Quake3World

Hollowtips wrote:While there may be some measure of truth in the book, it reeks more of Jose Canseco than anything else. It also seems alot less of an attack of conscious, and more of a man out of work for the past 2 years and needs a payday. The best part about this "tell all book" is that the only people who are likely to buy and read this are the nut job lefties. The Bush supporters will dismiss it as baseless, and the moderates will most likely ignore it as a blatantly opportunistic attempt to make money. The beauty of the book is the fact that the ones with the most rabid hatred of Brush and Co. will be the ones buying it.

Why so much grandstanding? Its not as if politicians arent well trained liars. They are nothing more than lawyers who make the laws. Furthermore, just like a lawyer, their only function is bending the truth in an attempt to get you to see it how they want it seen. Bill Clinton's presidency was not exactly a bastion of integrity either, but much was largely overlooked because people had money in their pockets, which goes a long way towards soothing that little "i want the truth" nerve. I guarantee that if the economy were better, there would be a lot less noise being made, and people would be much more willing to overlook things.

Nightshade wrote:

xer0s wrote:You have to remember that they know things that we don't know and shouldn't know. If they think its best for us, then there is a good chance that it is. That's the way it should be done. But it may not be done that way at the moment.

Oh jesus fucking christ. You're Britney Spears.

xer0s wrote:You have to remember that they know things that we don't know and shouldn't know. If they think its best for us, then there is a good chance that it is. That's the way it should be done. But it may not be done that way at the moment.

Hollowtips wrote:

Nightshade wrote:
I don't like stupid people.

How very witty child. If your statement is indeed true, how do you shave without cutting your throat?

xer0s wrote:You have to remember that they know things that we don't know and shouldn't know. If they think its best for us, then there is a good chance that it is. That's the way it should be done. But it may not be done that way at the moment.

xer0s wrote:


No, in all seriousness, I don't agree with that. But there's nothing we can do about it really. What do you want us to do? Demand they release all secrets? We have to be realistic.

"How Long Do We Have? About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier:"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government.""A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.""From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.""The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years"

"During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence:

1. From bondage to spiritual faith;

2. From spiritual faith to great courage;

3. From courage to liberty;

4. From liberty to abundance;

5. From abundance to complacency;

6. From complacency to apathy;

7. From apathy to dependence;

8. From dependence back into bondage"

xer0s wrote:People would start voting on things that benefit only themselves and others would be screwed.

xer0s wrote:No, I never said lying should be allowed.

You better read this. It's pretty scary, and you can really see it coming.

"How Long Do We Have? About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier:"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government.""A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.""From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.""The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years"

"During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence:

1. From bondage to spiritual faith;

2. From spiritual faith to great courage;

3. From courage to liberty;

4. From liberty to abundance;

5. From abundance to complacency;

6. From complacency to apathy;

7. From apathy to dependence;

8. From dependence back into bondage"

xer0s wrote:I'd say you're about right.

xer0s wrote:I just said that I don't actually believe that...

Nightshade wrote:

xer0s wrote:I'd say you're about right.

I'd concur. But, it's not as if the country's going to implode or anything. We'll be a larger version of the UK at some point, swinging on China's nutsack the way the Brits do on ours.

MR. CHADWICK: He uses the term propaganda. That's quite a term. And he's talking about President Bush. I think he's talking about you as well. He's talking about the message from the White House.

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, that's what really struck me is if Scott thought it was propaganda, then Scott should not have accepted the job as White House press secretary. If Scott viewed what the White House was saying was so irresponsible or wrong that it rose to the level of propaganda for him, it's not a job he should have accepted. He should on principle have declined it.

mjrpes wrote:I like the Fleischer response:

MR. CHADWICK: He uses the term propaganda. That's quite a term. And he's talking about President Bush. I think he's talking about you as well. He's talking about the message from the White House.

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, that's what really struck me is if Scott thought it was propaganda, then Scott should not have accepted the job as White House press secretary. If Scott viewed what the White House was saying was so irresponsible or wrong that it rose to the level of propaganda for him, it's not a job he should have accepted. He should on principle have declined it.

If Scott thought he had a conscience, it's not a job he should have accepted.