DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Brassmask on June 20, 2008, 08:08:47 AM
-
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/19/level-of-pessimism-in-us-is-the-worst-in-almost-30-years/ (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/19/level-of-pessimism-in-us-is-the-worst-in-almost-30-years/)
Wow, that drive-by media sure is earning its millions, huh? 8 out of 10 Americans feel the country is headed in the wrong direction. Those 8 must be so utterly and completely brainwashed by the leftists in the media that hate this country and suffer from...what is it called...BDS?
After "president" Bush has poured the last eight years of his life into making this country the most respected and honorable country in the world by hunting down terrorists and torturing their sorry asses to get information that may or may not have prevented another 9.11 and widespread vampirism, this is the thanks he gets? Wow, unbelievable how ungrateful Americans are these days.
How dare they, I ask, HOW?
Eight in 10 Americans say country is headed in the ?wrong direction.
A new AP-Ipsos poll finds that nearly eight in 10 Americans believe ?the country is moving in the wrong direction?amid soaring food and gas prices, falling home values and unending war. Just 17 percent say the country is going in the right direction.? This figure is the lowest since the survey began in 2003, and when compared with other past surveys, ?the general level of pessimism is the worst in almost 30 years.?
Hey, I got it! They're just so utterly convinced that that terrorist-loving, Muslim, black guy is going to be elected by a bunch of activist voters who hate America and want the terrorists to WIN and that's why they think the country is heading in the wrong direction. Thaaaaat's it. Whew, our faith in this god-fearing nation is restored.
-
So you're NOT all bad, after all. I am SO relieved. Hanging out in this forum gave me the impression that guys like Rich, sirs, BT, plane, CU4 et al. somehow represented the vast majority of Americans today and that Lanya, Brass, XO & hnumpah were but a very tiny minority. Whew. God Bless America. Maybe Obama will bring a little sanity to the body politic and restore America's good name in the world. Well, at least we can hope. Maybe this time the margin of victory will be so wide that no amount of Republican cheating can alter the final result. And if Obama DOES win, and if he DOES mean to change the country, don't get taken in by the "all coming together as Americans" bullshit, which is just a slick way of winning amnesty for the crimes of this administration.
-
don't get taken in by the "all coming together as Americans" bullshit, which is just a slick way of winning amnesty for the crimes of this administration.
================
I think most Americans could come together with at least Cheney behind bars. They could just have Juniorbush bronzed and placed on a pedestal in front of his presidential library, as both an object of veneration and a decorative perch for pigeons.
Those of us who would wish the bronzed Bush ro be a more colorful memento could feed the pigeons an assortment of dyed popcorn, so as to make for a multicolored patina.
-
I'm absolutely convinced no one in the senate will ever vote for impeachment or pursue prosecution of Bush or Cheney because they are afraid they might be susceptible to the same results for having supported their nefarious pursuits.
-
Or....or.....here's an outrageous concept, there are no grounds to initiate impeachement hearings :o
-
Or....or.....here's an outrageous concept, there are no grounds to initiate impeachement hearings :o
Then how come Dennis Kucinich could come up with 35 articles of impeachment? And is threatening to come back with a total of SIXTY if the congress doesn't move?
Anyone who doesn't understand that Bush and ESPECIALLY Cheney should have their asses hauled in to a World Court and jailed for the rest of their lives for crimes against humanity truly has their head in the sand.
-
Then how come Dennis Kucinich could come up with 35 articles of impeachment? And is threatening to come back with a total of SIXTY if the congress doesn't move?
Because coming up with charges requires no evidence.
The evidence would be presented at a Senate trial after the impeachment vote in the House.
-
Then how come Dennis Kucinich could come up with 35 articles of impeachment? And is threatening to come back with a total of SIXTY if the congress doesn't move?
Because coming up with charges requires no evidence.
BINGO. Next
-
<<Or....or.....here's an outrageous concept, there are no grounds to initiate impeachement hearings >>
Well, here's one to wrap your head around - - does planning and waging a war of unprovoked aggression (a capital crime according to the Nuremburg War Crimes Commission) qualify as a "high crime and misdemeanour" (the requirement for impeachment?)
Or do you think there's no evidence that Bush and his Cabinet planned and waged the war on Iraq?
-
<<Or....or.....here's an outrageous concept, there are no grounds to initiate impeachement hearings >>
does planning and waging a war of unprovoked aggression (a capital crime according to the Nuremburg War Crimes Commission) qualify as a "high crime and misdemeanour" (the requirement for impeachment?)
Not when the above allegation is PURE AMBE. But hey, if Kucinich has actual EVIDENCE of such, by all means, bring it forward
Or do you think there's no evidence that Bush and his Cabinet planned and waged the war on Iraq?
There are Military plans & contingincies to wage war all over the globe, in all sorts of regions & scenarios. Rarely are they ever implimented
-
<<But hey, if Kucinich has actual EVIDENCE of such, by all means, bring it forward>>
I think you've got it bass-ackwards. Who if not Bush and Co. planned and executed the war? The charges are self-evident and the actual evidence of what they did is abundant.
The defence (genuine belief that Iraq was an immediate threat) is for them to prove. According to you, that should be no problem. "All the intelligence agencies in the world say . . . ")
So there's enough evidence for them to be charged, although they all CLAIM to have the perfect defence. Fine. Let the games begin.
-
Or do you think there's no evidence that Bush and his Cabinet planned and waged the war on Iraq?
Of course they did, after having gotten approval from Congress.
I find it hard to believe that Congress would impeach them for waging a war that Congress authorized.
-
<<I find it hard to believe that Congress would impeach them for waging a war that Congress authorized.>>
They planned it, they sold it, Congress bought it. The authorization of Congress was procured by fraud. How can Bush defend himself by pointing to an authorization that he procured as the result of his own fraud? That is ludicrous.
-
Talk about getting it bass-ackwards ::)
-
Defending BushCo is so 2004.
The tide is turning against you guys and I'm sure when Bush and Cheney are sitting in those little boxes with those little speakers on their ears and listening to the evidence being laid out against them in the War Crimes trial, you'll be demanding that the Army storm the courthouse and free them with guns blazing Rambo-style.
-
Ummmmmm....yea....right....whatever you say, Brass
::)
-
Ummmmmm....yea....right....whatever you say, Brass
::)
What's especially sad about all this is that even if that were to really happen, you will NEVER admit that they lied and/or committed a crime. It will always be a slow creep of hair-splitting and denial.
You guys will are simply ideologues who have so intertwined your beliefs with the Bush "administration" to a point that if he is accused or maligned in any way, you rush to defend him by denying, denying, denying with a healthy splash of "what about this little smidge of nothing that insinuates that everyone is guilty?"
-
Ummmmmm....yea....right....whatever you say, Brass
::)
What's especially sad about all this is that even if that were to really happen, you will NEVER admit that they lied and/or committed a crime. It will always be a slow creep of hair-splitting and denial.
A) I think you're projecting yourself onto the Clinton Kool-aide drinkers all coming to support the various definitions of what "is" is.
B) I'd have to see the evidence (Yours, Tee's, Xo's & Kucinich's BDS OPINIONS don't quite cut it, I'm afraid. Unlike yourself, I'm not a cool-ade drinking sycophant, and could be persuaded by overwhelming evidence to the contrary)
C) There'd have to be a trial (Ball in your court)
-
So you're NOT all bad, after all. I am SO relieved. Hanging out in this forum gave me the impression that guys like Rich, sirs, BT, plane, CU4 et al. somehow represented the vast majority of Americans today and that Lanya, Brass, XO & hnumpah were but a very tiny minority. Whew. God Bless America. Maybe Obama will bring a little sanity to the body politic and restore America's good name in the world. Well, at least we can hope. Maybe this time the margin of victory will be so wide that no amount of Republican cheating can alter the final result. And if Obama DOES win, and if he DOES mean to change the country, don't get taken in by the "all coming together as Americans" bullshit, which is just a slick way of winning amnesty for the crimes of this administration.
No, your first assumption is correct. You ARE in the minority...
-
Sorry, there won't ever be a tape of Bush saying, "Hey, let's just say that he might have a nuclear bomb and just invade whenever we want." Nixon made sure that every president knew not to do that again.
-
Ok, then what do you have?? Surely you have some top military Generals on record citing the direct plan by the Bush administration to invade Iraq regardless the circumstances, right? You have some eye-witness testimony of American Operatives planting WMD in Iraq for us to "find", right? How about a "blue dress".....Cheney's fingerprints on a classified memo citing secret plans take over Iraq's Oil? I mean, you have to have SOMETHING.
Going to war is NOT the "smoking gun" I'm afraid, no more than going into WWII was some smoking gun proof that Roosevelt knew Pearl Harbor was about to happen
Ball back in yours and Kuscinich's court. Let's see some actual EVIDENCE of these supposed war crimes
-
<<No, your first assumption is correct. You ARE in the minority...>>
Actually the newest AP-Ipsos poll shows me in an 80% majority, with those who feel the country is going in the wrong direction. Just read the post at the head of this thread, Professor.
-
<<Talk about getting it bass-ackwards >>
OK, let's. You've STILL got it bass-ackwards because the facts are clear that he started the war without an overt attack on the U.S. from Iraq. Those facts are the grounds for the impeachment. Whatever his defence - - "well I really thought they were a threat," or "well, Congress authorized it after I proposed it," those are defences which he can raise.
But I'm with Kucinich. Kucinich says there are grounds for impeachment and I've just shown a major one, plain as day. You might confuse having a defence to the charges with there being no grounds to lay the charges in the first place, but as far as I can see, ample grounds for impeachment exist, and I'd be very surprised if the defences that you think Bush does have would stand up in any court of law.
-
<<Ok, then what do you have?? >>
Read carefully.
<< Surely you have some top military Generals on record citing the direct plan by the Bush administration to invade Iraq regardless the circumstances, right? >>
Wrong.
<<You have some eye-witness testimony of American Operatives planting WMD in Iraq for us to "find", right? >>
Wrong.
<< How about a "blue dress".....Cheney's fingerprints on a classified memo citing secret plans take over Iraq's Oil? >>
Wrong and wrong.
<< I mean, you have to have SOMETHING.>>
Yes, and in fact we do have something.
<<Going to war is NOT the "smoking gun" I'm afraid . . . >>
WRONG. Going to war against a country that did not attack you (or an ally you are legally bound by treaty to defend) first is unfortunately very much a smoking gun. Pre-emptive war is only justified in the face of an imminent attack. Imminent means about to happen in the immediate future. The prima facie conclusion that any court would draw from the start of a war that was not provoked by an actual attack from the victim is that the war was most likely one of aggression. That is how almost all wars of aggression begin: WWI by the Austrian attack on Serbia, WWII by the German attack on Poland, then by the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, then by the German attack on Russia, Korean War by the North Korean attack on South Korea, the Falklands War by the Argentinian invasion of the Falkland Islands. In none of those wars was there any prior provocation. Given the extremely rare nature of pre-emption as a casus belli, the odds are much more likely that a war begun without a prior attack from the victim is a war of unjustified aggression rather than a pre-emptive war. If Bush and his fellow criminals wish to claim that they were acting in legitimate self-defence, it is up to them to make that defence during the course of their trial, if they can.
<<no more than going into WWII was some smoking gun proof that Roosevelt knew Pearl Harbor was about to happen>>
Which has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand. Whether Roosevelt knew or did not know of the coming attack, the attack itself was what constitutes the U.S.'s casus belli, not FDR's knowledge or ignorance of it. You seem to be badly confused on two issues here: (1) the difference between Pearl Harbor and Iraq is that there was an actual Jap attack on the U.S.A. preceding (and fully justifying) the U.S. declaration of war which followed immediately and (2) NONE of the pro-impeachment arguments depends on Bush knowing about 9-11 being about to happen.
<<Let's see some actual EVIDENCE of these supposed war crimes>>
Here it is: While George W. Bush was President of the U.S.A. and commander-in-chief of the U.S. Army, Navy and Air Force, U.S. military forces acting under his command invaded and occupied Iraq, a sovereign nation and member state of the UN, and, with the U.S. a co-signatory to the Charter of the United Nations. Everything I just stated is FACT. Every one of those FACTS is evidence against George W. Bush that he has committed the war crime of planning and waging a war of aggression. Believe it or not, that's all the evidence that you need to justify an impeachment. From those facts, it could be argued that a prima facie case exists that George W. Bush has waged a war of aggression, which is illegal under the UN Charter, which is binding upon the U.S. Government, including its agent, George W. Bush.
Q.E.D.
You say Bush has a valid defence. Well, that's fine. He can raise it once his trial has begun. He wouldn't be the first guy to be charged on a strong prima facie case, defend himself in court and win an acquittal. Grounds for impeachment doesn't mean an airtight case that can't fail at trial, otherwise there'd be no need for the trial, the bringing of the charges itself would be the conclusive event. I say there are ample grounds for impeachment and the sooner it starts the better. Failing impeachment, I would love to see a war crimes trial, also the sooner the better but in any event with the indictments handed down no later than the last week of January 2009.
-
Why would you say that Iraq was a sovereign nation in 2003?
Weren't they operating under the sufferance of the winners of the 1991 war and armistice?
Saddam was not maintaining his part of the deal and forfeited the armistice.
-
<<Why would you say that Iraq was a sovereign nation in 2003?>>
Because it was a member state of the UN, where it maintained a seat at the General Assembly, it enjoyed diplomatic recognition as a sovereign state by most if not all of the world's sovereign states, including the U.S.A. and Great Britain, IIRC and no other state claimed the right to legislate for the people living within its territorial limits.
<<Weren't they operating under the sufferance of the winners of the 1991 war and armistice?>>
I don't even know what that means, "operating under the sufferance," but a sovereign state does not cease to be a sovereign state merely by the fact of its having entered into an armistice or being attacked by foreign enemies.
<<Saddam was not maintaining his part of the deal and forfeited the armistice.>>
That's pure bullshit. The U.S. claimed that Saddam wasn't maintaining his part of the armistice. Who says that the penalty for non-compliance with one or more parts of an armistice is the loss of the entire armistice? What specifically was Saddam doing that violated the armistice? And the bottom line is, even if the armistice were violated, that does not in anyway take away from the sovereignty of the alleged violator.
-
<<Talk about getting it bass-ackwards >>
OK, let's. You've STILL got it bass-ackwards because the facts are clear that he started the war without an overt attack on the U.S. from Iraq. Those facts are the grounds for the impeachment.
See?, that's the bass-ackwards part. Going to war doesn't = intention to go to war regardless. You need EVIDENCE of the latter for the "impeachement grounds" Just because you OPINE it was unprovoked, uncalled for, irresponsible, wreckless, or whatever adjective you want to use, simply is describing your perception of the war. I'm sorry to say, that's not going to hold up in a court of law. Congress authorized force, Saddam was not in compliance with UN 1441, serious consequences then ensued. THOSE are the FACTS, MINUS the color commentary
Going to war against a country that did not attack you (or an ally you are legally bound by treaty to defend) first is unfortunately very much a smoking gun
And as you've said, WRONG. We had authorization by Congress, including a boatload of Dems. Now, you can OPINE they were all hoodwinked (sad state of how dumb all those congress critters must be), but again, no EVIDENCE of such, outside of your blinding Bush hatred
But I'm with Kucinich. Kucinich says there are grounds for impeachment and I've just shown a major one, plain as day.
No, you 2 have both shown the accusation minus any evidence to support it, outside of your OPINIONS. We all shall patiently await for the latter.
-
<<See?, that's the bass-ackwards part. Going to war doesn't = intention to go to war regardless. >>
Going to war is evidence of going to war. In the absence of any evidence of an attack by Iraq on the U.S.A. that would serve as a casus belli, going to war is evidence of going to war without any APPARENT provocation.
<<You need EVIDENCE of the latter for the "impeachement grounds" >>
THAT is exactly where you are confused. I don't need evidence of an intention to go to war "regardless" because going to war in the absence of a direct attack is a prima facie case that the war was <<
Sorry, who's opining here, you or me? Whether or not Saddam was in compliance with UN 1441 or was noncompliant with lawful excuses are matters of law, they most certainly are NOT facts. Similarly what consequences flow from any particular non-compliance is also a matter of law for a court to determine after hearing all the facts.
<<THOSE are the FACTS . . . >>
Absolutely they are not facts. They are YOUR OPINIONS, pure and simple. They are CONCLUSIONS that you believe a court will come to and that I believe they will not come to.
==============================================================================
<<Quote from: Michael Tee on June 20, 2008, 10:36:29 PM
<<Going to war against a country that did not attack you (or an ally you are legally bound by treaty to <<defend) first is unfortunately very much a smoking gun
<<And as you've said, WRONG. We had authorization by Congress, including a boatload of Dems. >>
You are totally fucked up, I am sorry to say. Going to war without justification is a crime. Congress cannot authorize the commission of a crime, much less can "a boatload of Dems" - - any more than the German Reichstag could have "authorized" the invasion of Poland. A crime is a crime is a crime. What part of that don't you get?
<<Now, you can OPINE they were all hoodwinked (sad state of how dumb all those congress critters must be), but again, no EVIDENCE of such, outside of your blinding Bush hatred>>
What's the difference, hoodwinked or not? Compliant and crooked or innocent and dumb? The crime did not consist of invading Iraq without Congressional authorization. The crime consisted of invading Iraq when Iraq had not attacked the U.S.A.
-
<<See?, that's the bass-ackwards part. Going to war doesn't = intention to go to war regardless. >>
Going to war is evidence of going to war. In the absence of any evidence of an attack by Iraq on the U.S.A. that would serve as a casus belli, going to war is evidence of going to war without any APPARENT provocation.
Your problem again are the FACTS keep getting in the way. We had 911. We had determined TIES (both direct & non-direct) between Militant Islamic Terrorists (including AlQeada) and Iraq. We had AUTHORIZATION by OUR CONGRESS. We had SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES that would befall Saddam if he did not FULLY COMPLY with UN 1441. He didn't.....the rest is history
What you don't have is evidence that the moron Bush someohow managed to fool EVERYONE. So, trying to lay claim that going to war is the defacto "smoking gun" is the height of transparent Bush hatred and ignorance of both history and reality, Tee
<
-
<<Your problem again are the FACTS keep getting in the way. We had 911. >>
That is one fact. Certainly in itself does not provide a defence for the invasion of Iraq.
<< We had determined TIES (both direct & non-direct) between Militant Islamic Terrorists (including AlQeada) and Iraq. >>
Sorry, wrong! Those are not facts. Those are alleged facts that need to be judicially evaluated as to (1) reliability (2) extent, timing, significance or meaning. I don't accept them as fact and I don't see any reason for you to, either. Right now all you've got is hearsay at least two or three steps removed from source.
<< We had AUTHORIZATION by OUR CONGRESS. >>
I believe firstly that Congress authorized Bush to act at discretion, so he'd still be responsible for the actions he chose. In any event, it's irrelevant whether Congress authorized it or not. As I pointed out in another thread, Congress can no more "authorize" an illegal act or crime of war than the German Reichstag could have authorized the Nazi invasion of Poland.
<<We had SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES that would befall Saddam if he did not FULLY COMPLY with UN 1441. >>
You are very badly confused here. Consequences of non-compliance with laws or UN Resolutions are matters of law and conclusions to be drawn after all the facts are considered. They are certainly not facts, as you claim. There are serious legal issues at stake - - what WERE Saddam's obligations precisely, in what way did he allegedly not comply, who had the right to insist on compliance, what sanctions could legally be imposed for non-compliance, what procedure would have to be followed to enforce them, who would oversee the procedure and who would enforce it?
<<He didn't.....the rest is history>>
Gee - - could you possibly simplify that any more for us?
<<What you don't have is evidence that the moron Bush someohow managed to fool EVERYONE. >>
Well, actually, sirs, he DIDN'T "fool EVERYONE." Didn't fool me. Didn't fool Barak Obama. Didn't fool Noam Chomsky. Didn't fool Dennis Kucinich. Didn't fool the Prime Minister of Canada. Didn't fool the Prime Ministers of Germany, France, China and Russia. Didn't fool most of the world, in fact. So all this bunkum about "everyone" being on the bandwagon at the time is just pure bullshit. Better give it a rest, sirs. That horse is dead. Starting to stink, in fact.
<<So, trying to lay claim that going to war is the defacto "smoking gun" is the height of transparent Bush hatred and ignorance of both history and reality, Tee>>
Yes, except that I DIDN'T "try to lay claim" that "going to war" is the de facto smoking gun. Pay attention, sirs. For christ sake. This is probably the third or fourth time I've had to make the distinction for you: The smoking gun is going to war without being first attacked.
Here. I'll say it again, in case you missed it again: The smoking gun is going to war without being first attacked. Sorry, sirs, but clearer than that I cannot be.
There is almost no case in modern recorded history which I am aware of in which a genuinely pre-emptive attack ever happened. ALL of the genuinely justified wars that I can think of occurred in response to actual, verifiable attacks. So when Bush makes war without being first attacked, the odds are extremely high that this was not justifiable on genuine grounds of preemption. Thus, the indictment. This is NOT to say that no defences are possible. Once charged, he can raise any defence he likes. But the case for impeachment for war crimes and crimes against humanity is very strong. It should be brought immediately, and if Bush wants to defend himself on all the bullshit grounds you have suggested, good luck to him.
-
<<No, your first assumption is correct. You ARE in the minority...>>
Actually the newest AP-Ipsos poll shows me in an 80% majority, with those who feel the country is going in the wrong direction. Just read the post at the head of this thread, Professor.
I would postulate that it all depends upon exactly WHAT issue you are addressing. If you are referring to the ill-advised Iraqi excursion, then the polls agree that you are in the majority (as am I). If you mean other similar but related issues such as whether the US is the greatest nation on Earth, then you are in the minority. This nation is more than a government, it is a nation of people being governed. This process is a willing and democratic one.
Thi perpetual whining and degradting of the nation is both unfulfilling and monotonous. An exemplary analysis of the state of a nation lies in its positives as well as its negatives.
Why do people ike me rarely revisit this forum? Same drivel. Present some new and /or poignant views.
Naysayers abound and it gets old...rapidly. Perpetual naysaying is an attribute of a weak mind and superficial analysis.
-
The "drivel" doesn't change because the situation doesn't change. Novelty is fine, but there has to be some connection between the opinions being expressed and the actual state of the real world.
I do agree with you though, about the monotony. The same issues are being debated between the same parties ad infinitum, over and over and over again, long past the point when one or both of the antagonists ought to have realized that nothing new is being added and it's long past time to have dropped out of the cycle. I wonder if that wouldn't just result in a resounding silence in this group - - there really isn't enough meat in the duller issues to sustain us. Also, speaking only for myself, I seem to be constitutionally unable to leave the last word on the subject to someone whom I believe to be abysmally misinformed, ignorant and just plain WRONG on most issues.
<<If you mean other similar but related issues such as whether the US is the greatest nation on Earth, then you are in the minority.>>
Personally when the debate is whether the U.S. is on the wrong path, I think the obvious frame of reference is the disaster of the Iraq War and its "war on terror" penumbra - - invasion, disrespect for UN, unilateral action, disrespect for international law generally (Geneva Conventions,) torture, illegal eavesdropping, etc.
<<Perpetual naysaying is an attribute of a weak mind and superficial analysis.>>
I think you don't get that the "perpetual naysaying" is a reaction to perpetual yeasaying.
-
"..., speaking only for myself, I seem to be constitutionally unable to leave the last word on the subject to someone whom I believe to be abysmally misinformed, ignorant and just plain WRONG on most issues.
And thus I have you trapped.
Bwahahahahahahaha!
-
You only believe that because you're too cynical to think that people can change.
-
You only believe that because you're too cynical to think that people can change.
I have seen people change.
Just going by what you said , do you need to change?
-
If you mean other similar but related issues such as whether the US is the greatest nation on Earth, then you are in the minority.
The US is perhaps the greatest LARGE nation. It is certainly the greatest nation for Americans to live in. But in absolute standards, there is not actual greatest nation, and I think that anyone who thinks seriously on this must agree. What one considers greatness in a nation varies a lot from one nationality and culture to the next.
-
<<Just going by what you said , do you need to change?>>
Definitely. I need to be less obsessive about getting in the last word.
-
<<Just going by what you said , do you need to change?>>
Definitely. I need to be less obsessive about getting in the last word.
Oh no , you can't change that!
-
Why do people ike me rarely revisit this forum? Same drivel. Present some new and /or poignant views.
Naysayers abound and it gets old...rapidly. Perpetual naysaying is an attribute of a weak mind and superficial analysis.
It is within your power to change this , all you need to do is present new stuff that everyone is interested in commenting on.
-
<<It is within your power to change this , all you need to do is present new stuff that everyone is interested in commenting on.>>
Yes, but I think the Professor is more interested in finding a forum of perpetual cheerleading,which, following his analysis of naysaying, must necessarily be an attribute of strong minds and deep analysis.
-
<<It is within your power to change this , all you need to do is present new stuff that everyone is interested in commenting on.>>
Yes, but I think the Professor is more interested in finding a forum of perpetual cheerleading,which, following his analysis of naysaying, must necessarily be an attribute of strong minds and deep analysis.
Supposing that your take on this is right I agree with you .
De-constructing opponents arguments who will come back and deconstruct yours requires that you must both understand each others arguments, the adversarial format ensures that no gaps or sloppy logic goes unchallenged.
-
Actially, MT and XO, I do not advocate cheerleading for the sake of cheerleading. As I have indicated previously, many times actually, I have MANY "issues" with George Bush's presidency, including the ill-advised Iraqi debacle, and the economy and the lack of R&D in alternative energy sources/technologies and no resolution on health care issues and no resolution to the social security issue and that stupid NCLB and o nand on.
But, give me someone better, someone with radical, feasible and practical ideas that can be successfully implemented.
-
<<But, give me someone better, someone with radical, feasible and practical ideas that can be successfully implemented.>>
There are 300 million people in the U.S. and we are going to let you pick between two of them. How's that? One of them is for pulling out the troops but not all of them, and sending the ones that are pulled out to fight Afghanistan and maybe Pakistan too; the other doesn't care if the Army will be in Iraq for 100 years but then he does care because he doesn't want them fighting 100 years, just "being there' 100 years.
In other words, you can choose between two guys each of whom will say anything to anyone to get themselves elected.
So go ahead - - pick someone better than Bush. (Hint: they BOTH are!)