Source: SeattlePI.com (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/)
Link: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/211561_nineoneoned.html
Title: "Truth held hostage"
Date: February 11, 2005

The editorial board of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer sounds off:

It's difficult to decide which is more outrageous -- federal aviation officials' failure to follow through on intelligence reports before Sept. 11, 2001, that warned of al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden using airliner hijackings and suicide operations, or the Bush administration's refusal to let the American public know about it before the November election ....

.... In April last year, President Bush said, "Had I any inkling whatsoever that the people were going to fly airplanes into buildings, we would have moved heaven and earth to save the country. ..." The 9/11 commission report apparently found that there were indeed such inklings, which should have "raised alarms about the growing terrorist threat to civil aviation throughout the 1990s and into the new century."

We're left with a pretty good inkling as to why the president moved heaven and earth to keep it quiet before the election.

SeattlePI.com (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/211561_nineoneoned.html)

Maybe American conservatives are sick and tired of hearing George W. Bush and company called liars because the truth hurts?

The Red States have my applause and admiration. After all, just like with bigotry, who would have expected conservative Americans to stand up and proudly declare that dishonesty is a fundamental American value?

Keep on lowering the bar, conservatives. After all, it's what America wants, right? It's what America voted for.

Such celebrations of depravity are exactly the reason the conservative American voice is a scourge to humanity.

Yes, American conservatives, you are a malicious disease blighting the Earth. If you would pretend to be physicians of society, heal thyselves. Stop hurting America. Stop hurting your neighbors. Stop wasting yourselves.

Really, think about what's truly important. For once. Please. We've got a pretty good thing going in these United States. Don't throw it all away for superstition and false pretense.

Your glorification of dishonesty helps nobody. Not even your own selves.
____________________

Notes:

Seattle Post-Intelligencer. "Truth held hostage". SeattlePI.com. February 11, 2005. See http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/211561_nineoneoned.html

Amen.

At least im not a hate filled rageing lunatic.

I am however a conservative (politcally) american that smokes weed and doesnt let religion guide my life.

You probably hate me regardless. Its amazingly ironic to me (and probably only me) that you call me out for being an asshole, yet your the one going around writing scathing essays on how all conservatives are the trash of the world.

seems to me that a person who blindly hates a large group of people based on a broad generalization is in fact, the scourge of humanity

and please keep any responses to this to under 300 words, cus when you hit that 1000+ mark, its pretty damn obnoxious and useless and im not gonna read it

Americans Love Liars?
Either that or they are plain dumb. :D
(both meanings.... :eek: :cool: )

DubStyle: how is it obnoxious to post the WHOLE of an opinion. At least tiassas posts hold a little more thought than one liners. What really annoyes me is trying to dig through 100 posts of compleat crap in order to find the one post where a person has used there brain. When you put as much thought into your posts as he does THEN you can critise.

NOW

"seems to me that a person who blindly hates a large group of people based on a broad generalization is in fact, the scourge of humanity"

when that large group of people have a large amount of power and what you are critising them on is the one decision they all made TOGETHER then no its not bias or a broad generalization. Its not a generalization to say that "all the people who voted for bush DESERVE bush and come what may" that is just common sence. Something i seriously doubt you posses

saying bush was aware of the threat is just cheap and easily reversed.


I mean... if bush is somewhat responsible, then clinton is criminally guilty.

I'm happy to except our licks if you're willing to take yours... Otherwise, give up.

Just stop, cus' that shit isn't going anywhere.

DubStyle

Have you paid attention to what Bush voters endorsed?

I oppose the canonization of dishonesty and bigotry.

If the GOP didn't treat narrow majorities as broad mandates, there wouldn't be as much of a reason to scrutinize the values of "middle America" as such.

You oppose a sense of generalization, but what of the generalization that attacks those who doubted Bush's integrity before the election? They were all unpatriotic, or anti-American, or divorced from reality.

The critics were also correct. People had reasons aplenty to doubt Bush's integrity, his competence, and his regard for civilized society. And yet voters chose freely to vote for him, anyway.

Is it, then, that conservative voters find false pretenses for war, major national security lapses, and human rights abuses, for instance, of lesser priority than education or the commercial criminals stealing money from investors and consumers? Were they not paying attention? I mean, what? What was this amorphous "middle America" thinking?

They chose. If I am to respect that choice, I must assess its results.

There's not much of a generalization there for you to object to. Of course, since you're not specific, I could be missing the generalization.

My nation, my community, and the goals my neighbors work toward have all been diminished by this administration. My society is diminished by this administration. As a human being, that troubles me. Perhaps it wouldn't be so troubling if conservatives ever gave reasonable explanations, but in the twenty-five years of my political consciousness, it's never happened. If I seem impatient, it's because conservative rhetoric is deteriorating yet further.

Also, what credibility would you like people to give your opinions, toward which you devote so little consideration?

Or is that too many words?

if bush is somewhat responsible, then clinton is criminally guilty

Interesting theory.

Care to elaborate somewhat?

Personal my credibility on sciforums doesnt concern me much at all. What i posted what a direct reponse to yet another post by you where you imply (or outright state) that i am the devil because i voted for bush and see things differantly than you do. Am i the only one who sees that as fucked up?

you say everything bush has done destroys you and what you aspire to be

well, many of the things bush has done promote the lifestyle i live, and even moreso, the life i plan to be living 10, 20 years from now, i.e. SS reform, tax reform, etc.

from what i read by you, typing this out is about as usefull as banging my head on a brick wall.

keep on hate'n, man, its good for you :rolleyes:

im gonna go blaze

peace

*I mean... if bush is somewhat responsible, then clinton is criminally guilty.

I'm happy to except our licks if you're willing to take yours... Otherwise, give up.


Karma; the truth is both of these pundits are quilty of aiding to dwindle the midle class, they are both quilty for our current war on terror; Bill just kept on bombing the "no-fly zone" while your's truly started an illegal war.

What's worst is that both the house and senate are puppets of this administration's whims, and the shit has now hit the fan!. N.Korea, is armed with a nuclear arsenal, they had weapons of mass destruction, but your's truly the idiot went after a country with no defences. But now Irag is a guackmire because people didn't see it as a "liberation" but as a Occupation. The Iragis will not be able to protect themselve, the US will not be able to pull out, if they do, they will leave Irag to face a civil war.

This administration lies about everything; Social Security is another issue. it is working it is not going broke, ONLY IF THEY KEEP THEIR FUCKING HANDS OF IT!. The US economy is not strong, and this is shown on the American dwindling middle class, and scarce job market. In Texas alone, has seen a rise of welfare aplicants, and this goes nationwide, that is another quage you can look at to see the state of our economy.

This is the worst administration this country has seen in envioremental issues as well, this administration has it's lowest approval rate of second term from any presidency that went the second term.

Clinton was no angel, nor was he the best president this country has ever seen, however when he was pres. The world had somewhat better expectation of us, we were not hated, and our alies were still our alies.

Godless.

In order to understand how intellectually, morally deprevated American neo-conservatives are its without a question these people are some of scummiest people on Earth, now any Bush conservative tell me if I am wrong:

1) Prisoner abuse in Abu Gharib, GITMO, etc is acceptable for the national security of the United States, yet the murders of American soldiers are terrorist actions.
2) Everyone who isn’t fighting with America in Iraq is a terrorist nation, directly or indirectly. Meanwhile the United States still supports these states will military, economic, and diplomatic aid?
3) “Old Europe” doesn’t fight wars…regardless of the fact that “old Europeans” killed in excess of 100 million persons worldwide.
4) America is the champion of democracy around the world and will free the people of the world from “tyranny”, except for Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Libya, Egypt, Uzbekistan, Russia, China, etc.
5) America has moral values, which validates the banning of homosexual marriage, meanwhile under this presidency the amount of poor has gone up.
6) America’s economy is the best in the world, and it is growing like weeds on a lawn. Ignoring the growth is a direct result that the country is incurring trillions in debt as every year goes by.

Just an inkling of the massive amount of IGNORANCE millions of idiots in the United States live by as truth, and fact. Its fitting that the end of American hegemony would be at the hands of these idiots, and I feel for real conservatives.

we know they love themselves

Even better is this, watching Crossfire today they were showing how Mrs. Rice lied through her teeth about not having any “plan” from the Clinton administration to deal with Al Qaeda, a recently declassified document from Jan. 2001 shows that the Clinton administration left no doubt that ALQ was a threat, and it had to be dealt with:

The White House was warned just days after President Bush took office in January 2001 that al Qaeda posed a serious threat to the United States and the entire Islamic world, and that a review of U.S. policy toward the terrorist organization was "urgently" needed.
-----------------------------------------
In the memo, dated Jan. 25, 2001, Clarke requests an immediate meeting of top-level national security officials to discuss the al Qaeda threat. That meeting did not place until Sept. 4, 2001, just one week before the Sept. 11 attacks.
----------------------------------------------
Critics of the Bush administration, including Clarke himself, have charged that the White House ignored warnings about the impending danger of al Qaeda prior to Sept. 11.
----------------------------------------------
Clarke concludes, "We would make a major error if we underestimated the challenge al Qaeda poses."
---------------------------------------------
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/11/terror/main673524.shtml

American’s really do love their liars, and Mrs. Rice is one of the of course.

and I feel for real conservatives.

Geeezzz! thanks undecided!. ;)

These pundits don't know what conservatism stood for, they can hardly tell the difference between Neo-Conservatives, and the old school conservatives. We are the true liberals, we are the ones who supposedly stood for less infrigement in people's affairs, and we are the ones who stood for less government mandate.

The present administration is a neo-conservative embarking on the new American fascist statists agenda, by having ever larger government, more police powers, be damned with the Bill of Rights, and wipe their arss with the constitution!.

Godless.

What i posted what a direct reponse to yet another post by you where you imply (or outright state) that i am the devil because i voted for bush and see things differantly than you do. Am i the only one who sees that as fucked up?

Direct? How about anemic?

But let's take that point of yours:

• i am the devil because i voted for bush and see things differantly than you do.

You could try answering the issue, then:

• Is it, then, that conservative voters find false pretenses for war, major national security lapses, and human rights abuses, for instance, of lesser priority than education or the commercial criminals stealing money from investors and consumers? Were they not paying attention? I mean, what? What was this amorphous "middle America" thinking?

I've often accused conservatives of broad equivocation, and here you've undertaken it directly, DubStyle:

• because i voted for bush and see things differantly than you do.

You know, lots of people see things differently than I do. But leaving it at such a generalization (you mentioned generalizations earlier) is an equivocation intended to disarm the severity of the Bush platform. It's quite obvious that you see things differently than I do: Bush voters endorsed bigotry, dishonesty, and human rights abuses among other things.

I feel that bigotry, dishonesty, and abuse of human rights are bad for society. This is why I'm disgusted with people who claim these things as American values, and why I'm disgusted with people who voted for Bush.

I feel that bigotry, dishonesty, and abuse of human rights are bad for society; how about you? What say you?

Bigotry? Good or bad for society?

Dishonesty? Good or bad for society?

Human rights abuses? Good or bad for society?

Really, it doesn't take too many words, DubStyle. All you have to say is, "Yes, I think bigotry, dishonesty, and human rights abuses are bad for society." Or, "I think bigotry, dishonesty, and human rights are good for society."

And if they're bad for society, why would you endorse it?

Really, Saddam Hussein saw things differently than I do. Does he get the same neutrality for his decisions as you claim for yours? It's just a "difference of opinion"? We just "see things differently"?

C'mon, man. Don't hide. I say these things because I love you. I don't want to see you fashion misery for yourself or others.

And if you call it hate to be disgusted at bigotry, dishonesty, and human rights abuses, well, you can be certain that we will continue to see things differently.

Your problem is you think conservative ideology is isolated to the south, or "Red States" as liberals like to say. Maybe if that were true, you could go ahead and label conservative as promoters of bigoty and dishonesty, cus hey, the south is pretty shitty.

But guess what, im from a blue state, i live outside philadelphia, im probably not that much differant from you, whatever, im stoned and rambleing and im not about to kkeep going :m:

just dont be such a douche and indict 50,000,000 people youve never met as a disease to the earth

c'mon man, is that really how you roll?

Your problem is you think conservative ideology is isolated to the south, or "Red States" as liberals like to say.

Hey, until a few years ago, we were reds. Maybe you remember that old conservative slogan.

Perhaps you would like to define "middle America" for us? I have been asking conservatives at this board and elsewhere in my life for a definition, and as far as I can tell, none know what it means. It's a fake label.

In the meantime, this is hardly the problem. Unlike some conservatives, who have claimed a geographical domain for "middle America", I'm aware that the "red state" mentality extends to both coasts.

Maybe if that were true, you could go ahead and label conservative as promoters of bigoty and dishonesty, cus hey, the south is pretty shitty.

Sure, blame the South. I consider conservatives promoters of bigotry and dishonesty because the former is part of their platform, and the latter is part of their method.

But guess what, im from a blue state, i live outside philadelphia, im probably not that much differant from you, whatever, im stoned and rambleing and im not about to kkeep going

No, we're probably not that different. The marked differences, however, seem to center around whether or not we choose to endorse bigotry, dishonesty, and contempt for humanity.

In the meantime, you might choose to keep going long enough to at least answer the question:


I feel that bigotry, dishonesty, and abuse of human rights are bad for society; how about you? What say you?

Bigotry? Good or bad for society?

Dishonesty? Good or bad for society?

Human rights abuses? Good or bad for society?

Really, it doesn't take too many words, DubStyle. All you have to say is, "Yes, I think bigotry, dishonesty, and human rights abuses are bad for society." Or, "I think bigotry, dishonesty, and human rights are good for society."

And if they're bad for society, why would you endorse it?

I mean, think about it from my perspective for a moment: decades of trying to wrangle some decent explanations from conservatives, and still they're not forthcoming. So yes, I'm lashing out today because I'm thoroughly disgusted by the decision to re-elect Bush and endorse his policies of dishonesty, bigotry, and abuse.

In the meantime, you're meeting the historical template: you can't even answer simple questions.

I guess the question is whether conservatives would rather be considered stupid or malicious. Because respectable, responsible, reasonable, and communicative are all seemingly anathema to that side of the aisle. Humor doesn't work. Serious consideration doesn't work. Contempt only earns a reprisal of the same old shit. Let's try another question:

• Why do conservatives not wish to take part in any reasonable discussion?

just dont be such a douche and indict 50,000,000 people youve never met as a disease to the earth

Oh, get over yourself. People whose values motivate them to disrupt society by canonizing bigotry, dishonesty, and contempt for humanity have made a choice that is assessed.

Now why is it that you're perfectly willing to whine about that assessment, but you're unwilling to communicate any alternative?

For the third time:

• Is it, then, that conservative voters find false pretenses for war, major national security lapses, and human rights abuses, for instance, of lesser priority than education or the commercial criminals stealing money from investors and consumers? Were they not paying attention? I mean, what? What was this amorphous "middle America" thinking?

Really, if a few of those fifty millions can give an answer that makes sense and doesn't equal sloth or contempt, that would be a start on a positive dialogue.

But no. Conservatives won't. And it's not difficult to figure out why: the identity politic is more important than anything else. All that matters to conservatives is the scoreboard.

Is that the wrong conclusion? Well, you can ignore it, complain about it, or offer something useful and substantial that will alter the conclusion. Surprise me with the latter option, please. I look forward to it.

In the meantime, I've concluded you're right. People should be assessed and trusted according the words that come out of their mouths, not by their actual actions.

Which, I guess, settles the question mark in the topic title, eh?

Thanks for clearing that up.

I feel that bigotry, dishonesty, and abuse of human rights are bad for society.

Which makes you an idiot. They are not separate from society, but part of it regardless of your incessant whining, you fucking pussy.

This is why I'm disgusted with people who claim these things as American values, and why I'm disgusted with people who voted for Bush.

I don't think most of us care. You are disgusted by everyone who doesn't conform to your narrow minded impression of how things are supposed to be. You're a fool.

I feel that bigotry, dishonesty, and abuse of human rights are bad for society; how about you? What say you?

I say they are part of society that should be as minimal as one's circumstance allows.

Bigotry? Good or bad for society?

Depends. If the members of society all shares the same bigotry, then it's good. It will offer them strength through a common bond. Germany almost conquered the world with bigotry. Most of the world is thick with bigots.

Your question is flawed in that bigotry is not a choice, as you demonstrate so clearly. You don't choose to be the bigot you are. You just are. People who hate generally don't realize they have a choice not to do so, as they are so wrapped up in their hate that well, they might even call it love. You know, like YOU do. You're as much of a hater as anyone at sci, yet you present yourself as a noble defender of the weak and whine of bigotry and dishonesty. It's pathetic.

Bigotry is not a choice, but it could be if asshat bigots like yourself understood they were bigots. Fat fucking chance.

Dishonesty? Good or bad for society?

Depends. If for instance, your life or the life of someone you cared about deeply was directly dependent on YOU persisting in a lie, then you would deem it good for society. If for instance, most people in society were so diverse that you could not present anything in a means by which everyone who heard you understood your meaning rather than what they heard you say, then dishonesty is neither good nor bad, but inevitable in appearance. If dishonesty lead to world peace, would that be good for society? Like YOU would have a fucking clue. Go ahead bitch, whine about it some more.

Human rights abuses? Good or bad for society?

That depends. First you'd have to establish that you have a fucking clue of what human rights should consist. Looks to me like you think it should be whatever is grain of sand is stuck in your cunt today. Regardless, it depends. Look at China. By all rights, they are a very successful society and apparently human rights abuses work great for them. Makes me sick personally, but I'm lucky enough not to have to endure it personally. The biggest human rights violation I've experienced recently was self-inflicted by reading your venom.

Really, it doesn't take too many words, DubStyle.

Perched upon your imaginary throne, you long for the power you'll never have. You're Hitler without the balls to take what you want.

All you have to say is, "Yes, I think bigotry, dishonesty, and human rights abuses are bad for society." Or, "I think bigotry, dishonesty, and human rights are good for society."

Oh, now we prescribe the solution eh? Your royal privaledge has no bounds!

And if they're bad for society, why would you endorse it?

YOU.FUCKING.SIMPLETON.

Really, Saddam Hussein saw things differently than I do.

I hope someday you learn that everyone sees things differently than everyone else.

I say these things because I love you. I don't want to see you fashion misery for yourself or others.

And you whine about lies? The hypocracy is almost entertaining.

And if you call it hate to be disgusted at bigotry, dishonesty, and human rights abuses, well, you can be certain that we will continue to see things differently.

It is hate to talk down to people. It is hate to live your life with blinders on, pretending you are the only person that matters. It's hate to lust for power as you do. It's hate to spend your life whining about injustices you don't even understand.

It's hate to read your tripe.

Everyone is a hater. YOU though, are a particularly noticable, seething and verbose.

Bigotry, dishonesty, and abuse of human rights are undesirable in the general case, but the labels "good" and "bad" simply have no applicability outside of a particular context. Let's say you're hispanic and I hate you for it. We're in a war together and through my hate for you, I kill you and save the lives of 100,000 people (it turns out you were going to nuke my town). Sure it's an apparently ridiculous scenerio but life is ridiculous. The example demonstrate not that the scenario is likely, but the dependency on context which applies the labels you so generally utilize in your fervor of narrow-minded conviction.

You're a condescending asshole. I really wish you would pull your head out of your ass.

And if you call it hate to be disgusted at bigotry, dishonesty, and human rights abuses, well, you can be certain that we will continue to see things differently.

It's hate to be a condescending asshole with his head buried in his ass. It might be funny if it lacked the condescension. Something about an asshole having his head up his ass gives me a chuckle. With your condescension intact however, you'll remain an inneffectual dumbass.

It's difficult to decide which is more outrageous -- federal aviation officials' failure to follow through on intelligence reports before Sept. 11, 2001, that warned of al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden using airliner hijackings and suicide operations, or the Bush administration's refusal to let the American public know about it before the November election ....

.... In April last year, President Bush said, "Had I any inkling whatsoever that the people were going to fly airplanes into buildings, we would have moved heaven and earth to save the country. ..." The 9/11 commission report apparently found that there were indeed such inklings, which should have "raised alarms about the growing terrorist threat to civil aviation throughout the 1990s and into the new century."

We're left with a pretty good inkling as to why the president moved heaven and earth to keep it quiet before the election.

Oh and by the way, drawing the conclusion that there has been dishonesty from the article above is simply juvenile.

The term "WERE ACTUALLY GOING TO" is implied. He obviously discounted the reports as likely eronious, as there is was no successful precedent for an act of such magnitude here in the US. If you actually took your brain out of the "I'm a huge whining pussy" mode for like two fucking seconds, you could probably process what it might be like to be in the position he's in. He has probably seen a whole bunch of reports like that and basically has to come to grips with the reality that certain things are out of his control. There are a whole shitload of people looking out for people doing bad things. To any sitting president prior to 9/11, the likelihood of a successful attack of that magnitude on US soil could be generally discounted... but always in the back of one's mind. Throw all of the intelligence reports of similar content during the last 100 years into a pile on the floor. For sport, we'll say you know that ONE of them will be attempted in the next six months. What are the odds you'll pick up the right one? What are the odds they'll beat the existing systems in place to stop them?

With no precedent, no knowledge of which one is the one, no way to know if they can actually circumvent existing security and only a losing, LOSING political snafu if you choose the wrong one, I'd have to say that no action is better than action. If it turns out you're wrong, you face "sackless asshat wasted 2 trillion in airline security" and are scorned for the rest of your days.

Something like that.

A lie? What constitutes a lie tiassa? Obviously you're the only you qualified to satiate your definition, even if you aren't the you you present your you to be. You're a wretched panty-waste. Tell me tiassa, does anyone love you? If so, I feel badly for them... as disspointment is likely about all you'll ever offer in return.

Wes

Since there's nothing new about your latest shoe-banging tantrum, let's just run through the summary:

Which makes you an idiot
you fucking pussy
You're a fool
If the members of society all shares the same bigotry,
then it's good--
Germany almost conquered the world with bigotry
Bigotry is not a choice
asshat bigots like yourself
Fat fucking chance
Like YOU would have a fucking clue
establish that you have a fucking clue
it should be whatever is grain of sand is stuck in your cunt today
Makes me sick personally,
but I'm lucky
Perched upon your imaginary throne
You're Hitler without the balls
Your royal privaledge has no bounds!
YOU.FUCKING.SIMPLETON
It's hate to read your tripe.
You're a condescending asshole.
I really wish you would pull your head out of your ass.
It's hate to be a condescending asshole
with his head buried in his ass.
Something about an asshole having his head up his ass
gives me a chuckle.
you'll remain an inneffectual dumbass

You don't have the poetic flow that Gendanken has. You're a cheap amateur, Wes.

Stop playing the role of the terrorist.

http://graphics.nytimes.com/nytstore/images/products/photos/americanexp/1960/NSAPFS5_large.jpg

Mod: what is the point of that pic?

Oh and by the way, drawing the conclusion that there has been dishonesty from the article above is simply juvenile.

Ooh, I apologize for not spending 10,000 words and twenty sources on it.

The term "WERE ACTUALLY GOING TO" is implied.

If you're going to introduce new material, at least mention the source? It's helpful, unless of course you find successful communication disdainful.

A lie? What constitutes a lie tiassa?

Well, the simplest definition is to intentionally make a statement that is not true with the intended result of deceiving someone.

Thus when we look at the timeline--

• Claim they didn't know
• Suppress report
• Continue to claim they didn't know
• Win election, allow report release
• Report contradicts claim that they didn't know

--we see a clear deception. What we're left with, then, is that if the terrorists don't call the President personally and tell him when and where and how they're going to strike, the President "has no inkling".

Remember, Bush isn't the only one guilty here. Congressional Democrats are calling for an investigation. After all, as Reps. Waxman and Maloney point out, the President "repeatedly made definitive statements claiming absolute ignorance regarding the possibility of terrorists using airplanes in suicide missions". In their letter to the House Committee on Government Reform, the Democratic Representatives listed several:

George W. Bush
• "Had I known that the enemy was going to use airplanes to strike America, to attack us, I would have used every resource, every asset, every power of this government to protect the American people." (March 25, 2004)

• "Had I known that the enemy was going to use airplanes to kill on that fateful morning, I would have done everything in my power to protect the American people." (May 17, 2002)

• "Make no mistake about it, if we had known that the enemy was going to fly airplanes into our buildings, we would have done everything in our power to stop it." (April 5, 2004)

Dr. Condoleeza Rice (as National Security Advisor)
• "I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon, that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile." (May 16, 2002)

• "I said no one could have imagined them taking a plane, slamming it into the Pentagon - I'm paraphrasing now - into the World Trade Center, using planes as a missile. As I said to you in the private session, I probably should have said "I" could not have imagined, because within two days, people started to come to me and say, "Oh, but there were these reports in 1998 and 1999, the intelligence community did look at information about this ... To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Chairman, this kind of analysis about the use of airplanes as weapons actually was never briefed to us. I cannot tell you that there might not have been a report here or a report there that reached somebody in our midst. All that I can tell you is that it was not in the August 6th memo, using planes as a weapon, and I do not remember any reports to us, a kind of strategic warning that planes might be used as a weapon. In fact, there were some reports done in '98 and '99. I think I was - I was certainly not aware of them at the time that I spoke." (April 8, 2004)

Donald Rumsfeld
• "Well I guess I'd begin by saying it's really much ado about nothing. To my knowledge there was no warning, no alert as to suicide attackers in airplanes." (May 16, 2002)

I'll even tip one to Paul Begala, beleaguered host of the waning Crossfire:

She wrote an op-ed article for "The Washington Post," not misquoted, not taken out of context. Here's what she wrote in defense of the Bush administration in "The Washington Post."

"No al Qaeda plan was turned over to the new administration," a short declarative sentence, a lie. Here's what the memo that was released says. "Attached is" -- a memo to Dr. Rice from her counterterrorism chief Richard Clark. "Attached is the year-end 2000 strategy on al Qaeda developed by the last administration to give to you."

And that strategy has been released. It is a 13-page document, the title of which is, "Strategy For Eliminating the Threat From the Jihadist Networks of al Qaeda, Status and Prospects." She lied.

CNN.com (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0502/11/cf.01.html)

Seems pretty clear-cut to me, Wes.

You're a wretched panty-waste. Tell me tiassa, does anyone love you? If so, I feel badly for them... as disspointment is likely about all you'll ever offer in return.

Aww, what's the matter, Wes? Didn't meet your child-abuse quota for the day?

You know who I feel badly for, Wes? Your children. With you as a guide, they don't stand a chance. Pray for a miracle.
_____________________

Notes:

Waxman, Henry and Carolyn B. Maloney. "Reps. Waxman and Maloney Call for Hearings". CommonDreams.org. February 10, 2005. See http://www.commondreams.org/news2005/0210-12.htm

CNN.com. "Transcript: Crossfire". February 11, 2005. See http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0502/11/cf.01.html

If america loved liars, then we wouldn't have impeached clinton. ;)

Asguard, I liked Tiassa's line about Wes's "shoe banging tantrum", and I thought it would be fun to have a picture of the event that inspired that line.

If america loved liars, then we wouldn't have impeached clinton.

Yet ... well, we did elect him twice. With more secure a margin than Bush has won.

That's gotta count for something.

monica broke after his second election.

And?

The reason I ask is that Monica came up as a footnote to Paula. Ms. Jones' attorneys, connected, I believe, to conservative publisher Richard Scaife, argued before the court that Clinton's executive privilege should not be upheld because the reasons for executive privilege didn't apply. To go forward with Ms. Jones' lawsuit, argued her lawyers, would not disrupt the presidency.

That was an intentional lie, as evidenced by the way Monica was treated. Apparently, in order for her to feel legitimately threatened, she needed to attack the menacing, armed men stationed between her and the door. Short of that, it's like discounting a rape accusation: She didn't scream loudly enough, therefore she wanted it.

In other words, for her to feel legitimately threatened, she needed to disqualify herself as crazy.

Then there's the book deal, signed before Linda set up Monica.

Between accused lies pertaining to the Foster suicide, Paula Jones and other allegedly-harassed women (including one accusation alleging the assistance of Arkansas police officers) and, if we go far enough back, the Matalin "Bimbo explosion" bit, it's rather difficult to say the people didn't know, suspect, or have a clue. Anyone who didn't have a clue was, well, clueless.

That Bill was a philanderer was common knowledge. That he would lie about it was widely suspected. But the people still elected him. Twice.

Ooh, I apologize for not spending 10,000 words and twenty sources on it.

It's okay, it would have just been as deluded as the rest of your whining rants.

If you're going to introduce new material, at least mention the source?

Your source sufficed fine, thanks. I didn't question the events. I assert your ability to understand or interpret them is horrifically skewed to support your presumption of hate.

It's helpful, unless of course you find successful communication disdainful.

Successful communication is impossible with you unless it's what you want to hear. Anything said is transformed into the most argumentatively advantageous interpretation you can muster, regardless of how hard you have to twist it to support your unwaivering hate.

Well, the simplest definition is to intentionally make a statement that is not true with the intended result of deceiving someone.

Then it's quite obvious that lies could be advantageous to society. Let's consider religion for instance in terms of its function as a survival tool for humanity. SO many lies, yet society thrives.

Lies get people through their day. You are wrapped up so tight in your own lies you've simply accepted them as fact. To some degree, everyone is. You're an example of an extreme case.

Thus when we look at the timeline--

• Claim they didn't know

Accurate statement. They didn't know.

• Suppress report

Because asshats like you would rant like you are now for years and years, potentially inciting unrest and disrupting society based purely on your paranoid misinterpretation of facts. If this were deemed a lie, I would consider it good for society.

By your definition however, this isn't a lie. Documents that say "we know an attack is coming" don't necessarily mean an attack is coming, especially when if you get 10 of those a year and still haven't been successfully attacked. One might figure that even if an attack was concieved, it would be dropped out of impracticality or stopped before attaining fruition. As such, you would not at all know an attack was coming even if you got a memo stating as such.

• Continue to claim they didn't know

Accurate statement.

• Win election, allow report release

IMO, a misguided attempt to satisfy morons like yourself. Still, no lie.

• Report contradicts claim that they didn't know

You mean, idiots can't understand context. A report claiming "looks like these guys are probably planning an attack" or even "these guys are going to attack" is far from knowing an attack is coming, or that if it did it could possibly be successful.

--we see a clear deception.

Yes, the paranoid delusional types normally do.

What we're left with, then, is that if the terrorists don't call the President personally and tell him when and where and how they're going to strike, the President "has no inkling".

The president almost surely had no inkling that a successful attack could and would be executed. That you expect an all seeing eye is indicative of your lacking mental stability.

Remember, Bush isn't the only one guilty here.

I'm still waiting for you to make a reasonable case to support your assertion of a lie.

Congressional Democrats are calling for an investigation.

I'm sure there are no dishonest intentions there.

After all, as Reps. Waxman and Maloney point out, the President "repeatedly made definitive statements claiming absolute ignorance regarding the possibility of terrorists using airplanes in suicide missions".

I'm sure there is nothing for them to gain by doing that. It's good that independent thinkers like you don't parrot lies perpetrated by dishonest politicians intended to garner political clout.

In their letter to the House Committee on Government Reform, the Democratic Representatives listed several:

George W. Bush
• "Had I known that the enemy was going to use airplanes to strike America, to attack us, I would have used every resource, every asset, every power of this government to protect the American people." (March 25, 2004)

Of course he would have. Duh. It's at a minimum, very plausible. That's like saying "if I knew I was going to die today, I would do anyting I could to avoid it". His statement is simple appeasement. It's true, but it's a non-statement. It's not much more than saying, "I wish I could have stopped that bad shit from happening." Well shit, so does pretty much every decent human being. The thing is, nobody knew it was going to happen until it did... not even the asshats who did it. Sure they planned on it, but they couldn't have known they could pull it off until they did.

• "Had I known that the enemy was going to use airplanes to kill on that fateful morning, I would have done everything in my power to protect the American people." (May 17, 2002)

Same as above.

• "Make no mistake about it, if we had known that the enemy was going to fly airplanes into our buildings, we would have done everything in our power to stop it." (April 5, 2004)

All your effort, no results. You getting my point about disspointment? Hehe, at least I know you aren't.

Dr. Condoleeza Rice (as National Security Advisor)
[indent]• "I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon, that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile." (May 16, 2002)

She was wrong. Nobody could have known they could do it. Anyone could have predicted it.

• "I said no one could have imagined them taking a plane, slamming it into the Pentagon - I'm paraphrasing now - into the World Trade Center, using planes as a missile. As I said to you in the private session, I probably should have said "I" could not have imagined, because within two days, people started to come to me and say, "Oh, but there were these reports in 1998 and 1999, the intelligence community did look at information about this ... To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Chairman, this kind of analysis about the use of airplanes as weapons actually was never briefed to us. I cannot tell you that there might not have been a report here or a report there that reached somebody in our midst. All that I can tell you is that it was not in the August 6th memo, using planes as a weapon, and I do not remember any reports to us, a kind of strategic warning that planes might be used as a weapon. In fact, there were some reports done in '98 and '99. I think I was - I was certainly not aware of them at the time that I spoke." (April 8, 2004)

Same as above. She's more like Clinton though in her ability to carefully choose what she says. He's better at it, but she's not bad. Technically, I don't think she's lying but it's clear she's trying to minimize the political damage. It seems that she see it as part of her job.

Donald Rumsfeld
• "Well I guess I'd begin by saying it's really much ado about nothing. To my knowledge there was no warning, no alert as to suicide attackers in airplanes." (May 16, 2002)

Rumsfeld is an obvious liar, like you. I don't think that necessariliy makes him a bad guy though. Maybe you aren't either. I'll probably never know and always think of you as the pathetic liar I see here now, so desperately clinging to his presumption and hatred.

Seems pretty clear-cut to me, Wes.

Of course it does. Your condition doesn't allow alternatives.

Aww, what's the matter, Wes?

Nothing at all actually. I had a great day, thanks. Got some work done, had a lot of laughs at the office, etc. I was a little tired all day I guess. I wonder if I'll ever learn to go to bed at a decent hour. Hmm. Oh, took the kids to the sixty three diner. They loved it.

Didn't meet your child-abuse quota for the day?

LOL. You need to try to keep your insults relevant to the person you're insulting. Otherwise you expose yourself. I guess it's no difference to you, as your exposure is met only with more fervent denial. If people don't buy it, you just keep it up until they finally give up on you. It's the perfect dimensia. Looks like you're screwed.

You know who I feel badly for, Wes? Your children.

Luckily, the pity of a deranged liar is low on my priority list. I think they'll make it. Hey look, even your concern is a lie.

With you as a guide, they don't stand a chance.

Luckily, everyone who knows us feels oppositely and has expressed it. Strangers have even commented on it. It was so flattering and sweet.

Pray for a miracle.

It's a bit too late for that. I'm already surrounded by them.

Tiassa: I have to agree with Wes as I must every thousand years. Please go do something anatomically impossible with a crate of Florida oranges, one metric ton of uranium yellowcake, and a rabid porcupine.

tiassa,
What killed Clinton is that he lied about Monica. If he had not done so before a grand jury and straight to the American people he would have been fine.

The other actions against him were all dying and he would have blow through it all without too many troubles.

However, the lying screwed him. Not only did he lie, but he said the people that were talking about the Monica thing WERE liars.


Here's a good hint, if you're lying don't call your accusers liars. That never works... it just pisses them off so bad that they go on a crusade.






Frankly I don't care that he had sex with the bimbo and neither do most Americans. But the straight and shameless lying? That removed the good will of the people and the law.

If america loved liars, then we wouldn't have impeached clinton. ;)

so its ok for someone to lie about weapons as a justification for war, yet not ok for to have an affair which is so very common among americans

It's okay, it would have just been as deluded as the rest of your whining rants.

Coming from someone who shows your substandard level of literacy, that's not a troubling assessment.

Your source sufficed fine, thanks.

Obviously, it didn't:

The term "WERE ACTUALLY GOING TO" is implied

If it was one occasion, Wes, I might buy into the interpretational difficulty you are attempting to characterize. However, the historical record suggests otherwise.

Successful communication is impossible with you unless it's what you want to hear.

What I want to hear is a viable point. You seem to be short on those. Conservatives seem to be short on those. What's really sad is that when this is pointed out, conservatives get all huffy, but never start forking over the viable arguments.

Anything said is transformed into the most argumentatively advantageous interpretation you can muster, regardless of how hard you have to twist it to support your unwaivering hate.

I know it seems that way, Wes, but when you sharpen up your reading skills and get over your grudge, you'll see things differently.

Then it's quite obvious that lies could be advantageous to society. Let's consider religion for instance in terms of its function as a survival tool for humanity. SO many lies, yet society thrives.

Compared to "zero", or "nothing", yes. Compared to theoretic potential? We don't know, because a test hasn't been allowed.

Lies get people through their day. You are wrapped up so tight in your own lies you've simply accepted them as fact. To some degree, everyone is. You're an example of an extreme case.

Do you teach your children not to lie? If so, why bother? Why not let them become the perfect, dishonest creature you have become?

Accurate statement. They didn't know.

If they didn't know, they were derelict in their duties. The paper record is there, and more is surfacing as we go along.

Because asshats like you would rant like you are now for years and years, potentially inciting unrest and disrupting society based purely on your paranoid misinterpretation of facts.

Bring some facts of your own to the table. You complain extensively about facts, but you're rather stingy when it comes to providing them.

If this were deemed a lie, I would consider it good for society.

Well, after your endorsement of the Nazis, I shouldn't be surprised.

However, you're making a mistake in your point-by-point. (Neither is that surprising.) Look at the whole process. Let's try it again:

• Make a claim during a campaign season
• Use your authority to uppress information that coincidentally contradicts your claim
• Release information after the election

By your definition however, this isn't a lie. Documents that say "we know an attack is coming" don't necessarily mean an attack is coming, especially when if you get 10 of those a year and still haven't been successfully attacked. One might figure that even if an attack was concieved, it would be dropped out of impracticality or stopped before attaining fruition. As such, you would not at all know an attack was coming even if you got a memo stating as such.

You're confusing the point, Wes.

What we're looking for right now is any indication that when this information was put to the Bush administration, someone asked, "And what do we do about it?"

So far, even that small piece is absent. The Bush administration had plenty of notice that airplanes may be used, even had projections as to how they would be used ("spectacular explosion", &c.). They did nothing, insofar as anyone can tell, to prepare for that possibility. When asked afterward why they hadn't prepared, the administration responded that they had no inkling of an idea that they needed to prepare. History has suggested, quite strongly, Wes, otherwise.

IMO, a misguided attempt to satisfy morons like yourself.

Yep. Morons like me and the 9/11 Commission.

You mean, idiots can't understand context.

No, Wes, you're just making pathetic excuses.

A report claiming "looks like these guys are probably planning an attack" or even "these guys are going to attack" is far from knowing an attack is coming, or that if it did it could possibly be successful.

So what does the President need, Wes? Should Osama call him personally and say, "Tomorrow there will be an action against your nation. We will hijack jets at 8:00 in the morning and crash them into two commercial buildings and the Pentagon"?

Better yet, should he give over the names of his operatives? Then W can know who, when, and where. And then, what, maybe he'll have a reason to act?

Yes, the paranoid delusional types normally do.

A self-righteous crusader like yourself seeing people who disagree with you as paranoid and delusional? Gee, what a surprise.

This reminds me of something we went through not too long ago:


I react when I sense your smarmy, condescending tone. That you would consider it “me making an ass of myself” is only par for the course. Given that it’s obvious to me that your perception regarding me is hideously distorted, do you expect your opinion of my behavior to impact it?

Much like then, you seem to be reacting. Although I wouldn't call the topic post smarmy and condescending. I would call it jagged and brutal.

Much like then, you're making an ass out of yourself, and yes, it's par for the course.

Much like you, if the GOP and conservatives feel my views or the views of other liberals are so askew, they might consider the fact that we're basing our opinions on their words and actions.

Face it, Wes. You're just not smart.

The president almost surely had no inkling that a successful attack could and would be executed. That you expect an all seeing eye is indicative of your lacking mental stability.

That's a pretty pathetic excuse. "I didn't think they could pull it off," isn't a reason for not taking action to prevent the attempt.

What equals successful, anyway? Slamming into a building? Or is a smoking hole in the ground enough?

I'm still waiting for you to make a reasonable case to support your assertion of a lie.

No, you're not. You never were, as evidenced by your celebration of dishonesty.

Should I repeat myself again here?

I'm sure there are no dishonest intentions there.

Find them. Show them. Demonstrate their relevance. After all, I think Waxman's a prig. At least this time he has a valid point. And that's as much chance as anything else.

I'm sure there is nothing for them to gain by doing that. It's good that independent thinkers like you don't parrot lies perpetrated by dishonest politicians intended to garner political clout.

Mere cowardly avoidance on your part.

Of course he would have. Duh. It's at a minimum, very plausible. That's like saying "if I knew I was going to die today, I would do anyting I could to avoid it".

Again, you're confusing the issues.

Imagine for a minute that you run a factory. Your physical plant manager comes to you and says, "We're seeing suggestions of something wrong with the electrical system. It's spiking when it shouldn't be. The problem may be the old wiring in this ancient building. We've known for years that it would eventually have to be replaced, and we're starting to see the signs."

Now then, do you call for a second opinion? Organize a team to find the exact problem? Send people out to patch up the weakest points in the electrical system? Or do you tell your PPM to come back to you when he can tell you exactly when and where in the plant a fire will start?

Is the sprinkler system up to code? Who cares? As far as you're concerned, you have no inkling that there might be a fire in the factory.

Come Monday evening, with thirty dead workers and a smoldering factory, do you tell the grieving families that you had no inkling that there was a fire hazard from the electrical system?

The thing is, nobody knew it was going to happen until it did... not even the asshats who did it. Sure they planned on it, but they couldn't have known they could pull it off until they did.

So, you'd tell your plant manager to not bother you until he could tell you when and where?

Rumsfeld is an obvious liar, like you. I don't think that necessariliy makes him a bad guy though. Maybe you aren't either. I'll probably never know and always think of you as the pathetic liar I see here now, so desperately clinging to his presumption and hatred.

Won't change anything from your original presumptions upon arriving at Sciforums.

But then again, you endorse the Nazis, celebrate dishonesty: it's called projection, Wes.

Your condition doesn't allow alternatives.

Actually, I do allow alternatives. Hope for them, even. But reality has a way of paring them down. There comes a point where hoping for certain alternatives is, as you've shown, downright foolish.

Nothing at all actually.

Then quit with your fucking tantrum.

You need to try to keep your insults relevant to the person you're insulting.

Sorry, I was borrowing one of your tactics in an attempt to bond with you.

Hey look, even your concern is a lie.

No, that was sarcasm, Wes. Then again, you do have problems with literacy.

Of course, you can always disarm that issue by simply admitting that you do it on purpose, in which case you're simply a dick.

It's a bit too late for that. I'm already surrounded by them.

Don't give up hope yet, Wes. If you're as smart as you pretend to be, you'll figure something out.

(See? Being as illiterate as you is rather quite easy.)

• •*•

Did you happen to actually read Waxman and Maloney's letter?

On December 2, 2004, we joined with Rep. Christopher Shays, Chairman of the National Security Subcommittee, and 23 other members in a letter to Attorney General John Ashcroft specifically requesting the 9/11 Commission report at issue. We noted that "there have been a number of calls for its release, to no avail," and we expressed concern that "politics may be playing a role in its release." This specific congressional request was apparently ignored by the Administration. When the staff report was declassified on January 28 and sent to the National Archives, no notice was provided to us.

CommonDreams.org (http://www.commondreams.org/news2005/0210-12.htm)

Rep. Shays, Chairman of the National Security Subcommittee, is a Republican. Apparently, he had no problem signing onto a letter that expressed concern about the possible political exploitation of a major tragedy.

In the meantime, what do we owe apathy when it results in human harm?

• • •

I would suggest that you look carefully at your obsession with hating me, Wes. You've made some pretty suspect assertions:

• To feel that bigotry, dishonesty, and human rights are bad for society makes a person an idiot.

• Bigotry is good for society if all members agree. Example given: Nazis.

• Bigotry is not a choice.

• Human rights abuses are good. Example given: China.

• Lacking advance notice of a specific date, time, and location of a terrorist strike equals having no inkling that such a strike is possible at all.

• • •

Do you realize how much of a cheap hypocrite you are? Consider the following example you offered:

Let's say you're hispanic and I hate you for it. We're in a war together and through my hate for you, I kill you and save the lives of 100,000 people (it turns out you were going to nuke my town).

By your own standard, which condemns my rough treatment of superficial bigotry, you're just as horrible, if not more horrible, than I am. Think about it: You claim a passionate resistance to irrational and disruptive negativity is hatred. What you don't seem to accept is that opposition to irrational disruption is a positive thing. Should we focus on the irrationality of "hate" and "hatred"? You would fault me for rejecting things that hurt people, but your argument contains the same device. You accuse me of irrational hatred, yet you turn around and praise irrational hatred.

Once again, Wes, we see that this isn't about anything but some bizarre obsession you have with me.

Get over it. Seriously. I won't tell you to shut the hell up, but I will ask you to have a point and a sense of decency for once.

so its ok for someone to lie about weapons as a justification for war, yet not ok for to have an affair which is so very common among americans
Of course not... who lied about weapons as a justification for war? :confused:

Karmashock--

If you're not paying attention to something, what credibility do we owe your opinion concerning that subject?

Karmashock--

If you're not paying attention to something, what credibility do we owe your opinion concerning that subject?
Not really, you make two specious assumptions there.

One, that you are a "we."

Two, you assume that you have the authority to expect authentication from anyone else without offering your own in return.



Who the hell exactly do you think you are?


Pissing contests bore me, so if that's where this is going, then save it. Posturing and flexing over the internet are beyond silly.

If you want to discuss something 'intellegently,' then I'm game. Which does not however mean that everyone should agree with you on most things or anything at all. Otherwise, it's just a waste.

Love and peace, Karmashock.

Karmashock you also are Immune to inteligent conversation, notice tissa uses profanity alot less than you.

Not really, you make two specious assumptions there.

One, that you are a "we."

Two, you assume that you have the authority to expect authentication from anyone else without offering your own in return.



Who the hell exactly do you think you are?


.

1. tiassa often, and is now representing the views of this sites majority so it is fair for him to refer to himself as we

2. he thinks he is the longest standing member here and is a model in behaviour to the rest of us

Bro, it's an expletive used to convey force. Despite the fact that you can use other words to greater effect, such words only work when the listener is educated enough to appreciate them. My experience on the Internet thus far has led me to believe that most aren't.


Furthermore, saying I'm "immune" to intelligence conversation is just a flat out lie. Masking a hollow flame in finer words doesn't mean it isn't a flame. It's just a flame with a hat on.

I've demonstrated my ability to tango with anyone that's tried it on this board thus far. I assumed that you at least appreciated a good opposition. However, from this last post it seems you just like to toot your own horn irrespective of what anyone else has to say. How intelligent is that? Why even post? Why not just look at a mirror and agree with yourself. It means about as much.


When you're ready to get back on topic and have an intelligent conversation, then I'm here.


I'll help you out, this was the last post that was on topic:
Of course not... who lied about weapons as a justification for war? :confused:


Love and peace, karmashock.

1. tiassa often, and is now representing the views of this sites majority so it is fair for him to refer to himself as we

2. he thinks he is the longest standing member here and is a model in behaviour to the rest of us
So that gives him the right to take a thread way off topic to explore what credibility a person has on current events?


If you're joking, then I don't get it.

If you're serious, then you're a joke. :rolleyes:

Love and peace, Karmshock.

So that gives him the right to take a thread way off topic to explore what credibility a person has on current events?

because if you are not informed and dont have a clue what you are talknig about then why waste our time by reading and replying

Upon what basis are YOU informed?

See?... It's not a question asked to gain information... it's a question designed to shut people up... this renders it dishonest in nature. Kind of ironic considering the title of the thread.



Again, get back on topic or don't post.

Posted by Karma:


I've demonstrated my ability to tango with anyone that's tried it on this board thus far. I assumed that you at least appreciated a good opposition





LOL how many people have you got on your ignore list now? Those people werent disrespectful to you......they simply mad you look foolish with your arguments so you chose to ignore them.....some tango :rolleyes:

One, that you are a "we."

"We" as in the audience. If you'd like to restrict your posts to only one recipient, try private messages.

Two, you assume that you have the authority to expect authentication from anyone else without offering your own in return.

Actually, I'm just trying to decide if I should take you seriously.

Who the hell exactly do you think you are?

On the one hand, I thought pissing contests bored you. To the other, I'm someone who pays more attention to the issues being discussed here than you do.

For instance, you could respond, "None whatsoever, what I say is what I say."

You could assert, "The credibility of sarcasm."

There are many things you could say, but instead we get you saying pissing contests bore you while you're aiming to win, or at least splatter some people's Cheerios.

I mean, it really is difficult to imagine that someone who's been chiming into political discussions here and there as you have is unaware of the accusations flying back and forth, that the U.S. and British governments overstated the "imminent threat" posed by Iraq, and also that Colin Powell went to the U.N. and presented false evidence in a bid to win support for our Iraqi adventure.

Posturing and flexing as you did is, as you've noted, silly.

So that gives him the right to take a thread way off topic to explore what credibility a person has on current events?

You make two specious assumptions:

(1) That this is about any right or authority
(2) That figuring out whether or not to give any attention to your absurd post is somehow off-topic

The point being if you don't know what you're even talking about in the first place, perhaps you ought to reconsider the value of your two cents.

I'll help you out, this was the last post that was on topic:

You know, for all the posturing, flexing, and pissing that goes on in this topic, no, your post wasn't on-topic. It was cheap, it was stupid, and all you had to do was nod and wink or anything but get all self-righteous about it.

So when you're ready to join the topic and have an intelligent conversation, by all means have your say. Until then, you're only diminishing yourself.

At 28 posts a day, perhaps you may not be devoting enough to reading other people's posts (or, in some cases, the news) and figuring out what the discussion is. Then again, it's only eleven or twelve days into your stay here, and while we're all happy to welcome you here, please do realize that these topics go on sometimes. We're all prone to our outbursts; don't let it wreck your day.

• • •

What killed Clinton is that he lied about Monica. If he had not done so before a grand jury and straight to the American people he would have been fine.

Technically, that's even off-topic. The sidebar of whether or not Clinton's experience reinforces or diminishes the claim that Americans love liars is quite relevant.

Nonetheless, I'm happy to say this in Clinton's defense:

(1) The case should never have gotten to the grand jury; Clinton's opponents lied to the court. They knew damn well they had every intention of sidetracking the presidency.

(2) I expect people to lie about adultery.

(3) Given the ferocity of prosecution, the treatment of Lewinsky by Starr, and the conflicts of interest dogging Starr, I think it's a testament to Americans' poor taste and lust for dishonesty that the issue ever got as far as it did.

(4) The bit with the tie is hilarious.

(5) Parsing "is" was brilliant; there's nothing like meeting absurdity with absurdity.

• • •

've demonstrated my ability to tango with anyone that's tried it on this board thus far.

Something about posturing and flexing goes here.

Love and peace, indeed, Karmashock.

LOL how many people have you got on your ignore list now? Those people werent disrespectful to you......they simply mad you look foolish with your arguments so you chose to ignore them.....some tango :rolleyes:
Actually, they lied. They were just arguing for the sake of arguing and I'm not wasting my time with dishonest people. I so far have something like two people on my ignore list for the above reason.
====================================

"We" as in the audience. If you'd like to restrict your posts to only one recipient, try private messages.
Don't claim authority that isn't yours.

I'll defend my credibility if you will... otherwise, I see no reason to subject myself to such games.

Lets discuss whether Americans like liars.



I think Americans hate liars... you disagree? I think if anything Americans dislike liars more then most other cultures where lying is respected so long as you're good at it.


I think Americans value honesty and integrity. One of Bush's hallmarks is direct plain speech. His speaking voice is bad, but the words of his speeches are good. People prefer speeches that get to the damn point instead of long ones that when you distill say nothing.


Love and peace, Karmashock.

Don't claim authority that isn't yours.

What the hell are you talking about?

I'll defend my credibility if you will... otherwise, I see no reason to subject myself to such games.

Very well: at least my posts have some sense of current events, as compared to yours, which pretend ignorance; my posts attempt to communicate something, while yours are nothing but posturing, flexing, and pissing.

You're up. And it's a simple question. When you admit specific ignorance about a subject, what credibility does anybody (e.g. "we", the other people in the world) owe any opinion that is admittedly uninformed?

Doesn't have to do with authority. Doesn't have to do with anything but the criteria for assessing the value of an ignorant opinion.

I think Americans hate liars... you disagree? I think if anything Americans dislike liars more then most other cultures where lying is respected so long as you're good at it.

The litany of deceptions Americans approve of is huge.

• Sales
• Advertising
• Law enforcement
• Religion
• Politics

From those general categories, there are many facets, but the average American--especially those of the vaunted "middle America" red-state values--can go their whole lives immersed in deception.

What Americans dislike more than most other cultures is when a liar gets caught. And even then, they'll make excuses.

I think Americans value honesty and integrity. One of Bush's hallmarks is direct plain speech. His speaking voice is bad, but the words of his speeches are good. People prefer speeches that get to the damn point instead of long ones that when you distill say nothing.

Bush's "hallmark" direct, plain speech does not equal honesty and integrity.

Think about if you ran business and one of your employees was wrong about their job as often as Bush. Most employers would have fired Bush. But look at it: people have known, and people have suspected, and yet they voted for the sack of shit, anyway. And now it seems he abused his authority in order to protect his office and lie to the American people.

And here you are defending him, using him as an example of how Americans love honesty and integrity.

I guess we shouldn't be surprised:

Love and peace, Karmashock.

I don't mind people signing to their posts. I did it for a long time around here, too. However, "love and peace", coming from you, is a lie.

After all, you don't ever argue, you just presume. Using Bush as an example of honesty and integrity, for instance. After all, that is part of the underlying problem to which the topic post objects. But you don't seem to want to address that, do you? It's easier to just cite Bush as an example of honesty and integrity when that honesty and integrity is part of the central question.

And look at your criteria: the words are good, his speech is blunt. Absent is any consideration of accuracy. He's been wrong, has insisted on that wrong point, and his administration has intentionally given bad information to the world.

Maybe you missed that news cycle? When the administration blamed intelligence and intelligence pointed out that they told the administration the sources were suspect?

• • •

Take job numbers, for instance. Suddenly the GOP, an opponent of big government, is relying on job numbers bolstered by federal employment to demonstrate that the economy is doing better. The question of whether or not, as some news sources have phrased it, all the jobs lost have returned is settled with a raw number, but that number includes federal jobs; without them, there are still thousands of jobs "missing".

This is typical politics. Sleight of rhetoric, minor manipulations to highlight the good points and draw attention away from the bad points. Kind of like retail sales.

Now consider a comparison made by the Bush administration. When asked to denounce the dishonest Swift Vets, the administration and GOP made the issue about 527's, and how to shut them down. This was dishonest rhetoric in that same classic form: you can shut down the 527 loophole, but you have to leave another else you're quashing free speech.

The GOP comparison itself was political in the classic sense, as well. They pointed to MoveOn.org and made to suspect comparisons: job number criticisms and a withdrawn ad made for the advertising contest that compared the methodology of the Bush administration to the Nazis.

The GOP called these things "hate" speech, and pointed out that such things are the problem with 527's.

In the meantime, the Swift Vets continued to push their debunked, discredited, thirty-year grudge. I mean, Larry Thurlow was shown to be a straight-up liar.

And yet people let those lies affect their decisions. They helped keep the dishonest questions alive. They rallied 'round the dishonesty, and their candidate won the day.

So to compare those situations:

• MoveOn.org: Criticizing Bush's economic performance was hate; comparing Bush to the Nazis was hate, according to critics.
• MoveOn.org: An individual submission to a contest by a contestant shows the hatred of the organizers, according to critics.
• MoveOn.org: Neither point was ever considered for its veracity: criticism equals hate, comparison equals hate.
• Swift Vets: Larry Thurlow discredited; former POW's asserting that truth is anti-American; criticisms of Kerry shown to be factually inaccurate and intentionally malicious. GOP won't acknowledge these points, and instead points to MoveOn.org as the problem.

Is the economic opinion subjective? Yes. Is the Nazi comparison severe? Yes. Does the Nazi comparison bear any possibility of truth? Yes, it does. Was the Swift Vet position subjective? No, it claimed objective truth. Did the Swift position bear any possibility of truth? Only until that assertion was shown to be false. Did the Swift position carry credibility after it was shown false? Yes.

Subjective and severe? That's politics. Lying outright, claiming truth a threat to America, and disparaging the entirety of the United States' armed services in the past, present, and future, in order to carry the lie, well, that sort of dishonesty is winning politics.

Americans support the stronger liar. Nixon, Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, Dubya? History suggests quite strongly that Americans support the liars.

wow, heated debate. sorry i missed it. i'm not reading all that or i'd get a headache. i'd just like to state for the record: i'm not a crook. :eek:

Wow..... good post tiassa...!
I will have to spend a few hours digsting all the information..... :eek:
(that is, the lower half of the post.....)

Very well: at least my posts have some sense of current events, as compared to yours, which pretend ignorance; my posts attempt to communicate something, while yours are nothing but posturing, flexing, and pissing.
Example? I think mine are at or above the standard of what most people post here. I think it's no coincidence that the person you're attacking the credibility of is of YOUR opposite political persuasion. If I agreed with most of your nonsense BUT remained as I am, then you'd probably like me if anything...

This much is shallow and obvious. Stop trying cheap tactics and deal with the fact that some people disagree with you. I’m not trying to shut you up… extend the same common courtesy.

Think about if you ran business and one of your employees was wrong about their job as often as Bush.
How many times has he been wrong? And I can think of several professions where a certain amount of error is just taken for granted. Did he willfully lie? There is no proof of that and only those that would like that to be the truth accept it as such.

I don't mind people signing to their posts. I did it for a long time around here, too. However, "love and peace", coming from you, is a lie.
No it isn't. You just don't understand it.

Take job numbers, for instance. Suddenly the GOP, an opponent of big government, is relying on job numbers bolstered by federal employment to demonstrate that the economy is doing better.
If they fire people, then those lost jobs are counted against them. Therefore it is fair to count such jobs gained for them.

If you don't think federal jobs should count, then you won't mind if they're not counted when we slash federal jobs?... get real.

Now consider a comparison made by the Bush administration. When asked to denounce the dishonest Swift Vets, the administration and GOP made the issue about 527's, and how to shut them down. This was dishonest rhetoric in that same classic form: you can shut down the 527 loophole, but you have to leave another else you're quashing free speech.
The campaign legislation was just wrong. I can't believe the SC let it through.

In the meantime, the Swift Vets continued to push their debunked, discredited, thirty-year grudge. I mean, Larry Thurlow was shown to be a straight-up liar.
So has John Kerry... and he was running for president.

Americans support the stronger liar. Nixon, Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, Dubya? History suggests quite strongly that Americans support the liars.
You're just too angry to reason with... :rolleyes:

Chill out and we'll try again.

Love and peace, Karmashock.

Example?

Well, even this topic, which begins with a general outburst, reacts to a comparison between the official statements of our government and what we're finding out the truth is.

Even my responses to Wes' tantrums, a semi-regular occurrence, depends on news sources and a letter written by Congress.

On the other hand, there's you, who shows a lack of awareness: "... who lied about weapons as a justification for war?"

When asked what credibility is owed to an uninformed opinion, namely yours, you chose instead to flex and posture and seek a pissing contest.

Now then, whether or not you agree with my view of history and current events, that view is there for discussion.

Your view, as your own posts have suggested, seems devoid of history and current events.

I think it's no coincidence that the person you're attacking the credibility of is of YOUR opposite political persuasion.

Statistically speaking, yes, you're farther wrong and with greater stake than many of those with whom I share general points of agreement about policy.

However, there is also a matter of facts. That you disagree is not problematic. The basis of your disagreement, as you express it, is indeed problematic.

If I agreed with most of your nonsense BUT remained as I am, then you'd probably like me if anything

Maybe. Maybe not. You're not particularly genuine, and that annoys me more than disagreement. I doubt you could pull off agreement without tipping your hand. You may be dishonest, but you're not very good at it.

This much is shallow and obvious.

Perhaps you should look past the superficial, which is mostly identified in one's outlook by their own perspective and standard.

Stop trying cheap tactics and deal with the fact that some people disagree with you.

Given your conduct in our discussions, I find that a rather hilarious thing for you to suggest.

I’m not trying to shut you up… extend the same common courtesy.

You're not Don Quixote. Stop tilting windmills.

How many times has he been wrong? And I can think of several professions where a certain amount of error is just taken for granted. Did he willfully lie? There is no proof of that and only those that would like that to be the truth accept it as such.

Bush was aware that the yellowcake story was bogus, and he floated it anyway. The administration, facing questions about its pretense for war, asserted that the intelligence was bad. The intelligence people made sure to point out that they told the administration the info was bad. Unverified, unreliable sources, and such. I guess you did miss that news cycle in 2003.

Bush has been wrong about a number of things:

•*WMD in Iraq
• Substantial al Qaeda/Iraq connection
• Imminent danger posed by Saddam Hussein
• Lack of advance notice regarding 9/11

Those mistakes have cost lives. Many lives. These issues transcend "mere politics".

No it isn't. You just don't understand it.

Your posts don't reflect it. Your posts contribute nothing to "love and peace". It's a fine wish, I agree. If wishes were nickels, though ....

If they fire people, then those lost jobs are counted against them. Therefore it is fair to count such jobs gained for them.

If you don't think federal jobs should count, then you won't mind if they're not counted when we slash federal jobs?... get real.

Look, the private sector lost x jobs. Numbers suggest y jobs have returned to the American workplace. Y is greater than x, which some would claim as the return of all lost jobs. However, y includes 800,000+ federal jobs that did not exist at the beginning of Bush's term. Without them x is still greater than y. Ergo, the private sector is still down.

Get real? Get a clue. Stop arguing straw men.

The campaign legislation was just wrong. I can't believe the SC let it through.

Well enough. However, it's beside the point.

So has John Kerry... and he was running for president.

Example?

You're just too angry to reason with...

Chill out and we'll try again

Whatever you say. After all, you've shown your awareness, haven't you?

Get some honesty, and a sense of relevance, Karmashock, and we'll try it again.

Karmashock: People will respect you more if you stop acting like Mr G (tiassa are we sure karm ISNT Mr G?). First thing to do when you have an opinion is to write it down. Then RE WRITE it so it makes sence. Then get some background to see if its surportable. Then post your opinion, including surporting material (sorced ofcorse) preferably not in to big an amount but linking to indepth sorces so that those like tiassa who would like to see the background can