According to what passes for your logic, to be part of the set 'everyone' you cannot also be part of the set 'liberal.'
If that is not the case, and everyone means everyone (nb: this is how most people, for example English teachers would use the word 'everyone'), then I can demonstrate that you are talking shit (again).
I am reading these posts, you see, and all I see is someone totally incapable of perspective or comprehension of a different world view (you) and a lot of people smarter then you (all the people you diss above) in a hopeless task of getting through your thick skull.
If I did just jump into line with your thinking (I am 'everyone' right?) then I would also think that the 'liberals' were in the wrong. I don't. So you're wrong.
Again.
Another favorite liberal game: Semantics.
I wasn't using the word "everyone" in a literal sense...and you know it. I'll ignore the cheap attack on my intellect for now.
Quote:
...and a lot of people smarter then you (all the people you diss above) in a hopeless task of getting through your thick skull.
I wasn't using the word "everyone" in a literal sense...and you know it. I'll ignore the cheap attack on my intellect for now.
I think you mean .."T-H-A-N you".
You used the word because to you, the fact that anyone should deviate from your world view is self-evidently ludicrous. We use words for a reason. I cannot see how you could disagree with this interpretation.
Hence, not word games.
I point this out because that kind of thinking leads to fascism or Stalinism (oooh, used the -ism word, insert stock response without thinking about it here).
Oh, thanks for the tip. I'm always getting that wrong!
Edit: and back on 'topic,' where are those WMD?
W M Deeeeeeeee-eeeeeeeeeeee!
I guess we don't need a thread to wonder about what conservatives would do if no WMD is found. We can see: start talking about WMD 'programmes' and then start saying 'Well it was worth it even if we don't find any. Shut up, America.'
You used the word because to you, the fact that anyone should deviate from your world view is self-evidently ludicrous. I cannot see how you could disagree with this interpretation.
Hence, not word games.
I point this out because that kind of thinking leads to fascism or Stalinism (oooh, used the -ism word, insert stock response without thinking about it here).
Oh, thanks for the tip. I'm always getting that wrong!
Ooooh...fascisim! Stalinism! Original! At least you caught it.
I know there are different world views out there. Regardless, anyone other than the people I referenced can see that those folks have no posted any rebuttal, short of calling me a nut.
I am more than aware of other views. I know you will probably take a "noser" with your drink after reading this, but I frequently seek out the liberal persective on news events, just to see what the full gammut (sp?) of coverage. That being said, I do have my views, which I think are well-supported and thought out. I've changed my mind on various things in the past and I'm sure I will again.
but by all means, call anyone with strong views a fascist.
segovius:
Quote:
What sense were you using it in then ? The sense of 'only SDW' maybe ?
Another favourite rightoid tactic - twist any word to mean whatever you decide it to mean at any given point even if covering polar opposites within the space of nanoseconds.
That way you are never wrong - the thing right-wingnuts fear most.
I am sometimes wrong just as everyone is. You know what I meant. You last statement is really funny. Liberals have been wrong on too many things to count, from the their pro-Soviet stance during the cold war, to tax cuts, to a strong military, to Reagan being a war monger to the Great Society and subsequent multi-trillion dollar social programs.....they've been wrong on nearly everything. And do you think liberals admit any of this? No. Not once. Even now, after many accused Soviet agents have been proven of ....GASP!.... being spies, liberals cannot admit they were wrong about them at the time. Alger Hiss, anyone?
It's interesting that you two have avoided the original premise: No contrary evidence has been presented. That's the only relevant point here...semantics aside.
SDW, to deviate and be serious for a moment, one thing puzzles me:
why in your peculiar weltanschauung are there just two camps: yours and 'the liberals' ?
You remind me of the character 'Ralph' in that cartoon when we were kids (Wait till your father gets home ?) always muttering about 'reds' and peeping furtively over the garden fence, constantly waiting for the advance raiding party that never came. Because it didn't exist.
Is it not at all possible to you that anyone who disagrees with you might just possibly fall into other camps than 'liberal' or is it just metaphorical like your 'everything' ?
Maybe we need a new star trek episode where isntead of the left side black right side white guy fighting the right side black left side white guy we have the front half donkey back half elephant fighting the front half elephant back half donkey.
SDW, to deviate and be serious for a moment, one thing puzzles me:
why in your peculiar weltanschauung are there just two camps: yours and 'the liberals' ?
You remind me of the character 'Ralph' in that cartoon when we were kids (Wait till your father gets home ?) always muttering about 'reds' and peeping furtively over the garden fence, constantly waiting for the advance raiding party that never came. Because it didn't exist.
Is it not at all possible to you that anyone who disagrees with you might just possibly fall into other camps than 'liberal' or is it just metaphorical like your 'everything' ?
This is what I meant by he's so polarized he can't see any middle ground. It's sad.
I've been asking this for awhile and wondering about it as well. I haven't heard much feedback on it.
With all the recent Democratic criticism and the "Where are the Weapons" echo chamber, what happens if we find large quantities of Chemcial or Biological Weapons? Or say, an underground biowweapons plant? Or something worse...like weapons grade plutonium?
Almost all of the Democratic Presidential candidates have attacked Bush on this issue. The front runner, Kerry (joined by Gephardt) is now attacking Bush as well, essentially calling him a liar. Dean has said the thing is starting to look like Watergate. It's not going away, as jimmac says. But, that might not be a good thing for the Democratic Party.
So, it occurs to me that if Bush is proven right as he says he will be, things are going to be very, very bad for the Democratic candidate. It has also occurred to me, as I'm sure it has to many here, that the entire WMD thing may just indeed be a politcal trap of sorts set by the President. If he is called a liar enough, and then is poven right, it will be devastating to the opposition. More importantly, it will affect the 2004 Congressional elections as well. Bush will look invincible if WMD is found at this point...perhaps even more so than he would have if it became public within days of the war.
Don't forget that Bush, by his own statement, understands "political capital". He is far more cunning and savy than his opposition gives him credit for. If WMD are found in substantial quantity...he'll use it at the right time.
Thoughts? And please, let's ATTEMPT to stay on topic.
Not so long ago, (4 weeks?) Bush pronounced that "the weapons of mass destruction have been found". He was referring of course to those two flatbed trucks equipped with metal tanks and pipes etc (although intelligence has determined the mostly likely purpose of those was the manufacture of hydrogen). Bush's pronouncement was carried widely on the newsmedia to the extent that in polls taken shortly afterwards around 3 in 4 Americans polled believed that "weapons of mass destruction have already been found in Iraq".
Re. large quantities of banned weapons: If the inspectors couldn't find them in the 12 years since 1991, and the huge US/UK military presence over there can't find them either, then its looking more and more likely that Scott Ritter was correct when he said that Iraq's WMD program was abandoned in 1991 when the Iraqis destroyed the majority of their chem and bio weapons even before the inspection teams arrived there. The longer it goes on that nothing is found, a sudden find in the future of a large cache of WMDs in Iraq wouild look decidely suspect.
Comments
Originally posted by Harald
According to what passes for your logic, to be part of the set 'everyone' you cannot also be part of the set 'liberal.'
If that is not the case, and everyone means everyone (nb: this is how most people, for example English teachers would use the word 'everyone'), then I can demonstrate that you are talking shit (again).
I am reading these posts, you see, and all I see is someone totally incapable of perspective or comprehension of a different world view (you) and a lot of people smarter then you (all the people you diss above) in a hopeless task of getting through your thick skull.
If I did just jump into line with your thinking (I am 'everyone' right?) then I would also think that the 'liberals' were in the wrong. I don't. So you're wrong.
Again.
Another favorite liberal game: Semantics.
I wasn't using the word "everyone" in a literal sense...and you know it. I'll ignore the cheap attack on my intellect for now.
...and a lot of people smarter then you (all the people you diss above) in a hopeless task of getting through your thick skull.
I think you mean .."T-H-A-N you".
Originally posted by SDW2001
Another favorite liberal game: Semantics.
I wasn't using the word "everyone" in a literal sense...and you know it. I'll ignore the cheap attack on my intellect for now.
I think you mean .."T-H-A-N you".
You used the word because to you, the fact that anyone should deviate from your world view is self-evidently ludicrous. We use words for a reason. I cannot see how you could disagree with this interpretation.
Hence, not word games.
I point this out because that kind of thinking leads to fascism or Stalinism (oooh, used the -ism word, insert stock response without thinking about it here).
Oh, thanks for the tip. I'm always getting that wrong!
Edit: and back on 'topic,' where are those WMD?
W M Deeeeeeeee-eeeeeeeeeeee!
I guess we don't need a thread to wonder about what conservatives would do if no WMD is found. We can see: start talking about WMD 'programmes' and then start saying 'Well it was worth it even if we don't find any. Shut up, America.'
What actually did happen with all those WoMDs we were going to find
Originally posted by Harald
You used the word because to you, the fact that anyone should deviate from your world view is self-evidently ludicrous. I cannot see how you could disagree with this interpretation.
Hence, not word games.
I point this out because that kind of thinking leads to fascism or Stalinism (oooh, used the -ism word, insert stock response without thinking about it here).
Oh, thanks for the tip. I'm always getting that wrong!
Ooooh...fascisim! Stalinism! Original! At least you caught it.
I know there are different world views out there. Regardless, anyone other than the people I referenced can see that those folks have no posted any rebuttal, short of calling me a nut.
I am more than aware of other views. I know you will probably take a "noser" with your drink after reading this, but I frequently seek out the liberal persective on news events, just to see what the full gammut (sp?) of coverage. That being said, I do have my views, which I think are well-supported and thought out. I've changed my mind on various things in the past and I'm sure I will again.
but by all means, call anyone with strong views a fascist.
segovius:
What sense were you using it in then ? The sense of 'only SDW' maybe ?
Another favourite rightoid tactic - twist any word to mean whatever you decide it to mean at any given point even if covering polar opposites within the space of nanoseconds.
That way you are never wrong - the thing right-wingnuts fear most.
I am sometimes wrong just as everyone is. You know what I meant. You last statement is really funny. Liberals have been wrong on too many things to count, from the their pro-Soviet stance during the cold war, to tax cuts, to a strong military, to Reagan being a war monger to the Great Society and subsequent multi-trillion dollar social programs.....they've been wrong on nearly everything. And do you think liberals admit any of this? No. Not once. Even now, after many accused Soviet agents have been proven of ....GASP!.... being spies, liberals cannot admit they were wrong about them at the time. Alger Hiss, anyone?
It's interesting that you two have avoided the original premise: No contrary evidence has been presented. That's the only relevant point here...semantics aside.
Originally posted by segovius
SDW, to deviate and be serious for a moment, one thing puzzles me:
why in your peculiar weltanschauung are there just two camps: yours and 'the liberals' ?
You remind me of the character 'Ralph' in that cartoon when we were kids (Wait till your father gets home ?) always muttering about 'reds' and peeping furtively over the garden fence, constantly waiting for the advance raiding party that never came. Because it didn't exist.
Is it not at all possible to you that anyone who disagrees with you might just possibly fall into other camps than 'liberal' or is it just metaphorical like your 'everything' ?
Maybe we need a new star trek episode where isntead of the left side black right side white guy fighting the right side black left side white guy we have the front half donkey back half elephant fighting the front half elephant back half donkey.
Maybe not.
Originally posted by segovius
SDW, to deviate and be serious for a moment, one thing puzzles me:
why in your peculiar weltanschauung are there just two camps: yours and 'the liberals' ?
You remind me of the character 'Ralph' in that cartoon when we were kids (Wait till your father gets home ?) always muttering about 'reds' and peeping furtively over the garden fence, constantly waiting for the advance raiding party that never came. Because it didn't exist.
Is it not at all possible to you that anyone who disagrees with you might just possibly fall into other camps than 'liberal' or is it just metaphorical like your 'everything' ?
This is what I meant by he's so polarized he can't see any middle ground. It's sad.
Originally posted by SDW2001
I've been asking this for awhile and wondering about it as well. I haven't heard much feedback on it.
With all the recent Democratic criticism and the "Where are the Weapons" echo chamber, what happens if we find large quantities of Chemcial or Biological Weapons? Or say, an underground biowweapons plant? Or something worse...like weapons grade plutonium?
Almost all of the Democratic Presidential candidates have attacked Bush on this issue. The front runner, Kerry (joined by Gephardt) is now attacking Bush as well, essentially calling him a liar. Dean has said the thing is starting to look like Watergate. It's not going away, as jimmac says. But, that might not be a good thing for the Democratic Party.
So, it occurs to me that if Bush is proven right as he says he will be, things are going to be very, very bad for the Democratic candidate. It has also occurred to me, as I'm sure it has to many here, that the entire WMD thing may just indeed be a politcal trap of sorts set by the President. If he is called a liar enough, and then is poven right, it will be devastating to the opposition. More importantly, it will affect the 2004 Congressional elections as well. Bush will look invincible if WMD is found at this point...perhaps even more so than he would have if it became public within days of the war.
Don't forget that Bush, by his own statement, understands "political capital". He is far more cunning and savy than his opposition gives him credit for. If WMD are found in substantial quantity...he'll use it at the right time.
Thoughts? And please, let's ATTEMPT to stay on topic.
Not so long ago, (4 weeks?) Bush pronounced that "the weapons of mass destruction have been found". He was referring of course to those two flatbed trucks equipped with metal tanks and pipes etc (although intelligence has determined the mostly likely purpose of those was the manufacture of hydrogen). Bush's pronouncement was carried widely on the newsmedia to the extent that in polls taken shortly afterwards around 3 in 4 Americans polled believed that "weapons of mass destruction have already been found in Iraq".
Re. large quantities of banned weapons: If the inspectors couldn't find them in the 12 years since 1991, and the huge US/UK military presence over there can't find them either, then its looking more and more likely that Scott Ritter was correct when he said that Iraq's WMD program was abandoned in 1991 when the Iraqis destroyed the majority of their chem and bio weapons even before the inspection teams arrived there. The longer it goes on that nothing is found, a sudden find in the future of a large cache of WMDs in Iraq wouild look decidely suspect.