2004-11-18 [BRONZED]: DOWN WITH CENSORSHIP!!!!

2004-11-18 [Solitiaum]: Damn straight.

2004-11-18 [BRONZED]: Censorship will get us in the end

2004-11-18 [Solitiaum]: Its Big Brother, I tell you!!

2004-11-18 [Big sexy Dan]: Freedom o' speech i say!!--arr matey!!

2004-11-18 [Solitiaum]: Hehehe...

2004-11-18 [Draconius]: NO MORE CENSORSHIP, NO MORE CENSORSHIP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

2004-11-18 [BRONZED]: YEA!!! ROCK ON!!!!

2004-11-25 [Hependipherous]: I'm against censorship in all it's forms. I'm not even sure that American parents today are capable of deciding what their own children can and cannot see. Not to mention that When a fascist government takes control the first thing they do is control the media. They seek to "censor" all information and make sure the people only hear supportive propaganda. I say we have a right to the freedom of information and freedom of speach. DOWN WITH CENSORSHIP!

2004-11-25 [Sunrose]: Hmm I agree, but this wiki is made based on a specific example I have a problem with: Elfwood is Thomas' site and if he doesn't want adult material that's his choice. There are other places to go. It's not like he's telling people they are not allowed to make adult material at all: he just doesn't want that on his site. If I make something and I decide about the rules, does that mean I am censoring others? I think the notion means a lot more than just that.

2004-11-25 [Sunrose]: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/censoring

2004-11-25 [Uncomfortably Numb]: Fuck Censorship !!!!!

2004-11-25 [Sunrose]: oh yes, intelligent answer ^^

2004-11-26 [Solitiaum]: Lol, Sunrose... And for the record, I respect that you have your own views on the subject, these just happen to be mine...

2004-11-26 [Hependipherous]: If this is simply against Thomas' decision to dissallow adult material on EW then no, I don't support that at all. His site, his work, etc... That's not censorship. He allows a lot more in than if somone from a more conservative nation would. I think he's pretty lax. Although there are some issues with the penis. I have a friend who has had images rejected on the simple basis that it was a male nude with an average sized penis. It was a minitaur anyway... you'de think bovine growth hormones would have a say in his... development. But that's the mods... not really Thomas. *shrugs*

2004-11-26 [Hependipherous]: I also think he's a little strict on what cannot be said in writing. A rating system would be nice. You can put ratings on HTML documents that would aid parental controlls. *shrugs* I also don't think swearing is that big of a deal. *shrugs*

2004-11-26 [Sunrose]: But that is all his choice, it doesn't make it censorship. And since this example seems to be the reason for the wiki, I am not signing. I am against censorship though.

2004-11-26 [Hependipherous]: Yep, generally speaking all my dealings with Mods/Thomas have been pleasant. I'm wondering what kind of images Serendipity was trying to upload. If it was a while ago then the rules have been refined and aren't nearly so bad now. Pre-merger the whole high fantasy/scifi bull crap was getting pretty heineous.

2004-11-26 [Solitiaum]: No, this simply isnt just anti thomas... This is BECAUSE of my experience with Thomas, against censorship ingeneral. If that isnt clear, then I will re wrtite my entrance.

2004-11-26 [Hependipherous]: After re-reading it, it appears to be a petition to get Thomas to rethink his rules. If that's not what this is about, it should definatley be clarified.

2004-11-26 [Sunrose]: That was exactly my thinking.. :)

2004-11-26 [Solitiaum]: *makes a note and goes to feed Micah*

2004-11-26 [Solitiaum]: There... I think that is a bit more clear...

2004-11-26 [Sunrose]: Hmm..I would like the opinion of the people who denied the art/poem.. . Aside from that this single case doesn't clarify itself as censorship though :)

2004-11-26 [Solitiaum]: She didnt post it because she didnt like that it contained a controversial subject and cursing. Sounds like censorship to me. And the art was denied on the basis that it was "lewd"... >.o Uhm, no, not really... The poses are left to the interpretation of the viewers, IF THERE ARE ALLOWED TO BE ANY.

2004-11-26 [Solitiaum]: Hmm... that pic kinda reminds me of Fanta Boi and Font, hehe >.>

2004-11-27 [Hependipherous]: To me the only thing about that pic is that the size difference might suggest that an adult is comming on to an 8 year old. @.@

2004-11-27 [Solitiaum]:  >.< The one is 23, and the other is just 18... Two characters from Elftown chat... Oi...

2004-11-27 [Sunrose]: But these are your words, without them to defend themselves: that's not really fair..

2004-11-27 [Solitiaum]: The point isnt that I was wronged, though Sunny, its that censorship LIKE this is wrong.

2004-11-27 [Sunrose]: If This Is actually censorship. The point does seem that you were wronged, else you wouldn't have started the wiki. If you write on a wiki such an example, I would like to know the input of the people whom you accuse of censorship.

2004-11-27 [Solitiaum]: I suppose I could track them down, but I dont live anywhere near the college anymore, and I dont recall which mod dealt with my picture... But I could try... o.o;

2004-12-01 [jimsmithkka]: making a video on censorship for class, need ideas, have any?

2004-12-01 [Solitiaum]: what kind of a video, hun...

2004-12-02 [jimsmithkka]: a short documentery on censorship in my high school

2004-12-02 [Solitiaum]: hmm...

2004-12-03 [Hependipherous]: Make sure that you mention that the first thing a Fascist dictator does upon gaining power is to control the media. That's why they have mass book burnings and propaganda campaigns. In that case, censorship is almost comparable to social engineering/mind control.

2004-12-04 [rebel girl]: censorship sucks.. FREEDOM OF SPEECH BITCHES!!!!

2004-12-04 [Solitiaum]: Ooooo, nice, Heppy... theres a whole concept to explore right there, censorship as a form of Big Brother...

2004-12-16 [movieguy]: Sign me the fuck up!!!! and Fuck the MPAA

2004-12-26 [NightHawk]: sign up yourself; it says so.

2005-01-25 [bluesoulsearcher]: do you guys support the right of religious groups to quote religious passages disagreeing with homosexuality?

2005-01-25 [NightHawk]: No. Personally, I don't like religious groups telling people to hate other people in the first place. But that's just my opinion.

2005-01-25 [bluesoulsearcher]: but your opinion is that religious groups should not have that right?

2005-01-25 [Hependipherous]: I support it fully. It's their religious belief. I dissagree whole-heartedly with their message but I do believe they have the right to own a bible. They don't have the right to flat out tell homosexuals their burning in hell though. That's not how Jesus would have done it. In any case read this: <URL:http://www.gayxjw.org/bible.html>. So it may seem like the bible isn't really against homosexuality. *shrugs* but yes, they have the right to believe that, and they have the right to say that in a church setting. However, they don't have the right to blatently attack gays because of it, and homosexuals have every right to not believe what these people do.

2005-01-25 [Hependipherous]: You can't claim tollerance and want to restrict religious freedoms like that. It's just hipocritical.

2005-01-26 [NightHawk]: Hependipherous put it better than I. It's like that quote, how's it go? "While I may disagree with what you say, I shall defend to the death thy right to say it." Or something like that. However, it is my opinion that when religious groups say stuff like that OUTSIDE a church setting, THEN they cross a line. Like the crap I hear on the radio and see on TV every day. That's when I get out my jar of Whup-ass and start applying it liberally to every stuffy bastard I see ^^

2005-01-26 [bluesoulsearcher]: [Hependipherous] when you say attack, what do you mean? [NightHawk] So religious groups should be held to a different standard of free speech than other groups, like political parties, associations, etc?

2005-01-26 [Hependipherous]: I mean attack as in agressively berate them with accusations and threats of hell. Yep, they're threats. Jesus never did make any "fire and brimstone" speaches. He turned people by their own convictions, convinced them with their own hearts that they needed to change. You can't just yell at people, call them sinners, tell them they're going to burn, and expect them to thank you for showing them the light.

2005-01-26 [bluesoulsearcher]: how are they threats? Unless you believe the threats can be followed up on?

2005-01-26 [NightHawk]: No, they are being held to the same standards, but what peo le forget is that WE have not only the rights to speak, but also to not speak (which I wish some people would practice more...), the rig t to listen, AND, the key point here, the right NOT to listen. But I've seen many circumstances where that last bit is infringed upon.

2005-01-26 [NightHawk]: Furthermore, the leaders of Christianity (I wish not to overly offend anyone here at any rate) keep complaining that their message is being smothered, blahblah, when all I hear when I turn on the news is that Rev. {enter name here} recently denied 200 gay couples the right to marry... among other stories, like that one priest who stopped at nothing to ensure everyone knew that some gay guy who died in a some kind of not-so-good way was going to hell for being gay, etc

2005-01-26 [NightHawk]: But I think this is the wrong place to discuss these matters. We're here against censorship, not religious freedom, of which there is both plenty and not enough

2005-01-26 [bluesoulsearcher]: Very true, but the right not to listen is passive, and is only as enforceable as the willingness of the person not to listen. Otherwise we're backing the belief that Hollywood and video games were responsible for Columbine, not lack of parenting at home and discipline (of the kids bullying the perpetrators) at school; or that Howard Stern's radio show somehow influences children to bad behavior when those children get it from the adults in their lives. The right to not listen can never come at the cost of the right to speak.

2005-01-27 [Hependipherous]: The whole religious freedom thing plays into censorship when people decide that their religious documents are hate material and thusly must be banned. It's hard for there to be too much religious freedom... beyond things that break the law like animal/human sacrifice to name an obvious one.

2005-01-27 [NightHawk]: ... but I thought sacrifices and drunken, godless orgies were a GOOD thing... oh... right... LOL But in any case, my problem with the logic that the right not to listen is passive is completely out in left field. When some religious nut comes up to me and starts preaching to me that I'm gonna go to hell if I don't start chucking rocks at gays, I tell him to shut up. When he doesn't (and they never do), I take measures to ENSURE that he shuts up and remains that way. I'd hardly call that passive, and 'd never, ever call that censorship. The problem here is that then THEY are infringing upon MY right not to listen.

2005-01-27 [bluesoulsearcher]: well, once he refuses to shut up, he crosses the line from free speech into harassment and disturbance of the peace. But one cannot simply say the "religious nut" is forbidden to ever bring up in the first place. That's what I mean when I say passive. It's similiar to a worker and his company to not be liable for sexual harassment for telling an off color joke before being warned. And to take a note from the US Consitution (if we're going by US standards), he has the right of free assembly in public places. That's why the same ACLU that battled Ashcroft regularly also defended the right of Neo-Nazi to march through a Jewish neighborhood. As despicable as their agenda may be [cont.]

2005-01-27 [bluesoulsearcher]: one cannot simply pick and choose which messages they want to hear and by silence those they don't want to. It's kind of like censoring an image with mild sexual insinuation (see above) because one is afraid of offending others. [Hependipherous] is correct, however, that there can be too much religious freedom, as we see French priests fined for criticizing Islam (for fear of offending Islamic adherents), the attempts to install Sharia law in Ontario, Canada, and to pull a page from the past, burn people you believe to be witches

2005-01-28 [Solitiaum]: oh wow... heppy's off on a tangent... *settles in for a good read...*

2005-01-28 [Solitiaum]: oh and its not just heppy! woot for debates on a topic worth debating!!

2005-01-28 [NightHawk]: Eh, you have good points, BUT the hristian church has made it clear that they don't like it when two individuals of the same sex love each other. We KNOW it by now, and anyone who doesn't needs to come out of their hole. I'm personally sick of seeing BOTH gay AND anti-gay rallies. Anybody with any sense would just leave the whole subject alone, but for whatever reason, Christianity can't. When people go out of their way to point out the faults ofbothers, that's where they really cross my own line. But that's just me, and as we all know well, personal opinions are useless. But what are YOUR personal takes on this?

2005-01-28 [bluesoulsearcher]: Free speech is free speech. Voltaire's "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" should be an uncompromised doctrine for any mature society, with the obvious Holmes exception of shouting fire in a crowded theater (with the ironic exception of not in the way Holmes meant it, ha!). The who, what, and why doesn't matter. Either you embrace free speech whole-heartedly, or admit you only apply it when you want to.

2005-01-29 [Hependipherous]: Somone should point out the scripture to these christians who are pointing out the "faults" of others. "Do not try and remove a splinter from your friends eye before you remove the plank in yours." In any case, they still have every right to say these things. I have every right to say some absolutely offensive stuff... as long as it's not harrasment or telling people to do something illegal. No censorship, period. Not a damn bit of it. Not a shred of text blacked out, not a single book banned, not a single word beeped out, not a single nipple covered with a black bar, no censorship period.

2005-01-29 [NightHawk]: What about fire? Can we burn them in protest? *chuckle*

2005-02-01 [bluesoulsearcher]: [Hependipherous] Amen, brother. [NightHawk] I never really understood burning books in protest. If I were the author of the book/material in question, I would be thrilled. A book burned is a book purchased. Unless it's Nazi style where they're just eliminating the material en masse. Of course, it's not really a protest anymore.

2005-02-02 [NightHawk]: XD I didn't mean books, I meant the idiots trying to ban and censor stuff XD

2005-02-02 [NightHawk]: And, while we're at it, let's toss the book-burners into their own fires... wow, I'm evil today... heh...

2005-02-02 [bluesoulsearcher]: works for me

2005-02-03 [NightHawk]: Heehee *high five*

2005-02-07 [Solitiaum]: o_O *burns her mother!*

2005-02-07 [NightHawk]: XD!!!

2005-02-09 [Solitiaum]: Dude she burned Farenhiet...

2005-02-11 [David_1]: censorship is just a gay ass way for the MAN to control our lifes. like what the hell happened to freedom of speech huh,its gay because i dont care what the hell i say if it offends u oh well like i care, what happened to the land of the free and the home of the brave 1 we our not free we cant do what ever we want 2 if we be brave and speak our mind the god damn MAN takes us down

2005-02-15 [Balthizar]: to that,1:no country cna be free aslong as there are humans on earth,end of topic 2: There must be rules,if we were allowed to say what we want...there would be riots..cencorship should only go so far..as in to censor msg's that tell people to take down the government...thats dumb,humans without a sense of government or some one making rules to follow will die...human nature depends on order and law.

2005-02-16 [bluesoulsearcher]: *looks for an anarchist to argue that point*

2005-02-16 [Balthizar]: go ahead,i can argue with them to,they say they want to form of governemtn...state of anarchy is a form of goverment,there hypocrits

2005-02-16 [bluesoulsearcher]: I didn't say I was one, I was just looking to see if one was going to argue with you. I've tried argueing the point that we need goverment for many things, most importantly to protect society from predatory people.

2005-02-16 [Balthizar]: i never said you were,i said go ahead,and left it to be interpreted by whoever it was ready by

2005-02-16 [Solitiaum]: *watches and listens*

2005-02-16 [bluesoulsearcher]: well in that case *waits for an anarchist to show up*

2005-02-19 [David_1]: yeah im hear to argue that point

2005-02-19 [David_1]: i feel that you are wrong in a way thta calling anarchist hipocrits. we are not hipocrits for a reason because when we say we want no government were just being blaighten and undesriptive in our goals theres actually a lot more behind it. what we really want is to form a diferent government one more lead by the people not one by this high council of a media and political controlled society called the man who decides who we are goint ot be for the reast of our lifes

2005-02-19 [Hependipherous]: er... anarchism by definition means "no government" not I think what you're looking for is a truer democracy... not this democratic republic we've got set up now.

2005-02-19 [Draconius]: hey we arent hypocrits, we just believe that the rules of man are stupid.

2005-02-19 [Balthizar]: we doesny? yet anarchists are hypocrits in the fact that they want no government, and no system....but the lack of a governemnt is a system..its called anarchy

2005-02-19 [Hependipherous]: quite paradoxical... makes no sense.

2005-02-21 [Solitiaum]: *listens quietly, nodding at balth's and heppy's statements*

2005-02-21 [bluesoulsearcher]: Oh, Bal, don't go with that line of reasoning, that whole God's Rock argument is really intellectually limiting. [David_1] you are describing egalatarianism...but here's a Platonic question for you...is rule by a tyrannical mob any better than rule by one tyrannical man?

2005-02-21 [Solitiaum]: No, its worse. One tyrannical man can be brought down much easier than if said man has a tyranical mob...

2005-02-22 [David_1]: yeds i think it is more politically just for a tyranical mob to abolish a man than just one person anad u are probaby goint to argue thats what a jury is your wrong because in the end that is what the judge decides still leaving it to one man

2005-02-22 [Solitiaum]: Well anyway, as long as no one here starts denying the Holocaust Im happy... -_-

2005-02-22 [bluesoulsearcher]: lol I wasn't going to go that far, David. Sairahiniel is correct, the tyrannical mob is no better, and in fact worse than the tyrannical man, who can be so easily toppled. I would take a corrupt judge over a corrupt jury any day of the week, because at the end of the day he is still just one man. I am, however, still a democrat, and my reasons for why lie in the Federalist Papers, particularly those addressing the question of factions. As for the Holocaust deniers, I firmly believe the horrific reports of the citizen-soldiers who liberated those camps, and any American who says otherwise, is free to practice the free speech those troops died for, but is also a liar.

2005-02-22 [Solitiaum]: You should get on the alt revisionism news group... Its a google thing I think, but youd have great fun listening to the delusions of one we call silly lying little Tommy...

2005-02-22 [bluesoulsearcher]: I've probably heard them all ready. A couple of the guys in my fraternity were deniers, plus I saw that documentary called Dr. Death, about the expert in execution who snuck into the old death camp sites and made claims that the Holocaust was overblown. 

2005-02-22 [Solitiaum]: Have you heard the one abut how the moon landing was faked? LMAO!

2005-02-22 [Hependipherous]: They say it was in Arizona and they slowed it down to make them move like that. It's stupid. o.0

2005-02-23 [Solitiaum]: And they say here that the technology didnt even exist then to take those photos.

2005-02-23 [bluesoulsearcher]: I actually have heard all the stuff about the moon landing being faked. NASA sent out a statement to explain the discrepencies such as the flag being unfurled in an airless world, so on and so forth. I haven't heard about the technology question, but I would respond to it as such...the technology was available to send them to the moon, the technology was available to orbit the earth, and the technology was available to take detailed photos of the USSR, China, and Cuba from U2 spyplanes operating at 70,000 ft. How exactly would it be impossible to take some close range photographs on the moon? What kind of technology do you need that wasn't already being used?

2005-02-24 [Hependipherous]: Wasn't the flag rigid plastic or something? They knew it would look bad on tv ahead of time... with the gravity being so low and there being no atmosphere...so they made it rigid.

2005-02-24 [bluesoulsearcher]: I can't remember what the explanation was, but if you go onto NASA's website they should still have somewhere on there.

2005-02-25 [David_1]: i wont deny the holocaust that was real and messed up i have to refrain from cussing about it because i do have jewish ancestory so i am generallynon arguemental about that unless if some one denies it

2005-02-25 [Solitiaum]: *nodnod*

2005-05-08 [R.I.P. And RAY]: Censorship...Sucks... but at least we're all not bitchin about it... I mean right!... No one could be that much of a lazy hippy... to just cry about something... but not do anything...about it...

2005-06-16 [bluesoulsearcher]: This is what censorship results in: http://pulpfictionedited.ytmnd.com/

2005-09-15 [wheelsy]: I hate cencorship, you have to be able to say fuck or shit whenever you get hurt

2005-10-25 [X2]: About this elfwood thing, you can't say that usa goverment (and fox) dosen't use censur. Noone say that you must be on elfwood, thats a choise. Of corse its up the owner/creater to make the rules, if you dont like it, why not trying to make one on your own. I dosen't say im supporting censur.

2005-10-26 [Solitiaum]: I did leave Elfwood, and Im not just putting up with shit. Im going to school to learn the more complex programming languages than html, so that I CAN make my own community. And yes, I am WELL aware that the US gov't uses censorship. Look at the new law about pronography! It has forced some sites which are *really* pornography out of business, because they cannot log *every* one who was in *every* shot. (Thank you, King George.)

2005-10-26 [Balthizar]: There is a reason for Censorship.For poem for example, If an Editor decides that it is Too dark and contains too much cursing,then it does. Why?Because this person needs a poem that EVERYONE or MOSTLEY everyone will enjoy. There are more people who will find Pornography offensive then people who wouldnt. That is why it is censored. Whoever has the most support makes the rules.

2005-10-27 [Solitiaum]: And it should not be that way! If you find something offensive, remove YOURSELF from it. Its not our responsibility to cater to your sensibilities.

2005-10-27 [X2]: Solitiaum: SO why dont you make one? "learn the more complex programming languages than html" OMgwtf, elfwood isen't made with html!

2005-10-27 [Solitiaum]: Specifically php, X2

2005-10-28 [X2]: as I said, im with this anti-censur thing, but theres no reson to blam elfwood. Just look at the goverments.

2005-10-28 [Balthizar]: No, its not he Governments fault. Those of us whose country allows us to vote((Im not going to go see if your country does or doesnt))Has the power to decide Censorship.Aslong as there are more people for Censorship, then you do have to cater to us.We make the laws. Majority rule

2005-10-29 [X2]: haha, so its the people now? Censur is offen hide, so main people dosen't know about it. How can they vote about something that they dont know happens? For exemple, when the us goverment was trying to kill Bob Marley, they diden't want people to know...

2005-10-29 [Solitiaum]: Even now the US government is picking and choosing what to tell its citizens.

2005-10-31 [bluesoulsearcher]: What government doesn't?

2005-11-02 [Balthizar]: And who chose the people in teh Government?

2005-11-02 [Solitiaum]: I most certaintly did not. I was in the hospital, birthing my son, and if I *HAD* been able to vote, I would have voted for the most liberal person on the ballet.

2005-11-02 [X2]: "they say that we have freedome, but what is it they give us? Yes, new idiots in a election 4th year...", thin its something like that in English, its "De säger vi har frihet, vad är det då vi får? Jo, nya idioter i ett val var fyärde år"

2005-11-03 [Solitiaum]: Something like that. Are you all following this BS about the war and the indictments?

2005-11-03 [bluesoulsearcher]: "this BS" is pretty vague. Suffice is to say I'm following both.

2005-11-04 [Solitiaum]: The BS about how the Bush administration wanted a war and so they concocted a reason to make one... I dont say BS because I dont think thats how it happened... I say BS because he is supposed to be this "upstanding Christain citizin" and he's just been debunked. The entire fucking administration should be tried for high treason.

2005-11-04 [X2]: Diden't get your point^^

2005-11-07 [Balthizar]: The only thing Bush has done to be even considered High treason is that he Ignored the UN

2005-11-07 [X2]: hahaaha. bush has done mush more than that.

2005-11-07 [Solitiaum]: He encouraged his administration to lie about documents so that he could start a war. He nominated a complete imbecile for Supreme Court so that in the aftermath of that outrage, he could slide whoever he wanted into office. Bush has singlehandedly quintupled the national debt, and you still say he has done nothing to warrant an arrest for high treason?!

2005-11-07 [bluesoulsearcher]: Ignoring the UN is hardly treasonous. We don't know sure who encouraged the lies on the documents. My money is on Rumsfiled. Neither Miers nor Roberts are complete imbeciles. They are highly intelligent people. The question is whether they belong on the Supreme Court. You could be right about him using it as justification for Alito, though. Lastly, Bush didn't "singlehandely quintuple the national debt." The national debt hasn't increased five-fold, and Bush hardly did it single-handedly. He had help from Congress. Of those three matters, however, only one of those could be considered treason, and that would be the documents. The other two are just politics and bad economics.

2005-11-08 [Solitiaum]: The national debt has increased a trillion or two, easy. Stealing money from this nation's senior citizens is wrong, and borders on treason, when that same money is then used to fund a war that seems dedicated to ensuring that today's youth do not grow to become senior citizens.

2005-11-08 [bluesoulsearcher]: The national debt has increased, but we're already a few trillion in the hole thanks to Reagan, so it will take awhile to reach five times that original amount. Bush hasn't stolen the money, however, unless your opinion is that all taxes are stolen money. The money used in the war was budgeted by Congress at the request of Bush. While one could say the money was misdirected, stolen is an overstatement. As it stands, Bush sent 400 billion dollars more to senior citizens in the inordinately expensive prescription drug plan, which is expected to cause the price of prescription drugs to increase dramatically, which screws all non-senior citizens.

2005-11-08 [bluesoulsearcher]: The AARP, perhaps the most irresponsible lobby in Washington, backed Bush's bill, and if you look at the exit polls from the 2004 election, more seniors supported Bush than Kerry (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html)

2005-11-09 [X2]: If you mean that the american people support bush more, of corse after the killing of american people they support a racist more that thinks that every arab is a scum then Kerry.

2005-11-10 [bluesoulsearcher]: That statement cannot be proven and is at severe odds with the policy decisions and public statements made by Bush prior to and after 9/11.

2005-11-12 [Solitiaum]: I hope you realise that current polls indicate that less than half of this nation is pleased with Bush and the way he handles policy.

2005-11-14 [bluesoulsearcher]: I'm well aware of that fact, and to be truthful, it pleases me. I didn't vote for him in 2000 or 2004. The only reason I defend him is when people make unjust accusations instead of the accusations he so richly deserves.

2006-07-30 [X2]: hm.... this page is pro or anti american? if it is pro, then there only two words: fox news.

2006-07-31 [to never return bye yall]: i totaly agree i mean one of my friends pointed out to me the other day that on the radio station i listen to there is one song that uses the phrase 'god damn' and the station takes out the god but not the damn. now i think that they should either take out the whole phrase or leave it all but taking out god and leaving damn they arent even doing it cause of language they are doing it cause of a religious reference and that is just so much bullshit! but i mean there is so much stuff going around these days about getting christianity out of basicly everything but i almost never hear anything taking place in amarica with other religons it is all about christianity.

2006-07-31 [to never return bye yall]: my point being if you are going to take out christianity shouldnt you also take out all the other raligions? i mean either have them all or dont have any at all. but dont go and take out just this one religion. that is one of the most prejudice things in this country is not rasism against blacks but a prejudice against christians and christ in anything but our church activities. there are just so many things taking anything that has a romote conection with the christian christ out of all but our own church that i am just waiting for the day when the govenment starts trying to gat ride of our church too.

2006-07-31 [to never return bye yall]: and if you cant see the conection of all this and the topic it is that the government has and still is puting so much censorship on the christian religon and only the christian religon and that is what i am ranting on about the governmental censorship of ONLY the christina religon and no others they need to censor all relogions the same or just stay out of it compleatly but not focus on one and only one religon.

2006-07-31 [to never return bye yall]: you can not blame the increase of the national debt on bush he is not the one who raises taxes the Congress is and he is not the one who desides what that money is spent on the congress is and do you know how much money the congress has taken in taxes saying that it was for one project that the nation actually needs and then turned around and spent it on something else that is of no remote inportince to anyone but pretty much those in congress and other areas of power in the government of this nation? do you? dont go blaming the problem of this nations debt on bush not even a full half of it is his fault it lies largely on this nations congress.

2006-07-31 [to never return bye yall]: this nations congress is one of the most corupt bodys of power in the world. it was set up to listen to the people and give them what they want but yet our congressmen and senaters are the ones telling us what we want not us them. they say we are to dumb and stupid to know what we want and need and they are smart and put there for them to tell us what we need. more like for them to tell us what they need. half of the things that go through the senate helps not the people of this nation but the rich and powerful if this nation. tell me that is the way it was meant to be.