You and Mr. Gilliard are like smug teenagers. You talk about credibility and sober discussion as if you think you actually have credibility as sober and adult commentators. Here's a clue: you don't.
How would you know?
I guess credibility comes from matching words to facts.
I think what you're saying is that you don't like their style, so they lose their credibility.
That they happen to be right most of the time doesn't enter into it.
Somewhere along the line, I think you've confused sobriety with credibility.
How would you know?
Simple. I read what you write.
Knute, I'm still trying to decide if they're stupid or just crazy. Leaning towards crazy simply because I can't believe anyone can be that stupid.
Yes- you read it with and closed & vacuous mind. It is funny that the younger you are the more certain , but seldom right , you are especially when what could have been a mind is controlled by a silly & extremist ideological religion .
I think these are the true believers. Real conservatism is simply based on greed and self-interest, so of course they want fire and police departments like anyone else. Their "small government" philosophy isn't meant to do anything more than get the government off their backs so they can pursue their crooked schemes and plans to economically beggar the rest of the population and engorge their own wealth. Or just make more money according to their own individually formulated ethical standards and keep more of what they make, regardless of what anyone else "weaker" than they may need. The true believers are the ones who are stupid enough to fall for the "philosophical" basis of conservatism and take it to its logical extreme. More stupid than crazy in that case, sort of disproving my original leanings, at least in respect of them.
Yes- you read it with and closed & vacuous mind. It is funny that the younger you are the more certain , but seldom right , you are especially when what could have been a mind is controlled by a silly & extremist ideological religion .
It is funny that you said "the younger you are the more certain, but seldom right, you are" because no one around here is more certain or more seldom right than you are. You talk big, trying to puff yourself up by insulting people with judgmental condemnations, but the actual substance of what you say is usually vapid and absurd. I dislike you and think you lack credibility not because you are a liberal or because you espouse liberal ideas. It's because you, Knute, talk in a hypocritically self-righteous manner while you spout foolish political dogma and condemn anyone who does not generally agree with you politically. You either cannot or will not open your mind to the notion that people who don't hold your political beliefs can be good people who want to help others, but they just disagree with you on how to do it. You either refuse or are incapable of considering the reasoning of those who don't hold to what you find acceptable. So when you try to accuse someone of being close-minded and vacuous, that really is funny. It's hilarious.
Please find another debate trick other than "that's what you are , what am I?" It is not only stupid, but becoming quite tedious .
I do not condemn all who disagree with me . Only those that do it on stupid shallow grounds like you or those whose very believes create needless deaths and misery like most of the other RW lunatics in here.
I do however wish to thank you for keeping this topic on top for so long. All the other RW freaks were either to cowed or beaten by the election to respond. You thought the US was actually as stupid as you, but were wrong at least this time.
I certainly hope not. I don't see them voluntarily divesting themselves to improve the lot of the poor. My plans for their money is not what they plan for their money. $400,000 coming-out parties for their debutante daughters is more in line with they want the money used for, I think it should go to public health and education.
What utter nonsense....My plans for their money is not what they plan for their money. ...[/size]
What utter nonsense.
Like I want to take away (tax) money from the rich to line my own pockets.
As if that makes absolutely no difference whatsoever between my motivation and Ken Lay's.
[...]
Sure, Ken Lay and his ilk are really Robin Hoods at heart.
I don't see them voluntarily divesting themselves to improve the lot of the poor.
My plans for their money is not what they plan for their money. $400,000 coming-out parties for their debutante daughters is more in line with they want the money used for, I think it should go to public health and education.
It's not part of my scheme to make the poor my individual responsibility or any individual's, so that those who choose to be their brother's keeper bear the whole burden while the irresponsible selfish schmucks go on piling up their fortunes at the expense of the less greedy and escape having to make any contribution at all apart from what they voluntarily condescend to contribute.
"My" plan isn't really my plan, it's a well-known socialist blueprint for a just and fair economy and it is what it is.
Unfortunately I'm just not that stupid. I don't give the wolf the same motivation as the shepherd.
In the case of small-c conservatism and smaller-government advocates, it means precisely that [they're greedy and care only about themselves], whether you like it or not. Except, as I pointed out in my post to Knute, for the true believers, the abolish-the-police-and-fire-department guys - - they're not necessarily selfish and greedy, they're just plain stupid.
What utter nonsense.
Being tolerant of opposing view points is nonsense? You're starting to sound like some sort of fundamentalist.
I am a fundimentalist , and if you cannot discern any diffrence between my attitudes and MT's I begin to doubt your discernment.
The rest of your post I really liked.
I am a fundimentalist , and if you cannot discern any diffrence between my attitudes and MT's I begin to doubt your discernment.
In what way are you a fundamentalist?
You're confusing tolerance (conceding the right of everyone to express his opinion) with conformity.
I'm tolerant of your right to say what you said, I certainly don't have to say it's the most brilliant analysis I've ever read.
In fact, I'm perfectly free to state the exact opposite.
Wanting to tax the very rich to pay for basic necessities for the very poor is selfish? Excuse me, but we must be working from two very different dictionaries.
<<As if that [taxing the rich] makes absolutely no difference whatsoever between my motivation and Ken Lay's.
[...]
<<Sure, Ken Lay and his ilk are really Robin Hoods at heart.>>
[Explanatory note: in the above two quotes, I (MT) was trying to point out that contrary to Prince's contentions, the motivation to tax the rich is NOT the same as the rich man's motivation to get richer; taxing the rich so that the poor can live better is not an instance of greed]
<<How did Ken Lay get into this? >>
As a symbol of the rich. As shorthand for all the greedy "conservative" pigs just like him shouldering up to the trough.
<<Oh wait, I get it. You're trying to make like I'm defending Ken Lay. Except of course, I never said a word about him. Must be another strawman.>>
OK, let's not call him Ken Lay. Let's call him Daddy Warbucks. Or Richie Rich. Or Mcihael Milken. Or Dick Cheney. Or Bebe Rebozo. Or Malcolm Forbes. Or maybe we could discuss something a little more substantive than my choice of symbols to represent the ruling plutocracy.
<<Have you? [voluntarily divested yourself to improve the lot of the poor.]>>
That's none of your business.
My point was that it should never be left to individual initiative since the obligation is communal. We are ALL our brother's keeper and as long as we leave it to individual initiative, there will be a basic unfairness in that some will voluntarily shoulder more than their fair share and others will escape sharing any part of the communal burden.
<<So it is as I [Prince] said. You want money taken from others so you don't have to do anything to help people.>>
Who says I'm not willing to pay my fair share through taxes?
I just don't want to allow some citizens to blow big bucks on pointless luxuries while other citizens starve and suffer all the disadvantages of poverty. There should be a minimum standard of living well above the present poverty in which too many North Americans live at present.
<< [...] Others do not choose you want them to choose, so you want to take from them what you want them to have chosen to give. >>
Well, that's pretty much the theory that underlies all government taxation isn't it?
Are you anti-tax? It's a legitimate position. Fundamentally anarchist, but legitimate. I can respect a pure anti-tax position more than I can respect a semi-semi position, such as"It's OK to be taxed to pay for an army to bomb poor dumb fucking Arabs into oblivion but it's not OK to be taxed to put ghetto kids into better schools and obtain early childhood intervention for their early years."
Not as well as your reaction to it indicates your own head-in-the-sand, have-it-both-ways delusion that you can be a selfish egotistical bastard not giving a shit if your brother lives or dies and still be an all-American nice guy at the same time.
Sorry, Prince, it just. don't. work. that way. People who want to help the poor and don't give a shit about their second or third or fourth million are nice guys and people who want to hang on to their wealth and privilege not giving a shit what happens to the bottom 20% are egotistical selfish pricks. And there's no theory, no spin, no rationalization in this universe or the next that will ever change that.
It's not authoritarian if it's the will of the people expressed through their democratically elected representatives.
Unjust my ass!!! It's a hell of a lot more just than your current society where a CEO makes up to 400 times the salary of his lowest-paid worker, where the ruling class fly on private jets between luxury homes while millions of ghetto kids live short lives of crime and desperation in the slums of every city and town in America.
You don't like it when I analogize by comparing socialists to shepherds and the plutocracy and its defenders to wolves; for some reason (unspecified) you'd like it better if I called the plutocracy and its defenders non-wolves.
Basically, you are saying, "Look, I'm open-minded enough to recognize that not all socialists are thieves and looters. Now why can't YOU be open-minded enough to recognize that not all small-government conservatives are selfish egotistical pricks?" To which I would reply, we're engaged in a search for the truth here, not a contest in open-mindedness. Things are what they are. What you said about socialists happens to be the truth. I can't tell an untruth just to balance out with you on some artificial scale of "open-mindedness." Open-mindedness is NOT a synonym for diplomacy, still less for lying. You are saying the truth when you say that not all socialists are thieves and looters. I would be lying if I said that small-government conservatives were not either (a) selfish egotistical pricks or (b) the dupes of selfish egotistical pricks.
You're quite right. (Well, you can't be wrong all the time, can you?) That was wrong and stupid on my part. I apologize and I take it back. There IS an intelligent case to be made for abolishing tax-paid fire and police departments, but the only people that have made it are anarchists. Pure anarchists. It's been so long since I've seen a pure anarchist position that I'd forgotten they even existed.
<<People don't like taxes? You just call them greedy. >>
Come on, play fair. I'm talking small-government conservatives, people who object to paying taxes out of greed.
Considering the poverty and misery in your country and your abominable standards of public health, I think even those moderately successful working families have enough fat to cut off. There's a lot of big money that could be taxed before we have to sight in on the people you are describing.
Voluntary cooperation was legal and available from the founding of the Republic. From the dawn of history for that matter. Doesn't work. Might as well call for Darwinian law.
<< . . . and you're the one advocating taking what belongs to someone else. >>
God-damn right I am. And leaving 'em enough to get by on quite comfortably. So that others don't have to live in the gutter.
There IS no rational explanation for love.
Love your brother as yourself is an ethical commandment.
Look on your brother as an easy mark if you like - - that's your right and your choice. Onoe's just as rational as the other.
What I want is to convince enough people to think like me and to act like me - - to accept that we ARE our brother's keeper. And to act accordingly.
To legislate a world where every man contributes his fair share to the upkeep of those who can't keep up on their own. NOT what he wants to give or what he feels like giving (leaving a disproportionate burden on the rest of us.) Bearing his fair share like everyone else in this society.
I hope instead that a day will come when selfishness and greed are looked upon as empty and devoid of substance as neutrinos and when caring and compassion and acceptance of the burden of caring for the less fortunate are seen as the essential building blocks of a just and fair society.
<<This makes him [Ken Lay] a good stand in of government in general, they are all like that.>>
I'm kind of surprised that you can't see the difference between Ken Lay and government in general.
Do you understand that when Kenny-Boy stole money from others, he did so with the main intent of lining the pockets of, and benefitting nobody else but, Kenny-Boy himself, his friends and family? Good.
Do you understand that when "government in general" takes people's money through taxes, their main intent is to spend it (or what's left of it after the military gets whatever it needs to rob and kill millions of Third World people) on programs such as school lunches, public health, education, etc.? Good.
Are you starting to see maybe just a glimmer of difference between Ken Lay secretly stealing for his own aggrandizement and "government in general" taking money to benefit primarily people who need food, health, education? I hope so.
<<A liberals concern for the Poor causes him to want to do something effective for them with other peoples money , he has no faith in his own money.>>
Well, that's true enough. I don't expect the miracle of loaves and fishes to spring forth from the holy money that lives in my pocket. If I give my holy quarter to a beggar, I don't expect it to magnify into thousands of quarters to feed thousands of beggars because of the sanctity of my own holy persona. Only a nutball fundamentalist would have that kind of "faith in his own money," but IMHO, despite his "faith in his own money," his quarter won't go any farther than my quarter.
No, plane, my faith is in my government. I gave them my money in taxes and they gave me a health system that pays all my bills and my family's bills. And let me witness for you: that faith has been munificently repaid ten thousandfold. What I paid in taxes was a fraction of the benefits that I have received: my wife's rectal cancer removed by one of the best colorectal surgeons not only in Canada but in the whole world, a guy who lectures all over the world on his technique, and it didn't cost us a cent; continuing follow-up oncology including weekly home visits from a stoma nurse continuing to this day, and it didn't cost us a cent; haemorrhoidectomy and follow-ups, free of charge; angioplasty, follow-up treatment and therapy not costing a cent. Do I want another year of intensive cardiovascular physiotherapy? No problem, any time I do, pick up the phone, schedule it - - won't cost me a cent.
You're God-damn right I don't have any faith in the power of my own money. If I'd been forced to pay for all this on my own, I'd either be dead or bankrupt at this point in time. For sure, we'd have lost our home, as many in the U.S.A. have done, for medical costs.
I live in the real world, plane. In the real world, I pay my taxes, and my government takes care of me. I might also add the excellent University of Toronto undergraduate educations that my three kids and I have all had, courtesy of our government. We could never have paid for all of that from our own resources, or if we had managed, we'd be paying off the debt for the rest of our lives. The subways, the public parks, the marinas and the beaches - - all maintained by what? Our own money? Are you crazy? The fucking government provides ALL of that and twenty thousand times more.
I'm real sorry you don't see any difference between Ken Lay and "government in general." I just told you what "government in general" did for me. Now maybe you can tell me what Ken Lay did for me.
In order to condemn a movement, one doesn't have to condemn each and every one of its individual members. It's enough to show that the movement itself is evil and greedy, not that each and every member is evil and greedy. What would be the effects of its policies? Who would benefit and who would be harmed? THAT is the basis on which I say that the movement is the movement of the greedy, the egotistical, the selfish.
You're right - - it IS authoritarian to pass a law that says that Bill Gates (who I happen to admire greatly) should fork over more of his loot to pay for welfare mommas and slum babies. Just like it's authoritarian to pass a law that takes money out of my pocket to pay for too many tanks and guns and warplanes and not enough public health and education and child support. And you know what? between the two authoritarian tax laws, I'll choose the one that feeds the people.
In order to condemn a movement, one doesn't have to condemn each and every one of its individual members. It's enough to show that the movement itself is evil and greedy, not that each and every member is evil and greedy. What would be the effects of its policies? Who would benefit and who would be harmed? THAT is the basis on which I say that the movement is the movement of the greedy, the egotistical, the selfish.
Boy, that proclaimation sure brings up alot of probable conclusions, since it's only required to claim that the "movement" is X, I think we can safely apply, thanks to Tee that
- Liberalism (big or little "L") is wrong for the country, on so many levels. Can't get much worse on how they'd better spend other people's money, and use the threat of Governmental legal fines &/or imprisonment to do so
- Democratic Hypocritical intolerance of the supposed party of tolerance.
- NAACP is an apparently Racist organisation
- ACLU is anti-ANYTHING Christian
- National Teacher's Union's 1st and formost responsibility is to the protection of any and every teacher in the union, regardless how bad they are. The welfare and education of the Children falls somewhere in the top 10. Perhaps #8, only after the 1st 7 priorities are addressed and dealt with
I could go on, but I'll stop there for nowYou're right - - it IS authoritarian to pass a law that says that Bill Gates (who I happen to admire greatly) should fork over more of his loot to pay for welfare mommas and slum babies. Just like it's authoritarian to pass a law that takes money out of my pocket to pay for too many tanks and guns and warplanes and not enough public health and education and child support. And you know what? between the two authoritarian tax laws, I'll choose the one that feeds the people.
A) One does not require sacrifice of the other
B) You apparently have no problem with protecting this nation, so long as people can eat equally. Well of course you don't, you're not American
You know , of course , that all of this is a figment of your fascist imagination like WMD's and ties to Al Quaeda in Iraq were.
Please find another debate trick other than "that's what you are , what am I?" It is not only stupid, but becoming quite tedious .
When you stop accusing others of your own faults, I'll consider not pointing it out.
You are STill doing it- Gads what a dolt.
I do not condemn all who disagree with me . Only those that do it on stupid shallow grounds like you or those whose very believes create needless deaths and misery like most of the other RW lunatics in here.
Yes, of course. Exactly what I said. You talk in a hypocritically self-righteous manner while you spout foolish political dogma and condemn anyone who does not generally agree with you politically. Thanks for proving my point.
I defy you to identify the so called dogma to which you alude. I am not a liberal . I only use that term in here to piss off you RW haters./ I would call myself a radical , but left &* right radicals are pretty much the same being anarchists and/or libertarian losers. Samo , samo.
Oh and others proving your point when is another shallow debate quirk for losers. You really have no point , only silly circular arguments.
I do however wish to thank you for keeping this topic on top for so long. All the other RW freaks were either to cowed or beaten by the election to respond. You thought the US was actually as stupid as you, but were wrong at least this time.
Would you bother to get a clue, just once? I don't support President Bush, do not support the war in Iraq, and I think the Republican Party deserved to get beat in the last election. Pay attention to someone besides yourself every once in a while. Sheesh.
No, I'm just the grandfather of two little Americans, the father-in-law of one big American and the father of his Canadian wife, all of whom just happen to live in Manhattan. But hell, I don't give a shit what happens to any of them, they're evil.
I make a clean division between those who want to help the unfortunate and those who don't give a shit. The former love their neighbour, the latter don't. Your mistake is to expect that love of neighbour will translate into personal action UNRELATED to prodding the community into taking on the burden. This is illogical.
.
The "irrational rant" was your truly weird and bizarre list of grievances against the ACLU, the NAACP, the Teachers' Union and anyone else trying to make America a better place, free of the influence of crypto-fascists like you and your beloved Bush administration.
You say you dont support Bush , but you clearly his enablers and that makes you every bit as guilty as they in the death and destruction wrought on the world by them
You say you dont support Bush , but you clearly his enablers and that makes you every bit as guilty as they in the death and destruction wrought on the world by them
Mucho understands this principal to be true---- You are either for us or against us.
Yeah but what you think most of the group was doing (when you deigned to provide an example) was something laudatory and commendable. And for two of the groups, NAACP and ACLU, you didn't even bother to give ANY specific examples of their supposed wrongdoing.
Yes but those "OTHER PEOPLE" are members of the same community we all belong to. Why on earth should they not be made to shoulder a fair share of the burden when the obligation falls equally on each and every member of the community?
Actually I used the word "crypto-fascist," but if you feel you're not one of the folks the NAACP, ACLU or Teachers' Union was fighting, then I'll take it back in your case. Although I am fairly certain, at least in the case of the ACLU, that you would be on the opposite side of some of their big issues. But I take back nothing in the case of the Bush administration. I KNOW they are crypto-fascists.
You say you dont support Bush , but you clearly his enablers and that makes you every bit as guilty as they in the death and destruction wrought on the world by them
Mucho understands this principal to be true---- You are either for us or against us.
Your simple minded fascist leader , not I, spouts such simplistic bullshit.
You say you dont support Bush , but you clearly his enablers and that makes you every bit as guilty as they in the death and destruction wrought on the world by them
Mucho understands this principal to be true---- You are either for us or against us.
Your simple minded fascist leader , not I, spouts such simplistic bullshit.
Yours is not a paraphrase of the same sentiment?
The diffrence went right over my head , I need more explanation.
You say you dont support Bush , but you clearly his enablers and that makes you every bit as guilty as they in the death and destruction wrought on the world by them
Mucho understands this principal to be true---- You are either for us or against us.
Your simple minded fascist leader , not I, spouts such simplistic bullshit.
Yours is not a paraphrase of the same sentiment?
The diffrence went right over my head , I need more explanation.
You OK, Plane? To say someone is guilty for supporting evil is really not the same as saying he is for against US. I never did see the comparison.
You say you dont support Bush , but you clearly his enablers and that makes you every bit as guilty as they in the death and destruction wrought on the world by them
Mucho understands this principal to be true---- You are either for us or against us.
Your simple minded fascist leader , not I, spouts such simplistic bullshit.
Yours is not a paraphrase of the same sentiment?
The diffrence went right over my head , I need more explanation.
You OK, Plane? To say someone is guilty for supporting evil is really not the same as saying he is for against US. I never did see the comparison.
People who are enableing Bush are for evil.
Are you evil ?
The diffrence in principal escapes me totally.
People that support Bush are evil. I do not support Bush. Therefore I am not evil. What is the problem?
I defy you to identify the so called dogma to which you alude. I am not a liberal . I only use that term in here to piss off you RW haters./ I would call myself a radical , but left &* right radicals are pretty much the same being anarchists and/or libertarian losers. Samo , samo.
Oh and others proving your point when is another shallow debate quirk for losers.
You say you dont support Bush , but you clearly his enablers and that makes you every bit as guilty as they in the death and destruction wrought on the world by them
People that support Bush are evil. I do not support Bush. Therefore I am not evil. What is the problem?
And here in lies the basic cornerstone of difference between the right and the left (albeit, in knute's case it's the lunatic left). The right sees much of the left's policies and practices as wrong for the country, vs what they would consider right. The left sees their opponents as "evil". And of course evil justifies any and all methods to defeat it, even if it's unethical, immoral, hell, even illegal. "Evil" requires such a justified tactic.
And so we have both Tee earlier, and now Knute here, again "summing things up really well", as the title of the thread would imply
| As a political philosophy, a thought-system in a world of competing thought-systems, it is of course value-neutral. Either one system or the other will produce the greatest good for the greatest number - - good or evil shouldn't enter into it any more than they would into a debate as to which of two competing formulae would produce the cleaner-burning fuel. |
Funny that you should think I am the lunatic left since I think you are the lunatic right and I have more truth behind my thinking When your evil commits wanton crimes against humanity like attacking innocent countries and stealing from the poor to give to the rich, almost anything should be allowed. I maintain it is you that is you "unethical, immoral, hell, even illegal."
Funny that you should think I am the lunatic left since I think you are the lunatic right and I have more truth behind my thinking When your evil commits wanton crimes against humanity like attacking innocent countries and stealing from the poor to give to the rich, almost anything should be allowed. I maintain it is you that is you "unethical, immoral, hell, even illegal."
Another perfect example of the lunacy I'm referring to. Thanks Knute
Funny that you should think I am the lunatic left since I think you are the lunatic right and I have more truth behind my thinking When your evil commits wanton crimes against humanity like attacking innocent countries and stealing from the poor to give to the rich, almost anything should be allowed. I maintain it is you that is you "unethical, immoral, hell, even illegal."
Another perfect example of the lunacy I'm referring to. Thanks Knute
You are so very welcome. I do want to thank you in your help in keeping this wonderful topic on page 1.
<<"Fair share" is one of the worst crocks, you socialists have going for you. It's bad enough the amount of money they pay in income, estate, and capital gains taxes, compared to "the poor". >>
You're absolutely right. I think it's fair for the poor to pay just as much as the rich for government. Fuck'em if they can't raise the nut.
<<If you actually understood the concept of "fair", the folks you're dying to spend THEIR money on would actually be taxed less, if the proper defintion of "fair" were to ever be applied.>>
Hey, why tax'em at all? Why not make the poor pay for it all?
<<Well I could give vague distorted, or even complete bald faced lies as "examples" like you do.>>
Got any examples of "complete bald-faced lies" that I have given you as examples of anything?
I didn't think so.
Gee, I had no idea you were so opposed to the basic principle of taxation (government takes from the people who would like to use the money in their own lives to pay for government projects.) Quite the little anarchist, aren't you, under your deep cover as a cryptofascist nut-case.
You're absolutely right. I think it's fair for the poor to pay just as much as the rich for government. Fuck'em if they can't raise the nut.
Hey, why tax'em at all? Why not make the poor pay for it all?
No shit, Falwell and Robertson want the rich to pay more taxes? HALLELUJAH, praise Gawd!!! Never would I have suspected that these gentlemen are truly righteous duudes.
Oh, it's actually applicable to Bush and his criminal gang, don't worry about that, and probably to you too as well.
>- Bush lied us into war
- It's all for the oil
- Bush stole the election
- America advocates/supports all forms of torture
- Bush is a cryptofascist nazi
- our military is a bunch of murdering rapist thugs
- the "rich" don't pay their "fair share"
All of these things are true. It is only your retarded denial that makes you think otherwise.
>- Bush lied us into war
- It's all for the oil
- Bush stole the election
- America advocates/supports all forms of torture
- Bush is a cryptofascist nazi
- our military is a bunch of murdering rapist thugs
- the "rich" don't pay their "fair share"
All of these things are true. It is only your retarded denial that makes you think otherwise.
\
Actually, it'd be the lack of both FACTS and/or PROOF, that makes me think otherwise. Ironic though that you'd apply "retarded denial" to your post. I think that's referred to as projection
No-It is what is referred to as reality which is something you have no experince with it seems.
No-It is what is referred to as reality which is something you have no experince with it seems.
Naaa, still stuck with the lack of FACTS & PROOF for your team. By all means, keep digging
The facts & proof have been outlined to you buy myself and others many times over.....
The facts & proof have been outlined to you buy myself and others many times over.....
I realize that reptatave accusatory innuendo, providing links to other op-eds that repeat distorted accusatory innuendo, and stomping up & down until you develop bone spurs while yelling "he did, he did lie us into war" probably is considered facts and proof in loony leftist land. In this reality however it still comes across as a discredited temper tantrum. By all means though, please continue
As examples of my "bare-faced lies," sirs cites the following:
- Bush lied us into war
- It's all for the oil
- Bush stole the election
Each one of the above is absolutely true. I could say that you, by denying all of this, are the liar - - but I don't. Because I think you are so fucking stupid that you actually believe the above are untrue.
There is no need to stomp & shout.
- Bush lied us into war
- It's all for the oil
- Bush stole the election
Each one of the above is absolutely true."
<<In spite of this lets not take the subject personally . . . >>
Excuse me plane, I was called a bare-faced liar here. I take that personally.
Excuse me plane, I was called a bare-faced liar here. I take that personally. So would you, I venture to say, if anyone called you the same thing.
<<When you keep claiming something as fact, when it's been demonstrated over and over and over and over again as not, that is an outright lie in my book, & you'll be called on it. >>
In that case, since it's been demonstrated as a fact that Bush lied AND that the election was stolen, and you keep claiming as a fact that he didn't lie and didn't steal the election, YOU are the liar and will be called on it every time.
<<At the point where you clarify that "in my opinion, Bush is a monstrous liar . . . >>
FACT. He lied when he asserted there were WMD in Iraq and that Saddam was behind the Sept. 11 attacks. He lied to the SEC investigators who investigated his insider trading violations.
<< & in my opinion he lied us into war . . . >>
FACT: see above
<< & in my opinion the U.S military is a big mass of butchers" . . . >>
FACT: My Lai Massacre, Falluja, current Iraqi death toll and hundreds of other examples.
<<then I'm required to take a different tact>>
We're still waiting.
<<When you keep claiming something as fact, when it's been demonstrated over and over and over and over again as not, that is an outright lie in my book, & you'll be called on it. >>
In that case, since it's been demonstrated as a fact that Bush lied
AND that the election was stolen
YOU are the liar and will be called on it every time.
FACT. He lied when he asserted there were WMD in Iraq and that Saddam was behind the Sept. 11 attacks.
He lied to the SEC investigators who investigated his insider trading violations.
My Lai Massacre, Falluja, current Iraqi death toll and hundreds of other examples.
<<then I'm required to take a different tact>>
We're still waiting.
Don't get carryed away Sirs. there is hardly any such thing as one sided fault , but when there is an imbalance , you want to be on the cool side.
Don't get carryed away Sirs. there is hardly any such thing as one sided fault , but when there is an imbalance , you want to be on the cool side.
You're absolutely right Plane. I myself have criticized & condemned Bush many a time, not that Tee or Brass would ever take note. It's just sad to see such hatred for 1 man, blind some folks to the point they can't see, think or type straight. And when it gets perseverative, occasionally I'm going to have to speak up. In this instance, reminding those folks who pass by and simply read these passages of where the truth lies, and where the lies start
It isn't needed every time to confrount directly, when an egregious error is especially evident , it can be most edifying to have the error simply remain evident , earning it sown scorn as sure as Manure grows grass .
There isn't one position I've taken that can't be backed with fact - - be it direct or circumstantial evidence. That Bush is a liar, that he lied the US into war, that the US army are a bunch of torturing, murdering thugs, or that the Florida election was stolen.
Anyone who wants to debate me on those issues is welcome to do so - - with facts, with arguments. "You're a bare-faced liar" is not a debating tactic that I am used to. But it's one that I am perfectly capable of dealing with on my own.
When a piece of shit with an IQ that the average house plant could easily match and a store of knowledge of historical events that is probably equivalent to that of a low-grade moron chooses to label me as a "bare-faced liar," it is something that I don't mind dealing with on my own.
<<We feel your pain.>>
Who gives a shit what you feel? Feel whatever the fuck you feel like feeling, just spare me your hypocritical bullshit advice not to take insults personally. I don't like them, and you seem to be under the impression that you can convince me to like them. You can't.
......I did reconsider. This post basically settles it for me. The issue is not heat but time. Life's too short, sirs. When I have to prepare a post demonstrating that Bush lied or that the US military are thugs and killers, or that the Bush administration defends torture, or stole the election, that's real debate and I enjoy taking the time to do it. .......
I don't know why everyone is picking on Michael Tee. He and I had a nice discussion going, but that got sidetracked by people calling him a liar and then expecting him not to be upset by that. I'm frankly rather annoyed that this ended up having to be about Michael Tee rather than the issues.
I was calling Tee on what he was specifically lying about. Not making some grand proclaimation that Tee was a liar.
I was calling Tee on what he was specifically lying about. Not making some grand proclaimation that Tee was a liar.
Um, yeah, why ever would he take offense at that? I don't see how he could possibly connect being accused of lying with being called a liar. Well, except for that part about being accused of lying. Pooh yi.
Ahh, is this a new format? When someone lies about X, we're not allowed to highlight that? And that highlight automatically applies to everything they say? I must have missed the memo.
<<Neither should you [claim objectivity for yourself].>>
That's a red herring. I have no problem with anyone, myself included, claiming to be objective. It's a claim like any other, it can be tested and accepted or rejected.
<<"You're a bare-faced liar" is not a debating tactic that you are used to. It seems just as impolite to us as it does to you when the tide is running the other direction.>>
Except that this is a tide that only seems to run in one direction. I'm the one who is accused of being a bare-faced liar and the accusations all come from the same source.
Ahh, is this a new format? When someone lies about X, we're not allowed to highlight that? And that highlight automatically applies to everything they say? I must have missed the memo.
Um, no. I didn't say that. But if you're going to start accusing someone of "complete bald faced lies", seems to me you should not then be surprised if the person you're accusing takes offense at being called a liar, because you have at that point indirectly said that person is a liar. This isn't rocket science. This is common sense. Or at least it should be common sense.
I'm glad you know what I think of that kind of "evenness" and "reciprocity." You better come to grips with the fact that this exchange began when ONE person was gratuitiously called a bare-faced liar, and only then were all the holds taken off.
________________________________
I do not think that you are being Just as you call President Bush a liar , I think it is rude and politically motivated.
<<Try to keep it honest Tee. Your plethora of lies regarding Bush lies were the issue. Not you personally. A subtle, but distinct difference>>
Yeah now I got it - - I tell a "plethora" of lies but I'm personally not a liar. Blow it out your ass, sirs.
It's simply a fact. He has lied so darn many times.
[][][][][][][][][][]
No this is your opinion , it is not a fact .
>>>Not a fact, but a perception . And a perception supported by repeated evidence<<<<
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
such as the stolen election, the lies that Bush (and/or his administration) told to get the U.S. into a war, the widespread use of torture by U.S. forces, and the other stuff you complain about, have been proven numerous times in this thread. Unfortunately again, the level of proof produced is never as high as you want it to be, and so IN YOUR OPINION these charges have not been proven.
][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
It has been proven to my satisfaction that Fidel Castro is a billionaire , taking my own prejudices into account I can understand how I could possibly be wrong .
Is thre an objective measurement for the quality of proofs?
[/quote
I am not sure what you were trying to prove here, but Fidel IS considered a billionaire by none other than Forbes magazine.
http://www.forbes.com/2002/03/04/royalsphotoshow_6.html
I guess that means MT is totally truthful now.
<<OR (here's a thought).......focus on the issue & show us how I'm wrong regarding your specfic lies. That's always been a valid option. >>
Follow this through sirs. The FIRST time I make an allegation that you challenge, it's not just an option but an obligation on me to "focus on the issues" and back it up.
The SECOND time I make the very same allegation that I backed up the first time, and you challenge it, to "focus on the issues" and prove it all over again is, as you say, a valid option.
What I object to are your oft-repeated statements that people in this group make such allegations "without a shred of evidence" which is bullshit, because there are AT LEAST "shreds" of evidence (and in our opinion, adding up to much more than a shred, but that's only an opinion) but I do at least have the option of "focusing on the issues" and dragging up the same old facts and logic one more time to prove that, yes, there was a "shred" of evidence. Sometimes I will take that option, sometimes not.
However, what I object to even more is MYSELF being called a fucking liar for expressing my opinion here, based on such evidence as I chose to rely upon.
Yeah? Shoot this down, muthafucka:
<<http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030306-8.html
<<President George Bush Discusses Iraq in National Press Conference
The East Room
<<Second, we have arrived at an important moment in confronting the threat posed to our nation and to peace by Saddam Hussein and his weapons of terror. . .
Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country, to our people, and to all free people.>>
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
<<So, how's it a LIE? >>
How's it a lie? Let me count the ways.
First there is the entire improbability that SADDAM HUSSEIN would attack the USA with nukes. Saddam, who wouldn't even take on the US conventional army to conventional army in Kuwait, when he had a huge oil field at stake was, when he was greatly weakened and out of the Kuwaiti oil fields completely was suddenly going to take on the suicidal enterprise of attacking the US with nukes? Even YOU should know better.
<<Hint, you have yet to show, with any assemblence of evidence, that Bush knew that Saddam's WMD were no longer present, that the intel had concluded were.>>
The intel that was cooked to order? The intel that could all be traced back to the same Iraqi National Congress source? The intel that relied upon crudely and obviously forged documents? THAT intel?
ROTFLMFAO
Intel said Saddam had WMD. Saddam had used WMD. Saddam had connections with terrorists, which included the same group that orchestrated 911. Ergo, Saddam's WMD in the hands of such terrorists, indeed was "a direct threat to this country, to our people, and to all free people"
Oooh oooh, I want to play....snip...
So, when did we start supporting directly & indirectly the same terrorists that would then use our own WMD on ourselves?
QuoteSo, when did we start supporting directly & indirectly the same terrorists that would then use our own WMD on ourselves?
When did Iraq start supporting the same terrorists that then use their own WMD on themselves?
You supplied the template for the syllogism, I just filled in the details.
Intel said Saddam had WMD. Saddam had used WMD. Saddam had connections with terrorists, which included the same group that orchestrated 911. Ergo, Saddam's WMD in the hands of such terrorists, indeed was "a direct threat to this country, to our people, and to all free people"
I did no such thing.QuoteIntel said Saddam had WMD. Saddam had used WMD. Saddam had connections with terrorists, which included the same group that orchestrated 911. Ergo, Saddam's WMD in the hands of such terrorists, indeed was "a direct threat to this country, to our people, and to all free people"
That was your syllogism. I applied the same standard to the United States and United Kingdom. The only factor you used for terrorists was "connections."
Saddam, or more specifically, Saddam's Iraq was not a wasp. A wasp you can kill, not a country.
It was highly unlikely that Saddam could have lauched any attack on the US proper, although US assets in the area were possible targets. Saddam was largely bluster. We saw this throughout his trial.
I can't imagine that the sanctions were going to last much longer and when Saddam was free of them in the past his bluster killed a cupple of million people.
And meanwhile with sanctions the people of Iraq suffered from a lack of trade, which resulted in an inability to repair needed infrastructure, a lack of medicine and food, and the deaths of thousands of people—mostly children as I understand it—from otherwise preventable causes. Was it really worth the price?
sirs:
<<Well, to folks with a grasp of what Bush was saying, especially as it relates to why we went into Iraq, his comments are perfectly in line with that reality. >>
"THAT REALITY" was that Saddam had no WMD.
<<That REALITY also included that nearly everyone believed he did (have WMD).>>
No, Bush did not say that "nearly everyone believed."
Iraq has been shown to have had both direct and indirect connections with terrorists, including AlQeada. Saddam did have WMD. The potential for Terrorists getting their hands on such WMD is precisely the threat Bush was referring to
<<That REALITY also included that nearly everyone believed he did (have WMD).>>
No, Bush did not say that "nearly everyone believed."
I never said Bush said that. That's your current re-write. I said nearly everyone said that. Shall I again post that laundry list of folks, Dems, European leaders, etc., who believed so, and SAID so?
And do observe that THEY did NOT ( except for our dependent lackey ad co-conspiritar , Britain, jump off.)
Of those who contributed, no one will ever know their real motivation but it's reasonable to assume that bribery and threats from the U.S.A. played a large role in their decisions.
Canada did not contribute any troops to the Iraq war and I don't know how they got on that list.
<<"Obviously" right?......of course, because Tee said so. Brilliance yet again displayed for all to see>>
Huh? I didn't say anything was "obvious" or "obviously right." I said it was "reasonable to assume," which is not the same thing at all.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0472062/
Charlie Wilsons War in movie form.
What Oliver North was attempting, Charlie Wilson accomplished.
http://olivernorth.com/
But Ollie is doing alright now.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0472062/
Charlie Wilsons War in movie form.
What Oliver North was attempting, Charlie Wilson accomplished.
http://olivernorth.com/
But Ollie is doing alright now.
You know , of course, that Wilson helped create the Taliban and Osama.
http://www.chapatimystery.com/archives/optical_character_recognition/charlie_did_it.html
Oliie is doing fine now, but I bet a very special place in Hell is reserved for him.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0472062/
Charlie Wilsons War in movie form.
What Oliver North was attempting, Charlie Wilson accomplished.
http://olivernorth.com/
But Ollie is doing alright now.
You know , of course, that Wilson helped create the Taliban and Osama.
http://www.chapatimystery.com/archives/optical_character_recognition/charlie_did_it.html
Oliie is doing fine now, but I bet a very special place in Hell is reserved for him.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0472062/
Charlie Wilsons War in movie form.
What Oliver North was attempting, Charlie Wilson accomplished.
http://olivernorth.com/
But Ollie is doing alright now.
You know , of course, that Wilson helped create the Taliban and Osama.
http://www.chapatimystery.com/archives/optical_character_recognition/charlie_did_it.html
Oliie is doing fine now, but I bet a very special place in Hell is reserved for him.
January 18, 1998, Brzezinski was interviewed by the French newspaper, Nouvel Observateur on the topic of Afghanistan. He revealed that CIA support for the mujaheddin started before the Soviet invasion, and was indeed designed to prompt a Soviet invasion, leading them into a bloody conflict on par with America's experience in Vietnam. This was referred to as the "Afghan Trap." Brzezinski viewed the end of the Soviet empire as worth the cost of strengthening militant Islamic groups. Full Text of Interview
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Brzezinski
Mucho, thanks much for this info. I had no idea.
WHY is it NOT "reasonable to assume" that some or all on the list of countries contributing to America's effort in Iraq were bribed or threatened into doing so by the USA?