|
|
[ Log In ] [ Register ]
 means the user is online now!
Yep, it's official: Dan sucks.
At 2:45:06 PM on 10/28/2001, flyblackhawk said:
hey dan, here's a fact 100% of normal people know... you are an asshole.
At 3:06:15 PM on 10/25/2001, Mattman said:
raptorrap, my comments make sense if you actually read what I said rather than putting words in my mouth. At any rate, I'm a bit sickened by the pettiness on this board and this is my last post. It's gone way too far as it is. Have at me!
At 12:28:46 PM on 10/25/2001, tsplano said:
Swearing Gore in the middle of this (not that it would ever happen) I’m sure would be a wet dream to a few on this board. Heck Gore wouldn’t touch this with ten-foot pole considering gravity of it all. Only Clinton is the one expressing his fantasy about what he would do in this situation. I don’t think any president through out our history, with Clinton as an exception, would ever have wanted this situation to fall on their lap regardless of how much they can gain politically fromit. If there is ever a question as to Bush undermining us all for a personal agenda you need not worry considering the checks and balances worked into our system of government and the fact he keeps the majority leaders from house and senate in the loop 24-7 about what’s going on.
At 9:09:44 AM on 10/25/2001, raptorrap said:
Dan, I didn't lose much respect for you with that little comment but I did when you took the Lords name in vain.
Mattman- The news reported the REAL results a long long time ago in favor of Bush.
"we should know for SURE who our president is before we go to war... now more than ever."
What are you saying? That if the results showed Gore actually won we would swear in Gore as the new president now? your comments make no sense.
At 8:29:00 PM on 10/24/2001, tsplano said:
Well said, bigoledork, well said.
I think this whole issue over the election and the "Media" coalition recount results can best be put to rest with this article from the New York Times :
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/20/national/20DEMS.html?searchpv=past7days
If it doesn't show up in this link, just do a search for the article's title "Bush Winning Gore Backers' High Praises" at www.newyorktimes.com
As for that map it represents the balance between representation from state AND representation by population. In other words, a bunch of know-it-alls in California or New York can't circumvent the will of the majority in between. There are a lot of folks in that big blue area that get forgotten and ignored, except for the last election. Not to mention a big blue area outside of the national borders (military) that either were ignored or disregarded out of political means and reasoning.
Regardless, I think everyone is just plain sick and tired of the election issue from either side. We should just drop the matter all together. If you think Bush is doing a piss-poor job then make it count in 2004. Otherwise just quit the whining.
At 5:50:05 PM on 10/24/2001, Mattman said:
Maybe you should inform us of what that image represents. If this reflects the popular vote for Bush and Gore, then it does not reflect numbers by any means. First off, the population of each area of this map must be considered. If a majority of the red areas consist of higher populated cities, then that raises Gore's votes considerably. I've seen polls that state Republicans occupy more of the sparsely populated regions and democrats the heavy populated regions. So this map means nothing without that information. Nice try though.
At 5:23:01 PM on 10/24/2001, bigoledork said:
Check out this picture:
http://www.boonereport.com/images/e2000map.jpg
At 2:02:32 PM on 10/24/2001, bigoledork said:
I'm a bit surprised here by a few things that have been said, or not said.
First off, no president is elected by counting each vote. The citizens don't directly choose the president. He is elected by the electoral college. And once again, in 2000, the electoral college worked, just as it has for scores of years.
And just a note on what makes us "American". The rhetoric has been spewed here that it is our ability to question our government, or our freedom of speech, etc. No, that's not it. It's the steel resolve of its citizens when our freedom and safety is threatened. That's been the test for the country's history since the birth of this, the greatest nation in the world.
On September 11th, we were reminded what makes a America great nation. It didn't take a recitation of the Constitution, or a winsome debate over freedom of speech. Just the common pain and resolve felt across the fabric of the nation as we mourned the unnecessary loss of the innocent and the hero, and looked intently to rid the world of the cause of such evil.
I love politics, but very often politics can distract you from seeing what's really important, much like religion often gets in the way of a person's relationship with Jesus.
God Bless The USA!
At 1:55:26 PM on 10/24/2001, Mattman said:
lol, down boy! At least tsplano presents a solid argument as to why he believes what he believes. (I must apologize for my 'bandwagoning assholes' comment earlier. That was out of line but in the heat of an argument.) At any rate, I stand by my views. Flyblackhawk, you clearly don't know what the heck a communist is. Maybe you should crack a history book.
At 9:04:22 PM on 10/23/2001, flyblackhawk said:
HEY DAN, USE SOMETHING ELSE TO GET ATTENTION, YOU LIBERAL PRICK, THIS IS A TIME OF CRISIS, AND YOU MAKE FUN OF THE PRESIDENT'S BROTHER. NICE. YOU ARE NOTHING MORE THAN A DORK WHO USES HIS M O V I E PAGE TO EXPRESS HIS P O L I T I C A L VIEWS. SHAME ON YOU, MISTER FINKELSTEIN, IF THAT IS REALLY YOUR NAME. YOU COMMUNIST
At 12:27:25 AM on 10/20/2001, tsplano said:
Well, has he anything so far in this conflict that was ignorant? Has he not picked the right people to help him do the job?
As we have learned from the Persian Gulf war, CNN was an extremely useful source of intelligence for the Iraqis. Why should we make the same mistake now and divulge every detail from troop movements to air assault strategies? Just so you can feel that you’re “in” the loop? Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rumsfeld all made it clear this was a different kind of war. As far as it appears the media is so self absorbed with its own experience of Anthrax that you would think it was the only news come of late. Has anyone heard that one of Osama’s deputies was whacked by one of our missiles? Sounds like an important note of progress to me, but not important enough because Dan Rather is more compelled to talk about his personal brush with Anthrax instead.
And yes, Dan did bring the President early into this discussion just as you brought in the issue of separation of church and state. Both did nothing more than to try and expand further on attacking President Bush. There is no denying that.
On final note, it is rather contradicting for you folks to call this media as biased an entity, yet you’re hell-bent willing to believe whatever results they are hiding from the public on this recount, especially if it falls against Bush.
At 8:56:06 PM on 10/18/2001, Mattman said:
Perhaps I'm saying that there is no better time. Let's say that Bush is not the president the majority voted for, and he ends up doing something ignorant that costs lives (and don't tell me he hasn't, because the simple fact is we don't know every detail of his plan yet). Who knows, maybe we DID elect him, but we should know for SURE who our president is before we go to war... now more than ever. The fact that the media decided NOT to report this recent development is startling. The media is obviously a biased entity. As for Dan, he brought Jeb Bush into question, not the president. The negative remarks toward Dan on this forum have been based on a false assumption.
At 6:04:25 PM on 10/18/2001, tsplano said:
Again, you folks are missing the point. I’m not saying you can’t express your views of opposition, cynicism, or skepticism of Dubya. I’m just saying your timing stinks. At a time in our history where we have a single issue that crosses barriers to unite American citizens of all religious, cultural, political differences the most you can think of doing right now is how to make our President look bad. That’s patriotic? Reread that definition of patriotism. Do you think your attempts on proving the president’s legitimacy serves to the welfare of this country as of right now? All you are doing is exercising your civic duty by utilizing your civil rights as an American citizen. Nothing more.
“God help us all when every American agrees 100% with everything the government does.”
Dan, you don’t know how much closer you are to thinking like a Republican with that statement. I frankly think it is unhealthy of a nation to rely totally and completely on government. But there instances where we have to unite and support our government in situations that risk our well being, such as now. WE are the government as the government represents us. A foreign adversary not only attacked our government but ourselves as well. So yes, had it been Clinton as president I would be completely behind him despite his track record because this isn’t about politics. It is about protecting the sanctity of our nation and our way of life from a few gutless radicals and a nation bent on world domination. I would fight to protect my freedom and yours regardless of how I disagree with you. I would fight to protect the freedom of speech that the liberal media so conveniently hides behind.
Mattman, I’m not disputing your notion of a healthy government. I agree with it completely. But are you saying now is the time to undercut Bush, show our lack of faith in our leaders, thus weakening our government and military’s resolve in bringing Osama Bin Ladin to justice? In our current time we do have a tyrannical government called the Taliban that wishes to remove us completely from face of this earth as well as our western civilization in general. Their tool is terrorism. A great majority of Americans are now reacting as patriots by giving full support in every way.
A time will come again where we will have healthy political debates over a myriad of issues. But right now we need to ensure and protect our right to do as such. That is our priority.
At 4:37:46 PM on 10/18/2001, danoodleman said:
Wow, well said dan/matt. Glad I'm living in my igloo in Canada though.
At 4:33:17 PM on 10/18/2001, Dan said:
Exactly Matt... tsplano, your idea of patriotism is incredibly warped. Personally, I believe speaking out about this and exercising my Constutitional rights is the most patriotic thing I can possible do. I mean, God help us all when every American agrees 100% with everything the government does. According to your logic, you should have agreed with Clinton and given him your "support" even when he did all those things which you Republicans call him Satan for.
The most bizarre thing is that, for the most part, the "liberal" American media is agreeing with you: they are silencing this story because they feel it is not "patriotic". And this IS a story, no matter the results.
-Dan
At 4:13:49 PM on 10/18/2001, Mattman said:
tsplano, I could be wrong, but I don't think there's a single person on this board who doesn't love America. It is proven by the fact that we QUESTION our government rather than blindly follow it. What makes America what it is is the fact that we HAVE the right to question, and, if need be, rise up (no I am not implying that we should revolt, lol). If we didn't love this country so, we wouldn't care to voice our opinions so loudly. The first true patriot was the man who spoke against a tyrannical government, and because of that action we now are free. Freedom means that our government must always remain under constant scrutiny in any circumstance. If we have lost a freedom, the freedom to choose a leader, then we must examine what went wrong and make sure it does not happen again.
At 1:55:46 AM on 10/18/2001, Tango said:
Bravo tsplano. I'm glad someone knows what they're talking about for a change.
At 11:58:57 PM on 10/17/2001, tsplano said:
The original statement “While not rigging elections…” implied a manner of character of Jeb Bush that can not be supported by fact. It is derived from personal opinion of Jeb and the Bush family in which Dan is free to make – but don’t tell me he didn’t think he was going to get some backlash over it. Furthermore, tell me how this comment has anything to do with Jeb Bush trying to instill confidence among the public so that they may return to the parks and help the collapsing tourism industry? Dan’s snide comment sounded more like an attempt to undermine Jeb’s efforts in doing some good for Florida. Bottom line is that comment may have been better said and received at a later time – like 2004 when the next elections occur.
Just because a majority of people disagree with you doesn’t mean they are fanatical. If you have noticed, we have both Democrats and Republicans in the house and senate in majority support of the President. Do you know why? It is because of patriotism. But to you our representatives and 90% of American population are tyrants in mass, or as Mattman so bluntly puts it “bandwagoning assholes”.
patriotism \Pa"tri*ot*ism\, n. [Cf. F. patriotisme.] Love of country; devotion to the welfare of one's country; the virtues and actions of a patriot; the passion which inspires one to serve one's country. --Berkley.
Patriotism requires support. Our president represents our country and he requires our support and service for his efforts. Where in Dan’s previous statements does he express support? I see that he likes the job he is doing but his remaining statements attempt to undermine his legitimacy as a President. I agreed with Clinton when stood behind
NAFTA but I still didn’t support the guy. As Dan says,
“Personally, I think GW Bush is doing a fantastic job. But we didn't elect him.”
Is that support? Frankly it is nothing more than an attempt to whittle away at our confidence in our President as a legitimate leader at time when this country needs to be inspired by a leader. There is time to show some respect to a leader you don’t necessarily agree with, not for the sake being bipartisan but for the sake of the country and the defense of our way of life as Americans. Dan’s comments, in my opinion, are thus un-American. There is a time to express dissent and then there is a time to unit and confront terrorists and a foreign country that wishes nothing more to eliminate our rights and freedom to express our opinions of dissent.
Sure, you have the right to voice opinion in opposition. But tell me, would go to a funeral of a person you never liked for the sole purpose of expressing your disdain in front of that person’s family? Maybe before or maybe even after, but it certainly would not be prudent during the time. I’m sure the families of the 4000 plus who died in the WTC would not give a rat’s ass about the legitimacy of Bush’s presidency right about now.
Rather than Dan simply saying “ Oops, wrong time to get on this election-scandal soap box” and just revisit it another time, he persists on finding non-existent proof of a scandal. All for what may I ask? Just so he can prove he has the balls to do so? Well, apparently the coalition of media sources didn’t have any – or is it because they ‘respect’ the situation?
As much as I don’t agree with this liberal media coalition something tells me they have more sense than Dan.
At 8:12:18 PM on 10/17/2001, Trillian said:
The fanatical character of your posts do not display patriotism so much as they are a perfect example of 'tyranny of the masses'. The original comment had absolutely nothing to do with the supposed 'war'. You might have noticed this if you weren't so stuck in your painfully simplistic, fundamentalist, largely far-right perspective. Instead of considering anything, you just lash out at the vaguest suggestion of offense. It makes one question whether or not you even think about how and why we should be patriotic and supportive of the nation now, or if it's just completely ingrained in a mob mentality by this point.
"I dispise your lack of patriotism, views on politics and views on American way of life."
Good example of the above. I don't believe that at any point Dan expressed anti-American sentiment. Political views have very, very little to do with patriotism and pride in the greater ideals the nation stands for. In fact, it's good that people retain a sense of political identity so that the whole of the country isn't swept up in a war-fever mob. But then again I suppose you were all in the "Let's nuke them all to hell" crowd by 12 noon on the 11th.
and i do believe this is the end of my rant.
FICUS!
and www.cusackforpresident.com
At 7:59:00 PM on 10/17/2001, Mr Goodbytes said:
O.K. danoodleman, how about the thousands of military ballots that were not counted??? They were not counted because they didn't arrive on time, or they had the wrong postage. It's not like the hundreds of ballots with "dimpled chads." Those are only caused by 1 of 2 things, not following directions, or FEEDING IN MORE THAN ONE BALLOT AT A TIME!!!!
At 5:15:30 PM on 10/17/2001, Mattman said:
Well, so do I. Being patriotic is defined by standing up for what you believe in, not giving in to bandwagoning assholes such as yourself. This is America, my friend, where everyone's voice is gold. Playboy.com, or disney.com, take your pick and get the hell out of dansjp3page if YOU 'just can't stand it'.
At 5:09:46 PM on 10/17/2001, Mattman said:
tsplano, man you really hold a grudge.
At 3:57:45 PM on 10/17/2001, danoodleman said:
Tango said: "Bush won fair and square...". You have got to be kidding me. That is the most uninformed thing I have heard in a long time. Even Bush would admit that in order to have a 100% "fair and square" election you would count every single ballot.
At 3:40:44 PM on 10/17/2001, tsplano said:
Mattman, your just disturbed - period.
At 3:39:07 PM on 10/17/2001, tsplano said:
Good lord, Dan, just get over it! You never know that the reason may also be this media consortium came to the same conlusion that Bush actually did win. They may be refusing to divulge the results out fear of embarassment - having spent millions redoing what had been done over, and over, and over again. Point is who knows and who cares!?!?! Talk about beating a dead horse!!!
To not put differences aside in a time of crisis and band together with your fellow Americans to fight an evil intent on detroying your way of life is quite is un-American.
I dispise your lack of patriotism, views on politics and views on American way of life. Unfortunately for you, you are in the minority. Canada is North of here and Mexico is down South. Take your pick and go if just you can't stand it.
Otherwise, stick around do what your doing best here, that is reporting on JP stuff.
At 3:27:10 PM on 10/17/2001, Mattman said:
PPS
I just read that article, Dan, and even though I don't care for Gore either, now I'm even more disturbed by all this.
At 3:23:12 PM on 10/17/2001, Mattman said:
tsplano, must you think in such 2 dimensional terms? Do you honestly believe that innocent people are NOT killed in bombings? There are better, more efficient ways for us to destroy the Taliban. I know you're angry and so am I, but we must think past our anger sometimes. The Taliban indeed deserve fates worse than death, but I personally think Bush is taking the wrong approach in simply bombing a city where they happen to have taken refuge at one time. He'll kill more innocents than he will Taliban. That's just my opinion, you don't need to yell at me for it or accuse me of swallowing 'taliban propaganda' because it differs from yours. It won't change my opinion. I'm just attempting to be logical about the situation.
P.S. JP3 rocked!
At 11:42:52 AM on 10/17/2001, Tango said:
haha. Whatever. Gore is a sore loser plain and simple.
Bush won fair and square and its unfortunate that Democrats can't deal with the facts. Chear up democrats, we're still all on the same side.
All we can do now is support our president in this time of crisis.
At 10:57:04 AM on 10/17/2001, Dan said:
Jesus, this comments board displays the kind of fanatical patriotism I despise. Stop being tools of the government.
Just because we experienced the biggest terrorist attack ever doesn't mean we need to simply ignore the biggest election scandal ever.
To do so would be un-American.
And we don't want to be un-American, do we?
<a href="http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/GIS.Servlets.HTMLTemplate?tf=tgam/search/tgam/SearchFullStory.html&cf=tgam/search/tgam/SearchFullStory.cfg&configFileLoc=tgam/config&encoded_keywords=vote&option=&start_row=23¤t_row=23&start_row_offset1=0&num_rows=1&search_results_start=21">READ THIS ARTICLE FROM THE GLOBE & MAIL</a>. It's from a Canadian paper, for those of who you are disinfranchised by the so-called "liberal American media", who won't even take on this issue.
End of discussion, folks.
-Dan
At 10:58:18 PM on 10/16/2001, ellersaur said:
What's cool is you can point to one or two people in each film that causes the chain of events:
JP - Dennis Nedry
TLW - Roland and Ajay OR Ludlow (the deleted drunk scene) OR Nick and Sarah
JP3 - Cooper
At 10:08:05 PM on 10/16/2001, Jerm said:
If you think about it, it's all Cooper's fault that the plane crashed and everyone was stuck on the island. If he hadn't gotten in front of the plane then the spino wouldn't have jumped out in front of it and the plane would not hit the spino. But Cooper's still cool. If it wern't for him there would basically be no JP3.
At 10:04:35 PM on 10/16/2001, Jerm said:
I agree with ellersaur about that one scene in JP3. Cooper looks like he's about to burst into tears. Then, all of a sudden... Well, you all know what happens. That part was awesome!
At 9:45:39 PM on 10/16/2001, Raptor Strike said:
Lets just talk about Jurassic Park now. That's why this comment section is here. Im sick of reading all the crap that was posted before.
At 9:28:57 PM on 10/16/2001, procompsognathus 2.0 said:
I think Johnathan Winters might have gotten in on that action too.....
At 9:27:58 PM on 10/16/2001, procompsognathus 2.0 said:
Hey, we can still bag on Jeb. The man looks like the love child of George Sr. and the Pillsbury Doughboy! Now thats some powerful parents.
At 9:25:35 PM on 10/16/2001, tsplano said:
Well said , ellersaur. There is a time and place for everything and this isn't a time for Bush-bashing.
Dan, you need to take some character notes from this individual.
At 8:09:46 PM on 10/16/2001, ellersaur said:
But I like that part, in JP3, when they try to leave the island - very tense and exciting.
"That's Cooper!"
At 8:08:22 PM on 10/16/2001, ellersaur said:
This is a time to stand behind Bush. Believe me, I am as Democratic as they come (I think Republicans are scum), but now is NOT the time to criticze Bush. I think he is doing a DAMN fine job given the situation.
I am over what happened with the election, and everyone else should be too. It's over! Ride him out until '04 then select someone else.
At 4:40:46 PM on 10/16/2001, danoodleman said:
"Gore doesn't know his rear from a hole in the ground." -Mr Goodbytes. It's time we elected somebody whos ass IS a hole in the ground! http://www.thirdage.com/news/archive/000602-03.html FICUS! FICUS! FICUS!
At 1:14:12 AM on 10/16/2001, tsplano said:
Mattman, Here you go implying that Bush wants to kill just women and children – you may claim to be against the Taliban but you whine like their propaganda whipping boy. Were you referring that claim on the statement the Taliban made of 200 civilians being killed? This “gem” of a fact coming from the Taliban themselves that you so smugly base your statement? You actually believe that, don’t you? Well, you served their purpose well cause here you are implying, and I quote you - “now one [Bush] of them is bombing away residential areas (just check Yahoo news if you don't believe me) of Afghanistan while the Taliban have spirited themselves away to safer ground. Way to strike back!”
I’ve checked Yahoo news and all I see are what the Taliban are claiming as civilian casualties. I don’t know, dude, but your pearl of wisdom pretty much sounded like you protest what Bush is doing – reacting to the death of over 4000 civilian killed in the World Trade Towers and making sure terrorists are eradicated. So using your silly-assed Mattman method of conclusion of fact by assumption and lame logic, I can best “assume” your position to be against Bush and his anti-terrorism efforts, so that makes you logically in support of what happened to the 4000 plus that died in the WTC, thus making you contradict your claim of “caring for human life”. So you want us to stop bombing because the Taliban are claiming civilians are being killed in hundreds. Sounds totally out of whack doesn’t it? Hey, its your way of thinking and not that of most sensible people as they don’t bank their reps on the first piece of b.s. they come across.
As for my facts, at least I’m not relying on the Taliban for it. Besides, you had none to refute – just a dumb-assed assumption.
Oh, and it is the military that protects your constitutional rights from foreign adversaries. If I had known it was such an enigmatic riddle for you I would just explained to you in layman’s terms and at two words per minute.
At 11:25:15 PM on 10/15/2001, ellersaur said:
Umm, how about that JP3. Heck of a movie, huh?
At 11:02:54 PM on 10/15/2001, PorterM7Z said:
I agree MxPX, that is indeed one nice shot of him standing by th water there. Makes me wanna go visit a theme park right now. (starts packing)
At 10:10:39 PM on 10/15/2001, Mr Goodbytes said:
If Gore was in office, we WOULD be screwed. Gore doesn't know his rear from a hole in the ground. Oh well, go Jeb. Oh Dan, every other report I read says that G.W.B did win fair and square. It is not our problem that a bunch of idiotic liberals couldn't fill out a simple ballot.
At 8:58:23 PM on 10/15/2001, Stegasaurus said:
O my god, News! screw this, I'm leaving because I'm not getting into any political debates and shit. Laters!
At 8:50:30 PM on 10/15/2001, Jerm said:
Some of you guys are making a huge deal over this. It was just a little joke. I don't think you should take it so seriously.
At 7:41:06 PM on 10/15/2001, mxpx8690 said:
Switching the subject, That is.....uhhhh.....a....uhhhhh pretty shot of him by the ....water.....
At 7:35:16 PM on 10/15/2001, Bill Macy said:
DAN I THINK I LOVE YOU! I ALWAYS HAD THIS KIND OF GEEKY COMPUTER KIND OF GUY TH0UGHT ABOUT YOU (no offense)BUT YOU JUST HAVE TO ROCK TO SAY SOMETHING LIKE THAT! AND HELL YES BUSHY REALLY ISNT OUR PRESIDENT!?! HE WAS COURT-APPOINTED FOR GOD SAKES!
At 7:23:00 PM on 10/15/2001, Krabby Jo said:
I, for one, find it very annoying that Bush wants to break down the separtion of church and state. He also demonized athiests.
He's made good decisions considering the attacks... but then again, he might have done it just on the advice of folks around him.
And drilling for oil in a national park? PLEASE!
I'd rather have a liberal America than a close- minded, right- wing, fundie, mob rule, theocratic America.
Go liberals! WHOOO!!!
At 6:14:24 PM on 10/15/2001, Mattman said:
Haha, now I'm gulping down Taliban propoganda? Is that the best you can do, tsplano? I despise the Taliban as much as the next guy, but that doesn't mean I want some mother and her children to be killed by a bomb. But thanks for patronizing me and everyone else who cares for human life. If you're implying that Bush protects my constitutional rights, I'd argue against that, as one of his first acts in office was an attempt to un-seperate church and state, which the constitution protects us against. Get your facts straight before launching anymore baseless attacks.
At 5:52:37 PM on 10/15/2001, tsplano said:
Hey Dan, you opinion is your opinion - but what a way to show your support with that statement. Several newspapers did their own count and came to the same conclusion as the official count. Hell, some even used the libral guidelines the Democrats wanted in Florida and Bush came out with even more votes. Point is there will always be coalition of sources throughtout Bush's presidency to undermine his legitimacy regardless. So I got to ask, who cares? Obviously not the 90% or more of the people who support Bush now. But hey, keep chewing on those sour grapes.
Mattman, If you know anything about war there will be occasion for mistakes. So you think you can do a better job on your playstation at home? You've got hidden surgical strike skills that rival the U.S. military? Go join then. Otherwise quit gulping down all that Taliban propoganda. Oh, and don't forget who protects your constitutional rights.
danoodleman, I wish i could find the article but it quoted some of Gore's campaign staff as being glad it wasn't Gore himeself in office. This being in reference to Gore's image as being stiff. They thought he would have suffered severly in being able to pull a nation together. So the planes would have still struck but would Gore be able to have a nearly world-wide coalition against terrorism? Could he pursuade the justification of doing so? Who knows....
At 5:33:01 PM on 10/15/2001, Spider-Man said:
The only reason I made such a stink about Dan's ignorance is the fact that he really has no concrete proof that, if anyone, it was Jeb Bush who rigged the last Presidential election.
And saying we didn't elect him? Then how the hell is he in office? He was elected, it's all over, and that's the end of the story. Get over it and stop making useless little snide remarks just b/c you run this site.
And the NY Times, Dan? C'mon, it's only the #1 liberal newspaper in this country! Great source, man. Way to go, again.
At 4:58:49 PM on 10/15/2001, Mattman said:
IanMalcolm: So you're saying that because I'm in a 10% minority I'm wrong? Wow, that's a pretty sad viewpoint. If the other 90% think anything like you do, I'm happy I'm not a part of them. Bottom line, this is Dan's page and he can say whatever he wants. His consitutional rights make that point very clear.
At 4:11:09 PM on 10/15/2001, Dan said:
Here's a fact 99% of Americans don't know:
Remember that coalition of 10-odd newspapers that decided to form a non-partiasan organization to analyize the results of the Florida presidential election?
Their findings were scheduled to be released two weeks ago.
Anyone want to guess what their findings were? They won't say, but only the NY Times was brave enough to run a piece quoting someone as saying that releasing the results would not be wise during this time of crisis where the president is being called upon to lead the country.
Obviously, news that our "president" was not democratically elected would hurt the war effort.
Personally, I think GW Bush is doing a fantastic job. But we didn't elect him.
-Dan
At 4:08:50 PM on 10/15/2001, danoodleman said:
I think I'll add alittle on that. Explain to me how we would be screwed if Gore was in power. The planes still would have struck. By the way, I'm trying to stay as un-biased as possible here, I hope you will respect that.
At 4:00:22 PM on 10/15/2001, danoodleman said:
Spider-Man,
Don't you think it is alittle hypocritical for you to say things like "...supremely liberal" "If Al Gore was in office right now we'd all be screwed." Besides he made a small joke about the governor of Florida. I think you need a dose of theonion.com.
At 3:52:37 PM on 10/15/2001, Varan101 said:
For God's sake, Dan is entitled to his opinions.
At 3:32:08 PM on 10/15/2001, IanMalcom7 said:
Look, our nation is in a time of crisis like we've never experienced. Bush has 90% approval rate throughout the nation. So guess what Mattman... you and your 10% friends are outnumbered. Forget about Gore, he's old news. And Dan, you can't possibly rationalize that comment on Jeb. I suggest you erase those four words now to prevent further political battles on this comment section. If you can put them there, you can take them back.
DO IT
At 2:48:56 PM on 10/15/2001, Hans M said:
I wondered were you went
At 2:43:26 PM on 10/15/2001, Mattman said:
Hey Spider-Man, why is it OK for you to bash Al Gore, but not OK for Dan to voice his opinion on Jeb?
At 2:37:56 PM on 10/15/2001, Mattman said:
Haha, way to go Dan. Of course, I'm biased, because I've never been a fan of any of the Bush clan. Right now one of them is bombing away residential areas (just check Yahoo news if you don't believe me) of Afghanistan while the Taliban have spirited themselves away to safer ground. Way to strike back!
At 1:44:21 PM on 10/15/2001, Spider-Man said:
No Dan, you didn't say W. wasn't doing a good job, but who the hell are you to make such an ignorant comment? Especially now, with everything that has happened...to bring that up is very, very childish, and supremely liberal. I mean, the election is over, it's been over--and yet you still feel the need to complain about what happened? Look at what you are complaining about, too. If Al Gore was in office right now we'd all be screwed. W. is exactly the right man for a time like this. Besides, I thought that news was supposed to be objective, and up until today, I thought you did a damn good job keeping this page as what it is (or was)--a quality JP site for readers to obtain information. Four little words changed my opinion completely. Way to go, Dan.
At 1:22:40 PM on 10/15/2001, Dan said:
Did I say George W. Bush wasn't doing a good job?
-Dan
At 12:47:29 PM on 10/15/2001, IanMalcom7 said:
"While not rigging elections?"
Dan, I have always respected you, and though I still do because you surrounded that little comment with quality JP information that I had been missing since October 4, I cannot help but wonder WHY you had to tag those four words before Jeb Bush's name?
Whether he rigged the election or not, that is VERY of news my friend. I don't care if you voted for Bush, Gore, or Alan Grant, Bush is our president now so deal with it. Plus, he's doing a damn good job, if I do say so myself.
IanMalcom7
At 12:46:41 PM on 10/15/2001, Evilgrinch said:
Well...I gues its better then no news.
Sorry, you must be logged in to post a comment
|
|
Add DJP3P to your newsreader!
|
