Ditto Adolph!

[Pacridge]

See, this is where I get the distinct impression you're not too bright. I'll make the connection for you. Michael Moore makes films, and his films influence the people who elect our policy makers. He has a responsibility to the people to be truthful and accurate with his influence, otherwise he's doing nothing more than misleading poor misguided folks who don't know any better than to believe a liar.

You could take this same quote- omit Moore and insert Fox News.

The sad fact, as I see it, is we're all being lied to all the time. You have to fact check nearly everything you're being told.

Now that I too disagree with your position I'll go water myself and sit in the sun.

 

[argexpat]

I'm sure you haven't. It's something you should check out, it's where all the anti-American Bush haters hang out, free from any vestige of dissent or having their ideas challenged. Anyone who remotely resembles a conservative or dares to challenge the status quo there is quickly removed, so you can post all your anti-Bush stuff with no chance of having any of it refuted. You'll be all warm and safely insulated from any kind of truth whatsoever. Check it out!

I'll see your Democratic Underground and raise you a Freerepublic.com, where my posting priveleges have been revoked three times merely for expressing a liberal point of view. "It's something you should check out, it's where all the [irrational liberal] haters hang out, free from any vestige of dissent or having their ideas challenged. Anyone who remotely resembles a [liberal] or dares to challenge the status quo there is quickly removed, so you can post all your anti-[liberal] stuff with no chance of having any of it refuted. You'll be all warm and safely insulated from any kind of truth whatsoever. Check it out!"

You obviously don't know the difference between an ad hominem and a simple observation based on your posts here.

This is an ad hominem attack: "See, this is where I get the distinct impression you're not too bright..." And just to prove to you that I know the difference, here's another one: You, sir, are a horse's ass!

 

[argexpat]

You should bring your own ideas with clarifying points - not just links to other people's articles and tart snide remarks.

Citing the published work of others is a standard and valid debate technique, and is required in any real debate. It's called "providing evidence." This, along with logical argumentation, is the cornerstone of any debate. An idea does not have to be "mine" to be valid or acceptable in a debate. If this were the case we would have to invalidate most of the posts on this site, including yours.

 

[Pacridge]

For the record, the *bigger* issue here is not the *I gotcha* moment you'd like to have with the President for beginning a war that was to come about some day - it's the war itself. This WMD issue is a pissant pre-election issue serving no purpose other than to make you feel smug.

The argument you've presented for rebuttal is based on the premise Bush was wrong. I will only concede that it was very convenient WMDs that meet the strict liberal standards were not *found*. And, BTW I'm so glad you found one reference to some obscure guy even the NYT and Post won't print. But let's still take a count of all the people who believe Saddam had them then. America, Britain, some other countries who saw fit to assist, blah blah blah. Then let's take a look at the fact that we announced our war plans and hundreds of trucks drove out of the desert into Syria. All very circumstantial, but then so is trying to prove a negative. Let's just either say the jury is still out on the WMD issue or, I'll even judge acquitted, but without prejudice.

Wouldn't it have been so much easier if France, Russia and China had piped up and said they knew Saddam didn't have any WMDs that meet the very strict liberal definition because they'd developed a lucrative "business arrangement" (European definition of Oil for Food Program) and of course Saddam would never jeopardize the sincere deal they all had going on together? I think maybe that would have opened up talks for another round of diplomatic tactics.

Not sure I understand what you're saying about the WMD's. Now there a new definition for WMD's? It was always my understanding that WMD's were Nuclear, Biological or Chemical.

And in the past few weeks, maybe months, I keep hearing references to these trucks in the desert taking loads of WMD's to Syria. Where is this info coming from? Didn't I just see Rummy on the TV saying Saddam didn't have WMD's?

 

[argexpat]

Not sure I understand what you're saying about the WMD's. Now there a new definition for WMD's? It was always my understanding that WMD's were Nuclear, Biological or Chemical.

Don't forget, Pacridge, according to Republicans, "Saddam was a Weapon of Mass Destruction."

Here's a picture of Rumsfeld bravely grabbing a hold of it:

 

[Pacridge]

Yeah, I've seen this photo before. No one seems to be remembering that Saddam and his madness is something we supported. Of course that was along time ago, you know all the way back to the 80's. A lot of his chemical weapons technology he received directly from good old Unlce Sam. Two years after we gave it to him he gased something like 23,000 Kurds in Northren Iraq. Nice.

Just look at some of the regimes we've sponsored. We backed Noriga, Saddam, Idi Amin, Pinochet- it's like a lundery list of evil, burtal dictators. Hey, here's a pop quiz: Where did the Taliban receive most of it's backing and training in the 80's? If you said the CIA, go get yourself a cookie. Oh wait. No, not the Canadian Industrial Assoc. The other CIA, us. We did it. We trained and funded the bastards. Turns out these guys are crazy murderous evil bastards. Who'd have thunk it?

Throughout our history we've repeatedly gotten in bed with this type of dictator or government. Now were left scratching our heads wondering how this all happend? Well I think we not only let it happen; but helped it out, over and over and over. I honestly believe if the average citizen knew what it's government was up to, they'd be appalled.

 

[LiberalFINGER]

To clear up the Ad Hominem debate, I would direct your attention here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

When a fallacious argument is made, please politely point it out and ask the presenter to go into more detail regarding their beliefs.

 

[Fantasea]

Just look at some of the regimes we've sponsored. We backed Noriga, Saddam, Idi Amin, Pinochet- it's like a lundery list of evil, burtal dictators. Hey, here's a pop quiz: Where did the Taliban receive most of it's backing and training in the 80's? If you said the CIA, go get yourself a cookie. Oh wait. No, not the Canadian Industrial Assoc. The other CIA, us. We did it. We trained and funded the bastards. Turns out these guys are crazy murderous evil bastards. Who'd have thunk it?

Throughout our history we've repeatedly gotten in bed with this type of dictator or government. Now were left scratching our heads wondering how this all happend? Well I think we not only let it happen; but helped it out, over and over and over. I honestly believe if the average citizen knew what it's government was up to, they'd be appalled.

If one looks back at the names you mentioned in the appropriate time frames, it would seem that at the time the choice was between 'bad and worse' and we chose the lesser of two evils. Neither would have filled your day with sunshine. But hey, that's the world of real-life international politics, except for the Monday morning quarterbacks.

 

[Pacridge]

If one looks back at the names you mentioned in the appropriate time frames, it would seem that at the time the choice was between 'bad and worse' and we chose the lesser of two evils. Neither would have filled your day with sunshine. But hey, that's the world of real-life international politics, except for the Monday morning quarterbacks.

All well and good. But often we choose between the lesser of two evils when in reality we didn't need to choose either. There's no reason to get in bed with a snake and having a lion in the room doesn't give you a reason. We've supported one or the other when our support didn't advance us at all. We could of stayed out of the mix completely.

I don't know about the desire to "Monday morning quarterback" anything. But I do think it would be wise to start learning from our mistakes. Or at least admit we make mistakes.

 

[Fantasea]

All well and good. But often we choose between the lesser of two evils when in reality we didn't need to choose either. There's no reason to get in bed with a snake and having a lion in the room doesn't give you a reason. We've supported one or the other when our support didn't advance us at all. We could of stayed out of the mix completely.

I never cease to marvel at how folks who have no knowledge of the inner workings of the government are able to critique every move it makes. They ceaselessly pick and peck like the residents of a chicken coop, always hoping for a 'gotcha'. Ah, yes, if it was so simple to run a country. Most folks forget that at the time we were playing touch and go with the unsavory leaders of many countries, the underlying purpose was to keep them out of the realm of our 'cold war' adversary. Cold war? Why, that was years ago. Well, so were the escapades that are still giving the complainers heartburn. I sometimes think that there are many folks in the US who were disappointed when the USSR disintegrated.

Speaking of the USSR, the only reason for all the aid sent to Joe Stalin during WWII was so that he could keep Hitler busy thereby taking pressure off Britain. We didn't trust him, and he proved that he was not worthy of trust, didn't he? But, at the time, we needed him and we used him. That's the way it works in the real world. And it was a world run by a Democratic administration, wasn't it?

I don't know about the desire to "Monday morning quarterback" anything.

Oh, really? You could have fooled me.

But I do think it would be wise to start learning from our mistakes.

I have no doubt that every political and military action receives an internal assessment in order to determine the lessons it may contain. I, unlike folks who thrive on pounding on the government, don't expect to see the confidential reports printed in the NY Times.

Or at least admit we make mistakes.

Admit a mistake? You must be kidding. What a wonderful way to start a media feeding frenzy. It's bad enough when they stumble over something. Why would anyone in his right mind admit to a mistake which would be used as the spikes with which to nail him to a cross?

Did you forget that White House press conference when GWB was asked to name his greatest mistake? He wisely did the only thing that made sense. He said that he couldn't remember making any mistakes.

 

[Pacridge]

I never cease to marvel at how folks who have no knowledge of the inner workings of the government are able to critique every move it makes. They ceaselessly pick and peck like the residents of a chicken coop, always hoping for a 'gotcha'. Ah, yes, if it was so simple to run a country. Most folks forget that at the time we were playing touch and go with the unsavory leaders of many countries, the underlying purpose was to keep them out of the realm of our 'cold war' adversary. Cold war? Why, that was years ago. Well, so were the escapades that are still giving the complainers heartburn. I sometimes think that there are many folks in the US who were disappointed when the USSR disintegrated.

I have no knowledge of the inner workings of Government? My major was Public Admin. and my minor was in Political Science. And I'm not looking for an "I Gotcha" moment I just think learning from mistakes would be wise.

Speaking of the USSR, the only reason for all the aid sent to Joe Stalin during WWII was so that he could keep Hitler busy thereby taking pressure off Britain. We didn't trust him, and he proved that he was not worthy of trust, didn't he? But, at the time, we needed him and we used him. That's the way it works in the real world. And it was a world run by a Democratic administration, wasn't it?

Yes, there are indeed cases in history where we did choose between two evils. All too often though that's not the case.

Oh, really? You could have fooled me.

I have no doubt that every political and military action receives an internal assessment in order to determine the lessons it may contain. I, unlike folks who thrive on pounding on the government, don't expect to see the confidential reports printed in the NY Times.

Admit a mistake? You must be kidding. What a wonderful way to start a media feeding frenzy. It's bad enough when they stumble over something. Why would anyone in his right mind admit to a mistake which would be used as the spikes with which to nail him to a cross?

Did you forget that White House press conference when GWB was asked to name his greatest mistake? He wisely did the only thing that made sense. He said that he couldn't remember making any mistakes.

I assure you I'm not kidding. If W would admit mistakes and adjust his policies accordingly- I'd have a heck of lot more respect for him and his administration. If he showed he had learned from the many mistakes he's made I may have even voted for him. Though in my state one vote would not have done much for him.

Who said it was simply to run a country? All I said was we should try harder to learn from our mistakes.

 

[Fantasea]

Who said it was simply to run a country? All I said was we should try harder to learn from our mistakes.

You're repeating yourself. I responded to this at length in a prior post.

In the matter of your 'political' education, I apologize in advance for what you may choose to take as unflattering, but again, you could have fooled me.

On the other hand, you may be a dyed in the wool lefty-lib-dem who will never get over the fact that GWB is about to host his second inaugural celebration.

I just don't know.

 

[Pacridge]

You're repeating yourself. I responded to this at length in a prior post.

In the matter of your 'political' education, I apologize in advance for what you may choose to take as unflattering, but again, you could have fooled me.

On the other hand, you may be a dyed in the wool lefty-lib-dem who will never get over the fact that GWB is about to host his second inaugural celebration.

I just don't know.

I suspect "Fooling you" is task easily accomplished.

 

[Fantasea]

I suspect "Fooling you" is task easily accomplished.

I gave you two opportunities to make this retort. You missed the first one.

I was hoping that I wouldn't have to give you a third.

However, I notice that you did not respond to the principle message of the post.

 

[Kevin Johnson]

Liberals throwing out the "we should think about who we support" because America has in the past supported the lesser of two evils would do well to take that message to heart themselves.

Perhaps that way you libs would have picked a presidential candidate on his own merit instead of trying to pick the "most electable" person, and then trying to hammer the "Anybody But Bush" mantra down America's throat. The "Yeah Kerry's bad, but not as bad as Bush" obviously didn't resonate, and to now turn around and harp on America supporting the lesser of two evils in the past is hypocritical to say the least.

 

[argexpat]

Liberals throwing out the "we should think about who we support" because America has in the past supported the lesser of two evils would do well to take that message to heart themselves.

Perhaps that way you libs would have picked a presidential candidate on his own merit instead of trying to pick the "most electable" person, and then trying to hammer the "Anybody But Bush" mantra down America's throat. The "Yeah Kerry's bad, but not as bad as Bush" obviously didn't resonate, and to now turn around and harp on America supporting the lesser of two evils in the past is hypocritical to say the least.

You're absolutely right, you can always count on Republicans to choose the greater of two evils.

 

[argexpat]

I never cease to marvel at how folks who have no knowledge of the inner workings of the government are able to critique every move it makes. They ceaselessly pick and peck like the residents of a chicken coop, always hoping for a 'gotcha'.

This is just a droll and not particularly clever way of calling people who don't agree with you ignorant. Thank God we have you to enlighten us!

I sometimes think that there are many folks in the US who were disappointed when the USSR disintegrated.

Yes, Republicans, who define themselves by the bogeyman du jour. In the 90's, bereft of their beloved Red Menace, they pounced on liberals and Clinton. Having pointlessly crucified him, and in control of everything, with no one left to demonize, they were adrift. Then, like manna from heaven, Osama rained down and hosannas were heard throughout the GOP. If Osama hadn't come along, Republicans would have invented him. Wait, they did!

That's the way it works in the real world.

I find this fetishizing of realpolitik interesting. We're repeatedly told by our president that we're "liberating Iraq" and "democracy is on the march" and a host of empty, disingenuous platitudes about everything from the economy to stem-cell research. But when liberals accuse him of crass war profiteering and crony capitalism, they're called anti-American. We all know that "in the real world" America is more interested in hegemony than democracy. But when liberals point this out they get gagged with the flag.

Admit a mistake? You must be kidding. What a wonderful way to start a media feeding frenzy. It's bad enough when they stumble over something. Why would anyone in his right mind admit to a mistake which would be used as the spikes with which to nail him to a cross?

And yet Republicans dragged one of the most popular and competent presidents we've ever had into a ridiculous impeachment trial after forcing him to admit getting fellated by an intern. Considering how you feel about media feeding frenzies, you must have been outraged.

Did you forget that White House press conference when GWB was asked to name his greatest mistake? He wisely did the only thing that made sense. He said that he couldn't remember making any mistakes.

Who could forget the most embarrassingly incompetent performance by a president in recent memory. Instead of being prepared for that inevitable question with a concise, adroit response worthy of a statesman, we got cringe inducing stammering followed by awkward pauses you could drive a truck through. Bush is a laughingstock.

 

[Rhadamanthus]

The united states is not interested in hegonomy, the united states is interested in money.

 

[Fantasea]

This is just a droll and not particularly clever way of calling people who don't agree with you ignorant. Thank God we have you to enlighten us!

I'm always happy to do what I can to help.

Yes, Republicans, who define themselves by the bogeyman du jour. In the 90's, bereft of their beloved Red Menace, they pounced on liberals and Clinton. Having pointlessly crucified him, and in control of everything, with no one left to demonize, they were adrift. Then, like manna from heaven, Osama rained down and hosannas were heard throughout the GOP. If Osama hadn't come along, Republicans would have invented him. Wait, they did!

Not exactly. The day the Berlin wall came down was a day of national mourning observed by the American Wing of the Communist Party. With the USSR collapsing, what did they have left; Cuba and China.

I find this fetishizing of realpolitik interesting. We're repeatedly told by our president that we're "liberating Iraq" and "democracy is on the march" and a host of empty, disingenuous platitudes about everything from the economy to stem-cell research. But when liberals accuse him of crass war profiteering and crony capitalism, they're called anti-American. We all know that "in the real world" America is more interested in hegemony than democracy. But when liberals point this out they get gagged with the flag.

Since he's preparing for his second inaugural ball, he must be doing something right. No?

And yet Republicans dragged one of the most popular and competent presidents we've ever had into a ridiculous impeachment trial after forcing him to admit getting fellated by an intern. Considering how you feel about media feeding frenzies, you must have been outraged.

Are you kidding? The media saved his bacon. If that had been a Republican, the media would have hounded him to his grave.

Who could forget the most embarrassingly incompetent performance by a president in recent memory. Instead of being prepared for that inevitable question with a concise, adroit response worthy of a statesman, we got cringe inducing stammering followed by awkward pauses you could drive a truck through. Bush is a laughingstock.

I saw it. It was such a masterful work of slow suspense, followed by seeming uncertainty, then a wry grin, and finally capped with a masterful stroke of good old fashioned Texas cowboy humor, that I thought it must have been well rehearsed long in advance. GWB seemed to be waiting to spring it on the first dope to ask the foolish question.

I'm sure that performance won him quite a few votes.

 

[argexpat]

The day the Berlin wall came down was a day of national mourning observed by the American Wing of the Communist Party. With the USSR collapsing, what did they have left; Cuba and China.

The American wing of the Communist Party? There are more Elvis impersonators than members of the American wing of the Communist Party.

Since he's preparing for his second inaugural ball, he must be doing something right. No?

Only if you consider pandering to bigotry, ignorance and paranoia to be doing something right.

I saw it. It was such a masterful work of slow suspense, followed by seeming uncertainty, then a wry grin, and finally capped with a masterful stroke of good old fashioned Texas cowboy humor, that I thought it must have been well rehearsed long in advance. GWB seemed to be waiting to spring it on the first dope to ask the foolish question.

Ah, I see, the bumbling malapropist from Midland is all an act. He's just playing dumb for the press core and the rest of world. Duped again! Fool me once…shame on…shame on...me…fool me twice…um…can't get fooled again!

 

[Fantasea]

The American wing of the Communist Party? There are more Elvis impersonators than members of the American wing of the Communist Party.

Only if you consider pandering to bigotry, ignorance and paranoia to be doing something right.

Ah, I see, the bumbling malapropist from Midland is all an act. He's just playing dumb for the press core and the rest of world. Duped again! Fool me once…shame on…shame on...me…fool me twice…um…can't get fooled again!

An occasional fact or two, interspersed with the stream of barren mockery would be a pleasant surprise.

 

[Rhadamanthus]

Practice what you preach

 

[Fantasea]

Practice what you preach

Thanks for the advice.

By the way, I'm still waiting for you to tell me when it was determined that Iraq did not possess any WMD.

 

[KBeta]

The united states is not interested in hegonomy, the united states is interested in money.

You need to read "Rebuilding America's Defenses" by the Partnership for a New American Century. The neocons are most definitely interested in hegemony.

 

[KBeta]

By the way, I'm still waiting for you to tell me when it was determined that Iraq did not possess any WMD.

Show us a confirmed report of a discovery of one the huge stockpiles Bush mentioned in his State of the Union Address.

Where are the 25,000 liters of anthrax?
Where are the 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin?
Where are the 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent?
Where are the 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents?
Where is the budding nuclear capability?

When you answer, please don't waste our time with any Rumsfeldian, "Just because we haven't found it doesn't mean it's not there," nonsense.