Enlighten us all. Do you 'meen' to tell me that you can see on the TV who the enemy really is? It's 'reely' that black and white to you? You're that 'cleer' about such a difficult and complex choice?
Um... Yes.
Those people that cheered and often continue to cheer the death of innocent people are the enemy to peace loving people everywhere. Complexity exists only if you disregard certain basic truths in favor of rationalization.
Are you really so morally unclear that you can't see that?
Those people that cheered and often continue to cheer the death of innocent people are the enemy to peace loving people everywhere. Complexity exists only if you disregard certain basic truths in favor of rationalization.
Are you really so morally unclear that you can't see that?
But you have no idea who those people are. You can't support the bombing of a country because of something you saw on CNN.
Baute, head of the IAEA inspection team, said "it would have been "virtually impossible" for Iraq to revive a nuclear bomb program with equipment recently dug up from a Baghdad backyard." So you can shut up about it now. Thanks.
Will you look at that. Here in just this very thread we went from
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
I fault people in this issue for jumping to conclusions before all of the evidence is in.
all the way to:
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
Enlighten us all. Do you 'meen' to tell me that you can see on the TV who the enemy really is? It's 'reely' that black and white to you? You're that 'cleer' about such a difficult and complex choice?
But you have no idea who those people are. You can't support the bombing of a country because of something you saw on CNN.
So you know, I rarely watch CNN. But I remember seeing a live shot from somewhere there. The reporter was afraid for his life and they were burning American flags, He stated "Live from {the gaza strip. I think) back yo you..."
I suppose I should not believe that. it was a wag the dog type thing, right?
I have found in modern politics that liberals, in particular often accuse others of things that they are guilty of. Thus putting their opponents on the defensive. I find most of your post fits that modus operandi.
So, um, I secretly believe the Bush rationalization for the invasion of Iraq?
It's actually the chicken-hawks who have the preponderance of evidence on their side? You, know, the vast store houses of WOMDs that wipe the smirk off the liberal faces?
It's really me that won't acknowledge the proof that's in right in front of my face? Feel free to show me your evidence, please don't waste my time with more discredited bullshit.
Wait, I know, wanting America's resources to be spent on actual threats makes me a fascist!
Tiz called 'turnspeak'. Has an interesting history behind it. Was extensively used by the the Nazis. I encourage you to read up on it. You'll find some very interesting links to Arab and leftists propaganda.
Right. It's all just spin. There is no such thing as reality. "arab and lefist propaganda". Christ.
So, um, I secretly believe the Bush rationalization for the invasion of Iraq?
It's actually the chicken-hawks who have the preponderance of evidence on their side? You, know, the vast store houses of WOMDs that wipe the smirk off the liberal faces?
It's really me that won't acknowledge the proof that's in right in front of my face? Feel free to show me your evidence, please don't waste my time with more discredited bullshit.
Wait, I know, wanting America's resources to be spent on actual threats makes me a fascist!
I regret that no reasonable form of communication is possible between us.
No you don't. You've done everything in your power to bury the thread topic in a hail of non sequiturs, irrelevent half truths, semantic nit-picking, etc.
At the end of the day reality is still sitting there. No WOMD, no nukes, no credible ties to al Qaeda, no threat to the US. All the micro-parsing and source impugning and fuzzying up of cause and effect doesn't change that.
You know, this thread once again confirms the most important thing to bear in mind when dealing with the new breed of right wing triumphalist:
they have no shame.
People of good will, wishing the best for their country, desiring security and an effective response to the threat of terrorism, would be obliged to admit that the now starkly revealed miscalculations, misrepresentations, and deliberately misleading rhetoric surrounding the invasion of Iraq are disturbing evidence that the administration's "war on terror" lacks focus, cohesion, and direction. At least.
People who genuinely want a safer world, and who one would assume would believe that this cause is best served by clarity of purpose and a scrupulous caution in identifying actual threats, would be obliged to acknowledge the painfully obvious: that having sold the American people on an unprecedented pre-emptive invasion based on the specter of a direct, near term threat to the United States, a threat that was said to have included a rush to nuclear capacity, strong, substantive links to al Qaeda, vast arsenals of the most destructive sort of weaponry, and even bizarre scare stories like the talk of unmanned drones that were purported to have the range to reach north america; that having portrayed the threat in the starkest terms imaginable, subsequent events have failed to substantiate any of the stated reasons for going to war.
But not a word of remorse. Instead, we get lame post hoc posturing around "world better place without Saddam", typical internet parsing of micro-meaning, complete with line by line demands for links and proof, endless stirring of a disredited pot of rumors, forgeries and urban legends, half-assed assertions of "stuff that kinda resembles some of the things Bush claimed", and the usual ad hominem beligerance in re "liberals" (as well as third grade formulations that amount to: "well, if you love saddam so much, why don't you marry him?).
Read through the thread again. Notice that virually all the actual information is coming from people who opposed the war. Notice how nearly all the rebuttals (those that aren't just inane) traffic in the same kind of hazy chain of non sequiturs and dismissal of dissent as some kind of lethal character defect that characterized the run-up to war.
So I put it to our little stable of chicken-hawks: do you even care about America anymore, or are you so invested in denying "liberals" a "win" that you simply can't acknowledge the truth? That's right, I'm impugning your patriotism. I'm questioning your loyalities.
I want an America that is safer. I want an America whose freedoms stand as a rebuttal to tyrany. Where justice is a matter of practice, not sloganeering, and whose virutes are played out in her gravest actions.
You want an America where "liberals" are discredited and the Republican party holds perpetual sway under the mighty leader who answers to no one. Where pointing out error is considered "irrational hatred". Where the end, no matter how vaguely portayed, always justifies the means. Where power trumps justice.
No you don't. You've done everything in your power to bury the thread topic in a hail of non sequiturs, irrelevent half truths, semantic nit-picking, etc.
At the end of the day reality is still sitting there. No WOMD, no nukes, no credible ties to al Qaeda, no threat to the US. All the micro-parsing and source impugning and fuzzying up of cause and effect doesn't change that.
Will it make you happy if I declare "You Win"? You are a winner. Is that what you guys need. i will make you a certificate to say you are a winner.
This reminds me of when I was a little kid and got picked on by a group of bullies. I was but a small runt at the time, a little scrappy, but small for my age. Each of those bullies knew that one on one they may (and did) get hurt. So they would come at me in threes and fours. That way they would be virtually guaranteed a win. But, then as in now I would not back down. Not that you guys are bullies, but the tactic seems the same. It seems a big coinki dinky that all of you are piling on all at once. And the personal attack from all of you, are a bit over the edge IMO.
So you know, I rarely watch CNN. But I remember seeing a live shot from somewhere there. The reporter was afraid for his life and they were burning American flags, He stated "Live from {the gaza strip. I think) back yo you..."
I suppose I should not believe that. it was a wag the dog type thing, right?
My CNN comment was facetious.
It's not that you shouldn't believe what you saw, it's that you can't even explain what you saw. Do you go to war against those individuals? And if so I'll ask a second time, who are they? If not just those individuals do you attack their entire country or race?
Your rash generalizations are unrealistic and dangerous. No offense but:
psychosis
n : any severe mental disorder in which contact with reality is lost or highly distorted
Now that's not to compare you to Charles Manson or anything, but your belief is dangerous. You can't take a news report like that for granted. You can't support killing based on information and evidence that is so far removed because it is so dangerous.
You believe this so strongly because when you saw the report it supported your predisposition. You're searching for evidence to support your predetermined set of beliefs rather than the reverse. That is, searching for evidence to formulate a belief.
Comments
Originally posted by bunge
Enlighten us all. Do you 'meen' to tell me that you can see on the TV who the enemy really is? It's 'reely' that black and white to you? You're that 'cleer' about such a difficult and complex choice?
Um... Yes.
Those people that cheered and often continue to cheer the death of innocent people are the enemy to peace loving people everywhere. Complexity exists only if you disregard certain basic truths in favor of rationalization.
Are you really so morally unclear that you can't see that?
Originally posted by bunge
Those of US reading this thread. Those of US who you are trying to convince.
Once again, i am not trying to convince anyone. Do you need some dummy like me to convince you?
I am just trying to sift through the spin and make things make sense to ME?
Isn't that the purpose of debate? maybe I am wrong.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Um... Yes.
Those people that cheered and often continue to cheer the death of innocent people are the enemy to peace loving people everywhere. Complexity exists only if you disregard certain basic truths in favor of rationalization.
Are you really so morally unclear that you can't see that?
But you have no idea who those people are. You can't support the bombing of a country because of something you saw on CNN.
Originally posted by NaplesX
some dummy like me
At least you know you are one.
Oh, and:
Baute, head of the IAEA inspection team, said "it would have been "virtually impossible" for Iraq to revive a nuclear bomb program with equipment recently dug up from a Baghdad backyard." So you can shut up about it now. Thanks.
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/Ir...135791-ap.html
Welcome to 2004.
Originally posted by NaplesX
I fault people in this issue for jumping to conclusions before all of the evidence is in.
all the way to:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Originally posted by bunge
Enlighten us all. Do you 'meen' to tell me that you can see on the TV who the enemy really is? It's 'reely' that black and white to you? You're that 'cleer' about such a difficult and complex choice?
Um... Yes.
Nips, you so crazy.
Originally posted by bunge
But you have no idea who those people are. You can't support the bombing of a country because of something you saw on CNN.
So you know, I rarely watch CNN. But I remember seeing a live shot from somewhere there. The reporter was afraid for his life and they were burning American flags, He stated "Live from {the gaza strip. I think) back yo you..."
I suppose I should not believe that. it was a wag the dog type thing, right?
Originally posted by giant
Will you look at that. Here in just this very thread we went from
all the way to:
Um... Yes.
Nips, you so crazy.
I regret that no reasonable form of communication is possible between us.
Originally posted by NaplesX
I have found in modern politics that liberals, in particular often accuse others of things that they are guilty of. Thus putting their opponents on the defensive. I find most of your post fits that modus operandi.
So, um, I secretly believe the Bush rationalization for the invasion of Iraq?
It's actually the chicken-hawks who have the preponderance of evidence on their side? You, know, the vast store houses of WOMDs that wipe the smirk off the liberal faces?
It's really me that won't acknowledge the proof that's in right in front of my face? Feel free to show me your evidence, please don't waste my time with more discredited bullshit.
Wait, I know, wanting America's resources to be spent on actual threats makes me a fascist!
Originally posted by majorspunk
Tiz called 'turnspeak'. Has an interesting history behind it. Was extensively used by the the Nazis. I encourage you to read up on it. You'll find some very interesting links to Arab and leftists propaganda.
Right. It's all just spin. There is no such thing as reality. "arab and lefist propaganda". Christ.
Originally posted by addabox
So, um, I secretly believe the Bush rationalization for the invasion of Iraq?
It's actually the chicken-hawks who have the preponderance of evidence on their side? You, know, the vast store houses of WOMDs that wipe the smirk off the liberal faces?
It's really me that won't acknowledge the proof that's in right in front of my face? Feel free to show me your evidence, please don't waste my time with more discredited bullshit.
Wait, I know, wanting America's resources to be spent on actual threats makes me a fascist!
You see, I said often, not always.
Originally posted by NaplesX
I regret that no reasonable form of communication is possible between us.
No you don't. You've done everything in your power to bury the thread topic in a hail of non sequiturs, irrelevent half truths, semantic nit-picking, etc.
At the end of the day reality is still sitting there. No WOMD, no nukes, no credible ties to al Qaeda, no threat to the US. All the micro-parsing and source impugning and fuzzying up of cause and effect doesn't change that.
Originally posted by addabox
Right. It's all just spin. There is no such thing as reality. "arab and lefist propaganda". Christ.
Look, he is attempting reverse psychology.
Sorry I didn't fall for it. Good try though. A for effort
Originally posted by addabox
You know, this thread once again confirms the most important thing to bear in mind when dealing with the new breed of right wing triumphalist:
they have no shame.
People of good will, wishing the best for their country, desiring security and an effective response to the threat of terrorism, would be obliged to admit that the now starkly revealed miscalculations, misrepresentations, and deliberately misleading rhetoric surrounding the invasion of Iraq are disturbing evidence that the administration's "war on terror" lacks focus, cohesion, and direction. At least.
People who genuinely want a safer world, and who one would assume would believe that this cause is best served by clarity of purpose and a scrupulous caution in identifying actual threats, would be obliged to acknowledge the painfully obvious: that having sold the American people on an unprecedented pre-emptive invasion based on the specter of a direct, near term threat to the United States, a threat that was said to have included a rush to nuclear capacity, strong, substantive links to al Qaeda, vast arsenals of the most destructive sort of weaponry, and even bizarre scare stories like the talk of unmanned drones that were purported to have the range to reach north america; that having portrayed the threat in the starkest terms imaginable, subsequent events have failed to substantiate any of the stated reasons for going to war.
But not a word of remorse. Instead, we get lame post hoc posturing around "world better place without Saddam", typical internet parsing of micro-meaning, complete with line by line demands for links and proof, endless stirring of a disredited pot of rumors, forgeries and urban legends, half-assed assertions of "stuff that kinda resembles some of the things Bush claimed", and the usual ad hominem beligerance in re "liberals" (as well as third grade formulations that amount to: "well, if you love saddam so much, why don't you marry him?).
Read through the thread again. Notice that virually all the actual information is coming from people who opposed the war. Notice how nearly all the rebuttals (those that aren't just inane) traffic in the same kind of hazy chain of non sequiturs and dismissal of dissent as some kind of lethal character defect that characterized the run-up to war.
So I put it to our little stable of chicken-hawks: do you even care about America anymore, or are you so invested in denying "liberals" a "win" that you simply can't acknowledge the truth? That's right, I'm impugning your patriotism. I'm questioning your loyalities.
I want an America that is safer. I want an America whose freedoms stand as a rebuttal to tyrany. Where justice is a matter of practice, not sloganeering, and whose virutes are played out in her gravest actions.
You want an America where "liberals" are discredited and the Republican party holds perpetual sway under the mighty leader who answers to no one. Where pointing out error is considered "irrational hatred". Where the end, no matter how vaguely portayed, always justifies the means. Where power trumps justice.
It's called fascism, and it is not patriotism.
I agree.
Originally posted by addabox
No you don't. You've done everything in your power to bury the thread topic in a hail of non sequiturs, irrelevent half truths, semantic nit-picking, etc.
At the end of the day reality is still sitting there. No WOMD, no nukes, no credible ties to al Qaeda, no threat to the US. All the micro-parsing and source impugning and fuzzying up of cause and effect doesn't change that.
Will it make you happy if I declare "You Win"? You are a winner. Is that what you guys need. i will make you a certificate to say you are a winner.
This reminds me of when I was a little kid and got picked on by a group of bullies. I was but a small runt at the time, a little scrappy, but small for my age. Each of those bullies knew that one on one they may (and did) get hurt. So they would come at me in threes and fours. That way they would be virtually guaranteed a win. But, then as in now I would not back down. Not that you guys are bullies, but the tactic seems the same. It seems a big coinki dinky that all of you are piling on all at once. And the personal attack from all of you, are a bit over the edge IMO.
maybe I am wrong.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
freepers are funny.
What's a freeper?
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Ever heard of the Free Republic?
Yes, so freeper refers to the free republic?
spend a little time on their message board and you'll see what I mean.
Freepers are funny. and sometimes a little scary.
Originally posted by NaplesX
So you know, I rarely watch CNN. But I remember seeing a live shot from somewhere there. The reporter was afraid for his life and they were burning American flags, He stated "Live from {the gaza strip. I think) back yo you..."
I suppose I should not believe that. it was a wag the dog type thing, right?
My CNN comment was facetious.
It's not that you shouldn't believe what you saw, it's that you can't even explain what you saw. Do you go to war against those individuals? And if so I'll ask a second time, who are they? If not just those individuals do you attack their entire country or race?
Your rash generalizations are unrealistic and dangerous. No offense but:
psychosis
n : any severe mental disorder in which contact with reality is lost or highly distorted
Now that's not to compare you to Charles Manson or anything, but your belief is dangerous. You can't take a news report like that for granted. You can't support killing based on information and evidence that is so far removed because it is so dangerous.
You believe this so strongly because when you saw the report it supported your predisposition. You're searching for evidence to support your predetermined set of beliefs rather than the reverse. That is, searching for evidence to formulate a belief.