George Bush is a giant

I voted for Ronald Reagan twice but was bothered about how he railed against abortion until he took office. I do not recall him mentioning it after that. I grew disgusted and sat out in 1988. I am a baby boomer and naturally went with Bill Clinton and Al Gore. I stayed with the Democrats out of disgust for the Republicans. I voted for Al Gore and John Kerry. But I have seen the light. George W. Bush has been a GIANT since 9/11. He took the fight to the desert. Fanatic Muslim scum has been attracted there as if by a magnet. America has not experienced a second terrorist attack. Saddam Hussein was captured and is on trial. The hunt for Bin Laden will continue until he is caught. Bush has appointed two justices to the Supreme Court who will overturn Roe v. Wade. They are John Roberts and Sam Alito. 46 million babies have been aborted since 1973 in an American Holocaust. It staggers the imagination. Bush has now turned to the problem of illegal immigration. He wants a guest worker program. Bill Frist, Senate majority leader, favors tough legislation. I think Frist is right. Immigrants recently marched in New York and waved flags from their countries of origin. I have never been big on flags, but there is only one flag to be flown in the United States, and it is red, white and blue. If these immigrants want other flags, let them go back where they came from.

 

( quote ) ive never been big on flags ...........thats quite a big flag your standing infront of ........................fuckin gobshite ............here"s a flag for yer

 

Yeah, the picture confirms what I already knew - you're an uninformed redneck hick. George Bush is even less than you are, my friend, because he HAS no consciousness. He is a pure illusion. At least you are part of the infinite consciousness (one hopes), although it has clearly forgotten what it is in your case. It may never awaken either, unless you get to work finguring out what's true and false.

 

So much for accepting other people's opinions, jeez.

 

^^(If you are going to call someone ignorant, its best if you spell everything correctly.)

Jim Colyer,
Welcome to the forum.
I also am troubled by the flying of forgein flags at rallies seeking to influence US law.

What concerns me more about the immigrant issue is the mixing of the individual with the group.

I don't beleive law and morality are the same. The fact that they are in this country illegaly does not mean that these are immoral people. Most illegal immigrants are good neighbors, good workers and decent people.

On the other hand, as a group they increase the labor pool, decreasing wages. Their employers rarely offer health insurance. When they need health care, they spend the taxpayers dollar.

These problems need to be dealt with, but how to do that without being cruel to good decent people whose only fault is that they didn't let a line on a map keep them from feeding their families?

 

......... division ?

 

Enough pandering to people's wrong opinions and misconceptions.

 

You can't have a wrong opinion, hence the reason for using the word opinion.

 

explain......

because you can..... If I said science is evil, this is my opinion but is it not false? I would only form such an opinion on misinformation and ignorance.

o·pin·ion

1. A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof.

2. a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty

3. Something believed or accepted as true by a person without proof.

 

Exactly, an opinion is a personal belief that one does not have to back up(though I don't know where you're getting your definitions because an opinion can also be made with showing much proof and knowledge of a subject) If you were to say science is evil(and I believe there actually is a thread called "Science is Bullshit" in the science forum) I and most people probably wouldn't agree with it, but you'd be free to have that opinion, science is built on theory anyways, person who actually does believe in that might be right.


*On a side note, since this thread is in the political poll section, shouldn't it have a poll?

 

Answers.com is where my definitions are from...

Yes, a person is free to hold any opinions they like and do not have to back thier opinions up if they live in a vacuum. But, there is a difference between an informed opinions and ignorant opinions. People who believe science is evil are ignorants, but are free to hold such opinions.

Any opinions I have are based on facts and evidence.
Opinions can be wrong. People hold many distorted opinions and through other people calling them out, enlightening them, and education/learning they reform.

I once thought the earth was flat, clearly this was a wrong/distorted opinion.

 

The highlighted portion intrested me.
Consider the opinion "chocolate ice cream is better than strawberry"
Holding this opinion is based on facts and evidence (you've tasted both), but that opinion can not be defended or spread by on the basis of those facts and evidence. No matter how many times they taste, there will be those who honestly prefer strawberry.

 

Dam right, Syd! Well said! At least you and a precious few others on this board are civilized and respectful of others, what a true believer in peace and love should be!!

Jim Colyer: I'm glad you came to see what a great job Bush has done to make this world better. There are many people, young and old, who stand with you behind him.

 

that would be called subjective opinion not objective.

Subjective opinions are derived from the human ability to sense.
Objective opinions are derived from the human ability to reason.

Subjective opinions cannot be questioned because we all have different sensory tools.

If you say, you like strawberry and I say I like vanilla none of us are wrong and it does not make my taste better than yours because we have different tastes/senses. Now, if you say WW2 took place in 1970, your opinion is clearly wrong because it did not and I would precede to prove it.

 

But if I said WWII started in 1933 and you said 1939 and someone else said 1941, who would be right?

(1933 Japan invades Manchuria, '39 Germany invades Poland (trad. dating), '41 Singapore attacked; Britian is fighting in both hemispheres)

It is easier to show an objective opinion is false than it is to show that one is true.

 

true believers in peace and love do not tolerate ignorance.

 

science isn't built on theory, it's built on curiosity; theory is the developed educated guess; but it doesn't stop there. A scientist puts the theory to the test, and if the test proves inconclusive, it remains a theory.
but scientists keep theories and beliefs separate. (i would know, I am a chem-based scientist)

but this admin has done a good job of convincing all the gullible christians and ignorant hicks that he's looking out for their best interest; I don't know what to say to them, except quit inbreeding.
How some people can see with such near-sightedness just astounds me; they are certainly that below-average intelligence spectrum of the american populace, without a doubt. None of my very intelligent peers would even consider supporting a man with such stagnant ideology. He is an enemy of real progression, and real progression is the ability to be adaptive. If a person loses the ability to become receptive to change and adapt, then that person should just stay in bed, and never bother getting up.

 

Objective opinion isn't concerned with subjective opinions. There is only one truth.

WW2 being in 1939, anything else is subjective opinion.

 

Why not 1933 or 1941?

The shooting started in 1933.
Until 1941, there were two wars. No country was involved in both until 1941.

Why 1939? The war started in europe in '39, but why is that the demarcation.

Or is it a matter of definition. Armed conflict is always present somewhere, so the start date of a war is determined after the fact by historians?

 

Because the world, historians, and experts established that it started in 1939. If you, have the right credentials and think WW2 did not start in 1939 and would like to prove them otherwise then you are free to provide your evidence to the world to be criticized. If your evidence is proven correct and beyond doubt then the history books will change.