O/T: It won't go away by itself. (Verrry scary political)

Page 5 of 8  
Morris Dovey wrote:

Utterly untrue and ad hominem. I have been pretty clear to distinguish what is opinion and what is provable fact in this thread.
It is factual that:
- Saddam refused to allow full and open inspections - He was a savage butcher - He funded suicide bombers - He had used some form of WMDs on previous occasions - He repeatedly stated his intentions to build more WMDs
It is informed speculation that:
- Some of the possible WMD type materiale' was moved to the Bekka
It is possible, perhaps even likely that:
- Worldwide intel services may have not done full due diligence in their haste to confirm that the Iraqi monster needed to go.
These are all reasonable, and fact-based positions with varying degrees of credibility. Yet, when I've challenged you Bush Haters to come up with any shred of evidence rooted in a similar simple statement of fact demonstrating that he "lied" and the silence has been deafening. Given the foaming vitriol that characterizes your camp, it speaks volumes that no such proof is forthcoming. I am reasonably certain that if such proof existed it would long ago have be trotted out by the spittle spewing Bush haters. And - as I've said repeatedly - if any such proof evidenced itself that Bush knowingly lied to get us into a war unnecessarily, unjustly, and under false pretenses, I'd be right in line with those of you demanding an accounting and possibly a war crimes trial.

Fine, so you (and your fellow travelers) would have us make policy decisions, pursue international war crimes actions, and such solely based on what is "clear" to you. Swell.

Allow me to acquaint you with some elementary distinctions:
- Consciously purveying something not true is called "lying". - Saying something untrue unwittingly, because you were mislead, or because you didn't/couldn't know better is called a "mistake".
There is an enormous moral and qualitative difference between the two. (Unless you are in sputtering "I Hate George Bush" fan club in which the two are morally equivalent. Oddly many of the charter members of that club seem to have no similar moral outrage with the overt and demonstrable lies of Pelosio, Obama, Frank, Durbin, and the rest of the sewage in the Left...)
The level of moral culpability is thus also different for the two.

On this we agree, but that's not the discussion here. There are plenty of politicians whose ideas I have and do despise - our current phony political hack Messiah leaps to mind. But I don't confuse my difference of opinion with their views as constituting their having lied about things. For instance, Obama flatly lied about his intentions to stop earmarking. But he certainly did not lie in his commitment to socializing the economy and its largest businesses. That has been implicit in his rhetoric for years. Similarly, it's fine with me if people dislike Bush's policies - and and/or all - but all of the gurgling that goes on about what a liar he was is just hot air. In actual fact Bush too did pretty much what he promised to. Complaining about that is fair game. Inventing duplicity that did not exist - or at least has never been shown to exist - is dishonest.

It's not a strawman. The West failing to interdict in the region would have effectively been a blank check to all the madmen that occupy it - you lived there IIRC and this should be clearer to you than most people. You don't let lunatics have guns let alone nukes.

I would do everything in my power to acquire the weapons necessary to defend my own interest. Listen, I get why *they* want these weapons. What I don't get is why any sane Westerner would be happy to sit by and let it happen. The idea of some Caliphate-Wannabe with even a tactical nuke is - to me - utterly unacceptable.

That is correct, "national sovereignty" indeed gives you this. Reality, OTOH, is what happens when behave murderously and then try to hide behind sovereignty. Again, I get why Saddam did what he did. I don't get why Westerners think that he was mistreated. He got what he had coming to him in spades.

Because it's true and thus no rebuttal is possible????

No - I objected to characterizing this as "lying" on the part of the Bush administration. Intelligence is an inexact activity. War has friction. International conflict never goes as planned. But somehow Bush was the one President that we're supposed to hold to a standard of perfection. Again, I say this as someone who largely disagreed with a good part of his policies and direction, but the the fulminating Left that has percolated all this Bush hatred is 100x worse than Bush could ever dream to be. It is they who are the lying scoundrels in all this, not Bush.

If you think he polarized this country, I'd encourage you to review the administrations of Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush '41, and Clinton. Laying this all at W's feet is absurd. Whether he underminded the principles of American democracy is a matter of opinion - I remain conflicted on the matter but lean in the direction that his foes are worse in their condemnation than that actual facts of the matter ever merited.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload


Let me clear something up here.. " a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.
So, by definition, when Timbo drags Nixon, LBJ, Mother Theresa into an argument about GWBush, it is in fact a straw man.
Why does he do that all the time?
Simple. Timbo figures he can 'win' arguments by clouding the issues to such an extent that many try to follow his pretzel logic, then they realize that Timbo is full of shit and they throw their hands up in the air muttering: 'what is the point of all this?"...and then Timbo proclaims a victory.
It is the oldest trick in the book, and I must give him points for playing that 'game' very well. Unfortunately, it is devoid of any 'real' victory.
Timbo's trick # 2? Is yelling AD HOMINEM ATTACK!!!
Trick # 3? A mishmash of repeat words, in the attempt that if he repeats them often enough, they may stick to something/somebody. They include the same old:
-Utterly untrue and ad hominem.
-It is factual that:
-It is informed speculation that:
-Bush Haters
-the foaming vitriol that characterizes your camp
-the spittle spewing Bush haters
-Pelosio, Obama, Frank, Durbin, and the rest of 
the sewage in the Left..
-our current phony political hack Messiah
-the fulminating Left that has percolated all this Bush hatred is 100x worse than Bush could ever dream to be.  It is they who are the lying scoundrels in all this, not Bush. ====== Yup, we are dealing with a Bush apologist, and a guy who resorts to bullshit in order to try to win an argument that nobody is really having.....
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

-Utterly untrue and ad hominem.
-It is factual that:
-It is informed speculation that:
-Bush Haters
-the foaming vitriol that characterizes your camp
-the spittle spewing Bush haters
-Pelosio, Obama, Frank, Durbin, and the rest of 
the sewage in the Left..
-our current phony

You've described Rush Limbaugh, the Brash Lamebrain.
Max
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robatoy wrote:

When you can't keep, you make it up ...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
RE: Tim Daneliuk's posts
IMHO, it's got to be a slow day around the water cooler when you respond to them.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I just had an epiphany...i.e. a sudden, intuitive perception of or insight into the reality or essential meaning of something, usually initiated by some simple, homely, or commonplace occurrence or experience.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Robatoy" wrote:

initiated by some simple, homely, or commonplace occurrence or experience.
Ah yes, baffle them with bull shit.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I think bullshit, as a word, is in use long enough now that it neither needs to be written as two words or hyphenated. Bull shit is what comes out of a bull's ass, bullshit is what comes out of somebody's mouth. Of course, this could all be bullshit. If so, you've been bullshat.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Robatoy" wrote:
=================================I think bullshit, as a word, is in use long enough now that it neither needs to be written as two words or hyphenated. Bull shit is what comes out of a bull's ass, bullshit is what comes out of somebody's mouth. Of course, this could all be bullshit. If so, you've been bullshat. =================================== You do have a talent for IBS, AKA: Intellectual Bull Shit
(I prefer two words)
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Lew Hodgett wrote:

Yet you can't help yourself providing sidebar commentary. I bet I know why:
It must be a very, very slow day when your only counterpoint is personal rather than some form of ideas (pro- or con). I love personal assaults - they demonstrate that the speaker can no longer rationally defend their ground and have to resort to playground name calling or the equivalent.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 23 May 2009 22:37:02 -0500, Tim Daneliuk

Tim someday you might replace Ann Coulter, if you go to Thailand for sexual reassignment.
Now that is a personal attack.
Mark (sixoneeight) = 618
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

I agree with the first two points, invite you to provide verifiable, detailed specifics of the third point (excluding after the fact compensation to families), and to present a clear definition of "WMD" as you use it in terms of killing range, number of expected casualties, etc.

Speculation is neither evidence nor intellgence.

You reveal lack of a basic understanding of what intelligence is about. Intelligence without "full due diligence" is not intelligence at all - it is merely speculation and assumption (anathema to all intelligence folks).

When someone in the intelligence chain says they're in possession of some piece of /knowledge/, they're certifying that it is "hard" and "real" - that "full due diligence" has been done. Relabeling anything else as knowledge is an act of absolute dishonesty - and there is /no/ slack to be cut.
FYI I don't hate Bush, or Cheney, or Rumsfeld. I don't have any particular fondness (or respect) for any of that crowd - but I don't hate any of them.
What I /do/ hate is dishonesty in any form, and I hate it most when I see it in a person who occupies a position of public trust - and I assure you that it have anything to do with political affiliations.

I, on the other hand, consider lying to be a mistake...
...and I consider that presenting something as factual, when you don't know that it is, to be a lie if/when it turns out not to be factual.
There is a lot of daylight between "We have reason to suspect" or "I think" and "We know" or "I know".

Hmm - side rant noted and disregarded. :)

Smoke screen noted and disregarded. :)

Well, if it's not a strawman, it's more scope creep than I'm willing to accept.

I'm somewhat reassured that you get it. :)
I'm not an anti-nuke freak, but if wishing so could make it happen I'd wish /all/ nukes gone, so that 6B people could all breathe a bit easier.
It's difficult sometimes to realize that not all things can be controlled to produce outcomes that we'd like.
We have nukes, the Russians have nukes, and everyone who feels threatened by either of us wants nukes to keep us from running roughshod over them.
I don't think it's a matter of "allowing". That notion presupposes that control can be imposed from without (by some "sane Westerner"?) - and it's the prospect of being under some other country's control that drives the desire to do whatever is needed to defend. It sounds like a classic Catch-22 scenario.
There was a short-lived window of opportunity when, if both the former Soviet Union and the US had de-commissioned all nukes, the rest of the world /might/ have decided to do without. Doesn't matter now - we didn't and so that window closed firmly.
We're not without options, but imposition of control is not one of them.

I believe he did - but I also believe that bringing him to justice could hardly have been done more ineptly.

No, because I'm not "You folks" and because I'm not interested in participating in debate where you project a position onto me for you to knock down. It's that dislike for dishonesty thing I was talking about.

Go back and re-read carefully. I was fairly careful to avoid the word that comes so easily to you.

Surprise! I was actually there - watching first-hand. I even voted in all their elections, but only for one of those (and probably not one you're likely to guess). :)

I will continue to hold ex-President Bush responsible for the actions (and the consequences of the actions) of his administration - without much regard for who might agree or disagree...
...and I'm not much troubled that your opinions differ from mine.
( Which, by the way, is why I keep encouraging you to involve yourself in bringing forward /better/ candidates for office! )
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Morris Dovey wrote: <SNIP>

I do .. by supporting their candidacy in both spirit and cash. While I differed with his views on the Iraq war, I thought Ron Paul was the first terrific choice we've had in decades. I went to his local rally and was astonished - every demographic was represented (or so it seemed). Yet, since he was outside the mainstream of the DemoRepublic mafia he got no play. I too voted in the elections mentioned previously (well, almost all of them). After a while it gets discouraging to realize: A) You almost never get a good choice and B) The major political parties sponsor candidates that vary between terrible and evil.
In truth though, the problem lies not with the candidates but with the voting public. The politicians are merely canaries in the coal mine signaling just how morally degenerate the population at large has become in its incessant demands upon government to keep it safe, educated, prosperous, healthy, and happy - almost all of which are things that government manifestly cannot do, or at least not do well. <Shrug> IMHO, the republic is doomed. The Sheeple are electing candidates that are merely rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, not trying to patch the leak and keep the boat afloat ...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Something we share: I haven't ever managed to find a candidate with whom I was in agreement on every issue and I probably never will - but I refuse to let that discourage me from encouraging good people to run for office or from working to elect whomever I think will do the best job.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Morris Dovey" wrote: ====================================> Something we share: I haven't ever managed to find a candidate with

your job; however, politics isn't one of them.
Stop and think about it.
A congressman gets paid about $180K + expenses.
Most of them can earn significantly more outside gov't.
Out of that $180K, they are expected to maintain two (2) residences, come back to their home district at least every two (2) weeks.
In addition, the must survive the "rubber chicken" circuit attending an endless series of campaign fund raisers.
Yes, congressmen enjoy some nice benefits, but you don't invest the time and energy needed to get elected just for benefits.
It takes someone who wants to make a difference to run the gauntlet of seeking office, then serving in public service.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Power is its own Currency.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
LD wrote:

Bingo. We need to figure out how to tweak the system so that people who aren't about power get elected.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
J. Clarke wrote:

No need to tweak the system, we need to go back to the founders' original intent. They set up the system for that express purpose. However, during the 20'th century, we became much more "enlightened" and did multiple things to go around that original intent. Creative interpretation of the Constitution such that a person raising wheat on his own land to feed his chickens was engaged in "interstate commerce" so that the federal government could prohibit that activity, popular election of Senators rather than the original state government selection of Senators and popular election of Representatives provided the opportunity for statists to appeal to the base instincts of voters, and the interpretation of "promote the general welfare" to now mean "to provide general welfare" are all examples of how the Constitution's original intent to curb the power of government and thus curb the power-hungry have been usurped to allow the power hungry to manipulate popular opinion by getting the people to vote themselves the treasury while the statists wield the power to get those funds.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
LD wrote:

Yep. A good example is a chap who's short, looks like a stepped-on toad, speaks with a heavy accent, and, while comfortable, is not by any means rich. In spite of these disadvantages, he was the most sought-after bachelor in town. During his years, he dated spectacular women: Jill St. John, Barbara Walters, and others.
His most memorable line: "Power is the only true aphrodisiac."
Of course being awarded the Nobel Prize added a certain cachet to Henry Kissinger's pickup lines.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Ohhh DRAT!! I forgot to include SHEEPLE in my list of Timbo throw-out lines.
How could i have forgotten SHEEPLE!!
Obamessiah fomenting Bush hate SHEEPLE!!
Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.