If there is a terrorist attack before the election, the Republican campaign theme will be:
A VOTE FOR JOHN KERRY IS A VOTE FOR BIN LADEN
Rinse and repeat:
A VOTE FOR JOHN KERRY IS A VOTE FOR BIN LADEN
Oh, and "Now more than ever, we need STRONG LEADERSHIP that is TOUGH ON TERRORISM."
Never mind that Bush has demonstrated how TOUGH he is by wasting resources invading the wrong country... thoughtful and effective leadership is less important than being TOUGH!
I mean, imagine how silly it would be to have the "Arab Language Army Units" in Afghanistan where hardly anybody speaks Arabic. Good thing they're in Iraq instead where the people actually speak Arabic, Farsi, and Kurdi. Whew! We sure got lucky there! [/END SARCASTIC RANT]
Umm, so when those Arab speaking terrorists, based in Afghanistan (and other places) co-ordinate an attack on the US or Europe with their Arab terrorist colleagues we'll all be glad that the people who could have been helping to stop the attack were busy trying to stop the Iraqi quagmire turning into a civil war?
It's a shame you were too busy being a geographical pedant to actually comprehend the point being made, that the war in Iraq is a *distraction* from any real War on Terror, assuming Bush has actual plans to start one that lives up to its name.
Not able to see the difference in the life of a soldier in a war zone and your grandma shopping for groceries is very scary to me.
I suppose we should institute a manditory draft fro everyone 55 and up. Send them to Iraq to fight, they got nothing to loose right?
I will say it again... WOW.
Ummm, ok, I guess that's an argument, somehow... Oh wait! Yeah, it's a false analogy argument.
A more accurate analogy would be what is the difference between a national reserve weekend warrior dying from a bomb while shopping for groceries and your grandma dying in the same explosion. Bush put the soldier in the war zone, before that he was safe and snug in the USA, just like your grandma.
Ummm, ok, I guess that's an argument, somehow... Oh wait! Yeah, it's a false analogy argument.
A more accurate analogy would be what is the difference between a national reserve weekend warrior dying from a bomb while shopping for groceries and your grandma dying in the same explosion. Bush put the soldier in the war zone, before that he was safe and snug in the USA, just like your grandma.
<neo>Whoa </neo> I mean <neo>Whoa</neo>
Save the theatrics.
No you were talking about a soldier in the field and also an innocent grandma. I think I was being accurate.
Bush is a commander of the US forces and that is his job. Right or wrong about Iraq.
And by safe in the USA you mean what? Assuming that SH had WMD or even just programs with terrorists combing the earth for the very same, safety might be relative. No?
Sometimes theatrics is what it takes to drive home a point. If that is what you call it.
No you were talking about a soldier in the field and also an innocent grandma. I think I was being accurate.
To refresh- First, I introduced the possibility that since Bush was willing to send many of our young men and women to death he might not find it to hard to swallow that some of our citizens may die for his cause. Then you introduced the comparison to a grandma dying in a grocery store. I attempted to respond to YOUR analogy, then you framed my response as if the analogy was mine.
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Bush is a commander of the US forces and that is his job. Right or wrong about Iraq.
I would probably say his job is to be right or wrong about going to war, before he sends our soldiers to die.
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
[BAnd by safe in the USA you mean what? Assuming that SH had WMD or even just programs with terrorists combing the earth for the very same, safety might be relative. No?[/B]
Why bother with assumptions? North Korea is most definately pursuing WMDs. Pakistan (our ally) sold them the secrets (at least their top scientist did without punishment).
If safety is relative, then weren't there other threats that were more ominous relative to that posed by Iraq? For that matter, if you consider the relative risks to the individual, your grandma is at far greater risk from inadequate health care coverage.
To refresh- First, I introduced the possibility that since Bush was willing to send many of our young men and women to death he might not find it to hard to swallow that some of our citizens may die for his cause. Then you introduced the comparison to a grandma dying in a grocery store. I attempted to respond to YOUR analogy, then you framed my response as if the analogy was mine.
I would probably say his job is to be right or wrong about going to war, before he sends our soldiers to die.
Why bother with assumptions? North Korea is most definately pursuing WMDs. Pakistan (our ally) sold them the secrets (at least their top scientist did without punishment).
If safety is relative, then weren't there other threats that were more ominous relative to that posed by Iraq? For that matter, if you consider the relative risks to the individual, your grandma is at far greater risk from inadequate health care coverage.
Um, you are all over the place, there is no intelligent conversation with you.
Your arguments are extremely lopsided snapping back to the canned "everything is bush's fault thus wrong and evil." There is no intellectually honesty to be found in your arguments.
Um, you are all over the place, there is no intelligent conversation with you.
Your arguments are extremely lopsided snapping back to the canned "everything is bush's fault thus wrong and evil." There is no intellectually honesty to be found in your arguments.
I would ask that we now agree to disagree.
That's a "Wow... I mean WOW." post if I ever saw one.
Um, you are all over the place, there is no intelligent conversation with you.
This coming from the "WOW" guy. Your false protestations are amusing. Anyone can simply review the short duration of our conversation and see that YOU, not I introduced the grandma analogy.
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Your arguments are extremely lopsided snapping back to the canned "everything is bush's fault thus wrong and evil." There is no intellectually honesty to be found in your arguments.
Again trying to put words in my mouth, I never said Bush is evil. In all cases I addressed his demonstrated actions.
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
I would ask that we now agree to disagree.
I can neither agree nor disagree with someone who has presented no arguments. You may easily exit the conversation content that your grandma analogy retains some sort of value (at least to yourself).
This coming from the "WOW" guy. Your false protestations are amusing. Anyone can simply review the short duration of our conversation and see that YOU, not I introduced the grandma analogy.
Again trying to put words in my mouth, I never said Bush is evil. In all cases I addressed his demonstrated actions.
I can neither agree nor disagree with someone who has presented no arguments. You may easily exit the conversation content that your grandma analogy retains some sort of value (at least to yourself).
I am going to show you your silliness, OK?
An analogy means similarity, alikeness, likeness, affinity, similitude, etc.
This is what I said:
"Not able to see the difference in the life of a soldier in a war zone and your grandma shopping for groceries is very scary to me."
If your comprehension is up to par you will see I was pointing out your failure (according to me) to see the dissimilarity, difference, divergence, uniqueness of the two types of citizenry.
This is a quote of Dale Sorel, posted 04-18-2004 03:29 PM:
"Uh, me thinks there's a slight difference between losing US soldiers in battle and having your grandma killed at the supermarket by a terrorist"
... to which you replied, posted 04-18-2004 04:32 PM:
"If you were to press me into judging what was more tragic I would have to go with the 18 yr old soldier who joined for college money over the grandmother who had lived a full life, but that's just my opinion."
It was this line of reasoning that I was commenting on. And as you can read (questionable) it was not you but Dale that brought up the whole grandma idea.
I do not see an analogy (which would be a comparison of two or more things showing a likeness) in the comment that I made. If I am wrong please educate me.
Your circular arguments using poorly chosen words are not getting anyone anywhere.
Well it's like Phil Gramm once said..."Old people don't need food stamps. They eat less.." I'll never forget that quote I read in my paper one morning. That about sums Republicans up. That and from Supply Side Jesus "No I won't heal lepers! If they heard I was healing lepers, that would just make them lazy!
Well it's like Phil Gramm once said..."Old people don't need food stamps. They eat less.." I'll never forget that quote I read in my paper one morning. That about sums Republicans up. That and from Supply Side Jesus "No I won't heal lepers! If they heard I was healing lepers, that would just make them lazy!
That is pretty insightful, not.
What does any of that have to do with the topic or any of the conversations here?
If your comprehension is up to par you will see I was pointing out your failure (according to me) to see the dissimilarity, difference, divergence, uniqueness of the two types of citizenry.
Now THIS is something I can appreciate. Instead of simply "WOW," you are presenting a cogent observation. That said, my original criticisms apply as the soldier's situtation doesn't change until he/she is sent into a war zone by the prez.
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
It was this line of reasoning that I was commenting on. And as you can read (questionable) it was not you but Dale that brought up the whole grandma idea.
You have me dead to rights on mistakenly attributing Dale's comments to you. Yes, I can read, but sometimes a little too fast. Forgive me for misinterpreting your followup to Dale as if you were asserting it originally. I was totally in error.
Now that we have dropped the exclamation marks, would you care to edify me as to what, exactly your argument is?
My position has been quite clear from the get go- Bush obviously was ok with expending a certain number of American lives to advance a cause he thought was right. He's killed civilians by action and inaction in the past. Is it unreasonable to believe he might rationalize the permissibility of a few more to advance his cause?
Also, am I correct to assume that you reject the validity of the grandma analogy or are you simply correcting me on authorship issues?
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Your circular arguments using poorly chosen words are not getting anyone anywhere.
I am really curious to find out in exactly what respect my arguments are circular.
But will any of us ask the implicit but out-of-bounds Sammi-jo-ish question: since Bush has shown that he is so willing to let lives go for his "[i}VISION[/I]" was he willing to allow 3,000 civilian lives be lost in order to come across a good excuse for a). An oportunity to put into play 'The Plan': setting the Democracy Dominoes off in the Middle-East? b). a good strong Civil Defence strengthening bill with sweeping control and servaillance powers?
Just a question . . . would anybody try it on for size and see if it is at all coherent? . . . not saying that I would think such thoughts of course . . .
But will any of us ask the implicit but out-of-bounds Sammi-jo-ish question: since Bush has shown that he is so willing to let lives go for his "[i}VISION[/I]" was he willing to allow 3,000 civilian lives be lost in order to come across a good excuse for a). An oportunity to put into play 'The Plan': setting the Democracy Dominoes off in the Middle-East? b). a good strong Civil Defence strengthening bill with sweeping control and servaillance powers?
Just a question . . . would anybody try it on for size and see if it is at all coherent? . . . not saying that I would think such thoughts of course . . .
We were talking about grandmothers NaplesX. Gee what does that have to do with anything either. Bottom line: why the hell would an intelligent person vote for Bush if we get attacked again? He's had 4 years to improve intelligence and has done the opposite. Pretty tough decision. NaplesX can you back up the assertion that invading Iraq has made America safer?
Comments
Originally posted by Northgate
If there is a terrorist attack before the election, the Republican campaign theme will be:
A VOTE FOR JOHN KERRY IS A VOTE FOR BIN LADEN
Rinse and repeat:
A VOTE FOR JOHN KERRY IS A VOTE FOR BIN LADEN
Oh, and "Now more than ever, we need STRONG LEADERSHIP that is TOUGH ON TERRORISM."
Never mind that Bush has demonstrated how TOUGH he is by wasting resources invading the wrong country... thoughtful and effective leadership is less important than being TOUGH!
Originally posted by israces
I mean, imagine how silly it would be to have the "Arab Language Army Units" in Afghanistan where hardly anybody speaks Arabic. Good thing they're in Iraq instead where the people actually speak Arabic, Farsi, and Kurdi. Whew! We sure got lucky there! [/END SARCASTIC RANT]
Umm, so when those Arab speaking terrorists, based in Afghanistan (and other places) co-ordinate an attack on the US or Europe with their Arab terrorist colleagues we'll all be glad that the people who could have been helping to stop the attack were busy trying to stop the Iraqi quagmire turning into a civil war?
It's a shame you were too busy being a geographical pedant to actually comprehend the point being made, that the war in Iraq is a *distraction* from any real War on Terror, assuming Bush has actual plans to start one that lives up to its name.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Wow... I mean WOW.
Not able to see the difference in the life of a soldier in a war zone and your grandma shopping for groceries is very scary to me.
I suppose we should institute a manditory draft fro everyone 55 and up. Send them to Iraq to fight, they got nothing to loose right?
I will say it again... WOW.
Ummm, ok, I guess that's an argument, somehow... Oh wait! Yeah, it's a false analogy argument.
A more accurate analogy would be what is the difference between a national reserve weekend warrior dying from a bomb while shopping for groceries and your grandma dying in the same explosion. Bush put the soldier in the war zone, before that he was safe and snug in the USA, just like your grandma.
<neo>Whoa </neo> I mean <neo>Whoa</neo>
Save the theatrics.
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
Ummm, ok, I guess that's an argument, somehow... Oh wait! Yeah, it's a false analogy argument.
A more accurate analogy would be what is the difference between a national reserve weekend warrior dying from a bomb while shopping for groceries and your grandma dying in the same explosion. Bush put the soldier in the war zone, before that he was safe and snug in the USA, just like your grandma.
<neo>Whoa </neo> I mean <neo>Whoa</neo>
Save the theatrics.
No you were talking about a soldier in the field and also an innocent grandma. I think I was being accurate.
Bush is a commander of the US forces and that is his job. Right or wrong about Iraq.
And by safe in the USA you mean what? Assuming that SH had WMD or even just programs with terrorists combing the earth for the very same, safety might be relative. No?
Sometimes theatrics is what it takes to drive home a point. If that is what you call it.
Originally posted by NaplesX
No you were talking about a soldier in the field and also an innocent grandma. I think I was being accurate.
To refresh- First, I introduced the possibility that since Bush was willing to send many of our young men and women to death he might not find it to hard to swallow that some of our citizens may die for his cause. Then you introduced the comparison to a grandma dying in a grocery store. I attempted to respond to YOUR analogy, then you framed my response as if the analogy was mine.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Bush is a commander of the US forces and that is his job. Right or wrong about Iraq.
I would probably say his job is to be right or wrong about going to war, before he sends our soldiers to die.
Originally posted by NaplesX
[BAnd by safe in the USA you mean what? Assuming that SH had WMD or even just programs with terrorists combing the earth for the very same, safety might be relative. No?[/B]
Why bother with assumptions? North Korea is most definately pursuing WMDs. Pakistan (our ally) sold them the secrets (at least their top scientist did without punishment).
If safety is relative, then weren't there other threats that were more ominous relative to that posed by Iraq? For that matter, if you consider the relative risks to the individual, your grandma is at far greater risk from inadequate health care coverage.
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
To refresh- First, I introduced the possibility that since Bush was willing to send many of our young men and women to death he might not find it to hard to swallow that some of our citizens may die for his cause. Then you introduced the comparison to a grandma dying in a grocery store. I attempted to respond to YOUR analogy, then you framed my response as if the analogy was mine.
I would probably say his job is to be right or wrong about going to war, before he sends our soldiers to die.
Why bother with assumptions? North Korea is most definately pursuing WMDs. Pakistan (our ally) sold them the secrets (at least their top scientist did without punishment).
If safety is relative, then weren't there other threats that were more ominous relative to that posed by Iraq? For that matter, if you consider the relative risks to the individual, your grandma is at far greater risk from inadequate health care coverage.
Um, you are all over the place, there is no intelligent conversation with you.
Your arguments are extremely lopsided snapping back to the canned "everything is bush's fault thus wrong and evil." There is no intellectually honesty to be found in your arguments.
I would ask that we now agree to disagree.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Um, you are all over the place, there is no intelligent conversation with you.
Your arguments are extremely lopsided snapping back to the canned "everything is bush's fault thus wrong and evil." There is no intellectually honesty to be found in your arguments.
I would ask that we now agree to disagree.
That's a "Wow... I mean WOW." post if I ever saw one.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Um, you are all over the place, there is no intelligent conversation with you.
This coming from the "WOW" guy. Your false protestations are amusing. Anyone can simply review the short duration of our conversation and see that YOU, not I introduced the grandma analogy.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Your arguments are extremely lopsided snapping back to the canned "everything is bush's fault thus wrong and evil." There is no intellectually honesty to be found in your arguments.
Again trying to put words in my mouth, I never said Bush is evil. In all cases I addressed his demonstrated actions.
Originally posted by NaplesX
I would ask that we now agree to disagree.
I can neither agree nor disagree with someone who has presented no arguments. You may easily exit the conversation content that your grandma analogy retains some sort of value (at least to yourself).
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
This coming from the "WOW" guy. Your false protestations are amusing. Anyone can simply review the short duration of our conversation and see that YOU, not I introduced the grandma analogy.
Again trying to put words in my mouth, I never said Bush is evil. In all cases I addressed his demonstrated actions.
I can neither agree nor disagree with someone who has presented no arguments. You may easily exit the conversation content that your grandma analogy retains some sort of value (at least to yourself).
I am going to show you your silliness, OK?
An analogy means similarity, alikeness, likeness, affinity, similitude, etc.
This is what I said:
"Not able to see the difference in the life of a soldier in a war zone and your grandma shopping for groceries is very scary to me."
If your comprehension is up to par you will see I was pointing out your failure (according to me) to see the dissimilarity, difference, divergence, uniqueness of the two types of citizenry.
This is a quote of Dale Sorel, posted 04-18-2004 03:29 PM:
"Uh, me thinks there's a slight difference between losing US soldiers in battle and having your grandma killed at the supermarket by a terrorist"
... to which you replied, posted 04-18-2004 04:32 PM:
"If you were to press me into judging what was more tragic I would have to go with the 18 yr old soldier who joined for college money over the grandmother who had lived a full life, but that's just my opinion."
It was this line of reasoning that I was commenting on. And as you can read (questionable) it was not you but Dale that brought up the whole grandma idea.
I do not see an analogy (which would be a comparison of two or more things showing a likeness) in the comment that I made. If I am wrong please educate me.
Your circular arguments using poorly chosen words are not getting anyone anywhere.
Originally posted by Dale Sorel
Uh, me thinks there's a slight difference between losing US soldiers in battle and having your grandma killed at the supermarket by a terrorist
Sure there is a difference . . but now because of Iraq we can experience both
Originally posted by Aquatic
Well it's like Phil Gramm once said..."Old people don't need food stamps. They eat less.." I'll never forget that quote I read in my paper one morning. That about sums Republicans up. That and from Supply Side Jesus "No I won't heal lepers! If they heard I was healing lepers, that would just make them lazy!
That is pretty insightful, not.
What does any of that have to do with the topic or any of the conversations here?
Originally posted by NaplesX
If your comprehension is up to par you will see I was pointing out your failure (according to me) to see the dissimilarity, difference, divergence, uniqueness of the two types of citizenry.
Now THIS is something I can appreciate. Instead of simply "WOW," you are presenting a cogent observation. That said, my original criticisms apply as the soldier's situtation doesn't change until he/she is sent into a war zone by the prez.
Originally posted by NaplesX
It was this line of reasoning that I was commenting on. And as you can read (questionable) it was not you but Dale that brought up the whole grandma idea.
You have me dead to rights on mistakenly attributing Dale's comments to you. Yes, I can read, but sometimes a little too fast.
Now that we have dropped the exclamation marks, would you care to edify me as to what, exactly your argument is?
My position has been quite clear from the get go- Bush obviously was ok with expending a certain number of American lives to advance a cause he thought was right. He's killed civilians by action and inaction in the past. Is it unreasonable to believe he might rationalize the permissibility of a few more to advance his cause?
Also, am I correct to assume that you reject the validity of the grandma analogy or are you simply correcting me on authorship issues?
Originally posted by NaplesX
Your circular arguments using poorly chosen words are not getting anyone anywhere.
I am really curious to find out in exactly what respect my arguments are circular.
Just a question . . . would anybody try it on for size and see if it is at all coherent? . . . not saying that I would think such thoughts of course . . .
Originally posted by pfflam
But will any of us ask the implicit but out-of-bounds Sammi-jo-ish question: since Bush has shown that he is so willing to let lives go for his "[i}VISION[/I]" was he willing to allow 3,000 civilian lives be lost in order to come across a good excuse for a). An oportunity to put into play 'The Plan': setting the Democracy Dominoes off in the Middle-East? b). a good strong Civil Defence strengthening bill with sweeping control and servaillance powers?
Just a question . . . would anybody try it on for size and see if it is at all coherent? . . . not saying that I would think such thoughts of course . . .
Of course.
If they do strike this fall will they be asking for better benifits--dental as well as medical---or just better working conditions?
Originally posted by dmz
I like to clairify the discussion a bit:
If they do strike this fall will they be asking for better benifits--dental as well as medical---or just better working conditions?
Oh a little word play never hurt anyone. hey isn't that what we want? terrorists to go on strike