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 Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
"We" as in the audience. If you'd like to restrict your posts to only one recipient, try private messages. Actually, I'm just trying to decide if I should take you seriously. 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. 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. 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. • • • 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. • • • Something about posturing and flexing goes here. Love and peace, indeed, Karmashock.
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. ==================================== 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.
What the hell are you talking about? 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. 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. 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: 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. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Wow..... good post tiassa...! I will have to spend a few hours digsting all the information..... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! (that is, the lower half of the post.....)
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. 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. No it isn't. You just don't understand it. 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. The campaign legislation was just wrong. I can't believe the SC let it through. So has John Kerry... and he was running for president. You're just too angry to reason with... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Chill out and we'll try again. Love and peace, Karmashock.
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. 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. 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. Perhaps you should look past the superficial, which is mostly identified in one's outlook by their own perspective and standard. Given your conduct in our discussions, I find that a rather hilarious thing for you to suggest. You're not Don Quixote. Stop tilting windmills. 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". 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 .... 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. Well enough. However, it's beside the point. Example? 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
