State Of The Union

[RawAlex]

Opinions?

I found it to be a little over the top myself, a little too detailed, a little too much like someone was trying to scare me. And a little too religeous at times for me.

Alex

[DAMNMAN]

He needs to leave GOD out of the fucking office and keep it at home.

I didn't vote in the poll 'cause my choice wasn't up there:

Pretty OK speach but quit (typo edited) sucking god's dick already!!!



Last edited by DAMNMAN at Jan 28 2003, 10:08 PM

[gigi]

The parts I caught were interesting.

Touching on National issues, was it just me or did he sound like he's supporting a more socialist set up??? (better run Torone!!) :rolleyes:

As for Iraq, still no hard proof.....will be interesting to see what Powell produces though...

[PornoDoggy]

Overall, I'd give it a 6 ... which is a pretty high rating coming from me for ANY President's State of the Union. I could do without the revival meeting happy crappy. And will the Republicans PLEASE take up a collection and buy the man a new fucking word? The word "focused" in conjunction with GW is beginning to affect me the way fingernails on a chalkboard do.

I am also not quite sure how he's going to AVOID "passing debts off to our grandchildren" when he proposes 400 Billion (+/-) new spending and 600 Billion (+/-) in tax cuts. That's just traditional Republican "Don't Tax and Spend Anyway" strategy.

I felt, however, he did a much better job of laying out the case against Iraq than he has done until now.

[Sword]

Originally posted by DAMNMAN@Jan 28 2003, 10:06 PM
He needs to leave GOD out of the fucking office and keep it at home.

I didn't vote in the poll 'cause my choice wasn't up there:

Pretty OK speach but quit (typo edited) sucking god's dick already!!!
This country was founded on a belief in god, and those who created this country and this government had no problem mentioning god freely during their speeches and government functions. Why should that change now?

[gigi]

Originally posted by Sword+Jan 28 2003, 10:38 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Sword @ Jan 28 2003, 10:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--DAMNMAN@Jan 28 2003, 10:06 PM
He needs to leave GOD out of the fucking office and keep it at home.

I didn't vote in the poll 'cause my choice wasn't up there:

Pretty OK speach but quit (typo edited) sucking god's dick already!!!
This country was founded on a belief in god, and those who created this country and this government had no problem mentioning god freely during their speeches and government functions. Why should that change now?[/b][/quote]
IMO, that's like saying Scandinavia was founded on the belief in the Norse Gods, therefore politicians should mention Thor every so often during their speeches...lol.

Christian representation in the US has been on a steady down slide.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm

This is also very interesting:

<span style='color:blue'>A USA Today/Gallup Poll in 2002-JAN showed that almost half of American adults appear to be alienated from organized religion. If current trends continue, most adults will not call themselves religious within a few years. Results include:

About 50% consider themselves religious (down from 54% in 1999-DEC)
About 33% consider themselves "spiritual but not religious" (up from 30%)
About 10% regard themselves as neither spiritual or religious.
</span>

The US has changed over time, as all countries do....and adapting is what it's all about.

[PornoDoggy]

I think this country was also founded by people who believe that leeches and bleeding made good medicine, that bathing too frequently caused health problems, and that certain segments of humanity could and were bought and sold as property. Very enlightened views for the time ... but not terribly appropriate today.

[voodooman]

I felt that my personal state of the union was lacking, so I missed it.
Was getting laid.

Wonder which was more interesting.

:D

[Mutt]

Well he certainly has grown into looking like a president.

scary time in history, so many people in the United States and most of its allies not on board for a war on Iraq.

I don't mind old fashioned values and ways, i find it comforting to hear God mentioned even though i'm an agnostic - but I don't like to hear God's name invoked so much by this President, that is scary. I wouldn't have voted for Bush just on the abortion issue alone, the religious stance against stem cell research is frightening.

[RawAlex]

it was an hour long speech, voodooman, what the heck did you do for the OTHER 55 minutes?

Geez.

Alex :D

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Jan 28 2003, 11:10 PM
it was an hour long speech, voodooman, what the heck did you do for the OTHER 55 minutes?

Geez.

Alex :D
55 minutes left ... you're giving him credit for 2 1/2 minutes of the smoke afterwards, huh? :D

[voodooman]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy+Jan 28 2003, 10:26 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PornoDoggy @ Jan 28 2003, 10:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--RawAlex@Jan 28 2003, 11:10 PM
it was an hour long speech, voodooman, what the heck did you do for the OTHER 55 minutes?

Geez.

Alex :D
55 minutes left ... you're giving him credit for 2 1/2 minutes of the smoke afterwards, huh? :D[/b][/quote]
We talked.

Then did it again. Talked some more, then I ran out of viagra.

So I came home.

:(

[DAMNMAN]

I suppose if George W Bush were to get up and do a fuckin' rain dance to some other GOD on that stage (Besides the one you're thinking of right now!) trying to get a downpour or if he started sporting a bone through his nose in respect for Baal or Pazzuzu, you'd be OK with that?

Most of our founding fathers weren't religious fanatics neither.
They were trying to start a country free from the religious chains that bound the wills of thinking people and kept their ideas in the dark.

And yes I am an Atheist!
I am not an agnostic, I am an atheist. I am not riding the fence on this issue for fear that my opinions are unpopular. And I am not scared of divine retribution. "For there is none!"

Oh my god, LIGHTNING!!!!hnvneneienuinrg7458937892456785894jie g






























Just kidding!!!!

For instance: If the god I do not believe in does exist will he kindly come down here and give me the blow job of a lifetime. (and perhaps toss my salad for a few 1000 years, a millennia won't be that long a time for a GOD after all!!!)

The way I figure it is:
If this mythical being GOD invented the lips and invented the dick GOD must have also created blowjobs.

This logic leads me to the conclusion that GOD would be the absolute pinnacle of blowjob givers in the entire realm of his power.
So to prove his existence to me the least he could do is suck my dick.

I will not settle for the video of GOD sucking someone else's dick. Or having it written down in some excellent work of contradictions by 12 guys smokin' crack on avenue D after he dies neither.

I am insulted by the fact that the most powerful man in the world is spouting this religious non-sense.

Oh, now see ya' done got me talkin' religion again. "Did I say talkin'? I meant blaspheming!!!"

Anyone in the porn industry that is a Christian (or says they are) or a member of any other religion that forbids adultery is going against the dogma they are supposed to be upholding. (Otherwise known as a hypocrite)

Standard disclaimer: in order to talk about something that one believes doesn't exist one has to preface the statement with this "If the god I do not believe in does exist......." It doesn’t mean shit!!!!!

[Hooper]

The seperation of church and state seems to be slowly closing.

Our attorney general is covering lady justice and reading the bible to his employees at the office, Our president is referring to god as though he was at the pulpit.

This is frighteningly reminscent of the catholic church in europe some hundreds of years ago.

Thank GOD I've got a boat! Cause believe me, when/if the first chemical bomb goes off in our state and people are telling me that it's time to *believe* and *have faith* cause *god will take care of me in another life* i'll be crusin to the caribbean and wont be looking back til god isnt running the country and the chemicals have faded away.j

Ok, so now that i'm done huffing and puffing. It saddens me where our country is. It saddens me where it appears to be going. I hope that this nimrod doesnt fuck everything up for us and our children :-(

[voodooman]

When I look at where the USA is, and where its going, Im just happy
that I dont have children. I used to think that I wanted children,
but raising a child in this time, in the usa, it scares the hell outta me.

Unemployment on the rise,
taxes getting outta control
just to make up for money
hungry politican jackasses.
etc...

I dont have to watch some blundering idiot (Bush) give a state of the
Union(lies all fucking lies)
to know that the State of our Union is in shambles, and showing no
sign of anything possitive whatsoever.

Im american born, american bred, and Ill be american till Im dead,
but there are going to have to be drastic changes takes very soon.
:headwall:

[Sword]

An interesting side note: Bill Clinton often mentioned god in the same way in his speeches and addresses.

[voodooman]

Originally posted by Sword@Jan 28 2003, 11:15 PM
An interesting side note: Bill Clinton often mentioned god in the same way in his speeches and addresses.
Yeah, but Clinton was God.

A goddamned Freak.

:barfon:

[RawAlex]

Sitting alone, working and listening to Bush, I actually yelled "lying sack of shit" at the TV...

He is one of the few politicians that pushes all the wrong buttons for me...

I would love to hear someone take him up in public on the church - state issues, this really is starting to get scary if your not christian.

Alex

[RawAlex]

Originally posted by Sword@Jan 29 2003, 12:15 AM
An interesting side note: Bill Clinton often mentioned god in the same way in his speeches and addresses.
Sorry, he didn't stand up and suggest "faith based initiatives"... he didn't permit bible studies in the whitehouse... and he didn't "play the god card" as justification for war...

What's next, no drinking on Sundays?

Alex

[Sword]

Originally posted by RawAlex+Jan 29 2003, 12:21 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RawAlex @ Jan 29 2003, 12:21 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Sword@Jan 29 2003, 12:15 AM
An interesting side note: Bill Clinton often mentioned god in the same way in his speeches and addresses.
Sorry, he didn't stand up and suggest "faith based initiatives"... he didn't permit bible studies in the whitehouse... and he didn't "play the god card" as justification for war...

What's next, no drinking on Sundays?

Alex[/b][/quote]
No I was simply saying he often mentioned god in his speeches.

(edited to put some space down here, I don't like my text so close to the bottom of my post :rolleyes: )





Last edited by Sword at Jan 29 2003, 12:27 AM

[Hooper]

An interesting side note: Bill Clinton often mentioned god in the same way in his speeches and addresses.

but with Clinton we all knew he was full of shit about god and saying it just to placate the conservatives...

cept when he was saying "oh god baby.. oh god" ;-)

[DAMNMAN]

Originally posted by Sword@Jan 29 2003, 12:15 AM
An interesting side note: Bill Clinton often mentioned god in the same way in his speeches and addresses.
When I stub my toe on a rock I say "GOD DAMN IT!" 'cause it's a programmed response. What's your point?

[Sword]

Originally posted by Hooper@Jan 29 2003, 12:32 AM
An interesting side note: Bill Clinton often mentioned god in the same way in his speeches and addresses.

but with Clinton we all knew he was full of shit about god and saying it just to placate the conservatives...

cept when he was saying "oh god baby.. oh god" ;-)
Hahaha Yes that is actually a pretty good point!

:okthumb:

[Vick]

I didn't watch the State of the Union address because .......
I already know Bush is God


Hooper brings up an interesting point ......
Reminds me of the Stephen King story "The Mist" Freaky things happen and ...... religion is taken to extremes .... older religions than Christianity :redance:

[Sword]

Originally posted by DAMNMAN+Jan 29 2003, 12:34 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (DAMNMAN @ Jan 29 2003, 12:34 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Sword@Jan 29 2003, 12:15 AM
An interesting side note: Bill Clinton often mentioned god in the same way in his speeches and addresses.
When I stub my toe on a rock I say "GOD DAMN IT!" 'cause it's a programmed response. What's your point?[/b][/quote]
I thought my point would have been pretty obvious. People were discussing Bush's talking about god. Then someone said something about the religious-themed direction of the current administration.

Then I mentioned that Clinton also referred to god in his speeches and addresses.

Nothing to take offense at man.

You yourself said "He (Bush) needs to leave GOD out of the fucking office and keep it at home."

Thought I would mention that Clinton also used god alot in his speeches and it is very relevant.

I'll check and see if Oprano can add a bouncing ball option so you can follow along next time. :P

:okthumb:



Last edited by Sword at Jan 29 2003, 12:41 AM

[voodooman]

Originally posted by Sword+Jan 28 2003, 11:37 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Sword @ Jan 28 2003, 11:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -DAMNMAN@Jan 29 2003, 12:34 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--Sword@Jan 29 2003, 12:15 AM
An interesting side note: Bill Clinton often mentioned god in the same way in his speeches and addresses.
When I stub my toe on a rock I say "GOD DAMN IT!" 'cause it's a programmed response. What's your point?
I thought my point would have been pretty obvious. People were discussing Bush's talking about god. Then someone said something about the religious-themed direction of the current administration.

Then I mentioned that Clinton also referred to god in his speeches and addresses.

Nothing to take offense at man.

You yourself said "He (Bush) needs to leave GOD out of the fucking office and keep it at home."

Thought I would mention that Clinton also used god alot in his speeches and it is very relevant.

I'll check and see if Oprano can add a bouncing ball option so you can follow along next time. :P

:okthumb:[/b][/quote]
I understood what you was referring to Sword.

The whole thing is starting to piss me off though.

On another side note, I used to be in favor of taking
out Sadam, actually I still am, BUT, politics really makes
my blood boil. We (the usa) used to be a superpower,
maybe we still are, maybe we have just grown weak.
If you think about it, not so long ago, Afghanastan would
no longer exist, but now, were scared of a fucking small
country, hell, not even a country, half of one, North Korea.
hmm, Im talking in circles, but maybe were not scared of
NK, but politcs is limiting us on our actions. For Gods Sake
(oops) What the fuck happend to bin Laden???? He should
be the main focus, he was and is the big problem and the
main instigator of 9/11. There is no doubt that Sadam was
involved in it, but come on, bin Laden precipitated it all and
should be taken down whichever means possible.
Sorry for the rant. Im done, for now.

[RawAlex]

Sword, there is a difference between saying "god" and invoking "GOD" for your benefit. The President is suppose to be a leader of ALL Americans, not SOME of them.

The entire speech was tinged with Christian morals, Christian values, and Christian institutions...

That isn't a subtle difference from Clinton, it is a world away... GOD DAMN! :D

[Sword]

I understand what you mean Alex.

When I first read Damnman's post, I thought he LITERALLY meant the word "god" should be left out. That's why I pointed out that Clinton used the word alot too.

As far as the overall religious agenda of Bush vs Clinton, agreed they are night and day.

I was only commenting on the use of the word god, not all the other religous agenda of Bush's.

[RawAlex]

Sword, problem is, Bush doesn't seem to be able to use the word "god" without invoking "GOD"... which suggests that, except for a "god bless america", he might want to cool it. It isn't inclusive, it excludes people.... points out differences instead of similarity.

Waiting for the proof on Saddam, not the "US intelligence say" stuff either, that is crap, because US intelligence has had more breakdowns in the last few years than a Psych ward.

Alex

[DAMNMAN]

Originally posted by Sword+Jan 29 2003, 12:37 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Sword @ Jan 29 2003, 12:37 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -DAMNMAN@Jan 29 2003, 12:34 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--Sword@Jan 29 2003, 12:15 AM
An interesting side note: Bill Clinton often mentioned god in the same way in his speeches and addresses.
When I stub my toe on a rock I say "GOD DAMN IT!" 'cause it's a programmed response. What's your point?
I thought my point would have been pretty obvious. People were discussing Bush's talking about god. Then someone said something about the religious-themed direction of the current administration.

Then I mentioned that Clinton also referred to god in his speeches and addresses.

Nothing to take offense at man.

You yourself said "He (Bush) needs to leave GOD out of the fucking office and keep it at home."

Thought I would mention that Clinton also used god alot in his speeches and it is very relevant.

I'll check and see if Oprano can add a bouncing ball option so you can follow along next time. :P

:okthumb:[/b][/quote]
I didn't take offense at all I was just kicking the ball back to you with that statement and question.

[Sword]

Originally posted by DAMNMAN@Jan 29 2003, 01:23 AM
I didn't take offense at all I was just kicking the ball back to you with that statement and question.
Oh my bad. Thought I ticked you off or something.

I say goddamn a lot too. Although lately it's been more of a "gotdam" and it's usually when one of my stupid cats gets under my feet and I have to hurtle my body across the room and into a wall in order to avoid squishing it's guts out with my foot.

:rolleyes:

[kath]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Jan 28 2003, 09:18 PM
Sitting alone, working and listening to Bush, I actually yelled "lying sack of shit" at the TV...

He is one of the few politicians that pushes all the wrong buttons for me...

I would love to hear someone take him up in public on the church - state issues, this really is starting to get scary if your not christian.

Alex
This is getting scary even if you ARE a Christian...

I have to agree with you Alex - there's a BIG REASON why there's a separation between church and state and I feel that those lines need to be defined a little more clearly.

What I hated about the address - same thing I hate every year - is the bogus bullshit hat trick that the Prez of the hour plays on America. Give a little here....take a little there.... watch me wave my wand in this direction and I'll pull this coin out of your ass. They all do it - Bush is no different - but I agree, he pushes all my wrong buttons too. Has from the very beginning.

:moon:

[PornoDoggy]

Voodooman, I don't think we're particularly scared of North Korea. I'd be willing to bet that we'd take them out tomorrow IF there was a way to do it that wouldn't end up with a whole bunch of dead South Koreans (remember the South Koreans? they live on the other half of that peninsula, we're there to defend them, and maybe - just maybe - they ought to have some input into what we decide to do). I thought we gave up destroying villages in order to save them in Vietnam.

The armchair warriors who advocate the so-called surgical strike on North Korean nuclear facilities seem to think that we could do that without getting Seoul destroyed and starting a ground war. Ground wars in Asia have not particularly proven to be an American specialty. The only way we could do that - strike that, the only HOPE we might have of possibly doing that would require forces and weaponry that we simply can't afford to use unless WE (the U.S. and South Korean forces) are attacked.

I'm not saying it's an unsolveable problem - although it's a damned tough one, and frankly far harder than Iraq. So if you got a way to stand up to them bastards with force that doesn't do more damage than good, I'm sure plenty of people would love to hear it.

[voodooman]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Jan 29 2003, 01:07 AM
Voodooman, I don't think we're particularly scared of North Korea. I'd be willing to bet that we'd take them out tomorrow IF there was a way to do it that wouldn't end up with a whole bunch of dead South Koreans (remember the South Koreans? they live on the other half of that peninsula, we're there to defend them, and maybe - just maybe - they ought to have some input into what we decide to do). I thought we gave up destroying villages in order to save them in Vietnam.

The armchair warriors who advocate the so-called surgical strike on North Korean nuclear facilities seem to think that we could do that without getting Seoul destroyed and starting a ground war. Ground wars in Asia have not particularly proven to be an American specialty. The only way we could do that - strike that, the only HOPE we might have of possibly doing that would require forces and weaponry that we simply can't afford to use unless WE (the U.S. and South Korean forces) are attacked.

I'm not saying it's an unsolveable problem - although it's a damned tough one, and frankly far harder than Iraq. So if you got a way to stand up to them bastards with force that doesn't do more damage than good, I'm sure plenty of people would love to hear it.
PD,

My point was missed, and maybe because of my choice of words.
I dont think we are particularly 'scared' of anyone, but politics
limits our actions.
If we attack NK, it will piss off many other countries, including China.
Well, we wouldnt want to do this now would we?
Fuck China
Fuck North Korea
Fuck Iraq
Fuck France
Fuck Germany.
If your on a street, and all the sudden your surrounded by 10 guys,
what do you do?
You go after the biggest one first.
We need to stop dicking around with politics and take care of business.

[PornoDoggy]

Maybe I missed your point, maybe I just "don't get it." You seem to be saying "fuck South Korea" too, and supposedly those troops we have over there are for their protection. It's not Russian or Chinese or Japanese reaction that keep us from acting against North Korea - it's the fact that it's a tactical fucking nightmare. About the only way we could do a strike on North Korea is to go to war with them. I don't think we have the capabilities to do that without going nuclear, and nuclear on a first strike. Not exactly a logical contribution to an attempt to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, now, is it? And I agree whole-heartedly with what Serge said in another thread today - once that genie is out of the bottle there will be no putting it back in.

Same thing in the Iraq situation. If GW DOES "have the goods" on Saddam, duct-tape Rumsfeld's mouth shut and let Colin Powell and the State Department do their job - which is to convince our allies that what we are doing is in their best interests as well. Yes - if I'm on the street and I'm feeling threatened I'm going to strike first and hard. However, if I can talk a couple of big guys into going with me, I'm going to do that. And I don't think telling them they are too pussy to join me and I don't need them when all I've got is the support of a couple of munchkins is going to be very helpful.

[voodooman]

PD,
Im not saying fuck South Korea at all.
I tend to agree with most of your comments as well.
I was using the issue of NK as an example of how
politics has limited the usa in any military campaign
against a threatening country. We are so worried
about who we piss off, that its all going to one day
come back to bite EVERYONE in the ass.
Alot of people dont want this war with Iraq because
they think its GWB trying to finish what his daddy
started.
I agree with you on the part that if we have our allies
in place prior to attacking Iraq, sure, its in our best
interest, but there is no doubt in my mind that our
military is quite capable of doing the job on our own.
We send aid to damnear every country in the UN.
But when push comes to shove, they are against us?
I just see major problems with this. Our Economy is
horrible, but we still send money to these countries
just to keep then on our allies list, but where are they
when we need them?
If I sound pretty confusing, well, its 4:30am and
Im tired.
Good Night!!!

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Jan 28 2003, 10:57 PM
I think this country was also founded by people who believe that leeches and bleeding made good medicine, that bathing too frequently caused health problems, and that certain segments of humanity could and were bought and sold as property. Very enlightened views for the time ... but not terribly appropriate today.
:rokk:

[Almighty Colin]

Speech. excellent.
Content. Good-Very good.

Iraq. A. Switched the burden of proof from US/UN to Saddam. Excellent.

Some of Bush' ideas were very grand. Hydro power? Interesting.

Bush is an excellent politician. As good as Clinton. Make no mistake - Clinton was an amazing politician and so is Bush. What president isn't though? He was reaching out for next year's votes already and did it very smoothly - despite Hillary's shaking head. *tsk tsk*

Don't like the tax cut. Would rather see less spending and same taxes to balance budget. Can tax cuts stimulate economy? Sometimes but not always. Depends on other factors. Do we know when they will work? No one has figured that out yet. Thats why economists still have jobs. Now? Dunno. I'd rather see no tax cuts.

America was long out of the recession by the time of the 1992 election but the press and others were still talking as if we were in it. Despite the evidence I couldn't talk anyone into believing we weren't in a recession during the '92 election and the newspapers were still carrying that news. Bush I got beat over the head for a recession that was already over. Will Bush II? I noted in the democratic response "Some say the economy is recovering ..." which could mean "The economy is slowly recovering .. but ..." Bush could catch some excellent timing.

Is there any reason to actually do anything to stimulate the economy? Probably not. Recessions are normal. They're par for the course, golfers. If Bush pushes through an economic stimulus plan he will most likely be the beneficiary of an improving economy anyway.

Doesn't matter though because this is about the war.

On the "Christian" issue. I'm an atheist. If memory is correct, Bush's "God Bless America" and related statements were no more prevalent than are normally made in a presidential speech. As a non-christian you should be used to it by now. It's pretty normal. "In God We Trust". It's on our money.

Here's a good idea. Let's redefine a recession as two consecutive terms of negative budgets. :rokk:

Good speech. Excellent on Iraq.

[slavdogg]

what is up with joint cheifs of state not clapping nearly every time they showed them ??

[Torone]

I gotta ask these questions:

Again, Alex, WTF is YOUR stake in this?

Why do the Libs fear the word 'God' so much?

GiGi,
WTF you talkin' about? Cutting taxes is not Socialist. Helping the truly needy might be construed that way; but it is also the American way. I would prefer it to be done via charities; but as long as I don't have to give to both...

About the 'God' thing...I am an agnostic; but I do not panic/get all crazy when I hear/see the word. I AM AN AMERICAN! Read the damned first amendment, Goddammit!
:nyanya:

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by slavdogg@Jan 29 2003, 08:16 AM
what is up with joint cheifs of state not clapping nearly every time they showed them ??
Right. Was thinking the same thing.

[VooMan]

Originally posted by Colin+Jan 29 2003, 09:58 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Colin @ Jan 29 2003, 09:58 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--slavdogg@Jan 29 2003, 08:16 AM
what is up with joint cheifs of state not clapping nearly every time they showed them ??
Right. Was thinking the same thing.[/b][/quote]
Yeah, me too. The only time they got up and clapped was when Bush looked right at them and thanked the military. Other than that, they sat there like they were against him all the way....

[Vick]

Do you remember, your President Nixon?
Do you remember, the bills you have to pay
Or even yesterday?
Have you have been an un-American?

Just you and your idol singing falsetto 'bout
Leather, leather everywhere, and
Not a myth left from the ghetto
Well, well, well, would you carry a razor
In case, just in case of depression?
Sit on your hands on a bus of survivors
Blushing at all the afro-Sheilas

Ain't that close to love?
Well, ain't that poster love?
Well, it ain't that Barbie doll
Her heart's been broken just like you have

All night
You want the young American

[Sharpie]

Something about Bush has never set right with me, and I couldn't put my finger on it. Think I finally have:

I believe he is a big phoney........... he comes over to me as being INSINCERE. I just can't shake that feeling. I think he is play acting at being a Christian.

President Carter - yeh he walked and talked like a Christian. He was a Chritian. He was sincere and continues to live his life that way. Bush.... it is all play acting, and overdone at that.

I think he is a hypacrite - I have trouble trusting him.

[Mutt]

that's what i read yesterday, the military is against Bush's strategy and
there's already a real rift between the civilians and the military lifers. Not a good thing!

[T-Rav]

I believe it is VERY important to keep a strict seperation of church and state. When you mix the two you end up with something very similar to the crusades, national religions, and divine rulers. I don't think anyone wants that.

So, Torone...I don't think it is just the "Libs". And I don't think they/we fear the word God...it is more of the consequences that result in bringing organized religion too close to government.

That is all...

[RawAlex]

Torone, what would a political debate be without the extreme left of the extreme left be?

I don't fear the word "god". I use it alot myself, as in "god damn" and "Jesus H Christ"...

Seriously, the word itself is never and issue. 1st amendment says anyone has the right to use it all they want. But your constitution also discusses seperation of church and state. I personally feel that some of the programs, ideas, and examples used by your President showed a certain failure to understand that seperation. Many examples were given of "good christians" doing good things... but apparently no muslim, shinto,buddist, jewish, or other organization does good for their community. That is sad. As a politician, he should be know what politically correct means - it means working to include all groups in everything you do, and not to promote one group over the other. "Faith based initiatives" is just nice words for giving tax dollars to christian churches. That isn't in everyones best interest.

I have explained to you many times over my personal stake in this. A rock dropped in the pond in the US still rippled all over the world. My business comes from the US, many of my clients, and the political and economic situation in the US is important to me as a result.

Alex

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by VooMan+Jan 29 2003, 10:18 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (VooMan @ Jan 29 2003, 10:18 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -Colin@Jan 29 2003, 09:58 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--slavdogg@Jan 29 2003, 08:16 AM
what is up with joint cheifs of state not clapping nearly every time they showed them ??
Right. Was thinking the same thing.
Yeah, me too. The only time they got up and clapped was when Bush looked right at them and thanked the military. Other than that, they sat there like they were against him all the way....[/b][/quote]
It doesn't have anything to do with them being "against him all the way...." I think it has something to do with the separation of military and civil authority. They have to appear to be impartial, and have less freedom even than Cabinet members to voice an opinion on matters outside their immediate areas of responsibility. They have sat like bumps on a log like that through just about every State of the Union I can remember

[DAMNMAN]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Jan 29 2003, 04:26 AM
Maybe I missed your point, maybe I just "don't get it." You seem to be saying "fuck South Korea" too, and supposedly those troops we have over there are for their protection. It's not Russian or Chinese or Japanese reaction that keep us from acting against North Korea - it's the fact that it's a tactical fucking nightmare. About the only way we could do a strike on North Korea is to go to war with them. I don't think we have the capabilities to do that without going nuclear, and nuclear on a first strike. Not exactly a logical contribution to an attempt to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, now, is it? And I agree whole-heartedly with what Serge said in another thread today - once that genie is out of the bottle there will be no putting it back in.

Same thing in the Iraq situation. If GW DOES "have the goods" on Saddam, duct-tape Rumsfeld's mouth shut and let Colin Powell and the State Department do their job - which is to convince our allies that what we are doing is in their best interests as well. Yes - if I'm on the street and I'm feeling threatened I'm going to strike first and hard. However, if I can talk a couple of big guys into going with me, I'm going to do that. And I don't think telling them they are too pussy to join me and I don't need them when all I've got is the support of a couple of munchkins is going to be very helpful.
I believe you are correct about the nuclear first strike being the only way to win a war with North Korea (It would be horrible of course) and also being a road we would rather not go down. I started a thread on this topic the other day.

The genie has been out of the bottle since 1945.

[Sword]

Originally posted by VooMan+Jan 29 2003, 10:18 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (VooMan @ Jan 29 2003, 10:18 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -Colin@Jan 29 2003, 09:58 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--slavdogg@Jan 29 2003, 08:16 AM
what is up with joint cheifs of state not clapping nearly every time they showed them ??
Right. Was thinking the same thing.
Yeah, me too. The only time they got up and clapped was when Bush looked right at them and thanked the military. Other than that, they sat there like they were against him all the way....[/b][/quote]
I wondered the exact same thing as I watched. Then I formulated a theory based on when they did and did not clap. They did not clap any time their clapping would indicate that they favored a particular decision about what the military should be doing.

My thinking is, they are military and are to take orders. Therefore it is their view that it is inappropriate to show any favor to any particular orders they may or may not receive.

In other words, when it comes to Bush's statements of opinion about what military type actions should be taken, they must not applaud. They are soldiers awaiting orders and do not express their opinions on those orders.



Last edited by Sword at Jan 29 2003, 11:27 AM

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Jan 29 2003, 11:01 AM
what would a political debate be without the extreme left of the extreme left be?


I believe the word is "reasonable".

[Almighty Colin]

PD,

Good point.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by DAMNMAN@Jan 29 2003, 11:21 AM
I believe you are correct about the nuclear first strike being the only way to win a war with North Korea (It would be horrible of course) and also being a road we would rather not go down. I started a thread on this topic the other day.

The genie has been out of the bottle since 1945.
It's not reasonable in any way. It's not going to happen. The genie is back in the bottle and the US is not going to uncork it.

[Vick]

I'm taking over control of the USA
and my message to the rest of the world


I used to be such a sweet, sweet thing
'Til they got a hold of me.
I opened doors for little old ladies,
I helped the blind to see.
I'm gettin' real shot down
And I'm feeling mean.

No more Mister Nice Guy,
No more Mister Clean,
No more Mister Nice Guy



Last edited by Vick at Jan 29 2003, 11:34 AM

[DAMNMAN]

Originally posted by Torone@Jan 29 2003, 08:30 AM


Why do the Libs fear the word 'God' so much?


I have no reason why the "Libs" fear the word GOD so much, 'cause I'm not a liberal.
One thing I do know is that I don't want to be burned at the stake as a heritic because of my non-religious (anti-religious) views.

I cannot see how anyone with an IQ over 100 could believe the religious psycho-babble that has been spewed by zealots through-out ages in the light of today's knowledge and science.

Either brain washing from birth or peer presure is responsable for this mass stupidity, just like those poor bastards in the middle east who would be tortured or killed if they said Alah was a crock of shit.

[VooMan]

PD and Sword... I was just talking with someone in our office who told me basically the same thing. And that they have always sat there like "bumps on a log" during the State of the Union. Guess I just never noticed before...



Last edited by VooMan at Jan 29 2003, 11:43 AM

[Rox]

I could live with a "God" thrown in here & there if I didn't know he was saying it more for effect (and as a nod to his butt-buddies in the Christian Coalition) than as a man with a true passion for his faith. I think his fake preachy ass-kissing, giving fed money -- and worse yet, putting such emphasis on it -- to faith-based organizations is a mistake, and IMO it's a slap in the face to Americans who believe the principle of a "wall of separation" to be critical to Liberty.

The thing that had ME screaming in my car on the freeway was that this fucktard has a TEAM of people to write his speeches and coach him in precisely how to deliver every word, gesture and nuance -- and yet he must have used the non-word "nuke-u-lar" at least a dozen times. For the love of GOD, can't someone in his entourage sit this monkey down and make him repeat "nuc-le-ar, nuc-le-ar" until he can pronounce it properly?

I am against anything he wants to do that gives gov't more power over and access into the lives of Americans -- Terrorists still scare me far less than rampant government intrusion into the lives of citizens does.

Now I must put on the bar-coded employee ID, and the swipe card I must use to gain access to the parking lot, the building door, the lobby desk, and finally my floor from the elevator, and get my ass to work!!! :headwall:

(edit for typing fuckup)



Last edited by Rox at Jan 29 2003, 08:52 AM

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by DAMNMAN@Jan 29 2003, 11:41 AM
I cannot see how anyone with an IQ over 100 could believe the religious psycho-babble that has been spewed by zealots through-out ages in the light of today's knowledge and science.

I used to think this too. In time though I've had to abandon the hypothesis. I've met a lot of really bright people that believe in a God. History is filled with examples in case you don't know any personally.

[DAMNMAN]

Originally posted by Colin+Jan 29 2003, 11:33 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Colin @ Jan 29 2003, 11:33 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--DAMNMAN@Jan 29 2003, 11:21 AM
I believe you are correct about the nuclear first strike being the only way to win a war with North Korea (It would be horrible of course) and also being a road we would rather not go down. I started a thread on this topic the other day.

The genie has been out of the bottle since 1945.
It's not reasonable in any way. It's not going to happen. The genie is back in the bottle and the US is not going to uncork it.[/b][/quote]
Oh, I see they put the genie back in the bottle, Oh of course they did.
And exactly how was that done? Since I'm no genie expert.

(I know we haven't used nukes on an enemy since 1945 and I was even going to mention the genie being put back in the bottle analogy in my post but realised the genie is not back in the bottle. The genie has been busy granting wishes and being good but the genie is still out of the bottle so to speak and won't be put back in the bottle.)

North Korea has a genie running around too, and we don't control it.

[DAMNMAN]

Originally posted by Vick@Jan 29 2003, 11:34 AM
I'm taking over control of the USA
and my message to the rest of the world


I used to be such a sweet, sweet thing
'Til they got a hold of me.
I opened doors for little old ladies,
I helped the blind to see.
I'm gettin' real shot down
And I'm feeling mean.

No more Mister Nice Guy,
No more Mister Clean,
No more Mister Nice Guy
OK Alice.

[Almighty Colin]

Actually, it's impossible not to be true.

By definition, 50% of people have an IQ over 100.
83% of US citizens polled (Gallup) claim to be Christians.

Lots of overlap.

From the math desk ...

[DAMNMAN]

Originally posted by Rox@Jan 29 2003, 11:50 AM

The thing that had ME screaming in my car on the freeway was that this fucktard has a TEAM of people to write his speeches and coach him in precisely how to deliver every word, gesture and nuance -- and yet he must have used the non-word "nuke-u-lar" at least a dozen times. For the love of GOD, can't someone in his entourage sit this monkey down and make him repeat "nuc-le-ar, nuc-le-ar" until he can pronounce it properly?

My wife "Shannon Rush" and I loose our fuckin' minds everytime this guy says "nuke-u-lar" .
I can't understand why they haven't fixed that.
Jimmy Carter used to do it too!

[Vick]

I been told by someone who would know ....
There are no atheists in foxholes

[Almighty Colin]

Because immediately after WW II the policy of the government became to use the nuclear arsenal as a deterrence. Panel recommendations have even concluded that the US should not even threaten to use nuclear weapons in response to conventional. chemical, or biological attacks. Mainly because it is believed that conventional forces are powerful enough to deliver a retaliatory blow. Certainly the US or any country holding such weapons reserves the right to retaliate with such however a pre-=emptive strike of that kind would be completely against all US policy to date and extremely unlikely.

A few years ago there were rumors that the US was planning to use nuclear weapons to destroy Iraqi chemical storage facilities and the US had to release a statement that even if there were a biological or chemical attack against the US, the US would respond with a devastating retaliatory strike without using nuclear weapons. - in line with panel recommendations.

[DAMNMAN]

Originally posted by Colin+Jan 29 2003, 11:51 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Colin @ Jan 29 2003, 11:51 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--DAMNMAN@Jan 29 2003, 11:41 AM
I cannot see how anyone with an IQ over 100 could believe the religious psycho-babble that has been spewed by zealots through-out ages in the light of today's knowledge and science.

I used to think this too. In time though I've had to abandon the hypothesis. I've met a lot of really bright people that believe in a God. History is filled with examples in case you don't know any personally.[/b][/quote]
Yes, I have met relatively intelligent people who were religious and most were using this front to advance in life one way or another. (In straight business you can make alot of contacts in church and thay stick together!)

We all want to believe in a power that looks out our for us, it's hope beyond hope. It's tough to be all alone.

I also think that the old line there are no atheists in foxholes is more or less a true statement, when a person has no hope for the future and may meet their doom at any second they will grab onto any real or imagined lifeline they can, I know this. (In a foxhole with grenades and bombs going off in my general proximity or under torture I'd most likely be apologizing my ass of for the whole GOD blowjob episode at the top of this thread and praying to whatever deity would come to my rescue, I don't know!!!)

This proves nothing!!! There is no proof only hope!

And that is not reasonable.

[DAMNMAN]

Originally posted by Colin@Jan 29 2003, 11:54 AM
Actually, it's impossible not to be true.

By definition, 50% of people have an IQ over 100.
83% of US citizens polled (Gallup) claim to be Christians.

Lots of overlap.

From the math desk ...
Oh, here ya' go with the evidence again!!! >;-))


Not evidence of god evidence of man.

[DAMNMAN]

Originally posted by Vick@Jan 29 2003, 12:03 PM
I been told by someone who would know ....
There are no atheists in foxholes
Funny thing is, I was typing my foxhole thoery as you were typing this.

Hey maybe it was GOD spoofing us all.

[Almighty Colin]

Atheists in foxholes? (http://www.maaf.info/)

[RawAlex]

Some stats (just because Colin loves this stuff:)

During 2001-FEB to APR, the Graduate Center of the City University of New York conducted an American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS). It was a massive poll, questioning 50,281 American adults about their religious affiliations during 2001-FEB to APR. 2 They obtained some results that are noticeably different from the Pluralism Project's data. The differences are mainly because they asked their poll subjects what religion they considered themselves to be, rather than what religion they were actually affiliated with. Results included: 76.5% of American adults are Christian (52% Protestant; 24.5% Catholic).
14.1% do not follow any organized religion; they are Agnostics, Atheists, Humanists, Secularists, or have no religious affiliation.
1.3% are Jewish.
0.5% are Muslim, followers of Islam.
0.5% are Buddhist.
0.4% are Hindu.
0.3% are Unitarian Universalist.
0.1% are Neopagan (Druids, Pagans, Wiccans, etc)
There are many more small religions, each of whom are followed by fewer than 0.1% of American adults.


Interesting, only 24% catholic....

Alex

[gigi]

Originally posted by Torone@Jan 29 2003, 08:30 AM
GiGi,
WTF you talkin' about? Cutting taxes is not Socialist. Helping the truly needy might be construed that way; but it is also the American way. I would prefer it to be done via charities; but as long as I don't have to give to both...
Helping the truly needy might be construed that way; but it is also the American way.

Sooo, the American way has Socialist leanings then? :awinky:

Tax cuts were not what I was talking about. I was talking about:

- alloting 600M to kids in need
- alloting $? to medical for elderly
- alloting $? to drug rehabilitation

These are ALL social programs....the very same social programs you have expressed that you abhor in the past......BUT, it IS the American way after all. ;)

[gigi]

Originally posted by Colin@Jan 29 2003, 11:54 AM
Actually, it's impossible not to be true.

By definition, 50% of people have an IQ over 100.
83% of US citizens polled (Gallup) claim to be Christians.

Lots of overlap.

From the math desk ...
By definition, 50% of people have an IQ over 100.

Is this based on the US population? Or the world population?

[gigi]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Jan 29 2003, 12:56 PM
The differences are mainly because they asked their poll subjects what religion they considered themselves to be, rather than what religion they were actually affiliated with.

I don't think even this poll gives an accurate perception of the division of religions in America.

I know MANY people who were born and raised in a particular religion, and who would say 'I'm Catholic', or 'I'm Jewish', but they do not practice their religion, nor believe in what it teaches.

Their only connection is the fact that they were raised that way....







Last edited by gigi at Jan 29 2003, 01:15 PM

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by gigi+Jan 29 2003, 01:08 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (gigi @ Jan 29 2003, 01:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Colin@Jan 29 2003, 11:54 AM
Actually, it's impossible not to be true.

By definition, 50% of people have an IQ over 100.
83% of US citizens polled (Gallup) claim to be Christians.

Lots of overlap.

From the math desk ...
By definition, 50% of people have an IQ over 100.

Is this based on the US population? Or the world population?[/b][/quote]
Well, the DEFINITION of IQ is

IQ = 100*(Mental Age/Age)

IQ is Intelligence Quotient - hence the division (quotient)

Examples:

1. If a child's age is 10 and the child scores the same as the average 10 year old, the IQ is
100*(10/10) = 100

2. If the 10 year old child scores the same as the average 13 year old, the IQ is
100*(13/10) = 130

So the test is always comparative and in theory is continually renormalized so an average score is 100. Any subgroup may average higher or lower on average than 100 - either due to chance, environment, and/or hereditary factors. Big arguments therein.

There are many different IQ tests - none of them standard. Results may vary across tests though there is fairly strong correlation. If you score well on one test, you are likely to score well on another test.



Last edited by Colin at Jan 29 2003, 01:21 PM

[RawAlex]

Originally posted by gigi@Jan 29 2003, 01:13 PM
I know MANY people who were born and raised in a particular religion, and who would say 'I'm Catholic', or 'I'm Jewish', but they do not practice their religion, nor believe in what it teaches.

Their only connection is the fact that they were raised that way....
GiGi, I think you are correct on this... I refrained from point out that, as an example, I am technically "protestant", but I sure wouldn't be able to pickout a protestant church on a map of my neighborhood.

I went to Catholic private school, and their only choices for religeon was "Catholic" or "none"... very inclusionarty!

Seriously, I think you could take a big percentage of protestants, plus a fair bit of each of the other groups, and quickly find 60-70% that are reasonably non-religeous... labeled, perhaps, but not part of the organized church.

I suspect that Bush will suffer in the long run from his inability to seperate church and state properly in his own mind. It could go nuke-a-lur...

Alex

[gigi]

Okay, I see LOTS of problems with that then....

This 'average 10 year old'....where do they find him/her? That would give me a much better idea of what this is based on....

[Dianna Vesta]

Originally posted by DAMNMAN@Jan 28 2003, 10:06 PM
He needs to leave GOD out of the fucking office and keep it at home.

I didn't vote in the poll 'cause my choice wasn't up there:

Pretty OK speach but quit (typo edited) sucking god's dick already!!!
I agree with Doug on this.

I felt like there was too much pep talking like he was trying to cushion the fall before dropping the bomb.

I don't trust Bush. I never have.

[Dianna Vesta]

Originally posted by Sword+Jan 28 2003, 10:38 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Sword @ Jan 28 2003, 10:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--DAMNMAN@Jan 28 2003, 10:06 PM
He needs to leave GOD out of the fucking office and keep it at home.

I didn't vote in the poll 'cause my choice wasn't up there:

Pretty OK speach but quit (typo edited) sucking god's dick already!!!
This country was founded on a belief in god, and those who created this country and this government had no problem mentioning god freely during their speeches and government functions. Why should that change now?[/b][/quote]
Because it's land of the free, liberty and justice for all....
and in this free land we have people of all walks and faith.

The concept of God is broad. It's the course of action that needs to be less threathening.

I'm tired today. I'll be ranting more about this friday!

[TheEnforcer]

Originally posted by voodooman@Jan 28 2003, 11:02 PM
I felt that my personal state of the union was lacking, so I missed it.
Was getting laid.

Wonder which was more interesting.

:D
She called and told me she would rather have watched the speech!!! :nyanya:

:D

[DAMNMAN]

Originally posted by Colin@Jan 29 2003, 12:19 PM
Atheists in foxholes? (http://www.maaf.info/)
You are a search engine maniac aren't you?

>;-))

[Nickatilynx]

Yes, I have met relatively intelligent people who were religious and most were using this front to advance in life one way or another.

Then they weren't religious,they were hypocrites :)

[DAMNMAN]

Originally posted by gigi+Jan 29 2003, 01:08 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (gigi @ Jan 29 2003, 01:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Colin@Jan 29 2003, 11:54 AM
Actually, it's impossible not to be true.

By definition, 50% of people have an IQ over 100.
83% of US citizens polled (Gallup) claim to be Christians.

Lots of overlap.

From the math desk ...
By definition, 50% of people have an IQ over 100.

Is this based on the US population? Or the world population?[/b][/quote]
I used an IQ of 100 to be (what I thought was) fair.

I realize that people are much more stupid than I gave them credit for!!!

[Ironhorse]

I thought it was one of his best speeches so far. He seems alot more confident, but that is what's scaring the international community and all the God references will only strengthen his being perceived as the leader of a crusade.

I was pleasantly surprised by the bag of goodies he opened even internationally like the Aids relief help, hopefully that will go a long way to smooth some of the anti-american sentiment abroad. The other stuff seems to be just usual speech 'filler'. Medical help, etc. I still don't have it I keep hearing about it for decades.

Notice the focus from Axis of Evil to Target Iraq Evil! This speech pretty much cemented in my mind the idea that Iraq deposing Saddam THIS YEAR is the only acceptable outcome of this conflict as far as the administration sees it, as this should be, anything less is suicidal for the whole republican party, certainly for the Bush family and inner circle associates.



Last edited by Ironhorse at Jan 29 2003, 01:15 PM

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by DAMNMAN+Jan 29 2003, 02:09 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (DAMNMAN @ Jan 29 2003, 02:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Colin@Jan 29 2003, 12:19 PM
Atheists in foxholes? (http://www.maaf.info/)
You are a search engine maniac aren't you?

>;-))[/b][/quote]
Only as necessary.

[DAMNMAN]

Originally posted by Colin+Jan 29 2003, 01:20 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Colin @ Jan 29 2003, 01:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -gigi@Jan 29 2003, 01:08 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--Colin@Jan 29 2003, 11:54 AM
Actually, it's impossible not to be true.

By definition, 50% of people have an IQ over 100.
83% of US citizens polled (Gallup) claim to be Christians.

Lots of overlap.

From the math desk ...
By definition, 50% of people have an IQ over 100.

Is this based on the US population? Or the world population?
Well, the DEFINITION of IQ is

IQ = 100*(Mental Age/Age)

IQ is Intelligence Quotient - hence the division (quotient)

Examples:

1. If a child's age is 10 and the child scores the same as the average 10 year old, the IQ is
100*(10/10) = 100

2. If the 10 year old child scores the same as the average 13 year old, the IQ is
100*(13/10) = 130

So the test is always comparative and in theory is continually renormalized so an average score is 100. Any subgroup may average higher or lower on average than 100 - either due to chance, environment, and/or hereditary factors. Big arguments therein.

There are many different IQ tests - none of them standard. Results may vary across tests though there is fairly strong correlation. If you score well on one test, you are likely to score well on another test.[/b][/quote]
Cool, I didn't know how they figured out IQs,

Thanks

[TheEnforcer]

Originally posted by Colin+Jan 29 2003, 09:58 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Colin @ Jan 29 2003, 09:58 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--slavdogg@Jan 29 2003, 08:16 AM
what is up with joint cheifs of state not clapping nearly every time they showed them ??
Right. Was thinking the same thing.[/b][/quote]
It's really quite simple. Ask yourself if you had to listen to a man like Rumsfeld give you shit all the time and who doesn't care about or listen to your concerns for your men in the upcoming war and then see if you feel compelled to cheer for the man who put him there.

[Nickatilynx]

Only as necessary.

Yes Colin, and I send mail,only as necessary :)

[DAMNMAN]

Originally posted by Nickatilynx@Jan 29 2003, 02:10 PM
Yes, I have met relatively intelligent people who were religious and most were using this front to advance in life one way or another.

Then they weren't religious,they were hypocrites :)
Did I ever tell you that I like your posts. >;-))

Most of the time!!!

[Ironhorse]

Originally posted by TheEnforcer+Jan 29 2003, 01:18 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (TheEnforcer @ Jan 29 2003, 01:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -Colin@Jan 29 2003, 09:58 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--slavdogg@Jan 29 2003, 08:16 AM
what is up with joint cheifs of state not clapping nearly every time they showed them ??
Right. Was thinking the same thing.
It's really quite simple. Ask yourself if you had to listen to a man like Rumsfeld give you shit all the time and who doesn't care about or listen to your concerns for your men in the upcoming war and then see if you feel compelled to cheer for the man who put him there.[/b][/quote]
I thought this through when I saw it: The times they focused on the joint chiefs, the speech was lauding them so it was pre-arranged that they were getting clapped AT so they didn't have to clap. All in a day's work.