[ IMAGES: Images ON turn off | ACCOUNT: User Status is LOCKED why? ]

OT--USA military shouldve helped get the people out of nO BEFORE the fact
Author Thread
Knight
Posts: 22775
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 7/21/2005
Member: #968
9/2/2005  11:34 AM
Posted by fishmike:
Posted by Knight:

Sexual indiscretions do matter to people because VALUES matter to people. If some people believe gay marriage is indicative of a decline of morality then they have a right to discuss it publicly. Without basic morality this nation would fall apart--business requires integrity and honesty--every legitimate social interaction presupposes shared values. Our government is supposed to be an extension of the interests of the people, no?

[Edited by - Knight on 09-02-2005 11:09 AM]
keeping slaves and herding American Indians off lands they were indigenous to were two key values that formed this country.
There is no great hypocrisy than the gay marriage issue. They country has a 50% divorce rate and more than half the repubs that voted against gay marriage were working on a 2nd wife. Tell me again how this is a threat to "traditional" values?
What a joke. Keep fags from getting married, so your children can be safe. Long live the empire.

I'm not against gay marriage nor am I talking about "traditional values". I'm talking more generally about morality and how we determine what makes something right or wrong--because something is pleasurable does it make it right? Is something right because it makes the most people "happy"? What is the basis for ethical evaluations? It's up for discussion, that's all I'm saying.

Thanks for the discussion today, gotta go, keep the thread going!
"He only went to Georgia Tech for one year, and that's an engineering school." -LB
AUTOADVERT
fishmike
Posts: 53902
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 7/19/2002
Member: #298
USA
9/2/2005  11:35 AM
so far 9/11, Iraq, Katrina... using provided intelligence doesnt seem to factor into this current administrations decision making.
"winning is more fun... then fun is fun" -Thibs
Knight
Posts: 22775
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 7/21/2005
Member: #968
9/2/2005  11:38 AM
Posted by fishmike:
Posted by Knight:
Posted by fishmike:
I think we went to war because, as I said, Iraq posed, directly or indirectly, a threat to the US.
Are you in politics? Why wont you answer the question? Do you think Iraq was a threat to the US? Enough of a threat that merited a full scale invasion?

Its a yes or no.


I do think a full scale invasion was the only way to get rid of the Saddam regime. I think Saddam supported terrorism and was motivated to harm US interests. It's unfortunate the world community did not put more pressure on him prior to the war--but as we now see there was a lot of shady business being done in the oil for food program.
again... your spinning and waffling
Here it is again... I bolded the key point because it appears to be ambigious to you

Do you think Iraq was a threat to the US? Enough of a threat that merited a full scale invasion?


Enough of a threat that Saddam had to be removed. There didn't appear to be any other way to accomplish this other than with the use of force, otherwise we would have accomplished it in the most efficient and least costly way possbile.
"He only went to Georgia Tech for one year, and that's an engineering school." -LB
fishmike
Posts: 53902
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 7/19/2002
Member: #298
USA
9/2/2005  11:44 AM
And do you still feel that way? My god we took over the country in 3 freakin weeks, what kind of a threat were they? Did they have ballistic missiles? Where they capable of actually attacking us? Their military has only one resource... people. It was crushed in a 10 year war with Iran.

Please...
"winning is more fun... then fun is fun" -Thibs
nyvector16
Posts: 21341
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 10/9/2001
Member: #130
USA
9/2/2005  11:48 AM
Posted by Knight:
Posted by fishmike:
Posted by Knight:

Sexual indiscretions do matter to people because VALUES matter to people. If some people believe gay marriage is indicative of a decline of morality then they have a right to discuss it publicly. Without basic morality this nation would fall apart--business requires integrity and honesty--every legitimate social interaction presupposes shared values. Our government is supposed to be an extension of the interests of the people, no?

[Edited by - Knight on 09-02-2005 11:09 AM]
keeping slaves and herding American Indians off lands they were indigenous to were two key values that formed this country.
There is no great hypocrisy than the gay marriage issue. They country has a 50% divorce rate and more than half the repubs that voted against gay marriage were working on a 2nd wife. Tell me again how this is a threat to "traditional" values?
What a joke. Keep fags from getting married, so your children can be safe. Long live the empire.

I'm not against gay marriage nor am I talking about "traditional values". I'm talking more generally about morality and how we determine what makes something right or wrong--because something is pleasurable does it make it right? Is something right because it makes the most people "happy"? What is the basis for ethical evaluations? It's up for discussion, that's all I'm saying.

Thanks for the discussion today, gotta go, keep the thread going!


It is thinking like yours that keeps Shari'ah alive and well in muslim countries...
Thinking like yours leads to things like the Moral police in Iran...
Or stoning of woman in Africa for having an affair...

When the powers that be start to regulate morality and what they consider "Right"... Freedom is the loser.
BRIGGS
Posts: 53275
Alba Posts: 7
Joined: 7/30/2002
Member: #303
9/2/2005  11:52 AM
Posted by Knight:
Posted by fishmike:
Posted by Knight:
Posted by fishmike:
I think we went to war because, as I said, Iraq posed, directly or indirectly, a threat to the US.
Are you in politics? Why wont you answer the question? Do you think Iraq was a threat to the US? Enough of a threat that merited a full scale invasion?

Its a yes or no.


I do think a full scale invasion was the only way to get rid of the Saddam regime. I think Saddam supported terrorism and was motivated to harm US interests. It's unfortunate the world community did not put more pressure on him prior to the war--but as we now see there was a lot of shady business being done in the oil for food program.
again... your spinning and waffling
Here it is again... I bolded the key point because it appears to be ambigious to you

Do you think Iraq was a threat to the US? Enough of a threat that merited a full scale invasion?


Enough of a threat that Saddam had to be removed. There didn't appear to be any other way to accomplish this other than with the use of force, otherwise we would have accomplished it in the most efficient and least costly way possbile.



yeah, Sadaam was such a risk to the US that they found him buried by himself in a rat hole on an isolated farm waving a hankee not to get his head blown off. When the Soldiers removed and searched him, they discovered what they had been looking for in his pocket, he was in fact armed with an M-80
As they took him away, the picture in the backround was an old Iraqui farmer with a grin on his face, stuffing hundred dollar bills down his pants and was overheard singing "Calfornia here I come"
RIP Crushalot😞
martin
Posts: 79009
Alba Posts: 108
Joined: 7/24/2001
Member: #2
USA
9/2/2005  11:54 AM
interesting:

http://kevin.lexblog.com/thoughts-and-happenings-1357-please-help-new-orleans-this-morning-no-money-just-send-an-email-please.html
Please Help New Orleans This Morning - no money, just send an email; Please

Your fellow American citizens need your help this morning. They need it before the money we are going to give is ever going to reach them. The situation in New Orleans is worse today than it was yesterday and is going to be worse tomorrow.
Official sponsor of the PURE KNICKS LOVE Program
toodarkmark
Posts: 21145
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 1/2/2004
Member: #515
USA
9/2/2005  11:55 AM
You talk about values, yet at every turn this administration has shown nothing but a loss of values. There is all the evidence in the world they lied about WMD and were on a witch hunt for Iraq from the day they stepped into the Whote House. They ignored information about Osama Bin ladin and 9-11 occured, seems like a low value system to me. Karl Rove leaked the name of a spy for the CIA because of her husbands attacks on the corruption, seems like a loss of values to me. They gave no bid after no bid contracts to Halliburton, and when objections arose, they demoted or fired the objectors, seems like a loss of values to me. They ignored science and research about New Orleans and diverted funds to their war, seems like a loss of values to me. They ignored the world warnings about attacking Iraq and that seems like a loss of values to me. They ignored faulty machines nationwide and made voting extremely difficult for many lower income areas, seems like a loss of values to me.

Oh wait! But getting a BJ while married, NOW THATS horrible. Hundreds of thousands of deaths across the world, thats patriotic. Forcing schools to hand over information on students to military recruiters or face lack of funding, thats totally moral. Do I really need to go on? Yet you care about whether or not two people of the same sex want to get married. Thats an issue. But occupying a country, which has been hurled into chaos and become a benchmark of terrorism attacks on out country for the next 100 years, thats totally moral. Do you know the US back constitution disallows any religion BUT Islam. Do you know opponents to that consitution are being assassinated in the streets? Do you even know whats going on in Iraq or just what Fox News has told you.

You talk about morals that affect NO ONE but the people involved, and ignore the values of people all across the world who view the US as the major Evil Empire. G W Bush is seen as the worst ruler since Hitler around the world. But the world is wrong isnt it, its jealous right. Youve probabley never even been to another country. So go ahead and ignore the morals of a President who did mad cocaine and skipped out on militray service, and has basically set into the action the end of the United States as a world power, and continue to worry about a few gays and a guy getting a BJ.
Posted by Knight:
Posted by toodarkmark:

It's great to see that most of this site is politically informed and not blinded by the propaganda. But for the few that are...

GoNY: You seem to have a small grasp on reality, yet claim to have the largest. Few answers and just alot of attacks on those who question. Typical of a con. You've made the sarcastic statement a few times that the world started on 1/21/01 and thats when everything went bad. I dont know how old you are but the world was MUCHHHHH different in 1/21/01 before the neo-conservative coup de tait. And dont talk about 9-11. Im someone who works in a Career Services office and the fact is jobs went to hell within months of Bush's election. The point of a conservative power base is to destroy the middle class. And they have done everything in their power to succeed, and the fact is you dont know the numbers, you just recite something you've been fed. Take it from someone's whos job it is to track jobs in this country that 9-11 affected to job market, but not as much as the neo-conservatives attempt to cripple this country financially to drive their army recruitment.

As far as politicizing it? Thats a common reponse by a sheep. Dont ask questions! Dont think! What SHOULDNT be politicized is someone have sexual indiscretions, but when the Federal Govt cuts funding for research to save its own people, stretches its resources paper thin, all for what a majority of this country and now politicians consider a senseless war, than that sure does need to be politicized.

Knight: Hindight is not 20/20. The experts, officials and groups in charge of this told the administration, but the administration did not care. Just as experts told them there were no WMDs in IRAQ. Just as they told them that Osama Bin Ladin would attack the US months before 9-11 happened. The point is they are far too arrogant to listen, and far too into creating chaos and fear to maintain their control.


Sexual indiscretions do matter to people because VALUES matter to people. If some people believe gay marriage is indicative of a decline of morality then they have a right to discuss it publicly. Without basic morality this nation would fall apart--business requires integrity and honesty--every legitimate social interaction presupposes shared values. Our government is supposed to be an extension of the interests of the people, no?

[Edited by - Knight on 09-02-2005 11:09 AM]


I don't care what people think. People are stupid. - Charles Barkley
Rich
Posts: 27410
Alba Posts: 6
Joined: 12/30/2003
Member: #511
USA
9/2/2005  11:56 AM
Posted by GoNyGoNyGo:

Briggs - Let me get this right. If you were in NO and feeling the way you do about the President and he came on and told you to leave your home because it will be under water soon, you would have listened to him? At that point, you would have put aside all your hatred for him and say "if he says it, he is the President, it must be true, let's go!"?

Just a guess, but I don't think you care an ounce of what he says, so why would you have listened to him then? Just as many people did not heed the warnings, you may not have either.

Also, why is it that the Federal GOVT is getting all the blame here? Is there no LOCAL govt there? Was there not a mayor or governor around? Are they blameless here? Who controls the Louisiana National Guard? Oh the governor of Lousisaina? So go ahead blame the one guy. It's all his fault, I keep forgetting that. The world started spinning on 1/21/01 and it revolves revolves around him.

The warnings were there and yes people think they are indestructible so they decided to stay or could not leave for one reason or another, I understand that. But to blame govt for not getting them out, when ample warning is given is ridiculous. Honestly, it would be hard to EVACUATE a city with NO IMPENDING DISASTER in less than a week! Think about how much planning that would take just for the 10's of thousands who needed a ride? That means hundreds of busses, hundreds of choppers, 10's of planes! By the way, that is all done on a LOCAL level! Maybe every city in America should have like a fire drill from now on. Everyone get out and we'll meet at the corner across the state?

For the guy who listed all the facts about the economy and health care. Let's not forget that after 9/11 over a million jobs were lost. Since then, those + 3 MIllion more have been created. As for health care, the number that Bill gave Bush sr was 40 million back in 92. So he did not do so well either right? Of those 45 million, how many are college kids? How many are illegals? Hmmm? If you want National Health Care, go to Canada. I hear they have a great system up there.

As I said before, this is a NATIONAL TRAGEDY. TO POLITICIZE THIS IS RIDICULOUS! Mother Nature is all powerful and proves it again and again.


Because a calamity of this magnitude presents a problem that only the national government can handle.

Seeking to impose accountablility on the BUNGLING, INCOMPETENT BUSH ADMINSTRATION is not politicization. IT IS RIDICULOUS TO TRY TO ARGUE THAT IT IS!
arkrud
Posts: 32217
Alba Posts: 7
Joined: 8/31/2005
Member: #995
USA
9/2/2005  11:58 AM
Sadam was a thread to US backed businesses because he tried to deal his oil to Russia for transit and refinery. He was playing the games with China too. He betrayed US politicians and CIA. He was punished for this not for being a dictator and killer. It's a lot of them around worst that Sadam but they have no oil and play by our rules so nobody in US administration cares. All the rest - terrorism, democracy, etc. - bull and propaganda to make US people happy.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Hamlet
Rich
Posts: 27410
Alba Posts: 6
Joined: 12/30/2003
Member: #511
USA
9/2/2005  11:58 AM
Posted by Knight:
Posted by Rich:
Posted by Knight:
Posted by Silverfuel:


I'll give you an example. FACT: Terrorists used planes to attack the Twin Towers in NY. Thats a fact and you cant really spin it anyway you want like you said before.

Not everyone in the world sees the people who flew the planes into the towers as "terrorists". Sorry, that's not a fact.

Assumptions must be confined to the universe of reasonable people. They were terrorists to any reasonable person. That assertion is indisputable, just as it is indisputable that people had warned about the risk of the levees collapsing if a big hurricane hit New Orleans, contrary to Bush's assertion to Diane Sawyer on "Good Morning America" yesterday morning ("I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees."), and as it is indisputable that Bush cut funding to FEMA (as is proven by facts cited earlier in this thread).


"Reasonable" people used to believe that the earth was flat, that the earth was the center of the universe, that non-caucasian races were inferior, that women were inferior to men...reasonable people are not infallible.

When compelling evidence and observation debunked those myths, reasonable people saw the light. Such is the case with your fallacious assertion about facts. Your line of reasoning is proven wrong by its circularity.


[Edited by - Rich on 09-02-2005 11:59 AM]
toodarkmark
Posts: 21145
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 1/2/2004
Member: #515
USA
9/2/2005  12:02 PM
Yeah he was such a huge threat. Such a huge threat that all 20 hijackers on 9-11 were from Iraq. Oh wait, they were from Saudia Arabia. But we're friends with Suadia Arabia! Bush holds the hands of their leaders. Such a threat with his WMDs! Oh wait he had no WMDs. Weird. Such a threat that we needed to take him out and put leadership in there with our great plan of democracy that would stabalize the region! Oh wait we're putting in an Islamically fundamentalist government there? One that is out assassinating any opposition to their constitution? Such a threat he supported terrorism and the world is a far better place without him! Wait, you mean that the entire region has fallen into further chaos and that there are more countries everyday building weapons with their sites on the US? Wait. You mean its not as simple as just taking out one guy? You mean that there are a 1000 factors that go into diplomacy and not just killing on guy?

You go ahead and see the world like its an Bonanza episode, but sadly its definitly not.

Posted by Knight:
Posted by fishmike:
Posted by Knight:
Posted by fishmike:
I think we went to war because, as I said, Iraq posed, directly or indirectly, a threat to the US.
Are you in politics? Why wont you answer the question? Do you think Iraq was a threat to the US? Enough of a threat that merited a full scale invasion?

Its a yes or no.


I do think a full scale invasion was the only way to get rid of the Saddam regime. I think Saddam supported terrorism and was motivated to harm US interests. It's unfortunate the world community did not put more pressure on him prior to the war--but as we now see there was a lot of shady business being done in the oil for food program.
again... your spinning and waffling
Here it is again... I bolded the key point because it appears to be ambigious to you

Do you think Iraq was a threat to the US? Enough of a threat that merited a full scale invasion?


Enough of a threat that Saddam had to be removed. There didn't appear to be any other way to accomplish this other than with the use of force, otherwise we would have accomplished it in the most efficient and least costly way possbile.


I don't care what people think. People are stupid. - Charles Barkley
GoNyGoNyGo
Posts: 23559
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 5/29/2003
Member: #411
USA
9/2/2005  12:11 PM
Posted by toodarkmark:

It's great to see that most of this site is politically informed and not blinded by the propaganda. But for the few that are...

GoNY: You seem to have a small grasp on reality, yet claim to have the largest. Few answers and just alot of attacks on those who question. Typical of a con. You've made the sarcastic statement a few times that the world started on 1/21/01 and thats when everything went bad. I dont know how old you are but the world was MUCHHHHH different in 1/21/01 before the neo-conservative coup de tait. And dont talk about 9-11. Im someone who works in a Career Services office and the fact is jobs went to hell within months of Bush's election. The point of a conservative power base is to destroy the middle class. And they have done everything in their power to succeed, and the fact is you dont know the numbers, you just recite something you've been fed. Take it from someone's whos job it is to track jobs in this country that 9-11 affected to job market, but not as much as the neo-conservatives attempt to cripple this country financially to drive their army recruitment.

As far as politicizing it? Thats a common reponse by a sheep. Dont ask questions! Dont think! What SHOULDNT be politicized is someone have sexual indiscretions, but when the Federal Govt cuts funding for research to save its own people, stretches its resources paper thin, all for what a majority of this country and now politicians consider a senseless war, than that sure does need to be politicized.

----
How old am I? Old enough to remember Clyde getting traded to Cleveland. Not that I need to answer that question for you.

So you know about jobs? Did you know that the economy was beginning to have trouble in 2000? Are you aware of the tech bubble burst of 1999-2000? A slight recession hit this country starting in 2001. The Bush economic agenda did not take affect until October of 2001. If you are as astute as YOU claim, you would know that the FEDERAL fiscal year starts in OCtober, and see the Recession started under the previous economic plan from before. And so you see it really had little to do with whom the PResident was contrary to the BS you try to feed those who are ill-informed. TOTAL EMPLOYMENT has gone up about 5 million since 01/21/01, the day the earth started spinning for you. Admittedly, CLINTON had 3 times the amount of job growth (the INTERNET boom may have had SOMETHING to do with it). Although in GWs case, the growth really has been in the last 2 years after the 2nd round of tax cuts in 02-03. Also JOBS reached a peak of 137799000 in March of 2001. Then started dropping (recession) By 9/11 - October 2001, the jobs were at 136392000 about 1.4M less. Of course, October 2001 is when the BUSH's first budget started. So economic growth or stagnation would be credited to the previous admin. After 9/11 they reached a low of 135693000 in 1/02 or another 600,000 less. So 9/11 did have an effect. On 1/2003, the jobs reached 137429000 (+1.8M) almost a complete recovery from 1/01 and today are at 142449000 (or since 9/11 +6M), net effect since 1/1/01 is again +5M.

As of this morning, more jobs were added and UNEMPLOYMENT is now at 4.9%. Can you say that these were not for middle class people?

Check the #'s: http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost


So now that I have blown apart the first paragraph of your response and TAUGHT you something, lets move on to the rest.



In your opinion the war is senseless. That is fine. You are entitled to that opinion. You talk about the pre9/11 era. It was radically different. Since 9/11 the govt has decided to fight back. UNlike the 1st WTC attck in 93, this response was strong ( i wish it was stronger and still do). I am sure it is your belief that IRAQ has nothign to do with anything, but I can and have read many links between IRAQ and world wide terrorsim directed at the US. In addition, the WMD thing was a smokescreen that the US had been trying to sell us for years. Pres Clinton used the same exact words as BUsh did when talking about it as did Kerry. Let's not mention the other countries that said the same thing. DO THE RESEARCH, I HAVE. THat has all been neatly forgotten by you right?

I have a theory on why we are in IRAQ and soon to be other places in the ME. It has less to do with enriching the pockets of Bush and CHeney (they will benefit) and much more to do with securing OUR FUTURE. If you contend that this whole thing is the brainchild of some "neocons" I disagree. Since the 70's remember the first FUEL shortage and the IRANIAN hostage crisis, the GOVT has been planning ways to set up bases in the ME. It is a choice of AMERICA protecting what it needs to protect to maintain its position in the world. I believe it would have happened, regardless of who the PResident was but it makes it easier to do with another Bush in charge.

Were you against our involvement in Bosnia too? Or is it simply war that Bush got you into? We still have troops there ya know. By the way I was not against it.Would you be against troops in Africa? I stated previously my issues with BUSH. Add to that our lack of involvement in Africa and stopping the absolute horrific GENOICIDE that is going on there. Please dont read that I think we should send $$ there. The money just goes to the dicatators causing the harm. I don't, we should be sending troops but why will it not happen? i think you know that answer.

You attack me for spewing things I have heard. I think I have proved that I follow this closely and have a deep understanding of the issues but I want to ask you why are spewing the words that you do like NEOCON and COUP'de'tat? Are you just repeating what you have heard? Come on now. The cuts in funding for Louisiana for the levees had no effect on the flood. The project is only half way done as of this year. It would take another 10 years at full funding to complete! i am assuming that is what you are referencing, right?

In the end, BUSH, CLINTON, KERRY, its all the same. My repsonse were to the claims that BUSH should have done more prior to Katrina. I maintain that is just ridiculous and typcial POLITICAL Posturing by those who are out of power. If that makes me a sheep, I guess I am just joining your flock then. BAAAAAHHHH.
Rich
Posts: 27410
Alba Posts: 6
Joined: 12/30/2003
Member: #511
USA
9/2/2005  12:14 PM
No, Bush, Clinton, and Kerry are not all the same. Clinton turned deficits and debt into a surplus. Bush has turned a surplus into deficits and debt.

Clinton waged a war in Bosnia so well that not one US serviceman lost their life in combat. Bush has bungled the Iraq war.

Facts matter despite your spin.

[Edited by - Rich on 09-02-2005 12:15 PM]
GoNyGoNyGo
Posts: 23559
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 5/29/2003
Member: #411
USA
9/2/2005  12:28 PM
Posted by Rich:

No, Bush, Clinton, and Kerry are not all the same. Clinton turned deficits and debt into a surplus. Bush has turned a surplus into deficits and debt.

Clinton waged a war in Bosnia so well that not one US serviceman lost their life in combat. Bush has bungled the Iraq war.

Facts matter despite your spin.

[Edited by - Rich on 09-02-2005 12:15 PM]
What facts are you disputing? You did not mention any of them.

Yes, Clinton had a surplus, so what? Tell me what wonderful things did that mean for you? Did it make you feel better at night, knowing that as citizens we were giving the govt more of our hard earned money that it needed? That makes me mad. That is our money they are using!

As for Bush bingling the war, I do think we should have used more force but that would not get us out any sooner. We are there to stay. Just like we were in Eastern Europe for 50 years keeping a close eye on the CCCP. The ME is strategic.

WHat facts are you going to dispute now, I wonder?
Knight
Posts: 22775
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 7/21/2005
Member: #968
9/2/2005  1:02 PM
Posted by Rich:
Posted by Knight:
Posted by Rich:
Posted by Knight:
Posted by Silverfuel:


I'll give you an example. FACT: Terrorists used planes to attack the Twin Towers in NY. Thats a fact and you cant really spin it anyway you want like you said before.

Not everyone in the world sees the people who flew the planes into the towers as "terrorists". Sorry, that's not a fact.

Assumptions must be confined to the universe of reasonable people. They were terrorists to any reasonable person. That assertion is indisputable, just as it is indisputable that people had warned about the risk of the levees collapsing if a big hurricane hit New Orleans, contrary to Bush's assertion to Diane Sawyer on "Good Morning America" yesterday morning ("I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees."), and as it is indisputable that Bush cut funding to FEMA (as is proven by facts cited earlier in this thread).


"Reasonable" people used to believe that the earth was flat, that the earth was the center of the universe, that non-caucasian races were inferior, that women were inferior to men...reasonable people are not infallible.

When compelling evidence and observation debunked those myths, reasonable people saw the light. Such is the case with your fallacious assertion about facts. Your line of reasoning is proven wrong by its circularity.

Ask any good historian about "facts"--they need interpretation. There are an infinite number of "facts" about the world--even the act of choosing which "facts" are relevant requires some kind of discrimination. Who's to say that future generations will not look upon "terrorists" differently than we do? There is nothing circular about my reasoning. Do you even know what circular reasoning is?


"He only went to Georgia Tech for one year, and that's an engineering school." -LB
Rich
Posts: 27410
Alba Posts: 6
Joined: 12/30/2003
Member: #511
USA
9/2/2005  1:06 PM
Posted by GoNyGoNyGo:
Posted by Rich:

No, Bush, Clinton, and Kerry are not all the same. Clinton turned deficits and debt into a surplus. Bush has turned a surplus into deficits and debt.

Clinton waged a war in Bosnia so well that not one US serviceman lost their life in combat. Bush has bungled the Iraq war.

Facts matter despite your spin.

[Edited by - Rich on 09-02-2005 12:15 PM]
What facts are you disputing? You did not mention any of them.

Yes, Clinton had a surplus, so what? Tell me what wonderful things did that mean for you? Did it make you feel better at night, knowing that as citizens we were giving the govt more of our hard earned money that it needed? That makes me mad. That is our money they are using!

As for Bush bingling the war, I do think we should have used more force but that would not get us out any sooner. We are there to stay. Just like we were in Eastern Europe for 50 years keeping a close eye on the CCCP. The ME is strategic.

WHat facts are you going to dispute now, I wonder?

Let me clear it up for you. You have tried to rationalize Bush's failures by arguing that they all are the same. The FACTS, you know, those events that define reality, demonstrate otherwise.

What did Clinton's surplus do for me? I'm irrelevant. What it did for the country, inter alia, was to adequately fund FEMA and other government agencies to provide people with relief and contingency plans when these type of catastrophes occurred. The FEMA director, James Lee Witt, was even lauded by Republicans as being the most competent person to ever run that agency ("I've got to--I've got to pay the administration a compliment. James Lee Witt of FEMA has done a really good job of working with governors during times of crisis. But that's the time when you're tested, not only--it's the time you test your mettle. It's the time to test your heart, when you see people whose lives have been turned upside down." --Gov. George W. Bush, 10/3/2000 ). Why? Because he was the first head of FEMA who had a professional background in emergency and disaster management. The two people Bush has appointed to head FEMA, Joe Allbaugh and Mike Brown, lack such experience and it shows.

So to answer your question, yes, I feel better at night to know that my fellow Americans will be taken care of in such an emergency, because there but for the grace of god go I.

If it's our money, then it's our debt. Do you really think that Bush's spending which has caused massive debt won't have to be paid by taxpayers at some point. Of course it will, just as Clinton and Bush I had to raise taxes to clean up the massive debt that Reagan produced.

As for Iraq, we will not stay there. The country is deteriorating into civil war. We will declare victory and leave, and watch Shi'ite areas align with Iran, making Iraq more of a threat than it was when Saddam was in power.
Rich
Posts: 27410
Alba Posts: 6
Joined: 12/30/2003
Member: #511
USA
9/2/2005  1:07 PM
Posted by Knight:
Posted by Rich:
Posted by Knight:
Posted by Rich:
Posted by Knight:
Posted by Silverfuel:


I'll give you an example. FACT: Terrorists used planes to attack the Twin Towers in NY. Thats a fact and you cant really spin it anyway you want like you said before.

Not everyone in the world sees the people who flew the planes into the towers as "terrorists". Sorry, that's not a fact.

Assumptions must be confined to the universe of reasonable people. They were terrorists to any reasonable person. That assertion is indisputable, just as it is indisputable that people had warned about the risk of the levees collapsing if a big hurricane hit New Orleans, contrary to Bush's assertion to Diane Sawyer on "Good Morning America" yesterday morning ("I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees."), and as it is indisputable that Bush cut funding to FEMA (as is proven by facts cited earlier in this thread).


"Reasonable" people used to believe that the earth was flat, that the earth was the center of the universe, that non-caucasian races were inferior, that women were inferior to men...reasonable people are not infallible.

When compelling evidence and observation debunked those myths, reasonable people saw the light. Such is the case with your fallacious assertion about facts. Your line of reasoning is proven wrong by its circularity.

Ask any good historian about "facts"--they need interpretation. There are an infinite number of "facts" about the world--even the act of choosing which "facts" are relevant requires some kind of discrimination. Who's to say that future generations will not look upon "terrorists" differently than we do? There is nothing circular about my reasoning. Do you even know what circular reasoning is?


Whether or not terrorists flew a plane into the WTC towers does not require interpretation. Stop being so obtuse.
Knight
Posts: 22775
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 7/21/2005
Member: #968
9/2/2005  1:08 PM
Posted by Rich:


What did Clinton's surplus do for me?I'm irrelevant. What it did for the country...

You said it.


"He only went to Georgia Tech for one year, and that's an engineering school." -LB
Knight
Posts: 22775
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 7/21/2005
Member: #968
9/2/2005  1:13 PM
My point about facts is only to demonstrate how people can interpret them in different ways--and just because somebody points to "facts" in their tabloid newspaper article doesn't mean their interpretation of them is correct or accurate or unbiased.
"He only went to Georgia Tech for one year, and that's an engineering school." -LB
OT--USA military shouldve helped get the people out of nO BEFORE the fact

©2001-2025 ultimateknicks.comm All rights reserved. About Us.
This site is not affiliated with the NY Knicks or the National Basketball Association in any way.
You may visit the official NY Knicks web site by clicking here.

All times (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time.

Terms of Use and Privacy Policy