First, Rosie O'Donnell was not fired. Rosie felt that with her hateful, anti-American rants she should be free to sell her lies to NBC or CBS if they offer her more next year. ABC wanted to lock her anti-American lies in for three years. In other words, ABC wanted to reward her for her vile and moronic anti-American statesments and Rosie felt her vile and moronic anti-American statements were worth more.
Okay...let me explain. I do not call people names. These are words that I chose carefully and her claims, for example, that America blew up buildings in the World Trade Center complex are not only moronic -- she basis her claim on the "fact" that "never before in history has fire melted metal. How does she think metal is shaped? Does she think there are "car mines" where cars are dug out of the ground fully formed? Has she never seen a smelter or molten metals being poured into molds? Is she truly that stupid or is she intentionally lying in order to promote a vicious slander against America? Those are the only two possibilities.
So why does Barbara Walters continue to employ her? Why does ABC allow this? Money? Don't you think Rush Limbaugh would bring in a good deal of money with a similar show? Wouldn't the show do better if it had intelligent conservatives watching and not just angry, New York City single women? No, it's not money.
It's because truth means nothing to the left. Nothing. So when Peter Jennings died the same Barbara Walters who allows these anti-American lies to be spread by an upside-down, hanging angry women incapable of maintaining a normal relationship with the opposite sex who pops pills because never having worked for a living, her millions of dollars leave her so depressed she has to pop pills is considered, lauded her deceased colleague by saying "what made Peter great was that he knew there was no such thing as the truth."
To Barbara Walters Rosie and her friend Peter are one and the same. People to whom truth is meaningless.
616 comments:
1 – 200 of 616 Newer› Newest»Evan, once again you bring out the truth about liberals. Keep up the good work!
Isn't it highly ironic that Sayet is himself a comedian, and yet for some reason claims that Rosie has never worked for a living? Talk about having no respect for the truth.
Look, information about O'Donnell isn't very hard to find: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Rosie_O'Donnell#Early_life
Sounds to me like she worked, at least as much as Sayet has ever worked.
Now, either Sayet is so stupid that he doesn't even bother to fact-check before his hateful rants, or he's intentionally misleading the public, knowingly disregarding the truth and spreading misinformation. According to Sayet himself, "Those are the only two possibilities."
God, this stuff just writes itself...
Fantatsic post!
"Me" is such a good liberal. He/she misses/ignores the whole point of liberals admitting they don't care about truth and takes issue with a minor exaggeration. Haha, they are becoming more and more easy to spot.
Good stuff, Mr. Sayet. Thanks for being part of the solution.
Sayet never said he works for a living.
Though it's unknown whether he takes pills to assuage his guilt about it.
Sayet has a website that begs you to book him, complete with "testimonials" from satisfied customers:
http://www.evansayet.com/
As for, "minor exaggeration," I'm going to say that if you're going to criticise someone for ignoring "the truth" or "facts" or "truth," maybe you should make sure to not write things that are diametirally opposed to "the truth." What Sayet wrote is not a minor exaggeration, it's exactly controverted by THE TRUTH. Rosie has worked MANY days of her life.
Like I said, it's almost too easy to point out the hypocrisy. Personally, I don't think Sayet is so stupid, he's just a deeply cynical man who will say whatever he needs to get his career back and make some money. He simply doesn't care about the actual facts as long as what he says plays right into what rightwingers want to hear, and then they will want to pay him money to say waht they want to hear.
If he really IS that stupid, we should more likely pity him than attack him.
me,
you are a hired gun sent to this blog to undermine conservative views. thank you for being living proof of evans lecture at the heritage foundation!
as for your post, lets say evan is just saying what us "right wingers' want to hear. sounds like a pretty good capitalistic venture considering the current market. supply and demand right? he is profitting from his craft. i personally agree with most of his observations. the conservatives need a voice, especially when it is a liasson from the dark side.
the problem is evan is your cindy sheehan. he defected and is supplying his message to lending ears. that angers libs because they do not understand how anyone could disagree with their point of view. this is why you (me) are so dangerous. the most ironic part about liberalism is how they attack fundementalist for being closed minded yet they exibit the most radical fundementalist behavior that i have ever witnessed.
(i love how pro-life advocates are also the anti-war advocates who call our troops baby killers).
This stuff just writes itself!
:)
I suppose it boils down to what "work for a living" means. Many people would say that athletes do not work for a living. They would say they get paid to play a game. Nevertheless, me's point could still be applied to Sayet. Is telling jokes really "work"?
I am going to miss Rosie though. I loved hearing her hate filled speech. The 9/11 Truth Movement was the best. At least we still have Joy Behar, the one who called the administration "liars and murderers". Lets do what we can to keep her employed.
I'm not a hired gun. I wish i were paid for this. It would be a really easy way to make money.
If Sayet really is just saying what he thinks conservatives want to hear, then he hasn't really defected, has he? maybe he's just playing y'all for your dollars. Wouldn't that be funny.
As for work for a living, i just don't thnk that comedian Sayet should be throwing stones at other comedians for not working for a living. If telling jokes isn't working for a living, then Sayet sure isn't.
first off there is a difference b/w writing for popular shows and telling jokes. as far as i know evan never was in he limelight. rosie on the other hand is/was and her jokes are meant to undermine her own country (not funny).
hired gun was not meant to be taken literally. it just means you are agenda driven.
we do not pay evan for his thoughts thought i would by a ticket to hear a lecture. to capitalize on something does not always mean being compensated with monies generated.
he says stuff that i too have noticed about libs so how can it be misinformation.
How can it be misinformation? What do you mean? He makes it just plausible enough to play right into what conservatives want to hear and will be willing to pay for. I can make up all sorts of simplistic crap like this off the top of my head.
yeah, but it's not made up if i've personally have witness it. do you think that what he is saying is alien to the entire audience? the reason that people like what he's saying is because they can relate.
misinformation only works when you have an impressionable mind. some of the topics of disussion were painted with broad strokes but generalization is necessary when attempring to break down a complex social dynamic like liberalism, the societal hydra; a multi-headed leviathon (dem voter base) and it's master, the career politician.
the politician nervously attempts to tame (political pandering) the hydra to as to wins it's trust (DNP nomination). Since there are so many heads to cater to the master realizes that he is actually the student and that the hydra runs shop.
the problem with the hydra is it forgot to take its paxil and is now a morally challenge tornado of fist and elbows detroying all things traditional in its path.
the reason the hydracrat is on paxil (social services) is because the master had the hook up, thus enableing it to remain dependent.
now the beast has grown out of control and needs limitations before it self destructs and brings the rest of the world with it.
Funny that you mention pleasing multiple heads, because it seems that it's what Romney and Giuliani are trying to do right now: please the Christian Right wing of the Republican hydra, having already pleased the small-government side, and the economically conservative side. Romney tried to allege he's a hunter to please the gun side, and Giuliani just flopped on immigration and civil unions to please yet 2 more sides.
This is what happens in a 2-party system.
yeah, our founding fathers objected to a two party system.
are you saying that the voter base of the reps branches out more or less than the dems?
you are right about both parties have multiple target audiences but the hydra analogy is for the dems. you have to make up an original one for the reps.
I don't know if the voter base for the reps branches out more than it does for the dems. I think it's pretty comparable. Reps have everyone from Bloomberg and Snowe to Tancredo and Pat Robertson. Dems have everyone from Zell Miller to Kucinich.
I don't see what your point is tho, since both parties have the same problem.
As for this:
yeah, but it's not made up if i've personally have witness it. do you think that what he is saying is alien to the entire audience? the reason that people like what he's saying is because they can relate.
I can make up lazy, BS idiocies like Sayet about the rightwing too, ubt they're not persuasive or worthwhile because they are indeed lazy, facile and stupid. What he's saying is what the Reps want to hear, what any mediocre audience of half-insecure average nitwits wants to hear -- that the members of the audience are the smart ones and everyone who disagrees with them is incredibly stupid, irrational, what else does sayet say, disconnected from reality, evil, amoral and immoral, etc. etc.
Hopefully, he's not a stupid guy, he knows what he's saying is BS -- because if he actually believes what he's saying and thinks that what he posts on his blog is worthy of any consideration, i don't know how he graduated middle school -- but he keeps saying it for money. It's deeply cynical, very sad. It's the definition of selling out.
first off, my point with the hydra analogy was that the dems voter base is so diverse that it has no true center. this becomes a problem when campaigning poiticians need there votes to get elected. the result is you get these kerry type flip-floppers who are all over the board.
reps have multiple target audiences but each audience is governed by stricter core values such as God, family, and hard work. this allows for a common denominator in which a public servant can then unite them.
as for his lecture, keep in mind that this was a condenced version formatted for a 45 min. window. he has a book coming out that will probably site specific details.
me-me-me - isn't it funny - everytime you want to prove a point, you link to wikipedia? i can go there now and manipulate every entry there - rosie's popular for one reason only - she's a crack-snacking lesbian who says what everybody on the left wants to hear. that doesn't make it truth.
f. snow - is that you, hank?
Me is trollin again (like usual)... y'all should ignore it... eventually it'll go away.
It's classic troll stuff... likes to come and pick an argument with anyone it can, and thrives off of the arguments, gives it meaning in life. Poor, sad thing.
Anyways, back to the topic at hand, it's another great post by Mr. Sayet. Right on again... truth means nothing to libs... there can be no such thing as truth to libs. Truth would turn their whole world upside down... they don't want that. They can't handle that. Pretty simple.
sorry, not hank.
Why is it that you right wingers always pick on Wikipedia? It's not like you care about the fats, so why even bother?
Wikipedia is used by federal judges in their opinions:
http://www.chander.com/2007/01/judge_posner_an.html
Is it not good enough for you? Please, respond with some anti-intellectual "quip" about how all federal judges are stupid, and prove my point.
I can make up lazy, BS idiocies like Sayet about the rightwing too, ubt they're not persuasive or worthwhile because they are indeed lazy, facile and stupid.
A liberal finally discovers the truth.
har har, anon, obviously i meant that everything Sayet says is lazy, facile and stupid.
a little bitter, arntcha -me-?
what's wrong - wouldn't he kiss you for a quarter?
Being a comedian hardly sounds like work, then, does it, me. You just have to make up lazy facile in stupid things to say, like Rosie does.
So much for your argument out the truth.
Go get a life.
"about" the truth, not "out" the truth.
Well, Bert, you telling me to get a life is like the pot calling the kettle black.
And are you seriously suggesting that just because one comedian is lazy, facile and stupid, that means that they are all lazy, facile and stupid?
You know, it just makes me wonder how rightiwngers get through the day with their oft-displayed lack of logical thinking, basic grasp of probability and science. Like, did you people even get your GEDs? forget going to college, how do you deal with anything you encouter that is more difficult than watchign tv and stuffing your pieholes with chips? I am afraid for you.
Whats wrong with having a GED? What are you, som kind liberal elitist? I least I'm not sucking the blood out the working man, you stupid sack of pig excrement!
What's wrong with having a GED? It means you couldn't graduate high school on time, like most people.
"Elitist" is a word stupid people use to make themselves feel better about not being one of the smart ones. It's a waas to cast a pejorative light on a positive characteristic, kinda like nerd or egghead or 4-eyes. I'm not sucking anyone's blood with anything, in fact, as a liberal, i support the working man and all his issues more than any republican does.
If taking my money to pay for some damn illegal immigrans health care is helping me, than I don't need your HELP! All you liberals do is skim a percentage off all the money you take in taxes to give away to useless lounge lizards.
And take your college diploma and shove it where the sun don't shine! Do you think you are BETTER than ME? That's what an ELITIST is, ELITIST!
Like I said before go get a life.
Ham. - Madam, how like you this play?
Queen. - The lady doth protests too much methinks.
Ham. - O, but she'll keep her word.
King. - Have you heard the argument? Is there no offence in't?
Ham. - No, no! They do but jest, poison in jest; no offence i' the
world.
King. - What do you call the play?
Ham. - The Mouse-trap.
I don't think I'm "better" than you, just better-educated. Taken a few logic courses and statistics courses, and a whole lot of math courses.
FJ, what are you blabbling about?
Yeah, and YOU think that makes you BETTER than me. You liberals make me sick!
*ptooey*
Don't tell me what I think.
touche.
"lack of logical thinking"
Hey me,
You want some logic?
Ever heard of Bill Whittle?
Google him. Look into his essays (with a honestly open mind; I shouldn't have to say that because afterall you're a liberal)... start with any one of them.
Seriously, give him a try.
See, that's the thing I love about logical thinking: it doesn't have a bias. It's made up of simple rules that build on each other, there are identifiable fallacies (see Bert's idiocy above), you can't accuse it of having any bias.
But with people like Whittle, you don't even need anything beyond the most basic of logical propositions: contradiction. On one hand, we have facts. Dear old facts. On the other, false statements directly opposed to the facts. For example, Whittle writes:
An �Empire� is defined as a nation state that has political control over other nation states, and uses that political control to extract the wealth and resources from the subjugated country.
The United States of America does not have any political control over any other sovereign nation on the face of the Earth. We have influence, but influence is to control as a rich uncle is to a prison warden. That�s all you need to know. The entire idea of American Empire and U.S. Imperialism is dead on its face after that. No control means no empire. Period.
I wonder how Mr. Whittle here would characterize America's relationship with the Iraqi government, especially, oh let's say, the realtionship of the US with the people in charge of Iraq in 2004. Or, perhaps he could explain to me what the relationship is between the US and "President" Musharaff, who was told in no uncertain terms after 9/11 that if he didn't help the US, Pakistan was going to get bombed "into the Stone Age." What exactly does Mr. Whittle think is the US's relationship with Palau, among others?
Now, he could advance the argument of de jure vs de facto empire, but even that would fail with respect to Iraq, especially Iraq for the first 3 years after its "liberation," and possibly Palau and Pakistan as well. How come? Surely you have all heard the term "puppet state," as in a state that is de jure a separate country, but is de facto under the control of another state. The Turkish Republic of Cyprus comes to mind, or Manchukuo.
Stupidly, I forgot to mention Afghanistan. There are many other candidates out there, which relationships to the US much closer than a rich uncle and a prison warden, and to state otherwise is to purposefully mislead or to show ignorance of the facts. Futhermore, trhoughout history, the Phillipines, Cuba, and many other countries fit the definition of de jure AND de facto empire. In fact, if anyone is interested, The Philippine-American War is a much closer parallel to Iraq than Vietnam ever was. And that war, official and insurgent/guerilla, ended only "thanks to" war crimes and atrocities of a scale that the US simply cannot commit nowadays.
Me,
You're ignoring reality (and history)... that's sad.
And that's something that even an excellent, eloquent writer such as Bill Whittle cannot bring to you see. Nobody can. Only when you are ready to accept reality you will do so.
Anonymous, what i think is sad is that you make conclusory statements with no evidence or argumentation. I could just as well say "you're an alien." Just like you, i have provided no evidence, no examination or arguments.
I think it's a tragedy that many Americans don't seem to know how to discern a well-argued, well-supported idea from baseless accusations. It shows a lack of ability to engage in critical thinking, and to understand it. To wit, the run-up to the Iraq War. People mindlessly believed whatever the president told them without trying to examine the arguments and the evidence for themselves, both the public, and many people within our government who should know better.
There are those who still deny that there was any deception or misleading statements at that time, but these people are the ones who ignore claim after claim that controverts the White House. Moreover, as I just finished pointing out, some people seem incapable of examining even recent historical events. No need to go all the way back to the Philippine-American War: US-sponsored regime change had already failed disasterously in Afghanistan and Iran. And if you don't know what i'm talking about, all the more evidence of what i'm talking about. It's pretty simple critical thinking to say to yourself, "Hey, this regime-change stuff didn't work very well in Afghanistan in the 1980s or Iran from 1950s on. It didn't work very well Vietnam either. It worked in Chile, but it was kinda bloody and repressive, and didn't involve a full-scale invasion." Take a principle, take some facts, apply the principle to the facts, distinguish on the differences, recognize the similarities, and make a judgment. It's not hard.
If you'll notice, "rant" in the title is capitalized. Which means that Evan is pissed off and....RANTING! When he calms down, I'm sure he'll sort it out and use some slightly less harsh terms.
Well. Maybe. I happen to agree that Rosie is an idiot, but that's beside the point. The point is, Evan is angry and letting it out. But I guess anger is a foreign topic to non-republicans. They never get angry, do they?
As for Wikipedia, sometimes it's good and sometimes it's bad. It depends on the entry. Do I think that Rosie has "never worked for a living?" Not really. But I'm also not a very big fan of the work she HAS done.
How is bert's argument a fallacy, me? It would appear that he caught you in a genuine logical contradiction, using your own argument. Then you created a new argument and waved your hand like a wand and call his refutation a simplistic fallacy.
You're knee deep in deNile, as usual.
Cause it turns out your original argument, used to launch into your rant against Sayet, became self-contradictory and was actually the simplistic fallacy you complain about.
Simple Simon met a pieman going to the faire
I guess we're merely your assistants in your endless process of self refutation. But please, keep telling yourself (an us) how well your extensive education in logic and mathematics is serving you, and how ignorant we all are. It is all very amusing.
What's wrong with Bert's argument?
I criticized Sayet by saying:
(1) he's a comedian, and rosie is a comedian, and unless sayet is saying he's never worked for a living, how can he imply that rosie has never worked for a living just because she's a comedian?
(2)"I can make up lazy, BS idiocies like Sayet about the rightwing too, ubt they're not persuasive or worthwhile because they are indeed lazy, facile and stupid."
To which Bert responded:
"Being a comedian hardly sounds like work, then, does it, me. You just have to make up lazy facile in stupid things to say, like Rosie does."
So, Bert took my criticism of Sayet's work, calling it lazy, facile and stupid, just Sayet's, and generalized it to all comedians.
Let's break it down.
Sayet is a comedian.
Sayet's work is lazy, facile and stupid.
Therefore, all comedians' work is lazy, facile and stupid.
This is the association fallacy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy
Me,
You said:
"Anonymous, what i think is sad is that you make conclusory statements with no evidence or argumentation. I could just as well say "you're an alien." Just like you, i have provided no evidence, no examination or arguments."
Previously you said:
"he's just a deeply cynical man who will say whatever he needs to get his career back and make some money. He simply doesn't care about the actual facts as long as what he says plays right into what rightwingers want to hear, and then they will want to pay him money to say waht they want to hear."
You just made 5 conclusory statements. Allow me to break them all down for you:
1) "he's just a deeply cynical man"
2) "will say whatever he needs to get his career back"
3) he needs to do #2 to "make some money."
4) "He simply doesn't care about the actual facts as long as what he says plays right into what rightwingers want to hear"
5) "then they will want to pay him money to say waht they want to hear."
Just one question me:
Where is YOUR evidence for these "conclusory" (as you like to say) statements?
I don't know, but it sounds like you have a lot of research to do if you take me up on the offer.
Catchya later bud!
Me,
Yea, I also think it's sad that you "make conclusory statements with no evidence or argumentation."
Tisk, tisk...
Shame.
Me,
Yup, on second glance, I see that you've also committed the "association fallacy" that you've accused someone else of doing.
How interesting.
It was a logical fallacy which you embraced and applied to Sayet stating his comedy was "lazy, facile and stupid" (not much work).
Bert called you on it, you got mad, and called HIM a simpleton.
But the simpleton was you.
Wow, it looks like Farmer John and another anon are pwning me. Ha h a... this is really amusing :)
Although to be perfectly honest, there is much in comedy that is NOT work...laughter itself, is a "psychic release" that originates in an "escape" from performing work. (Freud, "Wit and its' relation to the Unconscious")
You people really are incredibly dumb.
Anonymous, your list of my "conclusory" statements -- those were suppositions, and they were supported by argumentation. If you're too stupid to see that, it's not my problem.
FJ, I have no idea what you mean by this: "It was a logical fallacy which you embraced and applied to Sayet stating his comedy was "lazy, facile and stupid" (not much work)."
Look, boys, I feel for you. A woman who can do math and logic better than a bunch of macho macho men -- it must be kinda embarrassing demoralizing for you, I imagine.
Me,
Don't ignore the fact that you made those statements... which are no different than the statement(s) of the Anonymous who said "You're ignoring reality," who you then criticized by saying that this Anonymous made "conclusory statements" (in regards to that Anonymous' statement of you ignoring reality, ect) with no evidence or argumentation.
Furthermore me, you wrote:
"I think it's a tragedy that many Americans don't seem to know how to discern a well-argued, well-supported idea from baseless accusations. It shows a lack of ability to engage in critical thinking, and to understand it."
A well argued, well-supported idea, eh? Well, in fact you have 5 ideas. I already spelled them out for you. Where is your "well-argued" and "well-supported" evidence to those 5 "baseless accusations" that you made?... baseless because you have yet to provide any evidence or proof for those 5 claims.
You say these were "suppositions," but your language says otherwise. You sure sound pretty confident about those 5 claims. But regardless, they are claims.
And getting back to my original question...
Where is YOUR evidence for these "conclusory" (as you like to say) statements?
You still haven't provided anything.
Ad hominem isn't going to help you here. It is a simple question.
Me,
You are quite easy to see what has occured here. You were called out on your contradictions/fallacies/hypocrisies... and when you realized that you were cornered, you chucked the argument out the window and struck the messenger.
That one is called the chickenhawk.
Good try (or should I say "poor try"). But like I already said. It isn't going to help you here.
This is not about the smartest or the strongest. It is about the facts. Very simple.
Edit:
You are quite easy to see -> It is quite easy to see
I provided an argument. Maybe you're too dumb to realize it.
For Sayet being cynical, etc. -- the argument is that it is hard to believe that he is really stupid enough to believe what he writes. Why? Because it's so hypocritical ("liberals don't care about truth, so let me misstate some facts"). So, it seems tehre must be some other explanation for Sayet's behavior.
As for Americans having problems with reason and logic, this whole thread, this whole blog and its comments, in fact, are evidence thereof. I also cited the IRaq example as evidence. Did you not read that part of my argument? I provided examples.
Maybe you don't agree with my arguments or my examples, but it's still better than stating something with no arguments, citations, facts, reasoning. Like I already said, i could just as easily write " You are an alien." No proof, no citation, no nothing.
I love people who violate all the rules and principles that they insist others MUST follow, then have the chutzpah to point out those same flaws in the argumnents used by others. There's a word for that...oh yeah. Hypocrite.
Then they ramble on about how unfairly they're being treated... and how much bad faith the other person is showing to them.
...and how dumb they are...
Fj, you calling anyone a hypocrite is just really beyond the usual pot-kettle-black discourse.
you all need to watch this. it's about how an elitist guy with a degree from NYU still thinks blue collar and GED is okay:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmZj4ZcL4Zc&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fnyu%2Efacebook%2Ecom%2Fprofile%2Ephp%3Fid%3D829968
Indeed it is. But at least I don't attempt to lecture others about the proper application of the rules of formal logic and reasoning to largely informal and rhetorical arguments. Especially when one of the parties (who shall remain nameless) is uninterested in pursuing a true dialectic.
If we are such stupid people (as you stated above), why then do you continue to stoop to our level?
Why have you not left us hoi polloi alone?
becuase i believe reason can reach everyone.
Then someone ought to send you to go negotiate with the Iranians.
Listen people far and wide. A new prophet of truth and absolute wisdom has entered our midst, who promises enlightenment to all who will listen.
Your trumpet sounds, me...
**P-f-f-f-f-f-t-t-t-t-t!**
The floor is open. Speak oh, enlightened one. Share with us your wisdom...
Ha ha... great answer me.
Omg, this is a joke, right?
The prophet speaks "Sayet lies. Rosie worked for a living."
Huh?
That's it? That's your complaint. Hundreds of words posted, and THAT is the only fault you could find in Sayet's post? That is Sayet's "great lie"? That is what makes Sayet "stupid", who doesn't "check his facts". That is what constitutes a "hate filled rant" and..."intentionally misleading the public".
Get a life, me your truly attempting to blow this statement into a veritable HOLOCAUST!
Now get this folks
What Sayet wrote is not a minor exaggeration, it's exactly controverted by THE TRUTH. Rosie has worked MANY days of her life.
Oh, that clarifies things. ???
now about Sayet...
He simply doesn't care about the actual facts as long as what he says plays right into what rightwingers want to hear, and then they will want to pay him money to say waht they want to hear.
I know that Sayet saying that Rosie never worked for a living was the most damnable hate-filled lie, and it sure felt good to hear it... I've almost been dying to hear it. All that other stuff Rosie said about 9/11 doesn't really bother me... but the fact that she didn't work for a living....ARRRRRRRR!
IS THERE NO JUSTICE???????
< /sarcasm>
I think a nit crawled down the crack of pants, would you mind picking it off me?
What's your point about the Iranians, FJ? Do you think they are so like you that they will fight no matter what, to the death, never compromising, never negotiating with their "enemies"? Or do you think they are so unlike you, fellow human beings, that they will fight no matter what, to the death, never compromising, never negotiating with their "enemies"
You've posted hundreds of words on it as well, so... please, FJ, if i am as stupid, unwise, completely lost as you say I am, why are you still talking to me?
I hate other obnoxious trolls. That's my job.
I like to think of myself as a kind of trolls troll. It helps me pass my time. Us old folk need hobbies, after all.
I apply the troll-tactics which Fabius Maximus applied to Hannibal Barca.
did you watch the video? this one is good too:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=fbGkxcY7YFU
Me, you wrote:
"What's your point about the Iranians, FJ? Do you think they are so like you that they will fight no matter what, to the death, never compromising, never negotiating with their "enemies"? Or do you think they are so unlike you, fellow human beings, that they will fight no matter what, to the death, never compromising, never negotiating with their "enemies"."
Would you agree that the Iranians are reasonble people, like you and I?
dear G-d, me - if you are going to use words, please do them justice - your verbosity is only outweighed by your arrogance.
think succinct.
I don't know if Iranians are reasonable people. I've had the pleasure of knowing some, and they seem to be okay. Is the government reasonable? I imagine that they're not the kamikazee religion-crazed nutcases you imagine them to be. The whole British sailors situation was ridiculous and putting the scarf on the woman marine was wrong, but they won that round, unfortunately, and they've shown that they are very shrewd political players on the international stage. Does that make them reasonable? Not necessarily, but it sure as hell shows they're not stupid or crazy.
They have their own interests, they don't want to get destroyed, they'll push the envelope as far as they think they can push it. But that's what ever country does. Have you heard of "margin of appreciation"?
Perhaps all they need is someone to answer one of the letters they've dropped in the Mahdi's well.
Siamack Baniameri writes: Iranian President Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying in a private gathering that he personally dropped a letter down Imam Mahdi's well near the holly city of Qom, asking the 12th Imam to inflict serious brain injury to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. Ahmadinejad said that Sharon's days are numbered and Imam Zaman will finish the job in a few days.
I'm intrigued! I had no clue that we have an Imam who is a skilled assassin. I too have come up with a list of people I would like to get rid of. The list includes my ex-wife's boyfriend, the neighborhood mechanic that constantly overcharges for fixing my car, my therapist, the next door neighbor's dog and the Indian owner of the gas station by my work.
I'm personally going to drop my shit-list down Imam Mahdi's well and ask his holiness to inflict the worst pain and suffering on those I don't like. Furthermore, I would ask the Imam to give my boss serious hemorrhoids for asking me to stop taking three-hour lunch breaks at work.
Great post again Evan! I just hope the view doesn't replace her with her evil twin Rosanne!
The whole Madhi/well thing is eerily similar to reconstructionist Christianity here. The well is part of the myth of the hidden imam who mysteriously disappeared, and when he returns, there will be the apocalypse.
Sound familiar? Ahmedinejad's conception of the end of the world might not be very different from Bush's or many Americans'.
"A 2002 survey showed that 59 percent of Americans believe that the events in the Bible book of Revelation will occur in the future."
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0218/p11s01-lire.html
Gee, ya think, me? Or are you just naturally clueless?
Well, it just shows that 59% of Americans are completely batshit nuts. IMHO.
You mean IMO, don't you? Aren't you the stickler for the truth? LOL!
Is that all you got to respond to this disturbing statistic?
Kawania che Keekeru!
Happy St. Tammany's Day, evan!
98% of Iranians? You got a cite for that?
Wait, wait, tell me it's the LIBERALS who don't care about the truth and facts?
Have you ever met someeon from Iran?
I hold that the fact that 59% of Americans believe in Revalations is really frightening regarding how gullible and stupid Americans are.
The fact that 41% of Americans do not believe in The Bible shows how gullible some Americans are. At least 59% of people are keeping their heads on straight.
Lol.
Wait, that's not very funny. Are you saying that Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Shintoists, etc. are all "gullible"?
No, now you're being loose with your terms. As always.
What did I present? Not hat 59% of Americans believe in God, or that they believe in the Bible, or call themselves Christian.
What i presented is that 59% of Americans believe that Revalations will actually come true in the future. You know, the beast, the harrowing of hell, the second coming -- yeah, to believe that, you've got to be pretty gullible and stupid. IMHO.
Typical misstating, knowingly deceiving that you do. All combined in a lovely stew with ridiculous ad hominem. But this is your M.O.
I think you've got to be more or less the same level of gullible and stupid to believe in the hidden imam or the revelations. What's the difference between the two? Not so much, really.
Run back to mommy, little boy. Try harder next time.
(1) I don't see your point with non-Christians not believing Revelations. How is this logically related to anything I said?
(2) "To believe that Christ if the Living G_d and will return, is to be a CHRISTIAN." What are you saying here, that believing that Revalations will happen is a necessary condition to being a Christian? If that is indeed what you are saying, I present to you some startling statistics:
From the CIA factbook, the religious makeup of the US:
Protestant 52%, Roman Catholic 24%, Mormon 2%, Jewish 1%, Muslim 1%, other 10%, none 10% (2002 est.)
So 52+24+2+ = 78% of Americans, at least, are Christians. Assuming that only christians believe in Revalations, that means that, 59/78 = 75.6% of American Christians believe in Revalations. What about that 25% of Christians who don't? Are they not really Christians? Why don't you tell them that?! "Hi, I'm random bitter old guy, and I've made myself the decider of what it means to be a Christian, and I'm going to tell you that you're wrong, that you're not a Christian, even though you think you are."
(3)And while your at it, please explain what your "new/extended" non sequitor, that there is "Not Much" difference in between the Book of Revelations and Islamic beliefs in the Mahdi, actually means, logically?
" Last year, in a private meeting that was filmed and made public, apparently against his wishes, he intimated that he enjoys the favor of Mahdi, the twelfth Shia imam, who disappeared in the eighth century. Most Shias believe that Mahdi will return after the world has been plunged into chaos heralding a period of divine rule followed by the end of the world. Ahmadinejad's domestic opponents accuse him privately of being a member of a shadowy group whose aims apparently include generating chaos with a view to hastening Mahdi's return, accusations that his supporters have denied. The President's main domestic political promises, to redistribute wealth and better the lot of normal Iranians, owe more to socialism than they do to Shia eschatology"
From Defiant Iran By Christopher de Bellaigue
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19512
In fact, Jesus will be right there with him, is what most Mahdi-followers believe. Praying right behind the imam.
It's the same basic idea -- the apocalypse is coming.
You're right, FJ, only an idiot could score enough on the LSAT to get into the 97th percentile.
I think what has been proven here is that you can't stand a real debate. You really are a troll -- you're out to provoke, put down, insult, be deliberately frustrating and idiotic, not to discuss issues or try to get at the truth.
No one could say in good faith that I don't argue well. But you're not after good-faith, intellectually honest argument, you're after just being an asshole. Spreading ill will.
What a sad life you have, if that is the case. An old, poor man, lost in his delusions, with nothing to live for except spreading his bitterness through the internet. Books he doesn't understand, throws around Latin, which impresses backwater yokels he usually associates himself with, but falls flat when he comes out to play with the big boys. Pitiable, really.
Yes, the 97th percentile. the LSAT is a test of logical thinking. Therefore, I think i've got some logical thinking skills.
Yes i think it is obvious who the pitiable troll is.
Say, FJ, which school of thought about revelations do you subscribe to?
You don't think it's batshit nuts to believe what written in revelations? That Jesus will come back and ressurrect the dead and rule for 1000 years and rebuild Jerusalem? And all that stuff with the 7 angels and the 7 seals and the beat?
You don't think it's nuts to believe that will actually happen?
What are you talking about? That believing in revelations is equivalent to hope?
....
I've embraced my nihilism, don't worry. And people should be free to believe in whatever they want, spaghetti monster or jesus or whatever. But i can think it's really batshit nuts, and I can express that opinion.
Don't worry, little old me isn't going to crush anyone's hopes and dreams. Faith is based on faith, not logic, reason, evidence.
Worm food, baby. It's horrifying, the scariest thing in the world, but how can you just pretend its otherwise?
Further, nihilism is quite liberating and motivating. If all you've got is this one life, and you can die at any moment, and you will die, it motivates you to carpe diem, a little, you know. I wouldn't even be talking to you freaks if i wasn't chained to my laptop a cause de final exams.
Nihilism is not based on logic or evidence either. Not being able to prove the existence of God does not prove that God does not exist. In light of this uncertainty, some choose to believe in meaning and purpose and some choose nihilism. To choose nihilism and then live as if your life has a purpose is the greatest delusion a human being is capable of. It is impossible to make an objectively rational decision in the face of nihilism. Nihilism does not embrace reason; it negates it.
Charming, FJ. Whatever.
Nihilism, at least how i see it, which may be more "existentialism" than "nihlism" is quite simple -- existence before essence. Since life has no meaning, you are free to give it any meaning you want, if you want to give it one at all. Furthremore, because there is no god and no meaning, you are responsible for your own life and the meaning you give it.
The conclusion you draw about killing Iranians is exactly the opposite of the correct one. Since everyone has only one life, only once chance, life is SO PRECIOUS, because that's everyone's only chance. Whereas, if you believe in an afterlife and a judging god, so what if you kill a few hundred people by accident? they go to heaven or hell, whatever they deserves. it's not as bad as finishing someone's only chance.
So, contrary to what you would believe, not believing in god or an afterlife seems to be actually MORE humane.
And what exactly is this quantum of power, FJ? I mean, you're just a retired nobody. i don't see you having any power...
well, you are a human being, so you are capable of this trick human beings are capable of -- imagining yourself in other people's shoes. in other words, empathy.
so, you can imagine what it would be like to get killed, and you think, well, hey, i don't want that. so if other people are human beings like me, for whom this is their only shot at living, maybe i should refrain from killing them senselessly, because i wouldn't like it done to me.
I never said life has no value. I said that our lives don't have any predetermined meanings or uses, but not that life has no value. Its value derives from the value you give your life. It's a bit of a solopsistic philosophy, but it's not so bad, actually. Thanks to our animal instincts, most people don't want to die, and so if you value your life because you don't want to die, and you assume that other human beings are of the same opinion about their own lives, then there you are with my philosophy.
Whereas if you believe in an afterlife, you can be like some people, who believe in "let god sort them out." aka "shoot first, ask questions later."
Sometimes i wonder if you really are "touched."
The flauting of knowledge is a juvenile affliction of children with self-esteem problems. People who have sufficient self-esteem don't need to repeatedly prove to themselves their superiority simply through the recitation of facts that anyone could learn.
Isn't that what your idol Rousseau wanted?
You assume that religion is the only thing that gives life any value or meaning. Seems like humanity's accomplishments outside of religion mean nothing to you.
How is it, FJ, that me and the millions of other atheists around the world can stay civilized, if the absense of religion renders one "wild"?
Empathy is what civilizes, not religion. IMHO.
I don't flaunt my knowledge. I'm more than happy to share and explain what I know, I don't use it to put down other people, to say "you are inferior to me because you don't know X."
There's a big difference between explaining something and flaunting it arrogantly. The ultimate irony is that anyone can learn a few facts, so your knowledge that you flaunt -- knowing it isn't much of an accomplishment in itself.
Really, is that what Freud's Totem and Taboo says? LOL
This must be time #563 FJ shows how stupid he is all by himself.
Please, tell us, where did religion come from to humanize man? Does Freud say that God came down and gave religion to humans? Maybe you can make an athropological argument about religion and civilization, but this argument has little bearing on whether religion is actually true. In fact, it would seem to show that religion is a manmade creation, made-up to civilize, not actually the word of god or the physical manifestation of the supernatural.
Oh SNAP.
I tell people their arguments are illogical, i deconstruct their arguments, but i offer reasoning, argumentation, evidence, citations to evidence.
That is what is known as debate.
What you do is derive a feeling of superiority simply from flaunting facts, books and Latin you have read or learned. You don't provide much argumentation, you just post things here and there. The bottom line is that what you seem to be most interested in is not testing your own ideas, debating to the truth, trying to figure out what really is happening in some situation, or even trying to convince people to believe what you believe. You seem to be mostly interested in putting other people down, deriving esteem points form the fact that others may not have read all the books you've read. Believe me, you haven't read many books that I've read, but that doesn't make me feel that i am somehow better or inherently smarter than you. It's not a competition on who's smarter, it's a discussion of ideas. Which can be attacked and defended with logic, reasoning, arguments. As hominem defends no ideas, only makes you look weak. Posting long quotes from books over and over again also defends no ideas. You have to tie the facts to reasons, an argument of some sort.
Apparently when liberals talk about George Bush, they are not capable of logic and evidence. They will continue to spread the most idiotic and ignorant conspiracy theories, from Bush lying about WMD, to Bush planning 9/11, and even to Bush being a reptilian humanoid from another planet planning on taking over the world.
Rosie believes in one and two, but I do not think she has embraced three yet. Maybe this is what illiberals, I mean liberals, mean when they say "regressive", I mean "progressive".
I don't believe in 2 or 3, but i think that me, and the majority of the american public btw, believe 1. and the majority of the world.
not that it matters who the majority is, just the facts.
Bush intentionally misled Americans into this war. That's the standard for perjury (remember Clinton?), that's the standard for Bush. Read about Curveball, read about the 16 words.
The only excuse is "we didn't know it was false!" Well, then you're not really competent, are you? "Knew or should have known" is the reasonableness stardard. It's the standard for holding CEOs liable for certain grevious violations of the law within their companies -- why can't it be the standard for the president when we judge whether he lied? Corporations can't lie to the public or the press, why can the president?
"Bush intentionally misled Americans into this war."
This is so stupid, and I cannot believe how an intelligent person such as yourself could believe in such nonsense. It is not even possible for one man to convince the entire world that Saddam had WMD. Common sense dictates that your accusation is ridiculous. If Bush wanted to lie about it, he could have just planted the WMD. Why must you believe in the most absurd theories? Did Blair and Bush launch a massive conspiracy to invade Iraq for oil? Or was it to avenge Israel as Cindy Sheehan said?
There is no evidence at all that Bush lied. You do understand the definition of lie; right? The only person who deceived anyone was Saddam. Here is another article by Christopher Hitchens (I gave you two before, but I assume you ignored those) that exposes the myth that Bush lied.
http://www.slate.com/id/2130293/nav/tap2/
If that is not enough, try this:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1159339/posts
What is it going to take in order for you to accept realty? Stop trying to explain everything through crazy conspiracy theories. Just focus on the facts. There is a mountain of evidence, and all you have is one little memo that some guy scribbled some notes on, in which Tony Blair denied that it showed any miss conduct. It was also covered in the Butler review which concluded the same thing. The Iraq Intelligence Commission also concluded that there was an "intelligence failure", not a lie.
If the evidence was not there, how did Bush convince Congress to pass the war resolution? Australia also sent troops into Iraq; were they apart of this conspiracy too? Or were they simply fooled by the pure genius and chicanery of George Bush?
FJ, thanks for showing how wrong this "Me" person is. Whoever it is fights hard to deny what we already know. It is very generous of you to try and help that person and to take your time and fight where nowadays so many have lost the will to fight for what we believe.
I already gave you the link on Curveball, an interview with the CIA person in Europe who said that everyone knew Curveball wasn't very credible on the mobile biological weapons labs, yet this was part of the case for war. Why?
How do you feel about what Tenet has been saying lately?
Add to that the Downing Street Memo, add to that the 9/11 Commission's finding that there was no link between Hussein and 9/11, add to that the fact that the UN never found any WMDs through inspections. Add to that the Butler Commission said the 16 words were "well-founded" but the IAEA said the foundational documents were obviously fake.
The case for war was so very far from "slam dunk," so very far from even close to being clear, yet Bush went up there and time and time again, said that it was sure, had his guys and gals say that is was sure, that it was a slam dunk. Why? Why did they wilfully ignore the deep credibility and evidentiary problems of their evidence?
As is often the case, it comes down to a simple question: stupid or evil? Were they so incredibly stupid that they just didn't know or didn't udnerstand the problems with the evidence, or were they evil, meaning, they knowingly and purposefully ignored the evidentiary holes the disagreement on the intelligence?
How about this video, of Dick Durbin stating into the record (knowingly lying here would be a felony) that while Bush was saying everything was totally sure to the public, the closed-door intelligence committee was hearing completely different, much less sure testimony?
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/04/28/sen-durbin-drops-bombshells-on-the-senate-floor/
Or how about this CIA guy saying that Cheney farmed out the Niger forgeries:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/05/01/ray-mcgovern-cheney-had-niger-documents-farmed-out/
Why would all these CIA guys lie? The curveball guy, the Niger forgeries guy, and Tenet? After all, they served their country with distinction, got medals and stuff, put their personal asses on the line? Are they all lying?
There's also Larry Johnson, former CIA operative.
By the way me, I will post with a new name now, since there are too many anonymous individuals at the moment.
Actually, I'm not sure if knowingly lying while speaking on the floor would be perjury and therefore a felony.
Scratch that. But still, ti would be quite stupid to lie on the record like that.
I notice that whenever I ask you a question, you answer it by asking other questions. The simple point is that British Intelligence, Russian Intelligence, American Intelligence, among others. all believed Saddam had WMD. The U.S. Congress passed the war resolution to invade Iraq, the U.N. passed a resolution asking Saddam to disarm, and Britain and Australia sent troops into Iraq. You want us to believe that Bush fooled all these nations? Besides, it was George Tennet, who served as CIA director under Clinton that said it was a "slam dunk" that Saddam had WMD. The Butler Review, the 9/11 Commission, and the Iraq Intelligence Commission found no evidence of a lie. You would think that if there was such evidence, Bush would have been impeached long ago, but I suppose this just adds to the conspiracy.
He didn't need to fool anyone. As long as you have support from Blair, the rest of the rightwing chips fall where they may. Italy, led by a rightwing leader Berlusconi, sent troops. Spain was also led at the time by a rightwinger - sent troops. Russia - Putin is as rightwing as they come. Austrialia's Howard is also rightwing. Do you see a pattern?
I don't know if you've been paying attention, but Tenet has been saying that "slam dunk" was twisted and attributed to him incorrectly.
Now, if you don't like your questions not being answered, I don't like mine not being answered either. Care to answer what I asked, why on the basis of such inconclusive and faulty intelligence did we go to war? why did some members of the administration knowingly disregard dissent? Why were the 16 words in the speech?
Finally, do you think Dick Durbin is lying in that video? If not, what the hell does that mean, that the public was being fed one thing, and the inteligence comittee another?
"Me", you really need help, so I'll take a stab.
You asked if we could see a pattern with all the right-winger leaders that supported action against Saddam. Of course there was a pattern. Open your eyes.
right-wing = "willing to do what needed to be done"
left-wing = "unwilling to do what needed to be done"
And the "inconclusive and faulty intelligence" was believed by the UN, Congress, and all the others that sent troops. Hello? Me? Hello? What brainwashed world do you live in where you think other countries' leaders just do what we say without thought to their own political careers? They supported action based on the available facts at that time.
If you still can't understand this stuff, you're not worth carrying on a conversation with.
"He didn't need to fool anyone. As long as you have support from Blair, the rest of the rightwing chips fall where they may. "
So it was one giant right-wing conspiracy? Give me a break. Was it the Illuminati at work?
Congress relied on Bush and his claims. Before this war, when the President made claims about imminent threats and mushroom clouds, people believed him, people took him at his word. There was trust. That's all out the window now, you realize. Incidentally, so much for restoring honor and dignity to the White House, to the point where the president's office has lost all credibility domestically and globally. But i digress.
You are mistaken about the UN. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, the UN actually adopted a resolution authorizing military action by the allies, and they were led by the US.
But in this case, the Security Council did NOT deem the intelligence credible enough to warrant military action. It was credible enough to be concerned, to pass resolutions, but it's another level of escalation entirely to authorize military action.
Now, you can decry the Security Council as a political rather than legal body that is not very credible, but then don't bring it up at all. You can't use it as supporting evidence when its actions suit you, and dismiss it as not credible when its actions don't suit you.
On another note
(1) you still haven't answered or remarked at all on Senator Durbin's claims. That's right, just ignore those inconvenient facts
(2) Your assessment of rightwingers around the world is quite frightening. Do you really support "president" putin and "president" musharraf? You do realize that the only difference between Musharraff and Hussein (who was admittedly part of the left-leaning Baath party) is that Musharaff is still cooperating with the US?
Musharaff is a military dictator, no matter what his title is. Freedom of speech and rule of law? He just fired the chief justice of the Pakistani supreme court. Human rights? LOL. Women's rights? LOL. And worst of all, he actually has WMD: a nuclear bomb, and that guy AQ Khan, who sold Pakistani nuclear secrets, let me show you something about that:
In December 2006, the Swedish Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission (SWMDC) headed by Hans Blix, a former chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC); said in a report that Pakistan’s controversial nuclear proliferator A Q Khan could not have acted alone, “without the awareness of the Pakistani government”.
You know who else is a rightwinger? Umm, Augusto Pinochet. Peron. Nice cast of characters, yes?
Ugh, no it's not a giant rightwing conspiracy. But it may be a first for an emergence of a global right-wing alliance. It happens. In the EU, they're starting to have pan-European political parties. In the Middle East, the Baath party is pan-Arab, ostensibly. You ever hear of the United Arab Republic? Again, I digress.
You've got to look at the countries' motivations beyond the stated ones. Russia, for example, had close ties with Iraq, they weren't so hot on invasion. France also did, economic and otherwise, they didn't want all their debt cancelled. Honestly, if you think any of the players acted on some sort of "higher principle" you're mad. Some people thought that going into Iraq would be more advantageous for them and their country (witness Poland and Bulgaria, who got lots of aid), some people, like Turkey, refused any kind of aid not because of some sort of pacifist stance, but because they were more or less happy wtih the status quo vis-a-vis the Kurd situation.
Some rightwingers decided it would be good to stand with Bush, who is, after all, a rightwing leader of the free world. It's good to be on his good side, doncha think? I think that's what probably motivated Blair and Berlusconi.
You know, a kind of "i do your war, and you do mine" kind of thinking.
And please, don't be so naive as to think that this kind of back-room politicking is the stuff of the past.
... but who am i kidding. 59% of Americans think Revelations is actually going to happen, so why be surprised that they bought Bush's BS hook, line and sinker?!
"Me", were you raised to ignore common sense or is it genetic? All your shrieking may make you feel better, but you cannot change the truth.
Here is a video of some other people that believed Iraq had WMD. I also remember a New York Times article on the Iraq war, co-authored by a Democrat and a Republican saying that the war would last at least ten years. I have been trying to find it, but it is interesting to note that this Democrat now wants to pull out. The Democrats are simply appealing to their extreme Left-Wing base. This is the reason Dick Durbin is saying what he is saying now. This is also the man that called our troops Nazi's. His beliefs are no secret. I wonder if Dick Durbin believes these people lied.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePb6H-j51xE&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fbritainandamerica%2Etypepad%2Ecom%2Fbritain%5Fand%5Famerica%2F2007%2F04%2Fthe%5Fdemocrats%5Fo%2Ehtml
"... but who am i kidding. 59% of Americans think Revelations is actually going to happen, so why be surprised that they bought Bush's BS hook, line and sinker?!"
Haha. Now you have the nerve to call the American people stupid (or ignorant, naive, who knows, but apparently you feel superior in some way) ? When Laura Ingraham says "they think you're stupid" she is not kidding. You can now join Bill Maher, George Carlin, and the rest of the crazy Left. You are too much. After all your New World Order bullshit you think you have the authority to make such a claim?
Let me ask you, who was responsible for the death of JFK?
I will tell who believes in Revelations - it's Al Gore and his chicken little followers - the sky is falling, the sky is falling...and it is all Bush's fault! Bush caused global warming! Muhahahahahahahaha!!!
anon.
Thanks for taking up the slack in my absence. It is generous of yourself as well to take on the responsibility for educating the youth of Athens. I wanted to give Alcibiades the opportunity to put into action some of the words spoken in this distorted thread. He/she failed to take that opportunity. From henceforth... no quarter will be granted. It will be a troll death match.
The Big Lie
Congress relied on Bush and his claims. Before this war, when the President made claims about imminent threats and mushroom clouds, people believed him, people took him at his word. There was trust.
Is it the job of the US Congress to trust a President? Or are they a separated and opposing institution of POWER? Is there a check and a balance opposed to the Presidency? And where were the Democrats... asleep at the job?
The House approved the Iraq invasion by a vote of 296-133. The Senate approved 77-23. It would appear that at least HALF the members of the opposition Democratic Party were NOT DOING THEIR JOBS. The opposition political party is NOT supposed to be a "rubber stamp".
me would argue that these were those who were duped, who were simply "overcome" by deliberate Presidential misinformation and lies.
But would YOU trust me to tell YOU what to believe, what facts to weigh and which to ignore? Or do you think members of Congress are RESPONSIBLE for having THEIR OWN RELIABLE sources of information?
So which is it, how does the System work? Is Congress merely a rubber stamp that can be duped by the Executive? And if your answer is yes, then please explain what function they serve to the System?
Lawyers and sophists typically argue about what's plausible, and NOT necessarily what's true. It's an adversarial system, LIKE CONGRESS, like arguing, like blogging. Good faith plays a part, but there's a saying. Caveat Emptor/Caveat Lector. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
Well, let's see, when 51% of the public believes in ghosts, I don't think it's a stretch to call them stupid.
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=359
And it's not like Laura Inghram doesn't think they're stupid, she just hides it. She's so cynical, it's hard for her to even keep her mask on. All about the almighty dollar. Inghram, Limbaugh, Imus they all realized you can make a lot of money if you just appeal to the lowest common denominator -- yell, insult, exaggerate, advance simplistic and stupid argument once in a while, tell the people what they want to hear -- all that will win you many more listeners than actually calmly and intelligently discussing the modern world, while putting into historical context.
So, let's see. I brought up a bunch of historical examples, videos, ideas, and all you people could muster in return is a lot of frustrated ad hominem and (1) a reference to an articel you can't find, and (2) a video of various leftwingers on Hussein.
Clinton, Albright, Berger may have really thought those things, but they never started a war like this one on the basis of that intelligence, now did they? There were no-fly zones, etc. but not a war like this one. They never advocated a war like this one, either. "Regime change" does not necessarily mean exaactly and only what we are doing now in Iraq.
Saddam Hussein may have been a threat, but before starting this kind of endavour, I would advise calmly and critically examining the evidence you have, making sure it's all highly credible, gathering all new evidence you can (remember UNMOVIC not finding anything right before the war? like that). Make sure that your evidence is SOLID -- the evidence on Iraq was not, not at the time, and we certainly know now it was not.
But even if you've decided he's a horrible threat, you have options on how to proceed. Don't abandon the UN and all your allies. You can proceed much more surgically. When Mohammed Mossadegh became the first democratically elected Prime minister of Iran, he stood up against the West, only a little, and was quickly and summarily deposed by the CIA and MI6 in a quick, smooth reinstallment of the Shah Pahlavi. No invasion, no air strikes, no war like what we have in Iraq. What bearing this little tale has on the Islamic Revolution of 1979 is another story.
For other examples of regime change, look at what happened Salvador Allende in Chile, and how Pinochet came to power. Look at Nicaragua. The Bay of Pigs was a similar idea. Look at Arisdite in Haiti. Look at tiny Grenada, which was occupied for 2 months.
Anyway, the video has clips from the clinton administration and then from 2002. But by October 2002, Bush was on a mission, the intelligence he gave to the public and congress was already cherry-picked and tainted.
And so this is where the Dick Durbin video comes in once again? Do you think he's lying about the vivid uncertainty there was behind closed doors?
Let me guess what's coming: more non-responsive answers and more ad hominem. Lovely.
Well, FJ, regarding your question, all of the intelligence agencies are in the executive branch, under the command of the president. Congress does not have its own intelligence agency, in fact, it really doesn't have its own ANYTHING agency.
So, if all the intelligence agencies report to the executive branch, the commander in chief, in his infinitve wisdom, is able to through pressure from the top down influence what kind of intelligence he gets. He can send the message that he wants the best intelligence, or he can have his closest advisors go on national TV 5 days after 9/11 and blame Iraq, and he can send the message that he wants intelligence on how bad Iraq is.
Here's the video of Richard Perle, 5 days after 9/11, saying that Saddam Hussein has ties to Osama bin Laden, and remarking that "even if we cannot prove to the standards in our civil society," obviously setting the foundation for the event that intelligence would not be able to sustain this claim:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/04/30/cnn-punks-bill-kristol/
(Perle appears about 4/5 of the way through)
And here's an ex-CIA official saying that intelligence was cherry-picked,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/09/AR2006020902418.html
"Official intelligence on Iraqi weapons programs was flawed, but even with its flaws, it was not what led to the war," Pillar wrote in the upcoming issue of the journal Foreign Affairs. Instead, he asserted, the administration "went to war without requesting -- and evidently without being influenced by -- any strategic-level intelligence assessments on any aspect of Iraq."
Now, for a final coup de grace, you write: "Or do you think members of Congress are RESPONSIBLE for having THEIR OWN RELIABLE sources of information?" Congress has learned the hard lesson that they simply can't trust the White House. I guess that's what you're suggesting, right, that Congress can't just trust the White House (what a lovely opinion you have of the White House's honesty and credibilit), so they have it independelty verify.
I agree, Iraq has taught us that exact lesson. But god forbid members of congress actually go to Syria to verify what the White House is saying, right? Because then you'll be SCREAMING up and down about their treacherous ways for meeting with Bashir Assad?
Zing, once again!
To believe that the President DELIBERATELY DECEIVED the US Congress to get us into the Iraq War would require that the President have something to gain or REASONS to go to war that was NOT in the general interest of the American nation and/or public. The challenge for the Democrats is... in the ABSENCE of ANY SUCH REASON, WHY did we go to War?
I can think of a million REASONS that explain WHY the Iraq war was in the US Public's BEST INTEREST in combatting terrorists in a larger War on Terror. I cannot think of a SINGLE REASON why it was in President Bush's Best "individual" or "party" Interest to do so.
The Left is right about one thing. The trust is gone. Leftwing bloggers will now do and any anything to convince to the public to bring their party to power. Anything. Propaganda, rumours, innuendos... these are but the mere beginnings. They now feel perfectly comfortable impersonating people on the Right, impersonating multiple people, telling and spreading deliberate lies, and brow beating generally nice people on the Right into listening to their misrepresentations.
And thank you, me, for showing ME what I need to do as well. You want to get dirty? I can get dirty. Tit-for-Tat is usually a pretty good gaming strategy. But from now on, you won't know when I decide to throw Tat first.
me's new argument...
1) Congress has no funds for performing oversight. Amazing. I thought they controlled the nation's purse strings?
2) Congress members have no staffers or aids. The Executive Branch spoon feeds all the information to Congress that they need to know. Members of the Select Committee on Intelligence are deliberately kept in the dark and members of the Intelligence Committee wait for official reports from the Executive branch telling them what to think.
Congress cannot issue it's own supoenas. I didn't know that.
Congress cannot hold hearings and delay the appropriation of funds and/or votes authorizing Executive branch activities.
oh, and Speaker Pelosi can go to Syria and negotiate her own separate alternative FOREIGN POLICY without any help from the Deaprtment of State.
ZWANG!
Coup de Grace or Coup deVille? Coup deStupid, is more like it.
Ad hominem. There will be plenty more coming.
Congress can't trust the White House...
Where in the Constitution does it talk about Congress trusting the White House? I recall a few separation of Powers arguments, but not a single "Trust the President" argument. It must be in the Federalist Papers, I know...
Seams to me they could IMPEACH the President if ANY of their claims were true.
But don't count on seeing that. Cause they ain't.
Impeachment power doesn't sound very trusting, does it?
What were Bush's reasons for invading Iraq me? Please, enlighten us oh Queen of Nits.
Shooting arrows through axe handles is fun. It's usually easier when they're already lines up. But me loves to keep moving the target and ignoring the targets set up for her. Let's see where it goes to next, shall we?
Explain why over half of the Democrats voted for war... Half of the opposition was "duped".
That's like a courtroom trial where HALF of the Defendent's Lawyers are convinced of the Prosecutions Case.
They wouldn't be very good defense lawyers if they concluded on the basis of the evidence that the Prosecutor had the better case... unless he really did.
I cannot think of a SINGLE REASON why it was in President Bush's Best "individual" or "party" Interest to do so.
well, then you are one blind and stupid man.
As for your mischaracterization of my argument, I didn't say anything about funds, did I? Well, typical.
Congress can perform oversight, but oversight is different from trusting the official intelligence reports coming out of the intelligence agencies and the White House. Nonetheless, like I said, Congress does not have its own intelligene agency. Many congressional staffers don't have security clearance to even consider much of this intelligence. And you bring up the select committee on intelligence that does have clearance -- exactly what dick durbin is saying, that the administration and intelligence officials presented SERIOUS DOUBT about the intelligence behind closed doors, yet at the very same time, the other head of the hydra was saying to the public that the case is completely sure.
And i can only imagine what FJ would have said if Congress balked at what the White House is saying on Iraq and started issuing subponeas and trusting UNMOVIC over the White House. "Traitors! How can they say they don't believe the president?! This is emboldening our enemy!"
Am I right? You know i'm right. Oh, you'll deny it, but you know that's waht you would have said about these treacherous Democrats, not trusting the president in a time of war, only a year after 9/11, when he's conjuring up images of mushroom clouds and smoking guns.
Anyway, as for impeachment, i don't think it's a good idea to impeach two presidents in a row. on the other hand, no CEO would ever be able to get away with this kind of lying to the public, so why should we let our commander in chief get away with it? I say let's first impeach dick cheney. his hands are SO DIRTY, there is so much evidence on him. Or, let's impeach Bush. Lots of lefties say, "oh, if we impeach Bush then Cheney becomes president!" But I say, isn't Cheney already kinda president?
What were Bush's reasons for invading Iraq me? Please, enlighten us oh Queen of Nits.
You're a student of history, FJ. So, why don't you tell the class why the CIA and MI6 overthrew Mossadegh and reinstated the Shah Pahlavi in Iraqn in 1953?
Here, you can go read about it yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0004/19/i_ins.00.html
Congress can't compare what's coming out of one intelligence agency with what's coming out of another? It can't "build walls" between intelligence agancies? Congress can't reorganize the agencies in such a manner as to give them the info they require? The Democratic Congress must be pretty incompetent if they can't do that. Again, why should Congress or the Executive have to operate on the basis of TRUST? And all with an "unlimited" budget. Hmmmmm. **shakes head at the impotency/incompetency of me's Congress**
How do you like this stupid argument it's not a good idea to impeach 2 President's in a row. Even if one was a serial sex offender and the other "deceiptfully" got America into a war?!?
Me's argument might convince a kindergertener... but a Law School 97% LSAT scorer???
me has now requested to divert the argument into Iran. Why is that me? Can't make a REASONABLE case in THIS argument?
Well, you also must remember that at the time, the Senate was 51-49 Dems, and the house was Republican-controlled. How exactly do you think the Dems could have pushed through anything of the sort through a Repblican House and a Republican, belligerent president? You're mad.
The Congress is Democratic now, and they are pushing through various reforms, they forced the president to go through FISA, for example. That's an intelligence reform, or sorts.
Your argument is a losing one, FJ, because you want the Congress at the same time to not be treacherous defeatists who opposed the president when he's urging action on an imminent threat, and at the same time provide oversight over intelligence agencies, without actually going to investigate the intelligence. I don't know much about congress's role in intelligence oversight -- it does exist, like the Church Commission, but I don't know how it works in real time -- how long does it take to provide oversight over intelligence-gathering activities that are going on in real time? I don't think you know either.
As for impeaching 2 presidents in a row, i don't think it's WISE. impeachment should not be a modus operandi, an option that's always on the table and frequently used. it takes away from the office of the president. i don't like the idea of it being use twice in a row. but then again, that idea can be outweighed by the gravity of misconduct, and i think for me, if it has not already been outweighed, it will be soon.
PS Care to tell the class about why the CIA and MI6 overthrew Mossadegh, or is that just too inconvenient for your argument, so you will continue to ignore it?
Oh, FJ, you're so dumb, really.
Can you just answer my simple question, and we'll get right back to Iraq? I promise.
All you have to do is HONESTLY, in GOOD FAITH restate a historical fact, a few of them, of the reasons why the CIA and MI6 overthrew Mohammed Mossadegh.
Can you do that for me? We'll get right back to the Iraq question.
LOL! Trust me? Got a point? Then make it!
QED. me is a stupid troll.
Like I said previously, half of the opposing party's LAWYERS were convinced of the Prosecutor's case. Not poor, trusting souls. Lawyers. Politicians. Opposing Party.
Are they PART of the government or NOT? Are they there to be SPECTATORS or PARTCIPANTS?
"It no my, yob, I no have power?"
The Congress wasn;t designed to protect minority rights? me's NEW argument - The Founding Fathers were DUMB.
They were duped. LOL!
Post a Comment