anastrophe wrote: mmm, yes. the ego of the leftwing and it's fascination with itself, to the point of being as unseemly as public masturbation, is certainly not at issue.Been there, done that, still got the T-shirt.
anastrophe wrote: ibid. such a ridiculous statement. You wouldn't like help with your grammar at any stage, would you?
After weeks of negotiation, Saddam Hussein is finally interviewed by an American
After weeks of negotiation, Saddam Hussein is finally interviewed by an American
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
After weeks of negotiation, Saddam Hussein is finally interviewed by an American
spot wrote:
You wouldn't like help with your grammar at any stage, would you?
oh my! what, pray, is your objection to the sentence?
You wouldn't like help with your grammar at any stage, would you?
oh my! what, pray, is your objection to the sentence?
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
After weeks of negotiation, Saddam Hussein is finally interviewed by an American
anastrophe wrote: oh my! what, pray, is your objection to the sentence?I don't object to the sentence in the slightest degree. You are speaking to an aficionado of both reggae and rap, I'm made of far sterner stuff that you seem to suggest.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
After weeks of negotiation, Saddam Hussein is finally interviewed by an American
spot wrote: I don't object to the sentence in the slightest degree. You are speaking to an aficionado of both reggae and rap, I'm made of far sterner stuff that you seem to suggest.
deflect, deflect, deflect (that's a bit of propaganda for you).
now that the topic is withering into grammatical flames, what the hell: since you're intent on tossing childish bon mots, let's put it in plainer terms. I wrote
ibid. such a ridiculous statement.
You wrote in reply
You wouldn't like help with your grammar at any stage, would you?
What i am asking, in plain enough terms that any git could understand, is what you were suggesting or implying with your reply.
simple enough? or have you realized your implication that there's some grammatical problem with the sentence was misplaced, thus feel it necessary to divert, divert, divert in hopes that your error will be overlooked?
deflect, deflect, deflect (that's a bit of propaganda for you).
now that the topic is withering into grammatical flames, what the hell: since you're intent on tossing childish bon mots, let's put it in plainer terms. I wrote
ibid. such a ridiculous statement.
You wrote in reply
You wouldn't like help with your grammar at any stage, would you?
What i am asking, in plain enough terms that any git could understand, is what you were suggesting or implying with your reply.
simple enough? or have you realized your implication that there's some grammatical problem with the sentence was misplaced, thus feel it necessary to divert, divert, divert in hopes that your error will be overlooked?
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
After weeks of negotiation, Saddam Hussein is finally interviewed by an American
why are you limiting the interval to 1991 to 2003? saddam had been in power since 1979, and some of the worst atrocities were committed before his 1990 invasion of kuwait.
Jiperly wrote: Well, the widely reported estimates I've heard is Saddams carniage was 10,000-100,000 from 1991 to the war(earily 2003)- whereas the war and attempts to stablize Iraq have been ongoing only for 2 years and some months. So its hardly a fair comparison.
In fact, the only way to compare the deaths Saddam caused to the deaths the Colliation caused is to do something I personally find morally offensive- averaging the number of humans killed for the good of debate.
None the less, if thats what you asked for.....
To be fair, we'll find the middle ground for number Saddam killed- 55,000 in approx. 11 years and 3 months. Conversely, the current number of civilians killed in Iraq since the Colliations attempts to capture and stablize Iraq is 21,523(the lowest number presented by IraqBodyCount.net- giving your position an unfair advantage, but still)
55,000 deaths in 11 years and 3 months is 5613.64 Iraqi's killed by Saddam's regime a year. Since The War in Iraq has been going on for 2 years 2 months, that means that equally in 2 year and 2 months, Saddam would averagely have killed 12,162.89 of his civilians.
Meaning, under Colliation rule, 77% more civilians die than under the tyrant Saddam.
Mind you, this is not without flaws- averaging numbers should never be taken as truth, but since the only evidence we hold is based on estimations, exact numbers cannot and never will be known. Also, there are obvious flaws in this- like, for instance, the number of killed by Saddams regime are exclusive to Saddams regime, while the Colliation share the numbers of those they killed with those killed by terrorists. Of course, it could be argued that the numbers for Saddams regime did include the number of terrorist murders(there were none), but thats neither here nor there.
**More to come- I had more written, but as I refreshed a page, they all frozen up, killing an hours work. So yea.....i'll finish up later....**
Jiperly wrote: Well, the widely reported estimates I've heard is Saddams carniage was 10,000-100,000 from 1991 to the war(earily 2003)- whereas the war and attempts to stablize Iraq have been ongoing only for 2 years and some months. So its hardly a fair comparison.
In fact, the only way to compare the deaths Saddam caused to the deaths the Colliation caused is to do something I personally find morally offensive- averaging the number of humans killed for the good of debate.
None the less, if thats what you asked for.....
To be fair, we'll find the middle ground for number Saddam killed- 55,000 in approx. 11 years and 3 months. Conversely, the current number of civilians killed in Iraq since the Colliations attempts to capture and stablize Iraq is 21,523(the lowest number presented by IraqBodyCount.net- giving your position an unfair advantage, but still)
55,000 deaths in 11 years and 3 months is 5613.64 Iraqi's killed by Saddam's regime a year. Since The War in Iraq has been going on for 2 years 2 months, that means that equally in 2 year and 2 months, Saddam would averagely have killed 12,162.89 of his civilians.
Meaning, under Colliation rule, 77% more civilians die than under the tyrant Saddam.
Mind you, this is not without flaws- averaging numbers should never be taken as truth, but since the only evidence we hold is based on estimations, exact numbers cannot and never will be known. Also, there are obvious flaws in this- like, for instance, the number of killed by Saddams regime are exclusive to Saddams regime, while the Colliation share the numbers of those they killed with those killed by terrorists. Of course, it could be argued that the numbers for Saddams regime did include the number of terrorist murders(there were none), but thats neither here nor there.
**More to come- I had more written, but as I refreshed a page, they all frozen up, killing an hours work. So yea.....i'll finish up later....**
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
After weeks of negotiation, Saddam Hussein is finally interviewed by an American
anastrophe wrote: deflect, deflect, deflect (that's a bit of propaganda for you).Entirely your own call, dear boy. I'd call it vain repetition, myself.
anastrophe wrote: now that the topic is withering into grammatical flames, what the hell: since you're intent on tossing childish bon mots, let's put it in plainer terms. I wrote
ibid. such a ridiculous statement.
You wrote in reply
You wouldn't like help with your grammar at any stage, would you?
What i am asking, in plain enough terms that any git could understand, is what you were suggesting or implying with your reply.
simple enough? or have you realized your implication that there's some grammatical problem with the sentence was misplaced, thus feel it necessary to divert, divert, divert in hopes that your error will be overlooked?Perhaps we could have your opinion, then, on the contrasting use of the following terms:
Ibidem: In the same place; in the same book, chapter, passage, etc.: used to avoid the repetition of a reference. Abbreviated ibid. or ib.
Ditto: The aforesaid, the same; used, in accounts and lists (where also abbreviated do, do., or expressed by two dots or commas, or a dash) to avoid repetition of a word or phrase appearing above; hence in commercial, office, and colloquial language.
which I would have happily ignored had it not followed immediately after the use of that wince-making ungrammatical possessive apostrophe.
Sadly, you seem so unaware of the initial faux pas that you didn't even quote the errant sentence with your question:
anastrophe wrote: mmm, yes. the ego of the leftwing and it's fascination with itself, to the point of being as unseemly as public masturbation, is certainly not at issue.http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxwheret.html
Now, may we return to our sheep?
anastrophe wrote: now that the topic is withering into grammatical flames, what the hell: since you're intent on tossing childish bon mots, let's put it in plainer terms. I wrote
ibid. such a ridiculous statement.
You wrote in reply
You wouldn't like help with your grammar at any stage, would you?
What i am asking, in plain enough terms that any git could understand, is what you were suggesting or implying with your reply.
simple enough? or have you realized your implication that there's some grammatical problem with the sentence was misplaced, thus feel it necessary to divert, divert, divert in hopes that your error will be overlooked?Perhaps we could have your opinion, then, on the contrasting use of the following terms:
Ibidem: In the same place; in the same book, chapter, passage, etc.: used to avoid the repetition of a reference. Abbreviated ibid. or ib.
Ditto: The aforesaid, the same; used, in accounts and lists (where also abbreviated do, do., or expressed by two dots or commas, or a dash) to avoid repetition of a word or phrase appearing above; hence in commercial, office, and colloquial language.
which I would have happily ignored had it not followed immediately after the use of that wince-making ungrammatical possessive apostrophe.
Sadly, you seem so unaware of the initial faux pas that you didn't even quote the errant sentence with your question:
anastrophe wrote: mmm, yes. the ego of the leftwing and it's fascination with itself, to the point of being as unseemly as public masturbation, is certainly not at issue.http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxwheret.html
Now, may we return to our sheep?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
After weeks of negotiation, Saddam Hussein is finally interviewed by an American
spot wrote:
Perhaps we could have your opinion, then, on the contrasting use of the following terms:
Ibidem: In the same place; in the same book, chapter, passage, etc.: used to avoid the repetition of a reference. Abbreviated ibid. or ib.
Ditto: The aforesaid, the same; used, in accounts and lists (where also abbreviated do, do., or expressed by two dots or commas, or a dash) to avoid repetition of a word or phrase appearing above; hence in commercial, office, and colloquial language.
which I would have happily ignored had it not followed immediately after the use of that wince-making ungrammatical possessive apostrophe.
the possessive apostrophe was indeed an error, which i'll happily acknowledge. my use of ibid. was without error. we are not required to use colloquial language. there was no grammatical error in the sentence you quoted and replied to.
Sadly, you seem so unaware of the initial faux pas that you didn't even quote the errant sentence with your question:
http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxwheret.html
Now, may we return to our sheep?
ahem. a grammatically correct criticism of the post would have placed your bon mot immediately after the sentence with the incorrect "it's", rather than a sentence later, had that been what you were really objecting to. this seems as little more than CYA.
as well, i would hardly call grammatical errors 'social blunders'. i think, well, gosh - i'd call them 'grammatical errors'.
in any event, let me just write the following:
Nazis
Now Godwin's Law is fulfilled, the topic is over, and we can move on.
Perhaps we could have your opinion, then, on the contrasting use of the following terms:
Ibidem: In the same place; in the same book, chapter, passage, etc.: used to avoid the repetition of a reference. Abbreviated ibid. or ib.
Ditto: The aforesaid, the same; used, in accounts and lists (where also abbreviated do, do., or expressed by two dots or commas, or a dash) to avoid repetition of a word or phrase appearing above; hence in commercial, office, and colloquial language.
which I would have happily ignored had it not followed immediately after the use of that wince-making ungrammatical possessive apostrophe.
the possessive apostrophe was indeed an error, which i'll happily acknowledge. my use of ibid. was without error. we are not required to use colloquial language. there was no grammatical error in the sentence you quoted and replied to.
Sadly, you seem so unaware of the initial faux pas that you didn't even quote the errant sentence with your question:
http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxwheret.html
Now, may we return to our sheep?
ahem. a grammatically correct criticism of the post would have placed your bon mot immediately after the sentence with the incorrect "it's", rather than a sentence later, had that been what you were really objecting to. this seems as little more than CYA.
as well, i would hardly call grammatical errors 'social blunders'. i think, well, gosh - i'd call them 'grammatical errors'.
in any event, let me just write the following:
Nazis
Now Godwin's Law is fulfilled, the topic is over, and we can move on.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
After weeks of negotiation, Saddam Hussein is finally interviewed by an American
anastrophe wrote: the possessive apostrophe was indeed an error, which i'll happily acknowledge. my use of ibid. was without error. we are not required to use colloquial language. there was no grammatical error in the sentence you quoted and replied to.I would never use "Ibid." in a colloquial (or informal) context. I might use Ditto, but at least I'd know their appropriate function. The more you push this, the more you demonstrate your lack of knowledge.
anastrophe wrote: Now Godwin's Law is fulfilled, the topic is over, and we can move on.It was I who spoke of Nazis, not you, though I note in passing that it is considered poor form to invoke Godwin's law explicitly. "The law's intended function is not to end discussions (or even to classify them as 'old'), but rather to make participants in a discussion more aware of whether a comparison to Nazis or Hitler is appropriate, or rhetorical overreach."(1) - which, since my comparison was not only explicit but political, I maintain it can't have been.
When discussing actual neo-Nazis, Godwin's law does not typically apply, as Hitler is bound to come up on one or the other side of the argument sooner rather than later.
(1)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law : note I have omitted one word to fit this context. I believe I have done this for sensible reasons.
anastrophe wrote: Now Godwin's Law is fulfilled, the topic is over, and we can move on.It was I who spoke of Nazis, not you, though I note in passing that it is considered poor form to invoke Godwin's law explicitly. "The law's intended function is not to end discussions (or even to classify them as 'old'), but rather to make participants in a discussion more aware of whether a comparison to Nazis or Hitler is appropriate, or rhetorical overreach."(1) - which, since my comparison was not only explicit but political, I maintain it can't have been.
When discussing actual neo-Nazis, Godwin's law does not typically apply, as Hitler is bound to come up on one or the other side of the argument sooner rather than later.
(1)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law : note I have omitted one word to fit this context. I believe I have done this for sensible reasons.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
After weeks of negotiation, Saddam Hussein is finally interviewed by an American
spot wrote: I would never use "Ibid." in a colloquial (or informal) context. I might use Ditto, but at least I'd know their appropriate function. The more you push this, the more you demonstrate your lack of knowledge.
mmm, riiiigggght. whatever you say, dear. i'm just a clotted sod. you've certainly demonstrated your ability to google definitions of things you didn't understand five minutes before i used them.
but at this point, we share the prize for 'tedious digression and unseemly displays'.
It was I who spoke of Nazis, not you, though I note in passing that it is considered poor form to invoke Godwin's law explicitly. "The law's intended function is not to end discussions (or even to classify them as 'old'), but rather to make participants in a discussion more aware of whether a comparison to Nazis or Hitler is appropriate, or rhetorical overreach."(1) - which, since my comparison was not only explicit but political, I maintain it can't have been.
When discussing actual neo-Nazis, Godwin's law does not typically apply, as Hitler is bound to come up on one or the other side of the argument sooner rather than later.
(1)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law : note I have omitted one word to fit this context. I believe I have done this for sensible reasons.
more most excellent googling! certainly, you'd never heard of godwin's law before i mentioned it - otherwise, you'd not feel the need to reference the online definition. you *are* aware that wikipedias are *not* rigorous, peer-reviewed objects, are you not?
wait. don't answer that. dear god, don't answer that. i don't think i can bear another moment of plummage display. the topic is dead, by any measure.
you may have the last word, as i'm sure you'll do.
mmm, riiiigggght. whatever you say, dear. i'm just a clotted sod. you've certainly demonstrated your ability to google definitions of things you didn't understand five minutes before i used them.
but at this point, we share the prize for 'tedious digression and unseemly displays'.
It was I who spoke of Nazis, not you, though I note in passing that it is considered poor form to invoke Godwin's law explicitly. "The law's intended function is not to end discussions (or even to classify them as 'old'), but rather to make participants in a discussion more aware of whether a comparison to Nazis or Hitler is appropriate, or rhetorical overreach."(1) - which, since my comparison was not only explicit but political, I maintain it can't have been.
When discussing actual neo-Nazis, Godwin's law does not typically apply, as Hitler is bound to come up on one or the other side of the argument sooner rather than later.
(1)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law : note I have omitted one word to fit this context. I believe I have done this for sensible reasons.
more most excellent googling! certainly, you'd never heard of godwin's law before i mentioned it - otherwise, you'd not feel the need to reference the online definition. you *are* aware that wikipedias are *not* rigorous, peer-reviewed objects, are you not?
wait. don't answer that. dear god, don't answer that. i don't think i can bear another moment of plummage display. the topic is dead, by any measure.
you may have the last word, as i'm sure you'll do.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
After weeks of negotiation, Saddam Hussein is finally interviewed by an American
anastrophe wrote: wait. don't answer that. dear god, don't answer that. i don't think i can bear another moment of plummage display. the topic is dead, by any measure.
you may have the last word, as i'm sure you'll do.It's so good that we both have a sense of humor. Thank you, Lord, that Thou shoulds't deliver him into my hands so opportunely...
"Plumage"!
you may have the last word, as i'm sure you'll do.It's so good that we both have a sense of humor. Thank you, Lord, that Thou shoulds't deliver him into my hands so opportunely...
"Plumage"!
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
After weeks of negotiation, Saddam Hussein is finally interviewed by an American
spot wrote: This is the key to your departure from reality, anastrophe, the point where you admit that you think your view is the only "American" view and that anything which differs from it is anti-American. The sentiments of the LA Times are, by any sane standard, American. It may not support your own jackbooted goose-step into infamy, but the LA Times and the people who create it are undeniably American. It's only when you claim this vast swathe of America to be anti-American that you can falsely accuse me of hating America.Well Said Spot. Conservatives consider anything that isn't far rightwing to be anti-American propaganda. THEY are the outsiders and minority here. They just make sure and vote. Their arrogance has killed thousands of Americans and Arabs.
"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group that believes you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas millionaires, or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid." [font=Arial Narrow][/font]
President Dwight D. Eisenhower Nov. 08, 1954
President Dwight D. Eisenhower Nov. 08, 1954
After weeks of negotiation, Saddam Hussein is finally interviewed by an American
flopstock wrote: Sorry to butt in on your conversation, but could one of you two please point me to :
Originally Posted by spot
People who sign up to the armed forces are moral derelicts, in my opinion.
Want to be sure i give it the benefit of the entire context of the post.
thanks
dianePeople that join the US military are largely the people that can't hold jobs anywhere else, or live in areas where jobs are scarce. That's why you don't see recruiting centers in Hermosa Beach, Long Island or South Beach. But in the urban neighborhoods they are everywhere.
Originally Posted by spot
People who sign up to the armed forces are moral derelicts, in my opinion.
Want to be sure i give it the benefit of the entire context of the post.
thanks
dianePeople that join the US military are largely the people that can't hold jobs anywhere else, or live in areas where jobs are scarce. That's why you don't see recruiting centers in Hermosa Beach, Long Island or South Beach. But in the urban neighborhoods they are everywhere.
"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group that believes you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas millionaires, or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid." [font=Arial Narrow][/font]
President Dwight D. Eisenhower Nov. 08, 1954
President Dwight D. Eisenhower Nov. 08, 1954
After weeks of negotiation, Saddam Hussein is finally interviewed by an American
Jiperly wrote: I am only focusing on this actions from 1991 to 2003 because thats the only time I've heard information.
Not to mention my point remains valid- in comparison, if Saddam in the last decade had consistantly as many civilians killed under his command as the Colliation did, there would be over twice as many Iraqi's dead.
But hey, if you've got a source that explains how many Saddam killed while the (conservative)United States Government decided to look the other way because they wanted something from Saddam(an extremely immoral and inhumane act- sure, Clinton ignored Saddam- but Reagan made FRIENDS with him....), present the evidence. I honestly didn't want to get into the US's actions prior to the invasion of Kuwait, but if we want to focus on that time period....
I mean, If you feel my comparison is wrong, whats stopping you from making your own?
How is a bias Anti-American?
They are a private business- they have every right to have a left or right bias, and no one has the right to tell them otherwise.
But more importantly, why are they anti-American? After all, they are using their constitutionally protected rights- Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Speech, and most importantly, Freedom of the Press. These are not only fundamental freedoms ment for all Americans- they are the very FIRST freedom- the FIRST Ammendment, thought as the most important freedoms of all.
How would you have it any other way? Would you demand they no longer present bias information? Revolk their most important freedoms? Determine what the Press many and many not present? Determine that freedoms like being dissent to the President are not worth protecting, and remove freedom of speech and expression?
How is, in enacting their civic duty- questioning their leader and government when they disagree- anti-American?
More importantly, how is what you are standing for pro-American?
America is not President Bush, or the Republican Party, or Conservative Beliefs- America is freedom- America is equal opportunity- America is democracy and rights- opposing issues like these- THATS anti-American.
You have expressed that you do not wish for freedom or rights- you do not believe in what America symbolises for the whole world- you actions express that you are Anti-American, my friend- not the LA Times.JIPERLY for US PRESIDENT!! SPOT for VP!!!!!
Not to mention my point remains valid- in comparison, if Saddam in the last decade had consistantly as many civilians killed under his command as the Colliation did, there would be over twice as many Iraqi's dead.
But hey, if you've got a source that explains how many Saddam killed while the (conservative)United States Government decided to look the other way because they wanted something from Saddam(an extremely immoral and inhumane act- sure, Clinton ignored Saddam- but Reagan made FRIENDS with him....), present the evidence. I honestly didn't want to get into the US's actions prior to the invasion of Kuwait, but if we want to focus on that time period....
I mean, If you feel my comparison is wrong, whats stopping you from making your own?
How is a bias Anti-American?
They are a private business- they have every right to have a left or right bias, and no one has the right to tell them otherwise.
But more importantly, why are they anti-American? After all, they are using their constitutionally protected rights- Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Speech, and most importantly, Freedom of the Press. These are not only fundamental freedoms ment for all Americans- they are the very FIRST freedom- the FIRST Ammendment, thought as the most important freedoms of all.
How would you have it any other way? Would you demand they no longer present bias information? Revolk their most important freedoms? Determine what the Press many and many not present? Determine that freedoms like being dissent to the President are not worth protecting, and remove freedom of speech and expression?
How is, in enacting their civic duty- questioning their leader and government when they disagree- anti-American?
More importantly, how is what you are standing for pro-American?
America is not President Bush, or the Republican Party, or Conservative Beliefs- America is freedom- America is equal opportunity- America is democracy and rights- opposing issues like these- THATS anti-American.
You have expressed that you do not wish for freedom or rights- you do not believe in what America symbolises for the whole world- you actions express that you are Anti-American, my friend- not the LA Times.JIPERLY for US PRESIDENT!! SPOT for VP!!!!!
"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group that believes you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas millionaires, or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid." [font=Arial Narrow][/font]
President Dwight D. Eisenhower Nov. 08, 1954
President Dwight D. Eisenhower Nov. 08, 1954
After weeks of negotiation, Saddam Hussein is finally interviewed by an American
Jiperly wrote: Neither one of us are Americans, so neither one of us can be the President. In fact, I believe we have to live in the country for 5 years before becoming senators....I would change the rules if I could to trade out some of our garbage for intelligent folk like you & Spot!!
"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group that believes you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas millionaires, or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid." [font=Arial Narrow][/font]
President Dwight D. Eisenhower Nov. 08, 1954
President Dwight D. Eisenhower Nov. 08, 1954
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
After weeks of negotiation, Saddam Hussein is finally interviewed by an American
Jiperly wrote: I am only focusing on this actions from 1991 to 2003 because thats the only time I've heard information. a search on google yields nothing? remarkable.
Not to mention my point remains valid- in comparison, if Saddam in the last decade had consistantly as many civilians killed under his command as the Colliation did, there would be over twice as many Iraqi's dead.you are suggesting that all civilian deaths in iraq have been due to coalition forces? you are conflating casualties in the course of a war, with civilians tortured, maimed, and killed because of what they said or whom they associated with during saddam's reign?
But hey, if you've got a source that explains how many Saddam killed while the (conservative)United States Government decided to look the other way because they wanted something from Saddam(an extremely immoral and inhumane act- sure, Clinton ignored Saddam- but Reagan made FRIENDS with him....), present the evidence. I honestly didn't want to get into the US's actions prior to the invasion of Kuwait, but if we want to focus on that time period....that's a nice apologia for clinton there.
How is a bias Anti-American?
this part of the thread is entirely my fault. i expressed myself poorly. i wrote:i'm basing the judgement on the LA Time's history of intentionally distorting the news to match their bias, which is most definitely anti-american.
i was not suggesting that _bias_ is anti-american. I was suggesting that the bias the LA times cleaves to is an anti-american bias.hopefully that's a little clearer.
They are a private business- they have every right to have a left or right bias, and no one has the right to tell them otherwise.true enough, they are a private business. however, as a matter of very long standing and formerly well-understood doctrine, when the press *reports* the news, they are supposed to *report* it without bias. they are more than entitled to - and have the right to - express opinions of any kind they wish - that's what the 'op-ed' pages are for. expressing opinions is as american as apple pie. i'm all for it. *biasing ostensibly 'news' stories towards a particular political stance, while reporting it as simply 'news', not opinion, is wrong*.
But more importantly, why are they anti-American?ibid.
After all, they are using their constitutionally protected rights- Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Speech, and most importantly, Freedom of the Press. These are not only fundamental freedoms ment for all Americans- they are the very FIRST freedom- the FIRST Ammendment, thought as the most important freedoms of all.ibid.
How would you have it any other way? Would you demand they no longer present bias information? Revolk their most important freedoms? Determine what the Press many and many not present? Determine that freedoms like being dissent to the President are not worth protecting, and remove freedom of speech and expression?ibid.
How is, in enacting their civic duty- questioning their leader and government when they disagree- anti-American? it isn't. see above. "ibid".
More importantly, how is what you are standing for pro-American?i believe in a free and unbiased press. make the op-ed section as large as you want. identify opinions for what they are. don't alter the news, however, to conform to your bias. doing that is wrong, because it is misleading.
America is not President Bush, or the Republican Party, or Conservative Beliefsactually, it is. along with the democrats, the independents, the liberals, the libertarians, the peace and freedom party, and for that matter the Whigs and Know-Nothings.
- America is freedom- America is equal opportunity- America is democracy and rightsindeed. and i firmly agree with you.
- opposing issues like these- THATS anti-American. indeed. and i firmly agree with you.
You have expressed that you do not wish for freedom or rightsoh dear. citation, please. i would be most distressed if i ever expressed that i'm against freedom or rights. i'm very much for freedom and rights. unlike bill clinton, who said once that 'sometimes there seems to be too much freedom', i believe in ever expanding freedom for all.
- you do not believe in what America symbolises for the whole worldoh dear. i don't? what exactly does america symbolize for the whole world? it's so hard to keep track these days. we're either the devil incarnate or a shining light of freedom and democracy. i really need a scorecard to keep up.
- you actions express that you are Anti-American, my friend- not the LA Times.oh dear. my 'actions' 'express' that? that's quite a nifty trick - actions and expressions being two very different things. i have expressed a great many things here on forumgarden. i've expressed my impatience with the left wing, that is as intent on getting into people's 'business' as the right wing. i've expressed my umbrage at having people come here and slag relentlessly on the US, as if - as above - we are the devil incarnate, whilst begrudgingly acknowledging, once only i might add, that america might have done one or two worthwhile things.
gracious, i've expressed quite a few things here on forumgarden. i've taken no 'actions' on forumgarden, since that's not possible.
i find it most distressing that you judge me to be anti-american. but perhaps it's all as a result of my poorly expressed comment above, that encouraged misconstrual. if that's the case, i hope you'll apologize.
Not to mention my point remains valid- in comparison, if Saddam in the last decade had consistantly as many civilians killed under his command as the Colliation did, there would be over twice as many Iraqi's dead.you are suggesting that all civilian deaths in iraq have been due to coalition forces? you are conflating casualties in the course of a war, with civilians tortured, maimed, and killed because of what they said or whom they associated with during saddam's reign?
But hey, if you've got a source that explains how many Saddam killed while the (conservative)United States Government decided to look the other way because they wanted something from Saddam(an extremely immoral and inhumane act- sure, Clinton ignored Saddam- but Reagan made FRIENDS with him....), present the evidence. I honestly didn't want to get into the US's actions prior to the invasion of Kuwait, but if we want to focus on that time period....that's a nice apologia for clinton there.
How is a bias Anti-American?
this part of the thread is entirely my fault. i expressed myself poorly. i wrote:i'm basing the judgement on the LA Time's history of intentionally distorting the news to match their bias, which is most definitely anti-american.
i was not suggesting that _bias_ is anti-american. I was suggesting that the bias the LA times cleaves to is an anti-american bias.hopefully that's a little clearer.
They are a private business- they have every right to have a left or right bias, and no one has the right to tell them otherwise.true enough, they are a private business. however, as a matter of very long standing and formerly well-understood doctrine, when the press *reports* the news, they are supposed to *report* it without bias. they are more than entitled to - and have the right to - express opinions of any kind they wish - that's what the 'op-ed' pages are for. expressing opinions is as american as apple pie. i'm all for it. *biasing ostensibly 'news' stories towards a particular political stance, while reporting it as simply 'news', not opinion, is wrong*.
But more importantly, why are they anti-American?ibid.
After all, they are using their constitutionally protected rights- Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Speech, and most importantly, Freedom of the Press. These are not only fundamental freedoms ment for all Americans- they are the very FIRST freedom- the FIRST Ammendment, thought as the most important freedoms of all.ibid.
How would you have it any other way? Would you demand they no longer present bias information? Revolk their most important freedoms? Determine what the Press many and many not present? Determine that freedoms like being dissent to the President are not worth protecting, and remove freedom of speech and expression?ibid.
How is, in enacting their civic duty- questioning their leader and government when they disagree- anti-American? it isn't. see above. "ibid".
More importantly, how is what you are standing for pro-American?i believe in a free and unbiased press. make the op-ed section as large as you want. identify opinions for what they are. don't alter the news, however, to conform to your bias. doing that is wrong, because it is misleading.
America is not President Bush, or the Republican Party, or Conservative Beliefsactually, it is. along with the democrats, the independents, the liberals, the libertarians, the peace and freedom party, and for that matter the Whigs and Know-Nothings.
- America is freedom- America is equal opportunity- America is democracy and rightsindeed. and i firmly agree with you.
- opposing issues like these- THATS anti-American. indeed. and i firmly agree with you.
You have expressed that you do not wish for freedom or rightsoh dear. citation, please. i would be most distressed if i ever expressed that i'm against freedom or rights. i'm very much for freedom and rights. unlike bill clinton, who said once that 'sometimes there seems to be too much freedom', i believe in ever expanding freedom for all.
- you do not believe in what America symbolises for the whole worldoh dear. i don't? what exactly does america symbolize for the whole world? it's so hard to keep track these days. we're either the devil incarnate or a shining light of freedom and democracy. i really need a scorecard to keep up.
- you actions express that you are Anti-American, my friend- not the LA Times.oh dear. my 'actions' 'express' that? that's quite a nifty trick - actions and expressions being two very different things. i have expressed a great many things here on forumgarden. i've expressed my impatience with the left wing, that is as intent on getting into people's 'business' as the right wing. i've expressed my umbrage at having people come here and slag relentlessly on the US, as if - as above - we are the devil incarnate, whilst begrudgingly acknowledging, once only i might add, that america might have done one or two worthwhile things.
gracious, i've expressed quite a few things here on forumgarden. i've taken no 'actions' on forumgarden, since that's not possible.
i find it most distressing that you judge me to be anti-american. but perhaps it's all as a result of my poorly expressed comment above, that encouraged misconstrual. if that's the case, i hope you'll apologize.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
After weeks of negotiation, Saddam Hussein is finally interviewed by an American
Jiperly wrote: Well, you're free to present your own evidence.
Put up or shut up. You don't like my information, find an alterative before you condemn my for mine.
i didn't condemn you. i can't help it if you perceive it that way. i'm not responsible for your misconstruals. your information is fine - only incomplete. i think that's a reasonable criticism. i presume you disagree.
Did you even read my previous post, or just skimmed through it?
Mind you, this is not without flaws- averaging numbers should never be taken as truth, but since the only evidence we hold is based on estimations, exact numbers cannot and never will be known. Also, there are obvious flaws in this- like, for instance, the number of killed by Saddams regime are exclusive to Saddams regime, while the Colliation share the numbers of those they killed with those killed by terrorists. Of course, it could be argued that the numbers for Saddams regime did include the number of terrorist murders(there were none), but thats neither here nor there.
~~Jiperly, 3 hours ago
sigh. i asked "why are you limiting the interval to 1991 to 2003? saddam had been in power since 1979, and some of the worst atrocities were committed before his 1990 invasion of kuwait." i didn't condemn your statements. i was puzzled that you would exclude nearly half of his tenure as leader of iraq.
I never said Clinton was a great man- but certainly theres a difference between supporting a madman and ignoring a madman. Guess which one the Conservatives did?
well, to complete the circle of events - supporting; then ignoring; then destroying. which one prevents the madman from perpetrating further atrocities?
It does, but it does not answer the question- what actions spefically has the LA Times done to undermine America? If America gives you the right to create your own opinion, and the freedom to run your own company, and the Freedom of the Press to present news as you see fit, be it a left or right bias- how is what the LA Times does anti-America?
as i said, they distort _news_ stories, imparting a specific bias to the stories, and regurgitate the modified stories to their readers. rather than reporting the news as reported. this is purposefully misleading. that is unethical. using the press to purposefully mislead the electorate is most surely an action at odds with american ideals.
You're going to have to explain that one to me.
it's a bit of a joke in this context, per the ramblings with spot. ibid, short for ibidem, a latin word meaning 'in the same place'. it is used to indicate reference back to a previous statement.
But it is not required. They have the freedom to present a bias, just as much as you are free not to buy their newsprint because of that bias and, if people do not appreciate that bias, send them out of business. No one has the right to control them or tell them what is a bias and what is not.
where have i suggested that someone has a right to control them? i'm suggesting, no more no less, that their intentional distortion of the news, presented as news and not opinion, is unethical, and therefore stands against a rather fundamental ideal which while an american ideal, is also an ideal of many other countries - honesty.
More importantly, who can be the judge of such things? Both of us have bias- Spot has bias- everyone has bias- and because of that bias we will see different versions of reality- no one holds the one true version of it.
ever heard of reuters? unbiased NEWS. no more, no less. *reporting* not *interpreting*.
it is inethnical, yes. Maniplulative, maybe- but no matter what they have the freedom to express themselves in such a way- and so long as there is a demand, there will be a need for it.
on that basis then, i presume you fully support Fox News, which news organization does precisely the same thing.
Welcome to reality- there will always be a bias- its simply a matter of choosing the paper you consider to have either the bias you agree with the most or the most neutral bias, and promoting it. Calling newspapers and media groups "anti-American" is both immature and incorrect.
we'll have to agree to disagree then. the distinction between news and opinion should never be intentionally blurred to further an agenda, in my opinion. apparently you're okay with that. fine.
But expressing liberal beliefs in the media is Anti-America- while conservate beliefs are not?
whatever illusion you need to convince yourself about me is certainly your right, no matter how absurd.
The why do you contend that publications that use their rights to a certain degree are anti-American, even though they obviously do not oppose American Ideals- something that is REQUIRED for them to be Anti-American.
this has become little more than repetition of the same theme, rather than a debate. see my previous comments above. 'ibid' as it were.
You have expressed anger towards Clinton twice in your response- since you oppose that leadership, does that make you anti-American? Or does it only apply to those who oppose President Bush?
this is pretty tedious. i've expressed no anger. perhaps some contempt. that i found some of mr. clinton's policies and actions in office ignoble, doesn't mean that i 'opposed that leadership'.
honestly, the hyperbole in here is getting awfully thick.
I do acknowledge I responded harshly, and for that I'm sorry- but you seriously p*ssed me off when you simply scofted at my last post because I didn't bother to include 1979 to 1990 while presenting no evidence whatsoever.
again. as above. i didn't scoff, i asked *why* you excluded it. i'm sorry if the question pissed you off.
If you believe I am wrong- heres an idea- PROVE ME WRONG.
There is nothing that boils my blood more than someone who snorts, goes "Well, you're just wrong." and leaves it at that.
since you used full quotes above, you'll be a dear and provide a citation for that alleged quote. you'll be at it rather long, as i never said or implied such a thing.
man this is tedious.
Put up or shut up. You don't like my information, find an alterative before you condemn my for mine.
i didn't condemn you. i can't help it if you perceive it that way. i'm not responsible for your misconstruals. your information is fine - only incomplete. i think that's a reasonable criticism. i presume you disagree.
Did you even read my previous post, or just skimmed through it?
Mind you, this is not without flaws- averaging numbers should never be taken as truth, but since the only evidence we hold is based on estimations, exact numbers cannot and never will be known. Also, there are obvious flaws in this- like, for instance, the number of killed by Saddams regime are exclusive to Saddams regime, while the Colliation share the numbers of those they killed with those killed by terrorists. Of course, it could be argued that the numbers for Saddams regime did include the number of terrorist murders(there were none), but thats neither here nor there.
~~Jiperly, 3 hours ago
sigh. i asked "why are you limiting the interval to 1991 to 2003? saddam had been in power since 1979, and some of the worst atrocities were committed before his 1990 invasion of kuwait." i didn't condemn your statements. i was puzzled that you would exclude nearly half of his tenure as leader of iraq.
I never said Clinton was a great man- but certainly theres a difference between supporting a madman and ignoring a madman. Guess which one the Conservatives did?
well, to complete the circle of events - supporting; then ignoring; then destroying. which one prevents the madman from perpetrating further atrocities?
It does, but it does not answer the question- what actions spefically has the LA Times done to undermine America? If America gives you the right to create your own opinion, and the freedom to run your own company, and the Freedom of the Press to present news as you see fit, be it a left or right bias- how is what the LA Times does anti-America?
as i said, they distort _news_ stories, imparting a specific bias to the stories, and regurgitate the modified stories to their readers. rather than reporting the news as reported. this is purposefully misleading. that is unethical. using the press to purposefully mislead the electorate is most surely an action at odds with american ideals.
You're going to have to explain that one to me.
it's a bit of a joke in this context, per the ramblings with spot. ibid, short for ibidem, a latin word meaning 'in the same place'. it is used to indicate reference back to a previous statement.
But it is not required. They have the freedom to present a bias, just as much as you are free not to buy their newsprint because of that bias and, if people do not appreciate that bias, send them out of business. No one has the right to control them or tell them what is a bias and what is not.
where have i suggested that someone has a right to control them? i'm suggesting, no more no less, that their intentional distortion of the news, presented as news and not opinion, is unethical, and therefore stands against a rather fundamental ideal which while an american ideal, is also an ideal of many other countries - honesty.
More importantly, who can be the judge of such things? Both of us have bias- Spot has bias- everyone has bias- and because of that bias we will see different versions of reality- no one holds the one true version of it.
ever heard of reuters? unbiased NEWS. no more, no less. *reporting* not *interpreting*.
it is inethnical, yes. Maniplulative, maybe- but no matter what they have the freedom to express themselves in such a way- and so long as there is a demand, there will be a need for it.
on that basis then, i presume you fully support Fox News, which news organization does precisely the same thing.
Welcome to reality- there will always be a bias- its simply a matter of choosing the paper you consider to have either the bias you agree with the most or the most neutral bias, and promoting it. Calling newspapers and media groups "anti-American" is both immature and incorrect.
we'll have to agree to disagree then. the distinction between news and opinion should never be intentionally blurred to further an agenda, in my opinion. apparently you're okay with that. fine.
But expressing liberal beliefs in the media is Anti-America- while conservate beliefs are not?
whatever illusion you need to convince yourself about me is certainly your right, no matter how absurd.
The why do you contend that publications that use their rights to a certain degree are anti-American, even though they obviously do not oppose American Ideals- something that is REQUIRED for them to be Anti-American.
this has become little more than repetition of the same theme, rather than a debate. see my previous comments above. 'ibid' as it were.
You have expressed anger towards Clinton twice in your response- since you oppose that leadership, does that make you anti-American? Or does it only apply to those who oppose President Bush?
this is pretty tedious. i've expressed no anger. perhaps some contempt. that i found some of mr. clinton's policies and actions in office ignoble, doesn't mean that i 'opposed that leadership'.
honestly, the hyperbole in here is getting awfully thick.
I do acknowledge I responded harshly, and for that I'm sorry- but you seriously p*ssed me off when you simply scofted at my last post because I didn't bother to include 1979 to 1990 while presenting no evidence whatsoever.
again. as above. i didn't scoff, i asked *why* you excluded it. i'm sorry if the question pissed you off.
If you believe I am wrong- heres an idea- PROVE ME WRONG.
There is nothing that boils my blood more than someone who snorts, goes "Well, you're just wrong." and leaves it at that.
since you used full quotes above, you'll be a dear and provide a citation for that alleged quote. you'll be at it rather long, as i never said or implied such a thing.
man this is tedious.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
After weeks of negotiation, Saddam Hussein is finally interviewed by an American
anastrophe wrote: it's a bit of a joke in this context, per the ramblings with spot. ibid, short for ibidem, a latin word meaning 'in the same place'. it is used to indicate reference back to a previous statement.Good Lord, you still haven't got it right. Ibid. is short for "look up the same reference I gave you a moment ago" and frequently takes the form "Ibid. pp. 272-275" to show the appropriate pages. Ditto means "the words I gave you a moment ago apply here too". And while we're clearing up stuff like this, "Colloquial" is "Of words, phrases, etc.: Belonging to common speech; characteristic of or proper to ordinary conversation, as distinguished from formal or elevated language."
Where I use online tools to clarify matters like this, it isn't to discover stuff you knew that was new to me, anastrophe, it's to check the edges of meaning. Godwin's Law is new to me, though, and I'm pleased to have met it. Wikipedia only exists because its entries aren't peer-reviewed prior to publication. The settling-down of agreement is far more powerful than I, for one, would have predicted, I'm continually surprised by how well-informed the site is. The disputed areas are handled sensibly too.
Where you lose out in these discussions isn't in the informational or point-of-view aspects, it's in your barking sarcasm. You don't come over as someone trying to find an agreeable core to a topic, around which the participants can hold their differing peripheral notions. Try to be nicer, anastrophe. Try to be less in-your-face all the time.
Where I use online tools to clarify matters like this, it isn't to discover stuff you knew that was new to me, anastrophe, it's to check the edges of meaning. Godwin's Law is new to me, though, and I'm pleased to have met it. Wikipedia only exists because its entries aren't peer-reviewed prior to publication. The settling-down of agreement is far more powerful than I, for one, would have predicted, I'm continually surprised by how well-informed the site is. The disputed areas are handled sensibly too.
Where you lose out in these discussions isn't in the informational or point-of-view aspects, it's in your barking sarcasm. You don't come over as someone trying to find an agreeable core to a topic, around which the participants can hold their differing peripheral notions. Try to be nicer, anastrophe. Try to be less in-your-face all the time.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
After weeks of negotiation, Saddam Hussein is finally interviewed by an American
spot wrote: Good Lord, you still haven't got it right. Ibid. is short for "look up the same reference I gave you a moment ago" and frequently takes the form "Ibid. pp. 272-275" to show the appropriate pages. Ditto means "the words I gave you a moment ago apply here too". And while we're clearing up stuff like this, "Colloquial" is "Of words, phrases, etc.: Belonging to common speech; characteristic of or proper to ordinary conversation, as distinguished from formal or elevated language."
Where I use online tools to clarify matters like this, it isn't to discover stuff you knew that was new to me, anastrophe, it's to check the edges of meaning. Godwin's Law is new to me, though, and I'm pleased to have met it. Wikipedia only exists because its entries aren't peer-reviewed prior to publication. The settling-down of agreement is far more powerful than I, for one, would have predicted, I'm continually surprised by how well-informed the site is. The disputed areas are handled sensibly too.
Where you lose out in these discussions isn't in the informational or point-of-view aspects, it's in your barking sarcasm. You don't come over as someone trying to find an agreeable core to a topic, around which the participants can hold their differing peripheral notions. Try to be nicer, anastrophe. Try to be less in-your-face all the time.
likewise.
Where I use online tools to clarify matters like this, it isn't to discover stuff you knew that was new to me, anastrophe, it's to check the edges of meaning. Godwin's Law is new to me, though, and I'm pleased to have met it. Wikipedia only exists because its entries aren't peer-reviewed prior to publication. The settling-down of agreement is far more powerful than I, for one, would have predicted, I'm continually surprised by how well-informed the site is. The disputed areas are handled sensibly too.
Where you lose out in these discussions isn't in the informational or point-of-view aspects, it's in your barking sarcasm. You don't come over as someone trying to find an agreeable core to a topic, around which the participants can hold their differing peripheral notions. Try to be nicer, anastrophe. Try to be less in-your-face all the time.
likewise.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
After weeks of negotiation, Saddam Hussein is finally interviewed by an American
I thought the first post was in poor taste and not actually very funny. Satire is not really an american forte tending to be gross rather than subtle though some of National lampoon is quite funny. But that is just my opinion so feel free to disagree if you wish.
I'm curious to see what you think of these guys and how influential they actually are in the US now.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/state ... ciples.htm
Looking at some of the signatories
Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush
Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes
Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle
Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz
Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen
Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz
I'm curious to see what you think of these guys and how influential they actually are in the US now.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/state ... ciples.htm
Looking at some of the signatories
Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush
Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes
Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle
Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz
Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen
Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
After weeks of negotiation, Saddam Hussein is finally interviewed by an American
Jiperly wrote: Huh?
What are you refering to?
you wrote:
There is nothing that boils my blood more than someone who snorts, goes "Well, you're just wrong." and leaves it at that.
since you put "Well, you're just wrong." in quotes, it rather follows that you were quoting someone, n'est ce pas? based on the fact that this has been a conversation between you and me, it rather suggests that you were quoting me. i'd like you to point out where, ever, in any of these posts, I said to you "Well, you're just wrong".
no, wait. don't point it out. this has become an exceptionally tedious diversion. you repeated, several times in your screed, that you think that i want to 'control' the press's right to expression, which could not be further from the truth, which i explicitly stated was not something i desired in any manner, and explained the basis behind that. yet you repeat over and over that i 'want to control the news'.
if you are going to respond to my actual words, and ignore what i say while making up fantastical interpretations of them, then there's simply no point.
i have never, ever said that i want to stop the LA times from printing what they print. i think what they do is dishonest, unethical, and immoral - but all i'm doing is expressing an opinion, not trying to shut off their power. do i not have a right to express my opinion? apparently in your ethos, because my opinion is 'wrong', it's okay for you to do the same as the LA times - distort and manipulate what i say to conform to what you *think* i'm saying.
oh. facts. here's some for you:
http://www.state.gov/s/wci/fs/19352.htm
please: pay special attention to the *sources* noted within that fact sheet. yes, the fact sheet is from the U.S. State department. On that basis, i would expect that you'll likely just dismiss it - 'U.S. government propaganda!'. if so, then you're saying that Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Refugees International, and the U.N. are shills for the U.S.. Now that will be funny to see....
What are you refering to?
you wrote:
There is nothing that boils my blood more than someone who snorts, goes "Well, you're just wrong." and leaves it at that.
since you put "Well, you're just wrong." in quotes, it rather follows that you were quoting someone, n'est ce pas? based on the fact that this has been a conversation between you and me, it rather suggests that you were quoting me. i'd like you to point out where, ever, in any of these posts, I said to you "Well, you're just wrong".
no, wait. don't point it out. this has become an exceptionally tedious diversion. you repeated, several times in your screed, that you think that i want to 'control' the press's right to expression, which could not be further from the truth, which i explicitly stated was not something i desired in any manner, and explained the basis behind that. yet you repeat over and over that i 'want to control the news'.
if you are going to respond to my actual words, and ignore what i say while making up fantastical interpretations of them, then there's simply no point.
i have never, ever said that i want to stop the LA times from printing what they print. i think what they do is dishonest, unethical, and immoral - but all i'm doing is expressing an opinion, not trying to shut off their power. do i not have a right to express my opinion? apparently in your ethos, because my opinion is 'wrong', it's okay for you to do the same as the LA times - distort and manipulate what i say to conform to what you *think* i'm saying.
oh. facts. here's some for you:
http://www.state.gov/s/wci/fs/19352.htm
please: pay special attention to the *sources* noted within that fact sheet. yes, the fact sheet is from the U.S. State department. On that basis, i would expect that you'll likely just dismiss it - 'U.S. government propaganda!'. if so, then you're saying that Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Refugees International, and the U.N. are shills for the U.S.. Now that will be funny to see....
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
After weeks of negotiation, Saddam Hussein is finally interviewed by an American
gmc wrote: I thought the first post was in poor taste and not actually very funny. Satire is not really an american forte tending to be gross rather than subtle though some of National lampoon is quite funny. But that is just my opinion so feel free to disagree if you wish.
I'm curious to see what you think of these guys and how influential they actually are in the US now.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/state ... ciples.htm
Looking at some of the signatories Forget who signed it.
Look at what they said in 1997 Too bad we did not listen just a little to them.
We were steadily gutting the military, closing bases and cutting defense spending. All the while we were being plotted against. The weaker we appeared the bolder they got.
Yes tis- a shame we did not listen. maybe we would not be in Iraq now......?
Sheesh with a heightened defense we just might have less sun lite in downtown NYC?
Reading this one pargraph I would say they were way ahead of the curve!!
"We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead."
I'm curious to see what you think of these guys and how influential they actually are in the US now.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/state ... ciples.htm
Looking at some of the signatories Forget who signed it.
Look at what they said in 1997 Too bad we did not listen just a little to them.
We were steadily gutting the military, closing bases and cutting defense spending. All the while we were being plotted against. The weaker we appeared the bolder they got.
Yes tis- a shame we did not listen. maybe we would not be in Iraq now......?
Sheesh with a heightened defense we just might have less sun lite in downtown NYC?
Reading this one pargraph I would say they were way ahead of the curve!!
"We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead."
"If America Was A Tree, The Left Would Root For The Termites...Greg Gutfeld."
After weeks of negotiation, Saddam Hussein is finally interviewed by an American
I thought the first post was in poor taste and not actually very funny. Satire is not really an american forte tending to be gross rather than subtle though some of National lampoon is quite funny. But that is just my opinion so feel free to disagree if you wish. You can even express it in the most vehement terms of you wish I don't mind.
I'm curious to see what you think of these guys and how influential they actually are in the US now.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/state ... ciples.htm
Looking at some of the signatories
Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush
Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes
Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle
Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz
Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen
Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz
The ones I've highlighted are the only ones I recognise because they are now high up in the present administration.
On one level it is like a re-statement of manifest destiny do you think it appropriate in the 21st century and are you happy that your tax dollars be used to finance the military infrastructure that is necessary to do this?
Most nations act out of perceived self interest we've done it in the past and arguably the EU still does it. After all who created present day Iraq and Iran and build the Suez canal, and kept the Ayatollah while he was in exile if not the nasty europeans.
Why then do so many americans persist in this belief that all their policies in the middle east have have been solely governed by altruism and helping democracy despite propping up repressive regimes, helping the likes of Saddam to power and helping him when he was there, supporting and training Osama Bin laden when he was fighting the russians in Afghanistan. It's as if none of that happened and there is no connection to what is going on now in the middle east. Is it short term memory or a reluctance to accept that you are as devious and sneaky as everyone else?
Just for the record I am quite well aware that the British were also involved in traing the mujahadeen, the SAS fought a long covert war in the Yemen (you have to dig deep to find mention of it)-actually they are still there. The US is a target because it's the biggest player and in recent times has been playing realpolitok with the best of them.
Personally I think the motives of most americans are honourable ones and certainly the troops involved are doing it because they believe it is right. They are not mindless thugs.
However, I also distrust the motives of the political leaders as I suspect to them it is more about preserving their own business interests than anything else. It's a fairly safe bet none of them are going in to battle. You cannot impose democracy with a rifle. It is a moot point whether it is actually in the long term interests of america. I'm curious to see if you think it is and what the likely outcome will be, if I can ask the question without being accused of being a rabid anti american or getting involved in long screeds about who did what to whom and when.
At least GW thinks he is acting in america's interest, God knows what TB is up to hopefully he won't be around for much longer. Currently he is more unpopular than Maggie Thatcher which is a heck of an achievement for a labour leader.
I'm curious to see what you think of these guys and how influential they actually are in the US now.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/state ... ciples.htm
Looking at some of the signatories
Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush
Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes
Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle
Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz
Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen
Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz
The ones I've highlighted are the only ones I recognise because they are now high up in the present administration.
On one level it is like a re-statement of manifest destiny do you think it appropriate in the 21st century and are you happy that your tax dollars be used to finance the military infrastructure that is necessary to do this?
Most nations act out of perceived self interest we've done it in the past and arguably the EU still does it. After all who created present day Iraq and Iran and build the Suez canal, and kept the Ayatollah while he was in exile if not the nasty europeans.
Why then do so many americans persist in this belief that all their policies in the middle east have have been solely governed by altruism and helping democracy despite propping up repressive regimes, helping the likes of Saddam to power and helping him when he was there, supporting and training Osama Bin laden when he was fighting the russians in Afghanistan. It's as if none of that happened and there is no connection to what is going on now in the middle east. Is it short term memory or a reluctance to accept that you are as devious and sneaky as everyone else?
Just for the record I am quite well aware that the British were also involved in traing the mujahadeen, the SAS fought a long covert war in the Yemen (you have to dig deep to find mention of it)-actually they are still there. The US is a target because it's the biggest player and in recent times has been playing realpolitok with the best of them.
Personally I think the motives of most americans are honourable ones and certainly the troops involved are doing it because they believe it is right. They are not mindless thugs.
However, I also distrust the motives of the political leaders as I suspect to them it is more about preserving their own business interests than anything else. It's a fairly safe bet none of them are going in to battle. You cannot impose democracy with a rifle. It is a moot point whether it is actually in the long term interests of america. I'm curious to see if you think it is and what the likely outcome will be, if I can ask the question without being accused of being a rabid anti american or getting involved in long screeds about who did what to whom and when.
At least GW thinks he is acting in america's interest, God knows what TB is up to hopefully he won't be around for much longer. Currently he is more unpopular than Maggie Thatcher which is a heck of an achievement for a labour leader.
After weeks of negotiation, Saddam Hussein is finally interviewed by an American
gmc wrote:
Why then do so many americans persist in this belief that all their policies in the middle east have have been solely governed by altruism and helping democracy despite propping up repressive regimes, helping the likes of Saddam to power and helping him when he was there, supporting and training Osama Bin laden when he was fighting the russians in Afghanistan. It's as if none of that happened and there is no connection to what is going on now in the middle east. Is it short term memory or a reluctance to accept that you are as devious and sneaky as everyone else?
On just this one paragraph,
I would have to say times change and so did the people you mentioned.
Seeing as you are assuming we do not know this bit of history. Please enlighten us. Why did we help Saddam? Bin laden? What were the circumstances at the time? You hit on one of them when you mentioned Russia. Why did Bin laden turn on us? was that or fault?
I have my opinions but I would like to hear what your thoughts are....
Sorry I don't have the big-boy words of "anastrophe" but I do have a passion and some knowledge if you care to indulge?
Why then do so many americans persist in this belief that all their policies in the middle east have have been solely governed by altruism and helping democracy despite propping up repressive regimes, helping the likes of Saddam to power and helping him when he was there, supporting and training Osama Bin laden when he was fighting the russians in Afghanistan. It's as if none of that happened and there is no connection to what is going on now in the middle east. Is it short term memory or a reluctance to accept that you are as devious and sneaky as everyone else?
On just this one paragraph,
I would have to say times change and so did the people you mentioned.
Seeing as you are assuming we do not know this bit of history. Please enlighten us. Why did we help Saddam? Bin laden? What were the circumstances at the time? You hit on one of them when you mentioned Russia. Why did Bin laden turn on us? was that or fault?
I have my opinions but I would like to hear what your thoughts are....
Sorry I don't have the big-boy words of "anastrophe" but I do have a passion and some knowledge if you care to indulge?
"If America Was A Tree, The Left Would Root For The Termites...Greg Gutfeld."
After weeks of negotiation, Saddam Hussein is finally interviewed by an American
BTS wrote: Please enlighten us. Why did we help Saddam? Bin laden? What were the circumstances at the time? You hit on one of them when you mentioned Russia. Why did Bin laden turn on us?He claims he was never aware that his funding came from secret US sources. Few people believe him.
http://msnbc.com/news/190144.asp is a fair (in my opinion) introduction to his politicization by the CIA.
http://msnbc.com/news/190144.asp is a fair (in my opinion) introduction to his politicization by the CIA.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
After weeks of negotiation, Saddam Hussein is finally interviewed by an American
spot wrote: Try to be nicer, anastrophe. Try to be less in-your-face all the time.anastrophe wrote: likewise.Me? Anastrophe, I am the soul of reason. I am sweetness personified. Until 9/11, I wouldn't have dreamed that a US Administration would overstep the mark of civilized behavior in what has always admittedly always been a dog-eat-dog world. What was so apparent then, and remains more and more obvious as time passes, is that your Administration deliberately lowered the guard on domestic defense - stood down the air defense standing orders - so as to have the new Pearl Harbor it had been discussing for years. There are none so blind as those who can't face the truth. You think I have evidence? Of course I don't, there's a government out there bent on suppressing any, and governments are powerful entities. It doesn't stop it from being as clear as day, for all that. It won't stop the bar of history from slowly untangling the facts, once your Administration can no longer sit on the powder keg any longer.
"One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge - even to ourselves - that we've been so credulous". Carl Sagan.
Grow up, Learn to reason. Ask yourself why your front-man sat in that classroom long after his security detail should have hidden him out of harm's way, if there were any potential real harm to him in the air that morning. Ask yourself why he kept claiming to have watched the first tower being hit before entering the classroom, when no footage was broadcast on public networks that day. You have crooks in charge of your system, Anastrophe, and they engineered a domestic terrorist outrage to suit their own ends on September 11th 2001. The fact that they might all get Presidential pardons later, or may have secret directives which clear them within your own legal system already, doesn't stop them from being criminals in my eyes, and neither should it in yours.
"One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge - even to ourselves - that we've been so credulous". Carl Sagan.
Grow up, Learn to reason. Ask yourself why your front-man sat in that classroom long after his security detail should have hidden him out of harm's way, if there were any potential real harm to him in the air that morning. Ask yourself why he kept claiming to have watched the first tower being hit before entering the classroom, when no footage was broadcast on public networks that day. You have crooks in charge of your system, Anastrophe, and they engineered a domestic terrorist outrage to suit their own ends on September 11th 2001. The fact that they might all get Presidential pardons later, or may have secret directives which clear them within your own legal system already, doesn't stop them from being criminals in my eyes, and neither should it in yours.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
After weeks of negotiation, Saddam Hussein is finally interviewed by an American
spot wrote: Me? Anastrophe, I am the soul of reason. I am sweetness personified. Until 9/11, I wouldn't have dreamed that a US Administration would overstep the mark of civilized behavior in what has always admittedly always been a dog-eat-dog world. What was so apparent then, and remains more and more obvious as time passes, is that your Administration deliberately lowered the guard on domestic defense - stood down the air defense standing orders - so as to have the new Pearl Harbor it had been discussing for years. There are none so blind as those who can't face the truth. You think I have evidence? Of course I don't, there's a government out there bent on suppressing any, and governments are powerful entities. It doesn't stop it from being as clear as day, for all that. It won't stop the bar of history from slowly untangling the facts, once your Administration can no longer sit on the powder keg any longer.
"One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge - even to ourselves - that we've been so credulous". Carl Sagan.
Grow up, Learn to reason. Ask yourself why your front-man sat in that classroom long after his security detail should have hidden him out of harm's way, if there were any potential real harm to him in the air that morning. Ask yourself why he kept claiming to have watched the first tower being hit before entering the classroom, when no footage was broadcast on public networks that day. You have crooks in charge of your system, Anastrophe, and they engineered a domestic terrorist outrage to suit their own ends on September 11th 2001. The fact that they might all get Presidential pardons later, or may have secret directives which clear them within your own legal system already, doesn't stop them from being criminals in my eyes, and neither should it in yours.bless you, bless you, bless you for posting the above. i will enshrine it. we now have it visible for all to see. you are a paranoid lunatic, bent on conspiracy theories. i love it. you get your ideology straight from Michael Moore, one of the (admittedly) more skillful propagandists to come down the pike in a long while. speaking of being bamboozled! but no, even better - as the insane man rants in such perfect logic, he has no evidence, and all the evidence has been surpressed! perfect! of course, even though that evil government has supressed every shred of evidence, the true oracles (paranoid schizophrenics) can "see" the truth, can boldly proclaim publicly in defiance of the evil-doers who run the U.S. that the truth is out there, and it shall set you free!
(odd that these skillful, evil masterminds didn't just quietly have mr. moore "have a heart attack" - fat, white, rich man that he is, it would have been surpremely easy for their covert ops to stage such an 'accident'. amazing, they can engineer a terrorist attack on our country, yet are powerless against the strengths of the flatulent mr. moore! is mr. moore perhaps - dare i say it - Lex Luthor!? does he possess anti-evil-dr.-bush kryptonite?! stay tuned folks, as tomorrow spot will use my abjectly immoral and sadistic skewering as further proof of the depths of this conspiracy, which will then call into question why the powerful and evil dr. bush's henchmen don't just yank the plug on the Forum Garden servers and make the owner's 'disappear', rather than allowing these tawdry expose's of their evil actions actually be displayed before the world!!!!!!!!!)
"One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge - even to ourselves - that we've been so credulous". Carl Sagan.
Grow up, Learn to reason. Ask yourself why your front-man sat in that classroom long after his security detail should have hidden him out of harm's way, if there were any potential real harm to him in the air that morning. Ask yourself why he kept claiming to have watched the first tower being hit before entering the classroom, when no footage was broadcast on public networks that day. You have crooks in charge of your system, Anastrophe, and they engineered a domestic terrorist outrage to suit their own ends on September 11th 2001. The fact that they might all get Presidential pardons later, or may have secret directives which clear them within your own legal system already, doesn't stop them from being criminals in my eyes, and neither should it in yours.bless you, bless you, bless you for posting the above. i will enshrine it. we now have it visible for all to see. you are a paranoid lunatic, bent on conspiracy theories. i love it. you get your ideology straight from Michael Moore, one of the (admittedly) more skillful propagandists to come down the pike in a long while. speaking of being bamboozled! but no, even better - as the insane man rants in such perfect logic, he has no evidence, and all the evidence has been surpressed! perfect! of course, even though that evil government has supressed every shred of evidence, the true oracles (paranoid schizophrenics) can "see" the truth, can boldly proclaim publicly in defiance of the evil-doers who run the U.S. that the truth is out there, and it shall set you free!
(odd that these skillful, evil masterminds didn't just quietly have mr. moore "have a heart attack" - fat, white, rich man that he is, it would have been surpremely easy for their covert ops to stage such an 'accident'. amazing, they can engineer a terrorist attack on our country, yet are powerless against the strengths of the flatulent mr. moore! is mr. moore perhaps - dare i say it - Lex Luthor!? does he possess anti-evil-dr.-bush kryptonite?! stay tuned folks, as tomorrow spot will use my abjectly immoral and sadistic skewering as further proof of the depths of this conspiracy, which will then call into question why the powerful and evil dr. bush's henchmen don't just yank the plug on the Forum Garden servers and make the owner's 'disappear', rather than allowing these tawdry expose's of their evil actions actually be displayed before the world!!!!!!!!!)
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
After weeks of negotiation, Saddam Hussein is finally interviewed by an American
I thought we'd discussed sarcasm in an earlier post?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
After weeks of negotiation, Saddam Hussein is finally interviewed by an American
Jiperly wrote: But you are trying to get other people to shut down their power over falcies- over them being "anti-American"- you refuse to acknowledge they have the right to exist.
with this, the - what is it, ninth, tenth iteration of this false accusation, contrary to my clear and incontrovertible statements - i'm done. you've skillfully put me in the position of having to defend myself against something I NEVER SAID.
putting words in someone's mouth, then attacking them for those words, is really heinous. i'm not going to continue to try to defend myself against a notion that is ENTIRELY INSIDE YOUR HEAD, and which i never stated, suggested, or implied.
with this, the - what is it, ninth, tenth iteration of this false accusation, contrary to my clear and incontrovertible statements - i'm done. you've skillfully put me in the position of having to defend myself against something I NEVER SAID.
putting words in someone's mouth, then attacking them for those words, is really heinous. i'm not going to continue to try to defend myself against a notion that is ENTIRELY INSIDE YOUR HEAD, and which i never stated, suggested, or implied.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
After weeks of negotiation, Saddam Hussein is finally interviewed by an American
anastrophe wrote: you are a paranoid lunatic, bent on conspiracy theories.Sticks and stones, dear boy. Sticks and stones. I am not paranoid, and this theory is about as lunatic as the notion that gravity is attractive.
On 28 January 2002, the Canadian media analyst Barry Zwicker summed up on CBC-TV: `That morning no interceptors responded in a timely fashion to the highest alert situation. This includes the Andrews squadrons which . . . are 12 miles from the White House . . . Whatever the explanation for the huge failure, there have been no reports, to my knowledge, of reprimands. This further weakens the "Incompetence Theory". Incompetence usually earns reprimands. This causes me to ask whether there were "stand down" orders.'
As Gore Vidal (my hero since birth) comments: "On 29 August 2002, the BBC reports that on 9/11 there were `only four fighters on ready status in the north-eastern US'. Conspiracy? Coincidence? Error? The media, never much good at analysis, are more and more breathless and incoherent. On CNN , even the stolid Jim Clancy started to hyperventilate when an Indian academic tried to explain how Iraq was once our ally and `friend' in its war against our Satanic enemy Iran. `None of that conspiracy stuff,' snuffed Clancy. Apparently, `conspiracy stuff' is now shorthand for unspeakable truth. "
On 28 January 2002, the Canadian media analyst Barry Zwicker summed up on CBC-TV: `That morning no interceptors responded in a timely fashion to the highest alert situation. This includes the Andrews squadrons which . . . are 12 miles from the White House . . . Whatever the explanation for the huge failure, there have been no reports, to my knowledge, of reprimands. This further weakens the "Incompetence Theory". Incompetence usually earns reprimands. This causes me to ask whether there were "stand down" orders.'
As Gore Vidal (my hero since birth) comments: "On 29 August 2002, the BBC reports that on 9/11 there were `only four fighters on ready status in the north-eastern US'. Conspiracy? Coincidence? Error? The media, never much good at analysis, are more and more breathless and incoherent. On CNN , even the stolid Jim Clancy started to hyperventilate when an Indian academic tried to explain how Iraq was once our ally and `friend' in its war against our Satanic enemy Iran. `None of that conspiracy stuff,' snuffed Clancy. Apparently, `conspiracy stuff' is now shorthand for unspeakable truth. "
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
After weeks of negotiation, Saddam Hussein is finally interviewed by an American
I admittedly have not been able to follow this entire debate. I enjoy reading it, but haven't posted till now because I really need clarification on something: Is spot saying, in post #81, that 9-11 was engineered by our own government? Or am I misunderstanding something? Can someone clear that up for me, please? Thanks.
[FONT=Arial Black]I hope you cherish this sweet way of life, and I hope you know that it comes with a price.
~Darrel Worley~
[/FONT]
Bullet's trial was a farce. Can I get an AMEN?????
We won't be punished for our sins, but BY them.
~Darrel Worley~
[/FONT]
Bullet's trial was a farce. Can I get an AMEN?????
We won't be punished for our sins, but BY them.
After weeks of negotiation, Saddam Hussein is finally interviewed by an American
BabyRider wrote: I admittedly have not been able to follow this entire debate. I enjoy reading it, but haven't posted till now because I really need clarification on something: Is spot saying, in post #81, that 9-11 was engineered by our own government? Or am I misunderstanding something? Can someone clear that up for me, please? Thanks.You are not misunderstanding. What happened could not have happened without the active assistance of your Administration. It isn't even a matter of passive stand-back-and-watch, since had that been all they did the hijacked planes would have been intercepted under existing defense practice, as a hundred planes a year had been before and have been since.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
After weeks of negotiation, Saddam Hussein is finally interviewed by an American
"Could not." Absolutely, under no uncertain terms, unequivocally, no other reason whatsoever? And based solely on the "it never happened before" argument? I'm still not clear. Have you got a better argument than that?
[FONT=Arial Black]I hope you cherish this sweet way of life, and I hope you know that it comes with a price.
~Darrel Worley~
[/FONT]
Bullet's trial was a farce. Can I get an AMEN?????
We won't be punished for our sins, but BY them.
~Darrel Worley~
[/FONT]
Bullet's trial was a farce. Can I get an AMEN?????
We won't be punished for our sins, but BY them.
After weeks of negotiation, Saddam Hussein is finally interviewed by an American
BabyRider wrote: "Could not." Absolutely, under no uncertain terms, unequivocally, no other reason whatsoever? And based solely on the "it never happened before" argument? I'm still not clear. Have you got a better argument than that?I don't think I have, babyrider. I think those points in their own right indicate that there was foreknowledge and aid to the hijackers from within the Administration.
Listing them, they are:
1. George Bush sat in that Florida classroom long after his security detail should have hidden him out of harm's way, if there were any potential real harm to him in the air that morning.
2. George Bush claimed twice to have watched the first tower being hit before entering the classroom, when no footage of the first tower being hit was broadcast on public networks that day. This is no minor matter, he describes what he saw and what he thought as he saw it, and he has told the tale more than once before reporters' cameras.
Bear in mind, as you read this, that there was no broadcast, on 9/11, of the first hijacked plane hitting the WTC. No news cameras were on site, much less pointed at it. The only camera that filmed that crash was recording a fire team out on an unrelated job, and that film wasn't broadcast on the 11th at all.
The first time George Bush discussed what he saw before entering the classroom, from the White House website:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 04-17.html
Q One thing, Mr. President, is that you have no idea how much you've done for this country. And another thing is that, how did you feel when you heard about the terrorist attack? (Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Jordan. Well, Jordan, you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my Chief of Staff, Andy Card -- actually, I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on. And I used to fly, myself, and I said, well, there's one terrible pilot. I said, it must have been a horrible accident.
But I was whisked off there, I didn't have much time to think about it. And I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my Chief of Staff, who is sitting over here, walked in and said, "A second plane has hit the tower, America is under attack."
And, Jordan, I wasn't sure what to think at first. You know, I grew up in a period of time where the idea of America being under attack never entered my mind -- just like your Daddy's and Mother's mind probably. And I started thinking hard in that very brief period of time about what it meant to be under attack. I knew that when I got all of the facts that we were under attack, there would be hell to pay for attacking America. (Applause.)
And the second time, again from the White House website:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 105-3.html
Q What was the first thing that went through your head when you heard that a plane crashed into the first building?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Well, I was sitting in a schoolhouse in Florida. I had gone down to tell my little brother what to do, and -- just kidding, Jeb. (Laughter.) And -- it's the mother in me. (Laughter.) Anyway, I was in the midst of learning about a reading program that works. I'm a big believer in basic education, and it starts with making sure every child learns to read. And therefore, we need to focus on the science of reading, not what may feel good or sound good when it comes to teaching children to read. (Applause.) I'm just getting a plug in for my reading initiative.
Anyway, I was sitting there, and my Chief of Staff -- well, first of all, when we walked into the classroom, I had seen this plane fly into the first building. There was a TV set on. And you know, I thought it was pilot error and I was amazed that anybody could make such a terrible mistake. And something was wrong with the plane, or -- anyway, I'm sitting there, listening to the briefing, and Andy Card came and said, "America is under attack."
And in the meantime, this teacher was going on about the curriculum, and I was thinking about what it meant for America to be under attack. It was an amazing thought. But I made up my mind that if America was under attack, we'd get them. (Applause.) I wasn't interested in lawyers, I wasn't interested in a bunch of debate. I was interested in finding out who did it and bringing them to justice. I also knew that they would try to hide, and anybody who provided haven, help, food, would be held accountable by the United States of America. (Applause.)
Anyway, it was an interesting day.
He's quite specific about not seeing the second plane crash at the time, and you'll remember his being told of it by Andy Card from the broadcasts at the time.
Is he lying, or did he have an Intelligence video feed of the first crash, on the way into the school? Either answer is damning.
3. The lack of interceptions. If you want me to expand on that, it will take me a while. Standing orders demanded interception, and every other hijack before and since was intercepted. At least three and, the government claims, four, were not intercepted. That's an inside job with no other evidence at all, in my opinion.
So, absolutely, under no uncertain terms, unequivocally, no other reason whatsoever. Read the post, babyrider, think hard, tell me why I might be wrong.
Listing them, they are:
1. George Bush sat in that Florida classroom long after his security detail should have hidden him out of harm's way, if there were any potential real harm to him in the air that morning.
2. George Bush claimed twice to have watched the first tower being hit before entering the classroom, when no footage of the first tower being hit was broadcast on public networks that day. This is no minor matter, he describes what he saw and what he thought as he saw it, and he has told the tale more than once before reporters' cameras.
Bear in mind, as you read this, that there was no broadcast, on 9/11, of the first hijacked plane hitting the WTC. No news cameras were on site, much less pointed at it. The only camera that filmed that crash was recording a fire team out on an unrelated job, and that film wasn't broadcast on the 11th at all.
The first time George Bush discussed what he saw before entering the classroom, from the White House website:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 04-17.html
Q One thing, Mr. President, is that you have no idea how much you've done for this country. And another thing is that, how did you feel when you heard about the terrorist attack? (Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Jordan. Well, Jordan, you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my Chief of Staff, Andy Card -- actually, I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on. And I used to fly, myself, and I said, well, there's one terrible pilot. I said, it must have been a horrible accident.
But I was whisked off there, I didn't have much time to think about it. And I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my Chief of Staff, who is sitting over here, walked in and said, "A second plane has hit the tower, America is under attack."
And, Jordan, I wasn't sure what to think at first. You know, I grew up in a period of time where the idea of America being under attack never entered my mind -- just like your Daddy's and Mother's mind probably. And I started thinking hard in that very brief period of time about what it meant to be under attack. I knew that when I got all of the facts that we were under attack, there would be hell to pay for attacking America. (Applause.)
And the second time, again from the White House website:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 105-3.html
Q What was the first thing that went through your head when you heard that a plane crashed into the first building?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Well, I was sitting in a schoolhouse in Florida. I had gone down to tell my little brother what to do, and -- just kidding, Jeb. (Laughter.) And -- it's the mother in me. (Laughter.) Anyway, I was in the midst of learning about a reading program that works. I'm a big believer in basic education, and it starts with making sure every child learns to read. And therefore, we need to focus on the science of reading, not what may feel good or sound good when it comes to teaching children to read. (Applause.) I'm just getting a plug in for my reading initiative.
Anyway, I was sitting there, and my Chief of Staff -- well, first of all, when we walked into the classroom, I had seen this plane fly into the first building. There was a TV set on. And you know, I thought it was pilot error and I was amazed that anybody could make such a terrible mistake. And something was wrong with the plane, or -- anyway, I'm sitting there, listening to the briefing, and Andy Card came and said, "America is under attack."
And in the meantime, this teacher was going on about the curriculum, and I was thinking about what it meant for America to be under attack. It was an amazing thought. But I made up my mind that if America was under attack, we'd get them. (Applause.) I wasn't interested in lawyers, I wasn't interested in a bunch of debate. I was interested in finding out who did it and bringing them to justice. I also knew that they would try to hide, and anybody who provided haven, help, food, would be held accountable by the United States of America. (Applause.)
Anyway, it was an interesting day.
He's quite specific about not seeing the second plane crash at the time, and you'll remember his being told of it by Andy Card from the broadcasts at the time.
Is he lying, or did he have an Intelligence video feed of the first crash, on the way into the school? Either answer is damning.
3. The lack of interceptions. If you want me to expand on that, it will take me a while. Standing orders demanded interception, and every other hijack before and since was intercepted. At least three and, the government claims, four, were not intercepted. That's an inside job with no other evidence at all, in my opinion.
So, absolutely, under no uncertain terms, unequivocally, no other reason whatsoever. Read the post, babyrider, think hard, tell me why I might be wrong.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
After weeks of negotiation, Saddam Hussein is finally interviewed by an American
Sorry guys I seem to have posted 1/2 and then the complete thread-don't know what I did wrong. I would take out the first one but this being friday the 13th I would probably do that wrong as well.
posted by BTS
On just this one paragraph, I would have to say times change and so did the people you mentioned. Seeing as you are assuming we do not know this bit of history. Please enlighten us. Why did we help Saddam? Bin laden? What were the circumstances at the time? You hit on one of them when you mentioned Russia. Why did Bin laden turn on us? was that or fault?
I have my opinions but I would like to hear what your thoughts are....
Sorry I don't have the big-boy words of "anastrophe" but I do have a passion and some knowledge if you care to indulge?
Know what you mean about the big words, I keep a dictionary handy
Actually I don't assume you don't know the history, I suspect most of you do but it's as if you don't think there might be a connection to past policies and what is happening now.
As to why help Saddam? Same reason why shah of Iran was supported and the suadi arabians are supported, why you got involved in Vietnam when you thought the communists had gained too much influence because it was viewed as being in US interests and the west in general (european governments are not exactly innocent either) as a foil against communism. The same reason anything remotely smacking of left wing nationalism in central america is treated with hostility. If you look at the reaction to venezuela (spelling?) now threatening to tax foreign oil companies retropsectively, what happened in Chile when a left wing government was brought down with dire consequences for the chilean people. Forget what the people have voted for they are wrong and need our help to fight communism. Simplistic way of putting it I know. Too often supporting democratic governments meant only supporting regimes that could be manipulated.
Where there is no political opposition allowed religious dissent takes it's place, that's what happened in Iran, it is happening in Saudi (where Osama and his cronies come from). If no gradual change is allowed then the extremes take hold instead. It is irrational as most extremes are.
As to how to deal with the situation now, that is a different question, you can't change the past but you do have to deal with the consequences and learn from the mistakes.
As to whether 911 was aided and abetted by the administration, I just don't believe that. The sheer scale of the attack was unbelieveable I think they just didn't take the threat of terrorism seriously, This was after all the first terrorist attack amrica has suffered at home. if you saw it as a film it would be unbelieveable. Did they take advantage of the situation for their own ends? Oh yes, managing to convince americans Iraq was behind it despite all the evidence to the contrary. Real belief on the part of the administration or delibrate manipulation? You tell me I don't know.
TB I think was convinced and completely ignored all the evidence that didn't back up the theory. Either that or it was deliberate manipulation in which case he is an outright liar, either way he has rather lost any credibility as a leader. The only reason he is still there is the tories are worse.
posted by BTS
On just this one paragraph, I would have to say times change and so did the people you mentioned. Seeing as you are assuming we do not know this bit of history. Please enlighten us. Why did we help Saddam? Bin laden? What were the circumstances at the time? You hit on one of them when you mentioned Russia. Why did Bin laden turn on us? was that or fault?
I have my opinions but I would like to hear what your thoughts are....
Sorry I don't have the big-boy words of "anastrophe" but I do have a passion and some knowledge if you care to indulge?
Know what you mean about the big words, I keep a dictionary handy
Actually I don't assume you don't know the history, I suspect most of you do but it's as if you don't think there might be a connection to past policies and what is happening now.
As to why help Saddam? Same reason why shah of Iran was supported and the suadi arabians are supported, why you got involved in Vietnam when you thought the communists had gained too much influence because it was viewed as being in US interests and the west in general (european governments are not exactly innocent either) as a foil against communism. The same reason anything remotely smacking of left wing nationalism in central america is treated with hostility. If you look at the reaction to venezuela (spelling?) now threatening to tax foreign oil companies retropsectively, what happened in Chile when a left wing government was brought down with dire consequences for the chilean people. Forget what the people have voted for they are wrong and need our help to fight communism. Simplistic way of putting it I know. Too often supporting democratic governments meant only supporting regimes that could be manipulated.
Where there is no political opposition allowed religious dissent takes it's place, that's what happened in Iran, it is happening in Saudi (where Osama and his cronies come from). If no gradual change is allowed then the extremes take hold instead. It is irrational as most extremes are.
As to how to deal with the situation now, that is a different question, you can't change the past but you do have to deal with the consequences and learn from the mistakes.
As to whether 911 was aided and abetted by the administration, I just don't believe that. The sheer scale of the attack was unbelieveable I think they just didn't take the threat of terrorism seriously, This was after all the first terrorist attack amrica has suffered at home. if you saw it as a film it would be unbelieveable. Did they take advantage of the situation for their own ends? Oh yes, managing to convince americans Iraq was behind it despite all the evidence to the contrary. Real belief on the part of the administration or delibrate manipulation? You tell me I don't know.
TB I think was convinced and completely ignored all the evidence that didn't back up the theory. Either that or it was deliberate manipulation in which case he is an outright liar, either way he has rather lost any credibility as a leader. The only reason he is still there is the tories are worse.