arive at a conclusion, then search for facts"

why dont you look at the last democratic presidential candidate. Maybee he should try to stop distorting the facts, and stick to one conclusion.

I think your trying to say

..Premis
+Premis
----------
conclusion

Not at all. I wrote it the way I meant it.

http://www.kcmetro.cc.mo.us/longview/ctac/corenotes.htm

“Fundamentally, Critical Thinking or Informal Logic deals with the use of reason in the pursuit of truth. While there is serious doubt about the power of reason to discover any "new" truth, the "rules" of logic concern the ways truth can be preserved as we make inferences -- one or more statements to support or justify another statement.â€

you said "or something like that" I thought I was being helpful, but once again you are jsut a complete ass. Then you bring it into another thread and try to bash me with it WHILE TALKING ABOUT AD HOMINEN. Do you realize how fucking rediculus your comments are.

EBSB52 wrote:

The Dark Side of Will wrote:

DiggityBiggity wrote: They may be educated... just don't have very critical thinking skills

Wow, you've got balls.

Are you serious? I realize this isn't about you, Will, but you ignored the common defintion of, "Imerialist" becuase you thought it indicted the USA. Critical thinking requires the deduction "facts" and evidence to establish a probable conclusion, or something like that. WHen we rewrite the dictionary we lose that. It seems you and many Republicans arive at a conclusion, then look for evidence to support that, reject all other evidence.

I didn't ignore the common definition of Imperialism. I disagreed with the one you posted (and my version wasn't really any better), because said definition is simply flawed. By both definitions, the United States is subject to the imperial tendencies of Mexico, which I think we can all agree is rather absurd.
Wikipedia is neither objective nor authoritative. There are no unquestionable sources. You have no ground to stand on when you berate me for not agreeing with a definition that you offer (which, predictably, favors your position).

Just give it a rest. I hear there's a freshly dead horse at W 101st and Broadway.

Bush aside, lets talk about the topic at hand. How many times in Tim Kaine's speech did we hear "There is a better way"? Too friggen many. So what is the better way? All I have ever heard from the dems is there is a better way. Well, what the hell is it and when are you going to tell or show us what it is? The dems were in power for 30 years and I never saw the "better way". Quit talking about it and produce results. The American people want action, not talk.

The Dark Side of Will wrote:

EBSB52 wrote:

The Dark Side of Will wrote:

DiggityBiggity wrote: They may be educated... just don't have very critical thinking skills

Wow, you've got balls.

Are you serious? I realize this isn't about you, Will, but you ignored the common defintion of, "Imerialist" becuase you thought it indicted the USA. Critical thinking requires the deduction "facts" and evidence to establish a probable conclusion, or something like that. WHen we rewrite the dictionary we lose that. It seems you and many Republicans arive at a conclusion, then look for evidence to support that, reject all other evidence.

I didn't ignore the common definition of Imperialism. I disagreed with the one you posted (and my version wasn't really any better), because said definition is simply flawed. By both definitions, the United States is subject to the imperial tendencies of Mexico, which I think we can all agree is rather absurd.
Wikipedia is neither objective nor authoritative. There are no unquestionable sources. You have no ground to stand on when you berate me for not agreeing with a definition that you offer (which, predictably, favors your position).

Just give it a rest. I hear there's a freshly dead horse at W 101st and Broadway.

HUH? I asserted the US is Imperialistic, you rejected it, I posted at least 1, maybe 2 different definitions as I recall, you then said that you didn't like that definition of Imperialisma nd ran away from the thread.



By both definitions, the United States is subject to the imperial tendencies of Mexico, which I think we can all agree is rather absurd.


This is where it gets weird. I never limited US Imperialism to Mexico or even mentioned it. So your contention is..... the US isn't Imperialistic because, "the imperial tendencies of Mexico,..."???? Please, this is misdirection at it's worst; I need some more elaboration on that. I would say our relationship with Mexico is more exploitive, but even if there is some Imperialist connection, how does that explain all the military bases worldwide, the Iraq whatever it is, and our constant fiscal Imperialism - think the way we do and back us is wars and we will continue to drop food to your impoverished?

Wikipedia is neither objective nor authoritative.

I would say they are objective. I read information supporting both major political parties. I think the burden to establish Wilk is biased is on you - show me examples.

There are no unquestionable sources.

I agree, unlike your ignorant religion where nothing is up for debate, all things are up for debate in my world. Soooooo, now show me where Wilk is uncredible. Show me by example, show me by incident, but just fucking show me instead of your pathetic circumvention.

You have no ground to stand on when you berate me for not agreeing with a definition that you offer (which, predictably, favors your position).


If that source is objective, or if I provide several sources will that work for you? Also, I'm not here to argue your side, but if I go too far out and subscribe to some liberal media as sole data then I lose credibility. I don't see Wilk as biased in any way. The burden resides on you to establish my sources are wrong, biased, etc...

Just give it a rest. I hear there's a freshly dead horse at W 101st and Broadway.

So you're tired of reading about your inability to critically research these issues, or that your beloved country has a few chinks in its armor? Then keep ignoring or respond in effective ways. You want to tell DB he has no critical thinking skills, yet you have demonstrated you don't. ELABORATE, EXPLAIN, GIVE EXAMPLES. Unless I'm wrong, you are military. If I'm right, there is a brainwashing that goes with that that even takes smart guys like you and makes them ignore truths. How could you work that many hours for a fraud, a farse? So you have to dedicate yourself, but I'm guessing when you eventually get away from it you'll see mpre objectively and might change some opinions of a lot of things.

Sinister Fiero wrote:Bush aside, lets talk about the topic at hand. How many times in Tim Kaine's speech did we hear "There is a better way"? Too friggen many. So what is the better way? All I have ever heard from the dems is there is a better way. Well, what the hell is it and when are you going to tell or show us what it is? The dems were in power for 30 years and I never saw the "better way". Quit talking about it and produce results. The American people want action, not talk.

The dems were in power for 30 years and I never saw the "better way".

Of course talking about the FDR era and later. Are you fucking serious? Took us from the Great Depression, the Hoovers era's blunder, brought us through a noble war, saved the world and threw us into the manufacturing heydays of the 50's, 60's and you want to see the change, "better way?" Hell, civil rights were established at the end of that too.

He brought us Social Security, the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act, the New Deal(s) and many other acts that saved this country. FDR was likely the greatest pres of all times.....