2012 U.S. Elections

2456710

Comments

  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,202member


    That was an unprovoked personal attack with no original content. Well done.
  • brbr Posts: 8,253member
    Since when is a science article a personal attack? The truth personally attacks you? Wait, that would actually explain a lot.
  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,202member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BR View Post


    Since when is a science article a personal attack? The truth personally attacks you? Wait, that would actually explain a lot.





    I'm just so impressed with your clever little digs. Everyone is. We just can't keep up with you, BR.
  • brbr Posts: 8,253member
    I suppose if someone bases his or her worldview on the denial of facts, the truth could be construed as an attack. Just seems a bit of a stretch to use that word though.
  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,202member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BR View Post


    I suppose if someone bases his or her worldview on the denial of facts, the truth could be construed as an attack. Just seems a bit of a stretch to use that word though.



    Be specific. Present some factual data that I routinely deny.
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,264member


    Amazing how articles like that never seem to explain why Xenophobic cultures like Japan routinely score much higher on international tests and comparisons than the U.S.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BR View Post


    Since when is a science article a personal attack? The truth personally attacks you? Wait, that would actually explain a lot.



    The science in that article is clearly pretty questionable and likewise most general reporting on science is also questionable.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post


    WMDs in Iraq? Come on. The intelligence that there were NO WMDs in Iraq had been public domain for years. The ONLY contrary source was "Curveball", a well-known opportunist, liar and fraud, and his "information" was the "justification" for the Bush Administration's obsession to invade and occupy that country.



    So the Bush "obsession" outweighed every check and balance in the entire Constitution and also somehow made all the brilliant people in the opposition party vote completely against their own wishes.



    Quote:

    The spineless shills that call themselves "Democrats" - Hillary Clinton, Biden, Kerry, Clarke etc. etc. - also KNEW there were no WMDs, but said NOTHING. Why? Because in the wake of 9/11's shock and awe effect on the US public, everyone in DC was too scared to say what needed to be said.. They did not have the FREEDOM to represent the electorate, or their own common sense.



    They knew this and apparently so does Obama now so why, 10 years after 9/11 when the entire Republican Party had been purged from Federal power for 4 years in the Congress and will have been away from the Presidency for four years, oh and btw, the evil, influential but apparently idiotic Bush hasn't even been around for four years, why after all that are we will at war and sticking our nose all over the Middle East?



    Quote:

    The only people who were patriotic enough to call the traitors and weasels in Washington DC, were the legions of protesters, ad hominem'ed as "morans" by the Fox set, who came out to warn people about the upcoming disaster, and the needless loss of life on both sides, including 4500 dead and 10s of thousands of maimed US troops, sent there to fight for a multi trillion scam.



    Yes all the people who have no power, no accountability and no say in the matter seem to always act one way and all the people who are the opposite of that, regardless of party, seem to act in the opposite manner. Strange isn't it?

    Quote:

    To lie to Congress to start a war is treason. The penalty for treason can be the death penalty. I don't support the death penalty as a rule (on account of the possibility of executing an innocent person), but in this case, there are no innocents. Those who engineered that war are guilty, and they should pay the ultimate penalty. Yes, they should have a fair trial in a real US court of law, which is more than what can be said for those unfortunate people in Gitmo... none of whom have been charged with anything.



    This sounds like a death threat on Obama. You really should be more careful with your accusations.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jimmac View Post


    That was a discussion. Just not one you agreed with. And no I'm not going away. As far the WMD it's a prime example right here of you ignoring the obvious. Something important ( especially given your signature ) to continue to point out.



    You should still be ashamed of your "cycles" and "generation of Democratic control" claims. They were so horribly off that you shouldn't be credible on pretty much anything ever again. I can still remember the "Republicans aren't even a major party any more and will be confined to the South while Democrats rule the roost for a generation" nonsense.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BR View Post


    I suppose if someone bases his or her worldview on the denial of facts, the truth could be construed as an attack. Just seems a bit of a stretch to use that word though.



    You have the facts you deny all the time pointed out to you. You're in denial by placing everything you don't want to hear on IGNORE.
  • brbr Posts: 8,253member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    Be specific. Present some factual data that I routinely deny.



    We went to war in Iraq on false pretenses.
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,264member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BR View Post


    We went to war in Iraq on false pretenses.



    Yes. Bush lied. All the messiah's and super intelligent people who bought it sent people off to die and are still doing the same thing a decade later.



    I suppose if someone bases his or her worldview on the denial of facts, the truth could be construed as an attack.
  • marvfoxmarvfox Posts: 2,275member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    Comes down to two things. First, Gingrich is Southern. Second, SC is not rich, and those who are generally not rich are starting to distrust Romney.



    Florida, with all the retirees being a major voting block, and many not being Southern in origin, may have an entirely different outcome. We shall see.



    But then going back North and back West, Newt is going to have his ass handed to him.



    Romney will not win this election because he is plastic and cares only about his money and power and who he can screw more along the way. None of them are really electable candidates.
  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,202member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BR View Post


    We went to war in Iraq on false pretenses.



    That's not a fact, it's an opinion.
  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,202member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by marvfox View Post


    Romney will not win this election because he is plastic and cares only about his money and power and who he can screw more along the way. None of them are really electable candidates.



  • brbr Posts: 8,253member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    That's not a fact, it's an opinion.



    The justification for war changed several times throughout the Bush Administration. That's absolutely a fact.
  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,202member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BR View Post


    The justification for war changed several times throughout the Bush Administration. That's absolutely a fact.



    I'm afraid it's just not that simple, BR. There were multiple justifications offered from the outset. These included:



    1) WMD



    2) The risk that Saddam might hand off WMD to a terrorist network of some sort.



    3) Iraq's clear violation of the 1991 ceasefire on hundreds of occasions.



    4) Iraq's clear non-compliance with U.N. resolutions over 12 years, as well as its non-compliance with resolution 1441, requiring them to verifiably disarm.



    5) Saddam's attempt to assassinate a former U.S. President.





    Now, was WMD the primary focus? Yes. That doesn't mean there were "shifting justifications" for the war.
  • brbr Posts: 8,253member
    The justifications presented to the American people did change. There was no outline of all these things upon going to war repeated daily from the Whitehouse. We were just told over and over again that Iraq posed a direct threat to the United States. Which was bullshit. And when that proved to be bullshit, we got lots of other reasons tossed at us one at a time.



    Furthermore, the juxtaposition of Iraq and 9/11 was misleading at the very least and calculatingly deceitful at worst. By the way, to juxtapose means to place two things close together, often so you can compare or contrast them. Couple that with what Richard Clarke revealed about Bush wanting to invade Iraq right after 9/11--yeah, we were definitely mislead.
  • marvfoxmarvfox Posts: 2,275member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post






    What does this mean????
  • tontontonton Posts: 14,063member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    I'm afraid it's just not that simple, BR. There were multiple justifications offered from the outset. These included:



    1) WMD <-- This was a lie so obvious that we had a thread about it on these very boards.



    2) The risk that Saddam might hand off WMD to a terrorist network of some sort. <-- Also an obvious lie



    > 3) Iraq's clear violation of the 1991 ceasefire on hundreds of occasions.

    >

    > 4) Iraq's clear non-compliance with U.N. resolutions over 12 years, as well as its non-compliance

    > with resolution 1441, requiring them to verifiably disarm.



    5) Saddam's attempt to assassinate a former U.S. President. <-- This was manufactured bullshit.




    As to the above #3 and #4, when exactly do we start bombing the fuck out of Israel for the thousands of ceasefire violations and UN violations they're guilty of?
  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,202member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BR View Post


    The justifications presented to the American people did change. There was no outline of all these things upon going to war repeated daily from the Whitehouse. We were just told over and over again that Iraq posed a direct threat to the United States. Which was bullshit. And when that proved to be bullshit, we got lots of other reasons tossed at us one at a time.



    I disagree with that. Iraq was a threat, just not a conventional military one. We saw the possibility of that threat after 9/11 occurred.



    Quote:



    Furthermore, the juxtaposition of Iraq and 9/11 was misleading at the very least and calculatingly deceitful at worst. By the way, to juxtapose means to place two things close together, often so you can compare or contrast them. Couple that with what Richard Clarke revealed about Bush wanting to invade Iraq right after 9/11--yeah, we were definitely mislead.



    Richard Clarke is a blowhard who wrote a book because he didn't get promoted. As for juxtaposition, the problem is a lot of that is your perception. I, for one, never heard the admin link Saddam to 9/11. In fact, it was just the opposite. It was stated many times that Saddam wasn't behind the attacks.



    You're free to disagree, but understand that disagreement is really just a difference of opinion, not "denial of facts."
  • sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    I'm afraid it's just not that simple, BR. There were multiple justifications offered from the outset. These included:



    1) WMD



    What WMDs? Where were they found, and what were they? Please tell us all.



    How many times does it have to be said that the Bush Administration (alongside the US intelligence community) KNEW FULL WELL that there were no WMDs in Iraq, and had not been since 1991. The information was public domain. They agreed that "Iraq's WMDs" was the way to sell the war to an already shocked-and-awed US public; all the other reasons cited in meetings were rejected as unworkable... including "protecting Israel's security" as mentioned at that UV speech by Philip Zelikow in September 2002, some 7 months before the invasion started.



    Quote:

    2) The risk that Saddam might hand off WMD to a terrorist network of some sort.



    Oh right. This is clearly garbage. The senior personnel in the Bush Administration, especially Rumsfeld, Armitage, Cheney et al. *knew* Saddam Hussein on a personal basis from the Reagan days. They were buddybuddy when the Reagan Administration supported Saddam Hussein including chemical and biological and conventional weapons, intelligence, logistics, diplomatic support, in their war against Iran, which had done nothing, except "have the wrong government". This was the time when Saddam Hussein was doing his worst atrocities... ie with United States support.



    But, this is nothing new... the US Government (largely via its intelligence services) has a decades-long track record in overthrowing democracies all over the world, and enabling thugs all over the world.



    Saddam Hussein was a power crazed egomaniac. He was also a secularist, being only nominally Muslim.. and referred to Islamists as "zealots" and "insane".The *last* thing he would ever do, would be to endanger his position by delegating some of that power to characters who might just assassinate him when his head was turned the other way. And Islamic militant leaders hated Saddam Hussein, typically referring to him as "an infidel".



    Quote:

    3) Iraq's clear violation of the 1991 ceasefire on hundreds of occasions.



    There was never a true ceasefire in 1991. Targets all over Iraq - not limited to the 'no fly zone' were fair game from 1991 onwards.



    Quote:

    4) Iraq's clear non-compliance with U.N. resolutions over 12 years, as well as its non-compliance with resolution 1441, requiring them to verifiably disarm.



    Good lord! A conservative suddenly starts quoting UNSC resolutions. Hey, since when were the UN considered so goddamned important? The organization quoted by so many right wingers as "trying to undermine US Sovereignty?" And while on the topic, Israel have been in violation of more UNSC Resolutions than many people have had hot dinners. At the last count, 52 violations of specific UNSC Resolutions. I guess pointing out such flagrant duplicity makes me a "Jew hater" or "Holocaust Denier"? If there was ever a rogue state.....





    I suppose you believe all the claptrap cooked up by the Kuwatis.. such as the stuff, broadcast at nauseam by the US corporate weasel-media about the "Iraqi troops pulling Kuwaiti babies out of incubators and letting them die on the cold hospital floor". People still believe this stuff... Had to quote a liberal media source there, because the conservative-oriented mainstream press has never issued corrections and rebuttals.





    Quote:

    Now, was WMD the primary focus? Yes.



    As I mentioned before, that is the angle that the Bush team selected: it was the only one that achieved full consensus, and because it injected fear and terror into the minds of a large segment of the American public, right on the back of 9/11. The mass-broadcast lies about Iraq's "WMDs" and their "ability to strike at 45 minutes notice", was a clear example of state and media sponsored 2nd degree terrorism.



    Quote:

    That doesn't mean there were "shifting justifications" for the war.



    The Bush team decided to go to war against Iraq (and Afghanistan, and up to 7 other mid east nations) in January 2001, some 8 months prior to 9/11. It was a done deal, WMDs or no WMDs.
  • sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    I disagree with that. Iraq was a threat, just not a conventional military one. We saw the possibility of that threat after 9/11 occurred.







    Richard Clarke is a blowhard who wrote a book because he didn't get promoted. As for juxtaposition, the problem is a lot of that is your perception. I, for one, never heard the admin link Saddam to 9/11. In fact, it was just the opposite. It was stated many times that Saddam wasn't behind the attacks.



    Oh really? How quickly you forget...



    The "link" between Iraq and 9/11 was deliberately fabricated by the White House. Then they got called on it.. and of course the mainstream corporate weasel-media ignored never followed it up. Imagine if a liberal had done an equivalent act in misleading the nation in order to justify an agenda... Oh my.



    CHENEY



    CHENEY



    BUSH



    WOLFOWITZ



    PERLE



    RICE



    POWELL



    FEITH



    RUMSFELD



    All they had to do was mentioin Iraq and 9/11 in the same sentence, and the shocked and awed, gullible public got predictably sheepled.



    Quote:

    You're free to disagree, but understand that disagreement is really just a difference of opinion, not "denial of facts."



    Who is in denial of the facts?
  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    Also, the fact that we can now wage war without an official declaration of war from the Congress (who are supposed to represent the people) is disturbing.



    "Any government, that can, for a day, enforce its own laws, without appealing to the people, (or to a tribunal fairly representing the people,) for their consent, is, in theory, an absolute government, irresponsible to the people, and can perpetuate its power at pleasure."

    —\t Lysander Spooner
Sign In or Register to comment.