What Obama Said About Taking Vacations in 2008!

[sirs]

...in which an apparent disclaimer must be provided in that this isn't any "demand" that any question be answered.  Merely trying to assist the poster in joining the realm of debate, by backing up their claims.

or by all means, don't, and keep said claims in the realm of leftist opinion, devoid of any actual facts to back them up.  I'm fine with either option

[Xavier_Onassis]

There was no uranium purchase, there were no WMD's, there was no threat of mushroom clouds, there was no weaponized bacteria, there was no poison gas, but every newscast had extensive reports on how horrible all those things really are. It was all unfounded speculation drummed up in the press for maximum heebie jeebies. Polls show that a huge number of people thought that invading Iraq was retribution for 9-11.

I knew it was crap. But the American public was seriously indoctrinated.

[Plane]

...........

I knew it was crap.

   How?

    Saddam and his regime and his labs and his military machine had really done each and all of these things in the past, proof being plentiful that in 91 he had a massive WMD effort underway.

      When Saddam and his cronies had a curtain drawn  how was it safe and sure that total innocence alone was occurring behind the curtain?

[sirs]

I knew it was crap. But the American public was seriously indoctrinated.

When you can demonstrate that the vast majority of the Democrats, and nearly every other intelligence agency was equally indoctrinated, and how so, then you might have a credible leg to stand on

[sirs]

...........

I knew it was crap.

   How?

There is no answer to that question, Plane.  In fact, you might even be accused of demanding an answer.  There's the Professor's say so, supported by "obviously".....and that's pretty much it

[Plane]

...........

I knew it was crap.

   How?

There is no answer to that question, Plane.  ..................

    Credit where it is due, even if it was entirely instinct , the truth popped up squarely in the middle of it.

      If there was a logic involved < at the time> I completely missed it.

    So "how" seems like a legitimate question to me.

      If it is just always being against the Republican position , that is right like a stopped clock, Republicans are human and will be wrong now and then, so being always contrary will result in the twice a day variety of right.

     If I missed something that I should have caught , perhaps I should be examining my own prejudices, I hate to think that I always agree with Republican official platform, that is just as "stopped clock" as any other means of avoiding real thought.

[sirs]

Oh, it's absolutely a legitimate question.  Only that any answer will be either an opinion, devoid of any facts to support it, or a non-answer. 

But it's definitely a legitimate question....one I've been asking many a time, when asking for even 1 supportive fact to support the claim that the WMD was all a hoax and/or how all these other countries, their leaders, their intel agencies, and the majority of the political Democrats in this country, most of whom hated Bush to begin with, were all duped by this supposed blockhead

All I get in return is spin, "well it's obvious", or my favorite, "I could present you with the facts, but you'd just ignore them anyways"

[Plane]

     I realize that it is difficult to avoid making it personal when there are so few of us involved in this discussion.


     But it really is not personal.

     XO is not the only guy that thinks exactly this, he is one of millions.

       Unfortunately for us , only one of them exhibits enough tolerance and persistence to be here and now discussing this with us.

        There may be others , but until we find them lets be appreciative of what we have.

   XO is not just remarkably persistent, he is also generous.

[sirs]

I agree with your take on the Professor, but my comments are not specific to him.  It's a consistent pattern I see in most every hard core liberal I come across, both friend, and not so much a friend

So, in other words, its not personal to me.  It just is, what it is.....or should I say, "obvious"   

[Xavier_Onassis]

I knew it was crap because of the way that various people in the administration spoke about it. Their stories did not line up, but their conclusions did.
Rather than say that Saddam was offering to buy yellowcake ore from Niger, they all said "Uranium ore from Africa". No one dared to be precise, because the pe=recision could have sent reporters off to that one single country, where all the wheelers and dealers are well known. There are, on the other hand, 57 nations in Aftica, counting the island nations, and there are several types of Uranium ore.

I lived in Mexico during the late 60s, when the government lied all the time. To know what was going on, you had to read between the lines, paying special attention to exactly what they din NOT say. They phrased things so they could later claim that they were misquoted.

It is like when you are buying a used car, and the owner is obviously covering up a bunch of stuff. You know he is lying, because things jest do not line up.
I find this is useful when deciding which mutual funds to buy. I read very carefully what is being left out.

When Duracell says that no battery has a longer life than Duracell, for example. Most people hear this and think that it means that Duracell is better than all the others.  But that is not what they are saying. What they are saying is in reality that there is one or more competing brands that is equal in longevity. This means that you find out which the other equal performing brands are (Everready and Rayovac) and you buy the cheapest (Rayovac).

Liars try very hard to try not to sound like liars, and by listening carefully, you know when they are lying and where to look for the truth.

[sirs]

and yet....in this apparent ocean of liars, still not one supported proof of anyone actually lying. 

You do realize that not finding WMD that most everyone & every intelligence agency thought was there isn't the same as lying, right??  Lying is KNOWING one thing, but doing/saying something to the contrary......like..."If you like your Dr. or if you like your insurance, you can keep it...period"

[Xavier_Onassis]

Yeah sirs, unless they are forced to take the stand and break down in tears and admit they were lying morons, then they were not really lyiong. It is not my gfault that you lack the ability to recognize bullshit.

I do not give a flying fuck whether admit that you and the repulsive Republicans all have shit smeared all over your faces or not. All I am saying is that I know it it there, I knew it from the start. I knew Dick Cheney was a lying thief from the get go. 

[Plane]

To know what was going on, you had to read between the lines, paying special attention to exactly what they din NOT say. They phrased things so they could later claim that they were misquoted.

   This is very interesting.

    I try to weight what I hear with experience also, but my experiences are quite different from yours .

     Sometimes I might fail because I have weighted wrongly , but I can't just accept what I hear without coloring it .

       I like to think I am giving evaluation and independent thought to the news , then I like to get your take on it .

       Not because I will agree with your thought, that would waste our time , I already agree with myself, seeking people I agree with to affirm myself is just avoiding a deep look into the subject.

       Getting a well thought out disagreement is golden, firstly it makes it less likely that I will simply indulge my prejudices and accept a stupidity without examining it.

       (Obviously it doesn't become impossible , less likely is all I dare claim.)

      Because I am planning to present an idea to a contrarian, I am more prone to examine it critically myself , then if it still has a glairing error, an opponent will pry it out to my embarrassment and benefit.

     Secondly , a differing point of view opens ideas I might never have for myself at all without the assist. Or if I did think of the idea , I might assign a totally different importance to the array of facts and opinions so that the same information can support a reversed conclusion.

      Someone with a different skillset a different experience base and a different means of thought doesn't affirm my thinking , he hones it.

        In this group XO seems to disagree with me the most, isn't this a gem I should treasure?

       Ok , I love to be agreed with also, that is just not what I am talking about now.

[sirs]

Yeah sirs, unless they are forced to take the stand and break down in tears and admit they were lying morons, then they were not really lyiong. It is not my gfault that you lack the ability to recognize bullshit.

I do not give a flying fuck whether admit that you and the repulsive Republicans all have shit smeared all over your faces or not. All I am saying is that I know it it there, I knew it from the start. I knew Dick Cheney was a lying thief from the get go. 

Oh, I recognize BS quite well.  I'm usually having to bring my broom with me, following one of your epic accusatory rants...devoid of any reason, but lots of passion, I'll grant you that.

Words mean things.  Lying has a specific definition to it.  To lie, means one must know something but say/do the opposite, with intent to deceive. 

Your propaganda theory is complete BS, as it you've produced nothing but your say, and lacks not a shred of logic, given the amount of folks, outside the U.S. that also supported the notion that Iraq still had their WMD.

Your Bush/Cheney lied accusation is equally lacking in both facts and logic.  Made all the more so, when you and others perseverate about Iraq being unable to attack the U.S., demonstrating how desperate you are to debunk a claim never made

Your "Bush would have invaded regardless" is also sadly lacking any sense of credible support to bolster such a hyperbolic accusation.  Just your apparent know-better than others, say so

You can say anything you want, have any opinion you want, proclaim that the sky is green all you want.  None of that makes any of that, or claims of massive lying by Bush & co. accurate or true.  H was close to what was really going on....that Bush weighed the intel he was given, and although there was some question with contrary intel, the overwhelming predominance of intel won out, and that's what they used to go into Iraq.  He at least could support that position with facts.  You have yet to produce....ANYTHING, outside of your "obvious" say so

[Plane]

      I am happy with the quality of XOs answer.

        There are times when it is the minority that is right.

          I think Saddam did what he could to maintain the illusion that he was hyperpotent with WMD, had me snowed and a majority of my government and a majority of the world actually.

        XO being right in a big way may seem strange, but he was.

       I am going to get tired of arguing that I was wrong for better reasons than he was right.