NationStates Jolt Archive

So, another election year since 9/11, another year for the Republicans to try to say that if we don't elect them into the White House, the terrorist will come over here, impose Islamic law, rape our wives and enslave our children. That is why they have to create the TSA, and Homeland Security. That's why they passed such bills as The Patriot Act and (I'm guessing on the name of this one) The Military Act. Again and again, we see Gov. Co. intrude upon our lives, in the name of Security, and in the name of protection our freedom. What's funny though, is that they're taking away our freedoms while protecting them. In the past eight years, we've seen government tap our phones, round up "terrorist", ship them off to Gitmo, and claim that Habeas Corpus does not pertain to them. I find it ironic that they're shipped off to outside of the United States. I guess as long as they're outside our borders, our rules don't apply.

In the past eight years, we've seen more freedoms eroded by Government than by terrorist. What sucks about the whole thing is, even if Obama does get into office, he won't do anything. He won't do anything because he'll have the power then. It's like The Oracle says "What do all men with power want? More power." So whether or not we pick McCain or Obama, our freedoms are pretty much fucked.

Thoughts?

The Free Market will save us.

Well, personally, I've always hated freedom because of the inevitable societal collapse it will bring down upons our heads, leading to the rise of the an Inuit dictatorship that will deliver our nation into the hands of the seething masses who will roar together only long enough to destroy everything you hold dear (Including that puppy you thought died, but actually really did go to that farm upstate) and then disperse into individual disparity as the the world collapses in on itself, eventually rending itself in two and drifiting apart in widely divergent solar orbits.

That, and it's just so totally gay.

If we do away with all our freedoms, the scary muslim terrorists won't hate us anymore. So we'll be safe.

Freedom has cooties, baby-eating cooties.

The Free Market will save us.

But who will save the free market?

DUN-DUN-DUNNNNN!!!

If we do away with all our freedoms, the scary muslim terrorists won't hate us anymore. So we'll be safe.

This plan is brilliant. Where do I sign? Will my new telescreen be installed by Monday?

I don't hate freedom - I just hate your freedom.

That, and it's just so totally gay.

As are people who use "gay" as a pejorative.

As are people who use "gay" as a pejorative.

HE USED A WORD THAT ISN'T IN THE 'BIG BROTHERS BIG DICTIONARY OF DOUBLEPLUSGOOD NEWSPEAK'!
DOUBLEPLUSUNGOOD! GET THE THOUGHTCRIMINAL! UNPERSON! UNPERSON!
*Throws boots at Redwulf*

As are people who use "gay" as a pejorative.

Couldn't agree more, actually (Hence why I used it in a post that also referred to an "Inuit dictatorship" and a resurrected puppy).

I don't hate freedom - I just hate your freedom.This.

All will be fine under the Dictatorship of Fergi America.

Why do you hate communism? :(

Freedom to what?

Americans are among the most regulated people on the planet, the laws that govern your day are too many to mention. From how you drive to the contractual conditions of your work and beyond, you can't cross the road when you want. In return for the idea of 'freedom of speech', you're very constrained in your actions.

Even 'freedom of speech' is a misnomer, to what extent? This leaves aside what is culturally acceptable as opposed to legally acceptable. Your freedom of speech is also curtailed.

Freedom of employment, freedom from danger, freedom of lifestyle, there's many different freedoms and the sad part is that America is more free than most, you can complain but there's plenty worse places to live in this world.

I think, in future, we're going to be renamed from Homo Sapiens to something a little less complimentary.

Homo Bellum I suspect - or whatever the correct form of bellum needs to be.

Homo Bellum I suspect - or whatever the correct form of bellum needs to be.

I think - I THINK - it would be "bellus".

So, another election year since 9/11, another year for the Republicans to try to say that if we don't elect them into the White House, the terrorist will come over here, impose Islamic law, rape our wives and enslave our children. That is why they have to create the TSA, and Homeland Security. That's why they passed such bills as The Patriot Act and (I'm guessing on the name of this one) The Military Act. Again and again, we see Gov. Co. intrude upon our lives, in the name of Security, and in the name of protection our freedom. What's funny though, is that they're taking away our freedoms while protecting them. In the past eight years, we've seen government tap our phones, round up "terrorist", ship them off to Gitmo, and claim that Habeas Corpus does not pertain to them. I find it ironic that they're shipped off to outside of the United States. I guess as long as they're outside our borders, our rules don't apply.

In the past eight years, we've seen more freedoms eroded by Government than by terrorist. What sucks about the whole thing is, even if Obama does get into office, he won't do anything. He won't do anything because he'll have the power then. It's like The Oracle says "What do all men with power want? More power." So whether or not we pick McCain or Obama, our freedoms are pretty much fucked.

Thoughts?

Obama may or may not restore our freedoms, but he won't actively rape them like the GOP has.

cause he always short-sheets me and puts my hand in warm water when I'm asleep.
Surely that's enough reason to hate him?

Honestly? Look at history. Every democracy and republic is doomed to fall because of the inherent incapability of humanity to maintain them. Thus, I'm just waiting on the inevitable to happen with the U.S. so we can finally move on to important items of discussion.

So, another election year since 9/11, another year for the Republicans to try to say that if we don't elect them into the White House, the terrorist will come over here, impose Islamic law, rape our wives and enslave our children. That is why they have to create the TSA, and Homeland Security. That's why they passed such bills as The Patriot Act and (I'm guessing on the name of this one) The Military Act. Again and again, we see Gov. Co. intrude upon our lives, in the name of Security, and in the name of protection our freedom. What's funny though, is that they're taking away our freedoms while protecting them. In the past eight years, we've seen government tap our phones, round up "terrorist", ship them off to Gitmo, and claim that Habeas Corpus does not pertain to them. I find it ironic that they're shipped off to outside of the United States. I guess as long as they're outside our borders, our rules don't apply.

In the past eight years, we've seen more freedoms eroded by Government than by terrorist. What sucks about the whole thing is, even if Obama does get into office, he won't do anything. He won't do anything because he'll have the power then. It's like The Oracle says "What do all men with power want? More power." So whether or not we pick McCain or Obama, our freedoms are pretty much fucked.

Thoughts?

My thoughts? Because of the measures George W. Bush has instituted, Islamic terrorists have not managed to attack America again. George W. Bush has kept me and my family safe, and for that I'm grateful. John McCain has aided President Bush in these endeavors, and for that, and many other reasons, he has my vote.

My thoughts? Because of the measures George W. Bush has instituted, Islamic terrorists have not managed to attack America again. George W. Bush has kept me and my family safe, and for that I'm grateful. John McCain has aided President Bush in these endeavors, and for that, and many other reasons, he has my vote.

And your evidence that George Bush kept us safe is?

My thoughts? Because of the measures George W. Bush has instituted, Islamic terrorists have not managed to attack America again. George W. Bush has kept me and my family safe, and for that I'm grateful. John McCain has aided President Bush in these endeavors, and for that, and many other reasons, he has my vote.

Because of George Bush, Al Quaida gained a new recruitment base in Iraq, and Iran is a rising power.

And your evidence that George Bush kept us safe is?

The terrorists planned attacks and carried them out. Following the measures instituted by President Bush, no further attacks have been successfully carried out on American soil. This is justification enough for me.

Because of George Bush, Al Quaida gained a new recruitment base in Iraq, and Iran is a rising power.

Because of George Bush, a dictator who killed innocents by the bushel is dead, with a democratic government being set up in his place.

The terrorists planned attacks and carried them out. Following the measures instituted by President Bush, no further attacks have been successfully carried out on American soil. This is justification enough for me.

Let's not forget that it was under his leadership that they attacked to begin with. Using your train of logic, that makes him at fault for 9/11.

Let's not forget that it was under his leadership that they attacked to begin with. Using your train of logic, that makes him at fault for 9/11.

Incorrect. Using my train of logic, it was the person who instituted the security measures operable at the time of 9/11 who was responsible for us being vulnerable. Clearly not Bush, who took office mere months earlier.

The terrorists planned attacks and carried them out. Following the measures instituted by President Bush, no further attacks have been successfully carried out on American soil. This is justification enough for me.

I'd say more DESPITE said measures.

But then it occurred to me that I just found a customer. I have a rock here that keeps away tigers. It's yours for 100,000 dollars. If you don't buy it, you won't be safe from the tigers.

Incorrect. Using my train of logic, it was the person who instituted the security measures operable at the time of 9/11 who was responsible for us being vulnerable. Clearly not Bush, who took office mere months earlier.

Who technically took office nearly a year earlier and had already installed people in various places, including people who's job it was to watch out for things like that. And, finally, you simply said "following" his policies. It was following his stated policies and his election to office, as well as implementing some policies, that the plan got carried out.

And, finally, let's not forget that it's his policies that have let Iran get to the point they think they can safely ignore us, are causing us to lose the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan, and which left Iraq an unstable mess to the point it may be over a decade before we can fully pull out. And it was his policies related to intelligence utilization that caused us to invade Iraq to begin with, nevermind the fact the intelligence turned out to be wrong and, in some cases, outright fabricated.

I'd say more DESPITE said measures.

But then it occurred to me that I just found a customer. I have a rock here that keeps away tigers. It's yours for 100,000 dollars. If you don't buy it, you won't be safe from the tigers.

Conjunction does not imply causation. In order for an event to have some demonstrable causation effect, the event must have some properties such that it could have brought about the effect.
A case such as George Bush's measures, not only possessing the properties of dealing with prevention of terror attacks, but designed to do that very thing.
A person who conceives of an event, designs a plan to prevent that event, institutes that plan which deals with preventing such an event can indeed be said to have prevented that event if that event fails to occur. This is the case with George Bush's measures to prevent further terrorist attacks in the U.S.

The terrorists planned attacks and carried them out. Following the measures instituted by President Bush, no further attacks have been successfully carried out on American soil. This is justification enough for me.

A correlation does not prove causality.

Conjunction does not imply causation.

Thank you for conceding the point, fair lady.

This discussion is over.

Who technically took office nearly a year earlier and had already installed people in various places, including people who's job it was to watch out for things like that. And, finally, you simply said "following" his policies. It was following his stated policies and his election to office, as well as implementing some policies, that the plan got carried out.

And, finally, let's not forget that it's his policies that have let Iran get to the point they think they can safely ignore us, are causing us to lose the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan, and which left Iraq an unstable mess to the point it may be over a decade before we can fully pull out. And it was his policies related to intelligence utilization that caused us to invade Iraq to begin with, nevermind the fact the intelligence turned out to be wrong and, in some cases, outright fabricated.

It was due to the fractured nature of the intelligence gathering sector that 9/11 was successful. This was not George W. Bush's fault, and following 9/11, he fixed this. Since then, no more terrorist attacks on American soil.
Hardly. Iran can not "safely ignore" us. They do not yet possess the nuclear bomb. We could, tomorrow, wipe Tehran off the map, without fear of a similar strike by Iran.
No, the people responsible for Iran's power are the people in Congress treacherously insulting the troops and the war, giving aid and comfort to the enemy. This is what emboldens Iran.

Thank you for conceding the point, fair lady.

This discussion is over.

Fair lady? Is this an insult, or were you unaware I am male?

True, this discussion is over, as I have demonstrated effectively the means by which George W. Bush's measures can be said to have prevented further terrorist attacks on American soil.

True, this discussion is over, as I have demonstrated effectively the means by which George W. Bush's measures can be said to have prevented further terrorist attacks on American soil.

But was the price worth it ?

Fair lady? Is this an insult, or were you unaware I am male?

True, this discussion is over, as I have demonstrated effectively the means by which George W. Bush's measures can be said to have prevented further terrorist attacks on American soil.

If anything, his measures were garunteed to cause more terrorism. He pissed off our allies, destroying the good will the world had for us after 911. He forfiteded the moral high ground by allowing war crimes and taking away the freedoms we were supposedly fighting for. He let Bin Laden escape only to open up a needless second front with insufficient planning on bogus grounds, plunging America further into debt, destroying his and America's credibility, and giving the terrorists a rallying point.

You have yet to show causality, as opposed to simply correlation, between Bush's actions and the lack of a successful attack.

Fair lady? Is this an insult, or were you unaware I am male?

Oh, you're male?

Why, I was wasting my chivalry on you by going so easy then, wasn't I?

Okay, let me explain a little something to you: Any government has an intelligence system that is beyond the scope of the President's competence, mainly because no President is supposed to know ALL about ALL. Prevention of incidents is made by people using techniques any President only has a very passing knowledge of. However, Bush's policy is shown to increase Al Qaeda recruitment and the threat of terrorism. So, yes, you're not only wrong in that regard, you're horribly, horribly wrong. Claiming Bush has kept the country safe for 7 years not only cannot be proven but also would mean that, guess what, so did Clinton, Carter and Kennedy during their tenures. It's the rock-that-keeps-away-tigers fallacy, this thing you're committing, for correlation doesn't imply causation. And I had gone easy on you regarding it because I thought you were a woman, and I'm chivalrous. Since you're not, I get to inform you that your logic is baseless and flawed.

It was due to the fractured nature of the intelligence gathering sector that 9/11 was successful. This was not George W. Bush's fault, and following 9/11, he fixed this. Since then, no more terrorist attacks on American soil.

Not true. It was actually a communications error between the agencies that could have dealt with this, plus there is some evidence that the President was made aware of it long before the event happened. It wasn't a lack of gathering intelligence, but a lack of acting upon the intelligence that caused the issue.

Hardly. Iran can not "safely ignore" us. They do not yet possess the nuclear bomb. We could, tomorrow, wipe Tehran off the map, without fear of a similar strike by Iran.

Actually, we don't know that. Areas within the Middle East have proven before that they can beat the best efforts of American intelligence gathering. Now that the chief person who could do it is out of power, there's a lot of people with a lot of potentially dangerous knowledge in how to counter American intelligence gathering that are either unaccounted for or ignored. And some of them could have easily fled to Iran, creating a situation where our taking out Hussein only guaranteed that Iran could develop nukes without us knowing until the first test detonation. Iran's just not being quiet about having a nuclear program.

And, second, we could, indeed, do that... but, you might be sacrificing the lives of 300 million Americans by doing it. If you use a tactical nuclear warhead, you can bet that Russia and a couple others wouldn't hesitate to launch punitive nuclear strikes against the U.S. And with the inherent defensive problems our missile defense system has, it's a pretty safe bet that they could easily wipe out every settlement bigger than a village within the U.S. The reason as to why we haven't nuked anyone since WW2 is because of the fact the world wouldn't hesitate to nuke us, and right now we're not exactly popular with the world.

Otherwise, I'm pretty sure that you could expect fallout from attacking Iran. All China has to do is call in the debt the U.S. owes that nation. If that nation wanted to, right now they could use their economic power over the U.S. to keep the nation on a short leash. In short, the top dog has been collared.

No, the people responsible for Iran's power are the people in Congress treacherously insulting the troops and the war, giving aid and comfort to the enemy. This is what emboldens Iran.

Prove it.

If anything, his measures were garunteed to cause more terrorism. He pissed off our allies, destroying the good will the world had for us after 911. He forfiteded the moral high ground by allowing war crimes and taking away the freedoms we were supposedly fighting for. He let Bin Laden escape only to open up a needless second front with insufficient planning on bogus grounds, plunging America further into debt, destroying his and America's credibility, and giving the terrorists a rallying point.

You have yet to show causality, as opposed to simply correlation, between Bush's actions and the lack of a successful attack.

Our allies were weak and unwilling to act, so George Bush took matters into his own hands to do what was right. Good will is well and good, but when it stand between you and the right course, you should rightly toss it aside. That's what Bush did, and I admire him all the more for it.
Bush walks the moral high ground, in standing up for democracy and freedom, even though most of the world was opposed to his actions. He overthrew an oppressive dictator, freeing them from untold violence and persecution, and has guided the people of Iraq in setting up their own democratic system.
Wrong, I have given evidence for causality, sufficient to discount the charge that the measures taken by George Bush on the one hand and the prevention of further terrorist attacks on American soil on the other were mere conjunction. The measures President Bush took were designed to bring about that end and effective (by this I mean the Aristotlian sense of the word) toward that end.

Not true. It was actually a communications error between the agencies that could have dealt with this, plus there is some evidence that the President was made aware of it long before the event happened. It wasn't a lack of gathering intelligence, but a lack of acting upon the intelligence that caused the issue.



Actually, we don't know that. Areas within the Middle East have proven before that they can beat the best efforts of American intelligence gathering. Now that the chief person who could do it is out of power, there's a lot of people with a lot of potentially dangerous knowledge in how to counter American intelligence gathering that are either unaccounted for or ignored. And some of them could have easily fled to Iran, creating a situation where our taking out Hussein only guaranteed that Iran could develop nukes without us knowing until the first test detonation. Iran's just not being quiet about having a nuclear program.

And, second, we could, indeed, do that... but, you might be sacrificing the lives of 300 million Americans by doing it. If you use a tactical nuclear warhead, you can bet that Russia and a couple others wouldn't hesitate to launch punitive nuclear strikes against the U.S. And with the inherent defensive problems our missile defense system has, it's a pretty safe bet that they could easily wipe out every settlement bigger than a village within the U.S. The reason as to why we haven't nuked anyone since WW2 is because of the fact the world wouldn't hesitate to nuke us, and right now we're not exactly popular with the world.

Otherwise, I'm pretty sure that you could expect fallout from attacking Iran. All China has to do is call in the debt the U.S. owes that nation. If that nation wanted to, right now they could use their economic power over the U.S. to keep the nation on a short leash. In short, the top dog has been collared.



Prove it.

The lack of intelligence was brought about by the inability of competing agencies to share information.

You are speculating on the possible nuclear capabilities of Iran for which you have no proof. According to our best intelligence, Iran lacks the nuclear bomb.

You mentioned that Iran could safely ignore us. I have proven that they cannot. I did not recommend the action as policy, merely as an instance that disproves your contention.

By degrading military morale and improving enemy morale.

Obama may or may not restore our freedoms, but he won't actively rape them like the GOP has.

He won't. People with power will only want more power.

My thoughts? Because of the measures George W. Bush has instituted, Islamic terrorists have not managed to attack America again. George W. Bush has kept me and my family safe, and for that I'm grateful. John McCain has aided President Bush in these endeavors, and for that, and many other reasons, he has my vote.

"The man who would choose security over freedom deserves neither." ~Thomas Jefferson.

The lack of intelligence was brought about by the inability of competing agencies to share information.

Nevermind the fact most of them already had it.

You are speculating on the possible nuclear capabilities of Iran for which you have no proof. According to our best intelligence, Iran lacks the nuclear bomb.

If you want to get down to it, I'm actually speculating on their ability to hide the development of those capabilities. You cannot hide a nuclear blast, as even the ones done underground can be picked up by satellites in orbit. If they were to actually develop a bomb, any nation with a satellite that can detect nuclear explosions would know the moment the first one was successfully detonated.

You mentioned that Iran could safely ignore us. I have proven that they cannot. I did not recommend the action as policy, merely as an instance that disproves your contention.

And I have proven that your instance carries such repercussions with it that it is not actually disproving what I have said. Iran can safely ignore us because any action we take to stop them from ignoring us carries with it such consequences as to make the U.S. effectively unable to utilize them. Thus, Iran doesn't actually have anything to worry about from the U.S. because they know just how bad a position the nation is in. Thanks, entirely, to the policies of Bush.

By degrading military morale and improving enemy morale.

Which was being done by the general public before the people you accuse of it were elected into office. It is also being done by enemy soldiers who were attacking areas we had thought safe, the fact we're losing a war against an enemy we had almost beaten, the fact that the military is currently scrambling to find a weapon to replace its standard assault rifle because of the now insurmountable problems of the weapon's very design, and by the fact that those very soldiers were lied to by such people as Bush.

You have yet to actually prove your position. All you stated was rhetoric that easily can be shown to be the blame of a lot of other items as well. I want proof, not propaganda.

So, another election year since 9/11, another year for the Republicans to try to say that if we don't elect them into the White House, the terrorist will come over here, impose Islamic law, rape our wives and enslave our children. That is why they have to create the TSA, and Homeland Security. That's why they passed such bills as The Patriot Act and (I'm guessing on the name of this one) The Military Act. Again and again, we see Gov. Co. intrude upon our lives, in the name of Security, and in the name of protection our freedom. What's funny though, is that they're taking away our freedoms while protecting them. In the past eight years, we've seen government tap our phones, round up "terrorist", ship them off to Gitmo, and claim that Habeas Corpus does not pertain to them. I find it ironic that they're shipped off to outside of the United States. I guess as long as they're outside our borders, our rules don't apply.

In the past eight years, we've seen more freedoms eroded by Government than by terrorist. What sucks about the whole thing is, even if Obama does get into office, he won't do anything. He won't do anything because he'll have the power then. It's like The Oracle says "What do all men with power want? More power." So whether or not we pick McCain or Obama, our freedoms are pretty much fucked.

Thoughts?I'd like to point out to all the doomsayers that Jackson giving separation of powers the finger didn't prevent it from lasting until this day and age.

"The man who would choose security over freedom deserves neither." ~Thomas Jefferson.

Hardly the first time Thomas Jefferson got it wrong. Assuming it was Jefferson, I'd always heard that attributed to Ben Franklin.

The terrorists planned attacks and carried them out. Following the measures instituted by President Bush, no further attacks have been successfully carried out on American soil.
Too bad his policies have managed to have the terrorist attacks spread to be carried out in Iraq, Pakistan, Spain and the UK.

But why bother with them, eh? They're only your allies after all.

Hardly the first time Thomas Jefferson got it wrong. Assuming it was Jefferson, I'd always heard that attributed to Ben Franklin.

Could've been....

Personally I'd rather have the freedom to provide for my own security than to rely on Gov. Co. to do it for me.

Because let's be honest, Government is an inept entity, especially the USA government. I mean Hell, if they couldn't cover up the fact that Clinton got a blowjob, why would we trust them with anything else?

Hardly the first time Thomas Jefferson got it wrong. Assuming it was Jefferson, I'd always heard that attributed to Ben Franklin.

Wilgrove also got the actual wording of the statement wrong. It is "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Wilgrove also got the actual wording of the statement wrong. It is "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Yea yea, so I mess up the quote of a dead guy. We get the 'gist of what I was trying to say, right?

Nevermind the fact most of them already had it.



If you want to get down to it, I'm actually speculating on their ability to hide the development of those capabilities. You cannot hide a nuclear blast, as even the ones done underground can be picked up by satellites in orbit. If they were to actually develop a bomb, any nation with a satellite that can detect nuclear explosions would know the moment the first one was successfully detonated.



And I have proven that your instance carries such repercussions with it that it is not actually disproving what I have said. Iran can safely ignore us because any action we take to stop them from ignoring us carries with it such consequences as to make the U.S. effectively unable to utilize them. Thus, Iran doesn't actually have anything to worry about from the U.S. because they know just how bad a position the nation is in. Thanks, entirely, to the policies of Bush.



Which was being done by the general public before the people you accuse of it were elected into office. It is also being done by enemy soldiers who were attacking areas we had thought safe, the fact we're losing a war against an enemy we had almost beaten, the fact that the military is currently scrambling to find a weapon to replace its standard assault rifle because of the now insurmountable problems of the weapon's very design, and by the fact that those very soldiers were lied to by such people as Bush.

You have yet to actually prove your position. All you stated was rhetoric that easily can be shown to be the blame of a lot of other items as well. I want proof, not propaganda.

Your speculation is based on nothing. The evidence we have now is that Iran cannot attack us with a nuclear weapon, even if we attack them. Your speculation is an ad hoc contention.

Not at all. By your own admission, the U.S. has shown a penchant for acting unilaterally, even despite vast opposition by the rest of the world. Iran has no guarantee that we will not continue that propensity by nuking their capital.

The general public those of liberal persuasion, and those of liberal persuasion in the government, all are responsible for demoralization of our troops and emboldening of our enemy by open hatred of our commander-in-chief in a time of war. Fortunately, there are patriotic conservatives who are ready to show the troops that there are still some in the homeland who support them.

The proof is there. However, facts can't get beyond partisan blinders.

But was the price worth it ?

Yes.

Yes.

That's right, let Big Brother keep you safe and secure. Never mind the fact that your next door neighbor was taken to prison for committing a thought crime....

Yea yea, so I mess up the quote of a dead guy. We get the 'gist of what I was trying to say, right?Not if the real quote was "essential liberty"...

Your speculation is based on nothing.
kettle, pot, pot, kettle.

Not if the real quote was "essential liberty"...

Quiet, Wilgrove had a rough week, now go get my bottle of scotch.

Oh, you're male?

Why, I was wasting my chivalry on you by going so easy then, wasn't I?

Okay, let me explain a little something to you: Any government has an intelligence system that is beyond the scope of the President's competence, mainly because no President is supposed to know ALL about ALL. Prevention of incidents is made by people using techniques any President only has a very passing knowledge of. However, Bush's policy is shown to increase Al Qaeda recruitment and the threat of terrorism. So, yes, you're not only wrong in that regard, you're horribly, horribly wrong. Claiming Bush has kept the country safe for 7 years not only cannot be proven but also would mean that, guess what, so did Clinton, Carter and Kennedy during their tenures. It's the rock-that-keeps-away-tigers fallacy, this thing you're committing, for correlation doesn't imply causation. And I had gone easy on you regarding it because I thought you were a woman, and I'm chivalrous. Since you're not, I get to inform you that your logic is baseless and flawed.

Yes, I am male. A few people have believed me to be female, although I admit to being clueless as to why.

Your contentions as to how the government's intelligence gathering apparatus works is unsupported and unfounded.
President Bush has not increased terrorism one whit; he has fought it on a variety of fronts, and under his direction, or valiant soldiers have killed thousands of the enemy. Your statement that Bush increased terrorism is like saying that Abraham Lincoln increases Confederates. Like the terrorists, the Southerners already had Anti-union leanings; Lincoln, like Bush, just gave them a cause to mobilize against. If it hadn't been for Lincoln, they would've joined up with the Confederates eventually anyway, the next time a big contention occured. Same with the terrorists.
I've already defended my argument from the rock contention, and have no further need of repeating myself. I invite you to reread my prior post.

Could've been....

Personally I'd rather have the freedom to provide for my own security than to rely on Gov. Co. to do it for me.

Because let's be honest, Government is an inept entity, especially the USA government. I mean Hell, if they couldn't cover up the fact that Clinton got a blowjob, why would we trust them with anything else?

Agreed, an in an ideal situation, the Libertarian Paradise, the government would be responsible only for keeping people safe from the violence of others and preserving absolute personal freedom.
This is not an ideal situation, however, and the government must be entrusted with national security. Bush has done a tremendous job in improving this.

Yea yea, so I mess up the quote of a dead guy. We get the 'gist of what I was trying to say, right?

Quite easy to do, no fault.

That's right, let Big Brother keep you safe and secure. Never mind the fact that your next door neighbor was taken to prison for committing a thought crime....

This contention is unsupported and unfounded.

Agreed, an in an ideal situation, the Libertarian Paradise, the government would be responsible only for keeping people safe from the violence of others and preserving absolute personal freedom.
This is not an ideal situation, however, and the government must be entrusted with national security. Bush has done a tremendous job in improving this.

So you don't mind the fact that Government can listen in on your phone conversation, or how saying the wrong thing at work to a co-worker can get you sent to Gitmo?

Yea yea, so I mess up the quote of a dead guy. We get the 'gist of what I was trying to say, right?

Hey, I had to throw him a bone. Sorry, just in my nature to try to give people losing an argument at least the feeling they didn't walk away as a total failure.

Your speculation is based on nothing. The evidence we have now is that Iran cannot attack us with a nuclear weapon, even if we attack them. Your speculation is an ad hoc contention.

Which has nothing to do with the ability of other nations to attack us, especially given one of those nations would really like a reason to take down the U.S. and currently has a lot of nuclear weaponry. I think not giving them justification for making the U.S. into a crater-shaped glowbasket is pretty sensible, but that's me. Personally, I don't mind sacrificing 300 million people for a cause. But, then, I'm not exactly noted as a humanitarian, either.

Not at all. By your own admission, the U.S. has shown a penchant for acting unilaterally, even despite vast opposition by the rest of the world. Iran has no guarantee that we will not continue that propensity by nuking their capital.

They have the guarantee the U.S. will no longer be a nation afterwards and the fact the U.S. has shown that it has the ability to reconsider its position when its imminent destruction is guaranteed.

The general public those of liberal persuasion, and those of liberal persuasion in the government, all are responsible for demoralization of our troops and emboldening of our enemy by open hatred of our commander-in-chief in a time of war. Fortunately, there are patriotic conservatives who are ready to show the troops that there are still some in the homeland who support them.

Actually, you'll find that a lot of those liberals you talk about do support the troops anyway. They just don't support the idiot who sent the troops to die for nothing. There is a fine line between not supporting a commander who is doing something stupid and not supporting the troops who are just doing their jobs, no matter how much it turns out their reason for even being in battle is a lie or that they're dying for a cause that isn't even real. I, personally, believe the best thing Bush could do for the nation is to cut his own heart out on national television while trying to swallow a bag of pretzels without chewing, but that does not stop me from sending aide to the soldiers themselves.

And, once again, propaganda and rhetoric from your end. No actual proof yet. Please stop wasting my time.

The proof is there. However, facts can't get beyond partisan blinders.

Then provide the proof. Don't go saying it's there and then spewing the same partisan bull that you accuse of being the reason it can't be seen.

Hey, I had to throw him a bone. Sorry, just in my nature to try to give people losing an argument at least the feeling they didn't walk away as a total failure.



Which has nothing to do with the ability of other nations to attack us, especially given one of those nations would really like a reason to take down the U.S. and currently has a lot of nuclear weaponry. I think not giving them justification for making the U.S. into a crater-shaped glowbasket is pretty sensible, but that's me. Personally, I don't mind sacrificing 300 million people for a cause. But, then, I'm not exactly noted as a humanitarian, either.



They have the guarantee the U.S. will no longer be a nation afterwards and the fact the U.S. has shown that it has the ability to reconsider its position when its imminent destruction is guaranteed.



Actually, you'll find that a lot of those liberals you talk about do support the troops anyway. They just don't support the idiot who sent the troops to die for nothing. There is a fine line between not supporting a commander who is doing something stupid and not supporting the troops who are just doing their jobs, no matter how much it turns out their reason for even being in battle is a lie or that they're dying for a cause that isn't even real. I, personally, believe the best thing Bush could do for the nation is to cut his own heart out on national television while trying to swallow a bag of pretzels without chewing, but that does not stop me from sending aide to the soldiers themselves.

And, once again, propaganda and rhetoric from your end. No actual proof yet. Please stop wasting my time.



Then provide the proof. Don't go saying it's there and then spewing the same partisan bull that you accuse of being the reason it can't be seen.

You give far too much credit to the madman in charge of Iran. I doubt he thinks one step ahead, much less twelve. Even so, he would have no such assurance, as he does not know that America has not secretly made another coalition of the willing, against his own nation.

If you say you support the troops, and yet approve of and try to bring about the failure of their mission, your support is merely lip service. Supporting the troops means supporting their mission.

You're the one who keeps responding to me. Simply place me on ignore, and voila your time will no longer be wasted.

The proof is in the measures taken by Bush. He identified the problems which allowed for 9/11, and he fixed them. He heightened security and reorganized the intelligence gathering agencies, for the express purpose of preventing another terrorist attack on American soil. Following these measures, no terrorist attack on American soil has occured. It is therefore logical to believe that Bush's actions have prevented further terrorist attacks on American soil.

Rather, the partisan bull is in your own defenses of the willful blindness against the truth.

So you don't mind the fact that Government can listen in on your phone conversation, or how saying the wrong thing at work to a co-worker can get you sent to Gitmo?

If I'm calling someone in a country which is a supporter of terror, then I want my government listening in.
Since none of my co-workers are in such countries, I have no fear of this happening.

If I'm calling someone in a country which is a supporter of terror, then I want my government listening in.
Since none of my co-workers are in such countries, I have no fear of this happening.

I'm sorry, but I am a very private person, and I'd like Government to present to me with a warrant for a phone tap, so that I can have legal recourse. The same goes for accusing me of crimes.

The same goes for accusing me of crimes.

You have no fear of that, since you are are an American citizen, and thus the Constitution rightly applies to you. It does not rightly apply to foreigners.

You have no fear of that, since you are are an American citizen, and thus the Constitution rightly applies to you. It does not rightly apply to foreigners.

But since they are (or were) within our borders, they should be guaranteed the same rights as Americans are. We want to bitch and whine about China's human rights record, well we have to make sure we're not committing our own human rights violations.

But since they are (or were) within our borders, they should be guaranteed the same rights as Americans are. We want to bitch and whine about China's human rights record, well we have to make sure we're not committing our own human rights violations.

As far as I'm concerned, non-citizens acting against American interests, even within our own borders, should have no Constitutional protections at all.

You give far too much credit to the madman in charge of Iran. I doubt he thinks one step ahead, much less twelve. Even so, he would have no such assurance, as he does not know that America has not secretly made another coalition of the willing, against his own nation.

Not really. If I were to give him too much credit, I'd give him credit for being so open about it. Honestly, I don't think it ever occured to him that he could develop nuclear technology without making other nations suspicious that he was doing it.

If you say you support the troops, and yet approve of and try to bring about the failure of their mission, your support is merely lip service. Supporting the troops means supporting their mission.

Once again, you confuse one with the other. I don't care about victory or defeat in this case... I care about the troops coming back alive, sane, healthy, and to a nation that doesn't hate them for a war that wasn't their fault. I support giving them the supplies they need to do their job, such as an effective assault rifle, and making sure all of their equipment is up to par. I support making sure they have proper nutrition and medicine at hand. And I certainly support making sure they have enough ammunition to get the job done three times. But I don't support the actual mission itself, and as such call for the troops to be brought back home. Iraq will either stabilize on its own, or it'll go into a civil war. If it's going to do either as soon as the troops leave anyway, it's better to get it out of the way now so that we are not wasting resources to prevent it only to have it happen later.

You're the one who keeps responding to me. Simply place me on ignore, and voila your time will no longer be wasted.

You've not done anything deserving of an ignore yet. I'm not going to waste an ignore slot just for a flawed argument that is within the rules.

The proof is in the measures taken by Bush. He identified the problems which allowed for 9/11, and he fixed them. He heightened security and reorganized the intelligence gathering agencies, for the express purpose of preventing another terrorist attack on American soil. Following these measures, no terrorist attack on American soil has occured. It is therefore logical to believe that Bush's actions have prevented further terrorist attacks on American soil.

In other words, you're using a circular argument. I've already dealt with this particular flawed logic. Correlation does not mean causation. Just because the two correlate does not mean that one is the cause of the other. Otherwise, we go back to it being Bush's fault that 9/11 happened, since Bush coming into power correlates with 9/11 happening as well as a lot of the communication errors.

Rather, the partisan bull is in your own defenses of the willful blindness against the truth.

I'm a scientist at heart when it comes to matters like this. Provide actual proof and I'll accept it. Like the fact that I accept McCain's word that he believes in AGW, based on the proof provided by his voting record. You, however, are yet to provide any facts that support what you say other than a measely case of correlation, which you use the existence of as proof that the correlation is the cause. The rest is nothing more than party rhetoric which requires the acceptance of the rhetoric itself as truth to be anything close to proof. Honestly, if anything, all you've proven is that I'm not the one who is suffering from willful blindness.

Not really. If I were to give him too much credit, I'd give him credit for being so open about it. Honestly, I don't think it ever occured to him that he could develop nuclear technology without making other nations suspicious that he was doing it.



Once again, you confuse one with the other. I don't care about victory or defeat in this case... I care about the troops coming back alive, sane, healthy, and to a nation that doesn't hate them for a war that wasn't their fault. I support giving them the supplies they need to do their job, such as an effective assault rifle, and making sure all of their equipment is up to par. I support making sure they have proper nutrition and medicine at hand. And I certainly support making sure they have enough ammunition to get the job done three times. But I don't support the actual mission itself, and as such call for the troops to be brought back home. Iraq will either stabilize on its own, or it'll go into a civil war. If it's going to do either as soon as the troops leave anyway, it's better to get it out of the way now so that we are not wasting resources to prevent it only to have it happen later.



You've not done anything deserving of an ignore yet. I'm not going to waste an ignore slot just for a flawed argument that is within the rules.



In other words, you're using a circular argument. I've already dealt with this particular flawed logic. Correlation does not mean causation. Just because the two correlate does not mean that one is the cause of the other. Otherwise, we go back to it being Bush's fault that 9/11 happened, since Bush coming into power correlates with 9/11 happening as well as a lot of the communication errors.



I'm a scientist at heart when it comes to matters like this. Provide actual proof and I'll accept it. Like the fact that I accept McCain's word that he believes in AGW, based on the proof provided by his voting record. You, however, are yet to provide any facts that support what you say other than a measely case of correlation, which you use the existence of as proof that the correlation is the cause. The rest is nothing more than party rhetoric which requires the acceptance of the rhetoric itself as truth to be anything close to proof. Honestly, if anything, all you've proven is that I'm not the one who is suffering from willful blindness.

If you do not support the mission itself, then you do not support the troops.

Then simply stop responding to me. You have options, if you believe your time wasted and want it not to continue.

And this would be the partisan blinders I referred to, using the same contentions to deal with the demonstrations I have already provided.

If you do not support the mission itself, then you do not support the troops.

Rhetoric which cannot be proven.

Then simply stop responding to me. You have options, if you believe your time wasted and want it not to continue.

I had hoped you would have improved by now. You've had so many chances that you could have taken to rip my argument apart, yet you have taken none of them. Pity. I was hoping for a sparring match that would be quite enjoyable. There's always next time.

And this would be the partisan blinders I referred to, using the same contentions to deal with the demonstrations I have already provided.

You have demonstrated nothing, actually.

Rhetoric which cannot be proven.



I had hoped you would have improved by now. You've had so many chances that you could have taken to rip my argument apart, yet you have taken none of them. Pity. I was hoping for a sparring match that would be quite enjoyable. There's always next time.



You have demonstrated nothing, actually.

Certainly it can. If you say you support the troops, but oppose their stated mission, then you support the failure of that mission. Thus, you support the failure of the troops. Thus, you oppose the troops. Thus, you do not support the troops.

I am not here for your enjoyment. If you do not enjoy debating with me, feel free to refrain from doing so.

As far as I'm concerned, non-citizens acting against American interests, even within our own borders, should have no Constitutional protections at all.

Do you believe their basic human rights should be respected? Or does humanity end at America's borders?

america has a very bad working political system. there isnt enough to choose from, so you cant have your ideas put into practice through voting, wich means americans have poor political freedoms.

america has a very bad working political system. there isnt enough to choose from, so you cant have your ideas put into practice through voting, wich means americans have poor political freedoms.

Fair point, if slightly off topic.;)

Certainly it can. If you say you support the troops, but oppose their stated mission, then you support the failure of that mission. Thus, you support the failure of the troops. Thus, you oppose the troops. Thus, you do not support the troops.

Not necessarily. For one thing, you're using leaps of logic that would make a gazelle jealous. For another, I've already posted a way to support the troops themselves without supporting the mission.

I am not here for your enjoyment. If you do not enjoy debating with me, feel free to refrain from doing so.

If you're not here for the amusement of myself and others, then why are you here? You're an oddity in that you're obviously a player of NS, yet you're playing a game where the majority of the international community in the WA oppose your viewpoint on certain subjects and the game itself was made from a book that is a mockery of the very government style you have stated support for. I don't think I've found porn with that level of sadomasochism in it.

Not necessarily. For one thing, you're using leaps of logic that would make a gazelle jealous. For another, I've already posted a way to support the troops themselves without supporting the mission.



If you're not here for the amusement of myself and others, then why are you here? You're an oddity in that you're obviously a player of NS, yet you're playing a game where the majority of the international community in the WA oppose your viewpoint on certain subjects and the game itself was made from a book that is a mockery of the very government style you have stated support for. I don't think I've found porn with that level of sadomasochism in it.

Any "support" to the troops which does not include supporting their mission is an empty gesture at best and hypocritical at worst.

I play the game because I enjoy it, because it allows me to build my ideal of a nation, a Libertarian Theocracy, as a kind of thought experiment. I participate on the forums to defend the conservative positions from the unwarranted attacks by the vast liberal majority on these forums. Since I consider my views correct and liberal views incorrect, I experience no pain in so doing; rather, I experience a kind of thrill, holding up the truth in the faces of those who continually deny it.

Any "support" to the troops which does not include supporting their mission is an empty gesture at best and hypocritical at worst.

If it keeps them alive, gets them back in full mental and physical health, and does not actually go against my morality, then it is neither an empty gesture nor hypocrisy. You see, some of us are capable of having a morality that allows us to not believe in a war being fought, but has us still trying to make sure the soldiers get what they need anyway. If they happen to win the war because of it, then oh well.

I play the game because I enjoy it, because it allows me to build my ideal of a nation, a Libertarian Theocracy, as a kind of thought experiment. I participate on the forums to defend the conservative positions from the unwarranted attacks by the vast liberal majority on these forums. Since I consider my views correct and liberal views incorrect, I experience no pain in so doing; rather, I experience a kind of thrill, holding up the truth in the faces of those who continually deny it.

Did you ever consider that most of those attacks are because of constant attacks from the conservative side? Quite often, I find that they're not unwarranted, but responses in the continual war the two sides have been in for quite awhile now. The fact that neither side is winning the overall war is interesting, though I do note that conservatives tend to be the ones who end up giving ground in the end, usually as liberals push more towards a new liberal philosophy.

In the end, what you have is two sides continuing a war that, realistically, neither one needs to continue. Both sides are equally important and both sides hold an equal amount of truth. And I've found plenty of times when both sides are wrong on an issue, with the truth being the middle ground between the two. And both sides are usually too distracted to realize that they could work together and build a better nation for their efforts. But, meh. Let the war continue.

It would be better if you stopped and researched what you said a bit more, though. You had the perfect opportunity when I asked you to prove your position to really make yourself look good. And, there is evidence out there... you just have to find it. You'll find your job a bit easier with the additional backup.

If it keeps them alive, gets them back in full mental and physical health, and does not actually go against my morality, then it is neither an empty gesture nor hypocrisy. You see, some of us are capable of having a morality that allows us to not believe in a war being fought, but has us still trying to make sure the soldiers get what they need anyway. If they happen to win the war because of it, then oh well.



Did you ever consider that most of those attacks are because of constant attacks from the conservative side? Quite often, I find that they're not unwarranted, but responses in the continual war the two sides have been in for quite awhile now. The fact that neither side is winning the overall war is interesting, though I do note that conservatives tend to be the ones who end up giving ground in the end, usually as liberals push more towards a new liberal philosophy.

In the end, what you have is two sides continuing a war that, realistically, neither one needs to continue. Both sides are equally important and both sides hold an equal amount of truth. And I've found plenty of times when both sides are wrong on an issue, with the truth being the middle ground between the two. And both sides are usually too distracted to realize that they could work together and build a better nation for their efforts. But, meh. Let the war continue.

It would be better if you stopped and researched what you said a bit more, though. You had the perfect opportunity when I asked you to prove your position to really make yourself look good. And, there is evidence out there... you just have to find it. You'll find your job a bit easier with the additional backup.

Acting for and against the interests of the troops is not support. Those who have a morality which allows them to oppose the troops' mission and yet believe their other actions outweigh this opposition are in error.

Isn't this entire thread about how the liberal philosophy has been pushed back by George Bush?
I do not believe that truth is relative, nor do I believe that there is an equal amount of truth in both sides. Were this the case, I would have no need of picking a side. I choose to be conservative because I believe it holds more truth than liberalism. The war will continue because each side believes it to be the correct one. I am no different, in that I believe conservatism to be the correct side.
Thank you for your suggestions, but with all due respect, I do not require or desire your approval of my debate tactics.

Acting for and against the interests of the troops is not support. Those who have a morality which allows them to oppose the troops' mission and yet believe their other actions outweigh this opposition are in error.

Can you prove it? Before even attempting, know that you can't. It's one of those judgements of morality that cannot be proven. You'll find the government uses a lot of those when it comes to war.

Isn't this entire thread about how the liberal philosophy has been pushed back by George Bush?

Yes and no. It's more of a criticism on the idea that you must vote for one particular party in order to maintain security and all of that.

I do not believe that truth is relative, nor do I believe that there is an equal amount of truth in both sides. Were this the case, I would have no need of picking a side. I choose to be conservative because I believe it holds more truth than liberalism. The war will continue because each side believes it to be the correct one. I am no different, in that I believe conservatism to be the correct side.

It used to be true that the Earth is flat. It used to be true that Jupiter could not possibly have had moons. It used to be true that the Earth was the center of the universe. It used to be true that man would never be able to fly. It used to be true that visiting the moon would be an impossible dream.

The problem is, truth is relative, and truth changes. And, sometimes, what you think is truth turns out to be wrong. And, honestly, you didn't have to choose a side. There are plenty of people who go their entire lives without choosing one, and are happier for it. You chose the side because you wanted to.

Anyway, we're deeply off topic.

Thank you for your suggestions, but with all due respect, I do not require or desire your approval of my debate tactics.

This has nothing to do with approval. This has to do with making the argument more difficult for myself and others who would challenge you.

Can you prove it? Before even attempting, know that you can't. It's one of those judgements of morality that cannot be proven. You'll find the government uses a lot of those when it comes to war.



Yes and no. It's more of a criticism on the idea that you must vote for one particular party in order to maintain security and all of that.



It used to be true that the Earth is flat. It used to be true that Jupiter could not possibly have had moons. It used to be true that the Earth was the center of the universe. It used to be true that man would never be able to fly. It used to be true that visiting the moon would be an impossible dream.

The problem is, truth is relative, and truth changes. And, sometimes, what you think is truth turns out to be wrong. And, honestly, you didn't have to choose a side. There are plenty of people who go their entire lives without choosing one, and are happier for it. You chose the side because you wanted to.

Anyway, we're deeply off topic.



This has nothing to do with approval. This has to do with making the argument more difficult for myself and others who would challenge you.

Claiming support for the troops while working against their mission is speaking out of both sides of the mouth. Far from support.

It was never true that the Earth was flat. It was merely widely believed that the Earth was flat. In such a case, the vast majority of people were wrong. Similarly, it was never true that Earth was the centre of the universe, or that man would not ever be able to fly, or that visiting the moon was an impossible dream. The fact that most people believed these things means only that these people were wrong; belief does not cause truth.

Truth is neither relative nor does it change. Truth is the reflection of the way reality actually is. If what I think is truth turns out to be wrong, then it was never true. I do have to choose a side, because I believe in the truth of one side. Those people who do not choose a side are sticking their heads in the sand; if they are happier, it is only because ignorance is bliss. I chose the side because I wanted to be on the side of the truth, which I believe I found.

Let's see. Islamic fundamentalists in Iran need a cowboy in the White House who will not try to negotiate when some shit they sponsor hits the fan. They tried in 1993 and it didn't go as well a they'd hoped, and decided to wait until someone who'd shoot first and ask questions seldom got into office. Cue Bush Two.

Aforementioned shit hits fan, hard. Cowboy does exactly what the Islamic fundamentalists need him to do (and more) in order to keep alive the flames of hatred for the West that is their bread and butter -- invade Muslim territory. It's a bit like symbiosis. Without the fundamentalists, the military has a harder time justifying high levels of funding. Without the cowboy, citizens of Islamic nations have less to get uptight about, causing them to turn their attention to how badly they're being governed, which is bad for those seeking to stay in power.

Cowboy gets prime re-election theme, fundamentalist government keeps its citizens' eyes anywhere but on reform. Both sides get what they need to thrive.

Paranoid? Maybe. Possible? Definitely.

The terrorists planned attacks and carried them out. Following the measures instituted by President Bush, no further attacks have been successfully carried out on American soil. This is justification enough for me.

This is more likely because no further attacks were needed, as they accomplished their goals.


Your claim is just as provable as mine.

Claiming support for the troops while working against their mission is speaking out of both sides of the mouth. Far from support.

That assumes that opposing the war involves actually working against it. An assumption typically not actually possible to get any real evidence to support.

It was never true that the Earth was flat. It was merely widely believed that the Earth was flat. In such a case, the vast majority of people were wrong. Similarly, it was never true that Earth was the centre of the universe, or that man would not ever be able to fly, or that visiting the moon was an impossible dream. The fact that most people believed these things means only that these people were wrong; belief does not cause truth.

Except that truth itself is a belief. It's the belief that what you know is the actual, honest fact or facts about the universe or some aspect of it. Why do you think it is that religions have so much conflict over which belief is true? Each one wants to be able to say they're right. And that's why certain ones also conflict a lot with science. Of course, this comes from the fact that we're dealing with a human construction. The universe, ultimately, doesn't care.

Truth is neither relative nor does it change. Truth is the reflection of the way reality actually is. If what I think is truth turns out to be wrong, then it was never true. I do have to choose a side, because I believe in the truth of one side. Those people who do not choose a side are sticking their heads in the sand; if they are happier, it is only because ignorance is bliss. I chose the side because I wanted to be on the side of the truth, which I believe I found.

Or maybe those people do not choose a side because they recognize neither one as actually having the truth of the matter, but only beliefs and opinions that sometimes turn out true. And I also note that you claim truth is unalterable, yet you are using your beliefs tell you whether or not you've found truth. Nevermind the fact that the essence of the belief in truth itself often requires that truth be, as you stated, unalterable and thus not needing belief to still remain truth.

This is more likely because no further attacks were needed, as they accomplished their goals.


Your claim is just as provable as mine.

A simple look at the stated claims of terrorists is enough to topple your theory, KoL.

Let's see. Islamic fundamentalists in Iran need a cowboy in the White House who will not try to negotiate when some shit they sponsor hits the fan. They tried in 1993 and it didn't go as well a they'd hoped, and decided to wait until someone who'd shoot first and ask questions seldom got into office. Cue Bush Two.

Aforementioned shit hits fan, hard. Cowboy does exactly what the Islamic fundamentalists need him to do (and more) in order to keep alive the flames of hatred for the West that is their bread and butter -- invade Muslim territory. It's a bit like symbiosis. Without the fundamentalists, the military has a harder time justifying high levels of funding. Without the cowboy, citizens of Islamic nations have less to get uptight about, causing them to turn their attention to how badly they're being governed, which is bad for those seeking to stay in power.

Cowboy gets prime re-election theme, fundamentalist government keeps its citizens' eyes anywhere but on reform. Both sides get what they need to thrive.

Paranoid? Maybe. Possible? Definitely.

Its not paranoid, its for the most part fact. I've had the same idea many times.

Of course, I don't think their's a secret accord between the terrorists and Bush. I just think that evil, bigoted, and power hungry people's interests often overlap. And that fear, hate, and violence feed into each other.

A simple look at the stated claims of terrorists is enough to topple your theory, KoL.

Not really.


Why bother spending the money to attack when one attack is all we require to destroy ourselves.


9/11 accomplished their goals fantasically. Why bother with more?


As I said, your claim is just as supportable as mine. If you want to blindly believe that George Bush is saving us from the evil brown people, be my guest. But examination with a critical eye is all it takes to see otherwise.

I wont try and argue this with you further, as I know I wont change someone like you's mind. Just pointing out to everyone else that your "claim" is bogus.

That assumes that opposing the war involves actually working against it. An assumption typically not actually possible to get any real evidence to support.



Except that truth itself is a belief. It's the belief that what you know is the actual, honest fact or facts about the universe or some aspect of it. Why do you think it is that religions have so much conflict over which belief is true? Each one wants to be able to say they're right. And that's why certain ones also conflict a lot with science. Of course, this comes from the fact that we're dealing with a human construction. The universe, ultimately, doesn't care.



Or maybe those people do not choose a side because they recognize neither one as actually having the truth of the matter, but only beliefs and opinions that sometimes turn out true. And I also note that you claim truth is unalterable, yet you are using your beliefs tell you whether or not you've found truth. Nevermind the fact that the essence of the belief in truth itself often requires that truth be, as you stated, unalterable and thus not needing belief to still remain truth.

Voting for politicians who vote against funding the war is working against the troops, as is publicly decrying the aims of their commander-in-chief.

Truth is not a belief; truth is an aspect of a belief which either pertains or does not. The universe doesn't care; it is how it is. Thus, if our beliefs coincide with how the universe is, they are true. If they do not, they are false. There is no room for relativity.

The disbelief in truth requires the belief in truth; it requires that it be unalterably true that truth is relative. If my belief in objective truth is circular, your belief in relative truth is incoherent.

Voting for politicians who vote against funding the war is working against the troops, as is publicly decrying the aims of their commander-in-chief.

So, voting for John McCain is voting against the troops too?

A simple look at the stated claims of terrorists is enough to topple your theory, KoL.

So you take the enemy at their word? Because terrorists never lie...:rolleyes:

Voting for politicians who vote against funding the war is working against the troops, as is publicly decrying the aims of their commander-in-chief.

Truth is not a belief; truth is an aspect of a belief which either pertains or does not. The universe doesn't care; it is how it is. Thus, if our beliefs coincide with how the universe is, they are true. If they do not, they are false. There is no room for relativity.

The disbelief in truth requires the belief in truth; it requires that it be unalterably true that truth is relative. If my belief in objective truth is circular, your belief in relative truth is incoherent.

There is no "truth".

Not really.


Why bother spending the money to attack when one attack is all we require to destroy ourselves.


9/11 accomplished their goals fantasically. Why bother with more?


As I said, your claim is just as supportable as mine. If you want to blindly believe that George Bush is saving us from the evil brown people, be my guest. But examination with a critical eye is all it takes to see otherwise.

I wont try and argue this with you further, as I know I wont change someone like you's mind. Just pointing out to everyone else that your "claim" is bogus.

Your attribution of racism is unsupported, unfounded, and will not be tolerated again.

The terrorists' aims is none other than the destruction of America, and forced conversion of her people to the particular sick brand of Islam supported by those terrorists. As this has clearly not happened, the terrorists' aims have not been accomplished; ergo, your contention is unsupported, while mine remains supported.

There is no "truth".

A statement which only pertains if there is, in fact, truth.

So, voting for John McCain is voting against the troops too?

No. John McCain has consistently voted for those pieces of legislation which support the troops and their mission.

Your attribution of racism is unsupported, unfounded, and will not be tolerated again.

The terrorists' aims is none other than the destruction of America, and forced conversion of her people to the particular sick brand of Islam supported by those terrorists. As this has clearly not happened, the terrorists' aims have not been accomplished; ergo, your contention is unsupported, while mine remains supported.

The ultimate goal may not be acheived, but the American response to 911 has so far done more to further their aims than otherwise.

So you take the enemy at their word? Because terrorists never lie...:rolleyes:

I take the enemy at their word as to their stated goals, as these statements are in large part a rallying cry to get others of like mind to join their cause.

Your attribution of racism is unsupported, unfounded, and will not be tolerated again.

Not be tolerated? What the fuck are you going to do about it?

Besides, I never said you were racist. Me thinketh thou doest protest too much.

The terrorists' aims is none other than the destruction of America, and forced conversion of her people to the particular sick brand of Islam supported by those terrorists. As this has clearly not happened, the terrorists' aims have not been accomplished; ergo, your contention is unsupported, while mine remains supported.

And, our troops are dying in Iraq, our economy is collapsing, we're spending billions on a war. Our civil liberties have been crushed, and the world hates us. We are destroying ourselves. Its very easy to sit back and watch us do it, why do the terrorist need more attacks?

The ultimate goal may not be acheived, but the American response to 911 has so far done more to further their aims than otherwise.

Hardly. We are a safer country than we were before, and we have made the world a safer place.

No. John McCain has consistently voted for those pieces of legislation which support the troops and their mission.

But he voted against funding them. Which by your own admission, means he doesnt support them.

Hardly. We are a safer country than we were before, and we have made the world a safer place.

No, we havent.

Voting for politicians who vote against funding the war is working against the troops, as is publicly decrying the aims of their commander-in-chief.

Is it? I find it interesting that pointing out the fact that Bush lied about the real reasons for attacking Iraq and is guilty of using information that was outright fabricated is working against the troops. Most of whom, now knowing their war to be because of a lie, I'm sure would love to come home. Unfortunately, it may take cutting the funding to bring them home. I'd rather not cut off their money supply for the things the soldiers need, but most of that is not going to the soldiers anyway.

Truth is not a belief; truth is an aspect of a belief which either pertains or does not. The universe doesn't care; it is how it is. Thus, if our beliefs coincide with how the universe is, they are true. If they do not, they are false. There is no room for relativity.

Actually, relativity is one of the (at current) accepted truths of the universe. Along with uncertainty and a few others. So not only is there room for it, but it's a requirement of understanding the universe.

As for truth: How do you know that something is truth? Ultimately, you have to believe that the evidence you have at hand truly reflects truth. And that, right there, makes it dependent upon belief.

The disbelief in truth requires the belief in truth; it requires that it be unalterably true that truth is relative. If my belief in objective truth is circular, your belief in relative truth is incoherent.

Actually, no really. For one thing, what you stated is incoherent, and I'm the one who's using a circular argument. You have your last sentence backwards and the one just before that contradicts itself.

Hardly. We are a safer country than we were before, and we have made the world a safer place.

The world hates us, we have lost our freedoms, we're in a ressession, likely a depression, Iraq is a new terrorist recruiting ground, Iran is a regional power, the Taliban remain strong...

Shall I go on?

Im going to bed. Ill look at this again tomorrow for more amussing nonsense.

Not be tolerated? What the fuck are you going to do about it?

I am going to cease further debate with you.

Night, KoL. Though, it should be quite entertaining when you read it.

I am going to cease further debate with you.

Be my guest, that wont stop me from calling you on your BS. Besides, you dont "debate" because that implies you make rational, supported arguements.

Night, KoL. Though, it should be quite entertaining when you read it.

I hope so.

Is it? I find it interesting that pointing out the fact that Bush lied about the real reasons for attacking Iraq and is guilty of using information that was outright fabricated is working against the troops. Most of whom, now knowing their war to be because of a lie, I'm sure would love to come home. Unfortunately, it may take cutting the funding to bring them home. I'd rather not cut off their money supply for the things the soldiers need, but most of that is not going to the soldiers anyway.



Actually, relativity is one of the (at current) accepted truths of the universe. Along with uncertainty and a few others. So not only is there room for it, but it's a requirement of understanding the universe.

As for truth: How do you know that something is truth? Ultimately, you have to believe that the evidence you have at hand truly reflects truth. And that, right there, makes it dependent upon belief.



Actually, no really. For one thing, what you stated is incoherent, and I'm the one who's using a circular argument. You have your last sentence backwards and the one just before that contradicts itself.

Your contention that President Bush lied is an unfounded attack upon his motives. Your assumption that the troops would love to come home is unfounded: this is an all-volunteer military.

Cutting off funding for the war would be a further instance of opposing the troops.

Einsteinian relativity has nothing to do with factual relativism. You are conflating two terms which have nothing in common. Truth is not dependent upon belief; my apprehension of truth is dependent upon belief. Truth exists independently of my beliefs.

In order for the claim "Truth is relative" to have any meaning, it requires that at least one statement be absolutely true. Thus, the statement "Truth is relative" is self-denying.

Your contention that President Bush lied is an unfounded attack upon his motives. Your assumption that the troops would love to come home is unfounded: this is an all-volunteer military.

If it's unfounded, then where are the weapons? Why was a certain document forged (it made international news)? Why is there evidence that suggests Bush outright ignored any intel that disagreed with what he was saying? Prove it's an unfounded attack.

Also, I should note that this volunteer military can throw people in military prison for disobeying orders. And, as further evidence, look at the trouble it's had with recruits over the past eight years.

Cutting off funding for the war would be a further instance of opposing the troops.

You have yet to prove this.

Einsteinian relativity has nothing to do with factual relativism. You are conflating two terms which have nothing in common. Truth is not dependent upon belief; my apprehension of truth is dependent upon belief. Truth exists independently of my beliefs.

Except that Einsteinian relativity states that the observation of the universe itself is relative to your position and momentum through it. It's also dependent, though Einstein did not say this, on your capacity to observe as well as believe what you have observed. Truth itself comes, in turn, from observing the universe and then coming to a conclusion, based on the evidence gathered from those observations, of what the facts of the universe are. So, how does Einsteinian relativity not relate again?

And, secondly, you have yet to prove that truth exists independently of belief. I at least have provided a logical argument for it.

In order for the claim "Truth is relative" to have any meaning, it requires that at least one statement be absolutely true. Thus, the statement "Truth is relative" is self-denying.

Not necessarily. The statement "Truth is relative" can also be relative in how true it is. It could turn out that certain things are true and yet not relative. However, those things would be applied equally across the entire universe in order for there to be evidence to show the lack of relativity. Which means that possibility does not apply in this case.

I take the enemy at their word as to their stated goals, as these statements are in large part a rallying cry to get others of like mind to join their cause.

Because those in power never mislead their followers.:D

Because those in power never mislead their followers.:D

I see little motive for the terrorists to say "We seek the destruction of America" in order to get followers when they do not actually seek such destruction.

I see little motive for the terrorists to say "We seek the destruction of America" in order to get followers when they do not actually seek such destruction.

Simple: Ground soldiers/sacrifices for other projects. Simply tell them that completing their mission is part of the overall plan to destroy America.

I see little motive for the terrorists to say "We seek the destruction of America" in order to get followers when they do not actually seek such destruction.

Oh, I have no doubt they'd like America destroyed. But having Bush in power helped further that goal, though they would surely never admit that to their followers.

If it's unfounded, then where are the weapons? Why was a certain document forged (it made international news)? Why is there evidence that suggests Bush outright ignored any intel that disagreed with what he was saying? Prove it's an unfounded attack.

Also, I should note that this volunteer military can throw people in military prison for disobeying orders. And, as further evidence, look at the trouble it's had with recruits over the past eight years.



You have yet to prove this.



Except that Einsteinian relativity states that the observation of the universe itself is relative to your position and momentum through it. It's also dependent, though Einstein did not say this, on your capacity to observe as well as believe what you have observed. Truth itself comes, in turn, from observing the universe and then coming to a conclusion, based on the evidence gathered from those observations, of what the facts of the universe are. So, how does Einsteinian relativity not relate again?

And, secondly, you have yet to prove that truth exists independently of belief. I at least have provided a logical argument for it.



Not necessarily. The statement "Truth is relative" can also be relative in how true it is. It could turn out that certain things are true and yet not relative. However, those things would be applied equally across the entire universe in order for there to be evidence to show the lack of relativity. Which means that possibility does not apply in this case.

Your assumption that, because Bush was wrong about WMDs he therefore lied about WMDs is unfounded. You yourself must prove that not only were there no WMDs but that Bush knew there were none and said there were with intent to deceive.

Regardless of how many people are signing up, the fact remains that everyone who is currently serving in the military joined up voluntarily.

Cutting off funding removes the necessary equipment and support the troops need to carry out their mission. This fails to support them.

Einstein's relativity states only that space and time are relative to one another, that time varies depending on which inertial field you find yourself in. Truth does not come from observation of the universe; belief does. Truth is an aspect of a belief which corresponds to the way the universe actually is.

So you admit that some truth is not relative. You now have the onus of describing exactly what criteria a given truth must have in order for it to be objective.

Oh, I have no doubt they'd like America destroyed. But having Bush in power helped further that goal, though they would surely never admit that to their followers.

President Bush has done more to attack terrorism than any other president in history.

Simple: Ground soldiers/sacrifices for other projects. Simply tell them that completing their mission is part of the overall plan to destroy America.

This is all assumption about possible motives for terrorists which is unfounded and not based on any evidence. It is ad hoc.

Your assumption that, because Bush was wrong about WMDs he therefore lied about WMDs is unfounded. You yourself must prove that not only were there no WMDs but that Bush knew there were none and said there were with intent to deceive.

Sorry, but that's not how this is going to work. You see, I've been asking you for proof for quite some time now. Considering you are not even trying to give any, I do not have to bother posting any. You either have to accept that you're going to have to prove your statements or that you'll simply have to accept my statements with the same face-value that has been the discussion up to this point.

Regardless of how many people are signing up, the fact remains that everyone who is currently serving in the military joined up voluntarily.

Which counters the issue of military prison if they disobey in what way? And a lot of people sign up just for a job to do or to get money for college.

Cutting off funding removes the necessary equipment and support the troops need to carry out their mission. This fails to support them.

It also removes their pay. The result is that it forces the military to bring the soldiers back home, thus ending the war and allowing a new budget, with support for the military, be passed. It's an acceptable gambit that doesn't actually harm the military.

Einstein's relativity states only that space and time are relative to one another, that time varies depending on which inertial field you find yourself in. Truth does not come from observation of the universe; belief does. Truth is an aspect of a belief which corresponds to the way the universe actually is.

Not entirely true. Einstein's theory of relativity is related to the perception of space and time. He's also got a quote about a hand on a hot stove attributed to him that many feel to also be an accurate explanation of relativity. And I'll note that you cannot prove truth, under your definition, without proving a belief, thus making truth itself still dependent upon belief.

This is all assumption about possible motives for terrorists which is unfounded and not based on any evidence. It is ad hoc.

You said you see little motive for terrorists to call for that. I provided a possible motive, which I'll note I never bothered to attempt to determine the truth or likelihood of. Oh, and you're still misusing logical fallacies.

You said you see little motive for terrorists to call for that. I provided a possible motive, which I'll note I never bothered to attempt to determine the truth or likelihood of. Oh, and you're still misusing logical fallacies.

Until there is reason to believe otherwise, it is proper to take a given arguer at their word. I could speculate all kinds of hidden motivations for your own arguments, but since I lack proof, or any real evidence for such assumptions, I take you at your word. To do else would be ad hoc.

Oh, and no, I'm not. I'm well aware of the definitions of the various fallacies, and am using them properly.

Sorry, but that's not how this is going to work. You see, I've been asking you for proof for quite some time now. Considering you are not even trying to give any, I do not have to bother posting any. You either have to accept that you're going to have to prove your statements or that you'll simply have to accept my statements with the same face-value that has been the discussion up to this point.



Which counters the issue of military prison if they disobey in what way? And a lot of people sign up just for a job to do or to get money for college.



It also removes their pay. The result is that it forces the military to bring the soldiers back home, thus ending the war and allowing a new budget, with support for the military, be passed. It's an acceptable gambit that doesn't actually harm the military.



Not entirely true. Einstein's theory of relativity is related to the perception of space and time. He's also got a quote about a hand on a hot stove attributed to him that many feel to also be an accurate explanation of relativity. And I'll note that you cannot prove truth, under your definition, without proving a belief, thus making truth itself still dependent upon belief.

For proof of my statements, I refer you to my prior posts. There is no proof available that President Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq; this is an unfounded accusation made by the Left and parroted by many of similar leaning, which originated out of sheer hatred for the man.

It matters not at all why they signed up. The fact is, they, of their own free will, chose to join the military, under the understanding that they might be called upon to serve in time of war.

No, it hamstrings the soldiers into trying to survive while the people back home have stabbed them in the back. It waves the surrender flag to the enemy and emboldens them to further attacks against innocent Americans. It is a terrible gambit that stabs right at the heart of decency, and would rightly be prosecuted as an act of treason.

Your stretching to incorporate Einsteinian relativity with factual relativism in order to avoid admitting your initial mistake in conflating the two is bordering on the absurd. Einstein was concerned with the nature of perception of reality, the relation of time to space. Relativity has no bearing outside this. Truth is simply an aspect of a belief which states that that belief corresponds to reality; if you want to define it otherwise, that is your right, but don't try to claim that most other people so define it, and certainly don't try to claim that it has any justification by Einsteinian theory.

Until there is reason to believe otherwise, it is proper to take a given arguer at their word. I could speculate all kinds of hidden motivations for your own arguments, but since I lack proof, or any real evidence for such assumptions, I take you at your word. To do else would be ad hoc.

If you lack proof for a hidden motivation, then maybe you might want to reexamine this thread again. I'm not going to tell you what it is, though.

Oh, and no, I'm not. I'm well aware of the definitions of the various fallacies, and am using them properly.

In this case, you misuse the "ad hoc" accusation. In particular, what I posted is actually something that has been practiced quite a bit before. For example, the Spanish-American War is a perfect example of where that came into play (though, there, it was newspaper editors using it to settle a bet between them).

If you lack proof for a hidden motivation, then maybe you might want to reexamine this thread again. I'm not going to tell you what it is, though.



In this case, you misuse the "ad hoc" accusation. In particular, what I posted is actually something that has been practiced quite a bit before. For example, the Spanish-American War is a perfect example of where that came into play (though, there, it was newspaper editors using it to settle a bet between them).

In this case, you are imagining the possible motives of the terrorists, and attributing them without evidence merely to support your argument. Ergo, ad hoc.

For proof of my statements, I refer you to my prior posts. There is no proof available that President Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq; this is an unfounded accusation made by the Left and parroted by many of similar leaning, which originated out of sheer hatred for the man.

And I refer you to the fact your previous posts contain no proof of your statements. Just as your current one contains no proof of your counteraccusation. At least I could find proof to support mine.

It matters not at all why they signed up. The fact is, they, of their own free will, chose to join the military, under the understanding that they might be called upon to serve in time of war.

Which does not deal with the issue of "you can't unvolunteer without going to jail once called upon."

No, it hamstrings the soldiers into trying to survive while the people back home have stabbed them in the back. It waves the surrender flag to the enemy and emboldens them to further attacks against innocent Americans. It is a terrible gambit that stabs right at the heart of decency, and would rightly be prosecuted as an act of treason.

I'll tell you what: I'll dress you up as an American soldier and drop you off in a Taliban camp with a gun that has no ammunition and leave you there with no food or water. You tell me how long you're going to fight. The lack of supplies would force the military to pull out, since it wouldn't be able to keep the soldiers in the field anyway and pulling out is less costly.

Also, I want to know how pulling back is going to embolden them anymore than the U.S. creating more recruiting grounds for them, as well as reacting in fear to the possibility of them attacking. Not to mention they already scored a victory in their mission, as the economy for the nation has still not recovered from that attack. Oh, and let's not forget that losing war in their homeground, proving the U.S. to be militarily weaker over the long-term. Yeah, we're really striking fear into their hearts...

Your stretching to incorporate Einsteinian relativity with factual relativism in order to avoid admitting your initial mistake in conflating the two is bordering on the absurd. Einstein was concerned with the nature of perception of reality, the relation of time to space. Relativity has no bearing outside this. Truth is simply an aspect of a belief which states that that belief corresponds to reality; if you want to define it otherwise, that is your right, but don't try to claim that most other people so define it, and certainly don't try to claim that it has any justification by Einsteinian theory.

Stretching? Not really. For one thing, both relativities are actually dependent upon the relativity between the person making the observation, and through it the decision about what they believe, and what they are observing. They both also depend upon the person's ability to percieve that and accept the perception as factual. And they both require judgement calls about an aspect of the universe. In fact, if you stop and check, they actually work the same way as well.

And I should note that truth itself is reliant upon perception of reality. In this case, the relativity of the person to what they are observing and their belief as to the truth of what they observed. It's really quite simple to see how the two tie in.

In this case, you are imagining the possible motives of the terrorists, and attributing them without evidence merely to support your argument. Ergo, ad hoc.

I stated no attribution of it to the terrorists, only that it was a possible motivation (one admittedly that has been used before in reality) that might explain the behavior in question. It is also a logical possibility. Whether or not it is the real possibility was never my concern. Thus, not ad hoc.

Our allies were weak and unwilling to act, so George Bush took matters into his own hands to do what was right. Good will is well and good, but when it stand between you and the right course, you should rightly toss it aside. That's what Bush did, and I admire him all the more for it.
So weakness to refuse to act upon flawed intelligence?
Bush walks the moral high ground, in standing up for democracy and freedom, even though most of the world was opposed to his actions. He overthrew an oppressive dictator, freeing them from untold violence and persecution, and has guided the people of Iraq in setting up their own democratic system.
Gotta love how he has done what he can to abolish freedom and democracy so that he can "protect" it.

And I refer you to the fact your previous posts contain no proof of your statements. Just as your current one contains no proof of your counteraccusation. At least I could find proof to support mine.



Which does not deal with the issue of "you can't unvolunteer without going to jail once called upon."



I'll tell you what: I'll dress you up as an American soldier and drop you off in a Taliban camp with a gun that has no ammunition and leave you there with no food or water. You tell me how long you're going to fight. The lack of supplies would force the military to pull out, since it wouldn't be able to keep the soldiers in the field anyway and pulling out is less costly.

Also, I want to know how pulling back is going to embolden them anymore than the U.S. creating more recruiting grounds for them, as well as reacting in fear to the possibility of them attacking. Not to mention they already scored a victory in their mission, as the economy for the nation has still not recovered from that attack. Oh, and let's not forget that losing war in their homeground, proving the U.S. to be militarily weaker over the long-term. Yeah, we're really striking fear into their hearts...



Stretching? Not really. For one thing, both relativities are actually dependent upon the relativity between the person making the observation, and through it the decision about what they believe, and what they are observing. They both also depend upon the person's ability to percieve that and accept the perception as factual. And they both require judgement calls about an aspect of the universe. In fact, if you stop and check, they actually work the same way as well.

And I should note that truth itself is reliant upon perception of reality. In this case, the relativity of the person to what they are observing and their belief as to the truth of what they observed. It's really quite simple to see how the two tie in.

My points remain uncontested by unchallenged contentions.

Once they volunteered, they did so with full knowledge that they might be called upon to go to war. They then committed themselves to that possibility. They freely chose their current situation.

Yes, and leaving soldiers in enemy territory without appropriate materiel to fight is stabbing them in the back.

Whenever an enemy surrenders, the opposing force is emboldened. In this instance, it shows the terrorists that certain factions in America don't have the stomach for war, and that if they press on long enough, they can eventually get their way, because the left will force a surrender.

The U.S. is winning, and winning decisively, in Iraq.

Hardly. Truth and belief have nothing to do with observation and spacetime.

Truth is not reliant upon anything except reality. The universe is utterly indifferent to what we believe; it is how it is. All truth is is a factor of a given belief that states that "This belief corresponds to the actual state of the universe." Whether this factor pertains to a given belief or not is objective, it either does or does not pertain, regardless of whether anyone actually believes it pertains.

So weakness to refuse to act upon flawed intelligence?

Gotta love how he has done what he can to abolish freedom and democracy so that he can "protect" it.

They were weak and refused to act to force Iraq to prove it had no WMDs, which it was not doing, and to act to remove Saddam, a diabolical madman, from power, when he had a noted history of deliberately murdering, in mass numbers, his own citizens.

Bush is, in large part, responsible for preserving American freedom and democracy so that it can be enjoyed by future generations.

I am going to bed now, as it is now after 5 a.m. Good night all.

A few people have believed me to be female, although I admit to being clueless as to why.

It's because your name would have a feminine construction in the Romance languages, one of which Heikoku happens to speak. It just looks "female". Of course, I think in Heikoku's instance it was meant as an insult or to set himself up for the "I won't hold back anymore" line he used.

As far as I'm concerned, non-citizens acting against American interests, even within our own borders, should have no Constitutional protections at all.

Weren't you a raging libertarian a few weeks ago? When did you start worshiping the state?

My points remain uncontested by unchallenged contentions.

Okay, that one doesn't even make sense.

Your points either lie dead or dying. Depending on which end of the cardboard tube they got. Such is the way of bushido. Bonus points if you get the reference.

[/quote]Once they volunteered, they did so with full knowledge that they might be called upon to go to war. They then committed themselves to that possibility. They freely chose their current situation.[/quote]

Which once again does not deal with the jail issue and the fact that, really, they did not choose to go to war, but had the war thrust upon them and they faced jail time if they didn't. Let's not forget how many of these actually signed up for the national guard, meaning they signed up to defend the nation inside its borders and thus are doing a job they never could be constrained as having signed up for.

Yes, and leaving soldiers in enemy territory without appropriate materiel to fight is stabbing them in the back.

You underestimate how many resources the military has. Even if we cut off funding, they would have enough supplies to get out and get back to the States.

Whenever an enemy surrenders, the opposing force is emboldened. In this instance, it shows the terrorists that certain factions in America don't have the stomach for war, and that if they press on long enough, they can eventually get their way, because the left will force a surrender.

And whenever an enemy loses a war, the opposing force is emboldened. Considering we're currently losing the war against Al Quaida, I would say we're in a lose-lose on this one.

The U.S. is winning, and winning decisively, in Iraq.

Considering their main enemies are also citizens of that particular nation at the moment and the main battle is keeping a civil war from happening? Yeah, some victory.

Hardly. Truth and belief have nothing to do with observation and spacetime.

Truth is not reliant upon anything except reality. The universe is utterly indifferent to what we believe; it is how it is. All truth is is a factor of a given belief that states that "This belief corresponds to the actual state of the universe." Whether this factor pertains to a given belief or not is objective, it either does or does not pertain, regardless of whether anyone actually believes it pertains.

Thank you for conceding the argument. You just admitted that your position on truth and belief exists independently of reality, in that it's independent of observation (which is how we come to know reality) and then go on to contradict yourself. And I want to know how you can know reality without observing it or how you can come to know that your belief is in line with reality without some way to verify it.

Your contention that President Bush lied is an unfounded attack upon his motives. Your assumption that the troops would love to come home is unfounded: this is an all-volunteer military.

Bush: "Iraq has WMD's" "Saddam supported Al-Queda"
Both of these are lies, the first one there was no evidence of WMD's before the invasion and there still is no evidence of WMD's. As to the second, do some research Osama Bin Laden hated Saddam Hussein almost as much as he hates the U.S.. The both for being infidels, the latter predominantly christian, the former for being the wrong kind of muslim, and not a very good one at that.

So no, it is not an unfounded attack.

As to the troops, so what if it is an all volunteer military? Not all the soldiers joined after the war with Iraq started.

Dyajkovo, I was saving those for a later post.

As to the troops, so what if it is an all volunteer military? Not all the soldiers joined after the war with Iraq started.

Although at this point everyone who is in has reenlisted at least once. Of course, if you've already got 10 years in and only another 10 until you get those sweet retirement benefits it'd be hard to just leave it all behind and start a new career.

They were weak and refused to act to force Iraq to prove it had no WMDs, which it was not doing, and to act to remove Saddam, a diabolical madman, from power, when he had a noted history of deliberately murdering, in mass numbers, his own citizens.
Ummm, you do realize that U.N. weapons inspectors were in Iraq at the time the Dubya claimed Saddam had WMD's, yes? Also that the U.N. weapons inspectors, when asked, stated that they had discovered no signs of an active program for the production of WMD's. This would be why the a majority of the U.N. members were unwilling to act; because in fact there was no proof of WMD's in Iraq and every U.N. had access to that information.
Bush is, in large part, responsible for preserving American freedom and democracy so that it can be enjoyed by future generations.
And how has he done that? The military is stretched to the breaking point because of his incompetence as a CiC. The U.S.'s allies have been alienated by his attitude of "You're either with me or against me." And he has repeatedly attempted to do away with protections guaranteed by the U.S. constitution. And has attempted to gather more powers to the office of the president than it has ever held before, so explain to me how any of this is "Preserving American freedom and democracy"?

Dyajkovo, I was saving those for a later post.
Sorry :(
Although at this point everyone who is in has reenlisted at least once. Of course, if you've already got 10 years in and only another 10 until you get those sweet retirement benefits it'd be hard to just leave it all behind and start a new career.

Not necesarrily willingly, the U.S. military has the ability to extend your enlistment, because, in fact, when you sign up, you are signing up for eight years. so people who joined the military in '01, pre 9/11 could still be in whether they want to be or not.

Sorry :(

Not a problem. I was hoping to get this thread to twelve pages before I started bringing in things like that.

well, it's 3/4 of the way there...

Not necesarrily willingly, the U.S. military has the ability to extend your enlistment, because, in fact, when you sign up, you are signing up for eight years. so people who joined the military in '01, pre 9/11 could still be in whether they want to be or not.

They don't have the ability to stop loss you quite that long. What happens in 99% of stop loss cases is that their stop loss orders are lifted immediately after the deployment they were stop lossed for ends. For example, I was stop lossed in 2003-2004, which lifted as soon as I returned back to the States and I immediately started my ETS outprocessing.

And yes, it is an initial 8 year enlistment but that's generally split into 4 years of active duty and then 4 years in the IRR, which they've avoided calling up en masse thus far. While there may be a small handful of individuals who've received the stop loss cock continuously since 2001 they would be an insignificant portion of the military.

The terrorists' aims is none other than the destruction of America, and forced conversion of her people to the particular sick brand of Islam supported by those terrorists. As this has clearly not happened, the terrorists' aims have not been accomplished; ergo, your contention is unsupported, while mine remains supported.
I don't know where you're getting this from... The stated aims of which terrorists? It must be a minority you're talking about, since the stated aims of most islamists is fighting the "Near enemy", not the "Far enemy". Most of them are unconcerned with a global jihad.

Hardly. We are a safer country than we were before, and we have made the world a safer place.
Now that's just a flat-out lie.

They were weak and refused to act to force Iraq to prove it had no WMDs, which it was not doing
This is a gross distortion of the truth.

While Saddam never proved Iraq had no WMD, he was under no obligation to do so either - since trying to prove a negative is an excercise in futility. However, the UN and its member states did force Iraq to come clean and account for its disarmament and the dismanteling of their weapons programs.

So they were acting, as the weapons inspectors were in Iraq, making progress, when the US decided to invade. Only to find out that containment had worked, and that Iraq did, in fact, not have any WMD.

The terrorists planned attacks and carried them out. Following the measures instituted by President Bush, no further attacks have been successfully carried out on American soil. This is justification enough for me.

Facts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_anthrax_attacks) aren't you're strong point are they? Or maybe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beltway_sniper_attacks) you're just a liar. Given your history, it does seem to tend to the latter.

I don't know where you're getting this from... The stated aims of which terrorists? It must be a minority you're talking about, since the stated aims of most islamists is fighting the "Near enemy", not the "Far enemy".

Silly, terrorists are all connected and take their orders telepathically from Osama bin Laden. They even have a weekly newsletter. Last week's newsletter talked about the lasted fashion in suicide vests and had a special on why you should vote for Obama.

But who will save the free market?

DUN-DUN-DUNNNNN!!!

If the free market isn't capable of saving itself, it deserves to collapse and perish.

Less Freedoms to protect? Seems like sound, Washington Politician logic, right? They've probably goaded themselves into thinking that all their stupid-ass decisions are ok. Bailout bill? Meh, add 135 billion in earmarks, it'll be fine!

So...according to NS, the fact that there have been no further terrorist attacks on US soil is due to Bush's policies, and this is proven by the aforementioned lack of attacks during this time. Hm...

What else hasn't happened while Bush's policies have been in place?

I have not won the lottery in the past 8 years. Obviously, due to Bush's policies.

Mount Vesuvius has not erupted. Score one for Bush.

I have no steady job -- Bush's fault (only 2% facetious) -- nor have I finished my novel -- also Bush's fault (he keeps distracting me).

But a lot of things have happened during Bush's tenure -- the economic crisis, increasing pollution, wholesale destruction of civil liberties, my bathroom door became warped and won't close properly. I put all of those down to Bush and his wretched policies.

Why? 'Cause I can. NS has shown us that it doesn't matter whether causation exists or not, because all you need is correlation. Life is easy now. I can blame Bush for everything. Thanks, Nicea Sancta! :D

I have no steady job -- Bush's fault (only 2% facetious) -- nor have I finished my novel -- also Bush's fault (he keeps distracting me).

How you uh, how you comin' on that novel you're working on? Huh? Gotta a big, uh, big stack of papers there? Gotta, gotta nice litte story you're working on there? Your big novel you've been working on for 3 years? Huh? Gotta, gotta compelling protaganist? Yeah? Gotta obstacle for him to overcome? Huh? Maybe a, maybe the main character gets into a relationship and suffers a little heartbreak? Somethin' like what... Gotta story brewing there? Working on, working on that for quite some time? Huh? Draw from real life experience? Little, little heartbreak? You know? Work it into the story? Make the characters a little more three dimensional? Little, uh, richer experience for the reader? Make those second hundred pages really keep the reader guessing what's going to happen? Some twists and turns? Yea, talking about that 3 years ago. Been working on that the whole time? Nice little narrative? Beginning, middle, and end? A little epilogue? Some friends become enemies, some enemies become friends? Everybody learns that the hero's journey isn't always a happy one? But at the end your main character is richer from the experience? Yeah? Yeah? Oh, I look forward to reading it.

So...according to NS, the fact that there have been no further terrorist attacks on US soil is due to Bush's policies, and this is proven by the aforementioned lack of attacks during this time. Hm...

What else hasn't happened while Bush's policies have been in place?

I have not won the lottery in the past 8 years. Obviously, due to Bush's policies.

Mount Vesuvius has not erupted. Score one for Bush.

I have no steady job -- Bush's fault (only 2% facetious) -- nor have I finished my novel -- also Bush's fault (he keeps distracting me).

But a lot of things have happened during Bush's tenure -- the economic crisis, increasing pollution, wholesale destruction of civil liberties, my bathroom door became warped and won't close properly. I put all of those down to Bush and his wretched policies.

Why? 'Cause I can. NS has shown us that it doesn't matter whether causation exists or not, because all you need is correlation. Life is easy now. I can blame Bush for everything. Thanks, Nicea Sancta! :D

Mur, if you need a translator into Portuguese, PLEASE think of me. ;)

How you uh, how you comin' on that novel you're working on? Huh? Gotta a big, uh, big stack of papers there? Gotta, gotta nice litte story you're working on there? Your big novel you've been working on for 3 years? Huh? Gotta, gotta compelling protaganist? Yeah? Gotta obstacle for him to overcome? Huh? Maybe a, maybe the main character gets into a relationship and suffers a little heartbreak? Somethin' like what... Gotta story brewing there? Working on, working on that for quite some time? Huh? Draw from real life experience? Little, little heartbreak? You know? Work it into the story? Make the characters a little more three dimensional? Little, uh, richer experience for the reader? Make those second hundred pages really keep the reader guessing what's going to happen? Some twists and turns? Yea, talking about that 3 years ago. Been working on that the whole time? Nice little narrative? Beginning, middle, and end? A little epilogue? Some friends become enemies, some enemies become friends? Everybody learns that the hero's journey isn't always a happy one? But at the end your main character is richer from the experience? Yeah? Yeah? Oh, I look forward to reading it.


Works so well with Stewie's voice. :p

Facts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_anthrax_attacks) aren't you're strong point are they? Or maybe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beltway_sniper_attacks) you're just a liar. Given your history, it does seem to tend to the latter.

Maybe he isn't counting them unless a Muslim did them?:confused:

John Allen Muhammad is Muslim (Albeit not a very good one), so that theory's out. Maybe they need to be screaming in Arabic or something like that (Afterall, if they're not from an Arabian desert then they're not real Muslims, right?)

How you uh, how you comin' on that novel you're working on? Huh? Gotta a big, uh, big stack of papers there? Gotta, gotta nice litte story you're working on there? Your big novel you've been working on for 3 years? Huh? Gotta, gotta compelling protaganist? Yeah? Gotta obstacle for him to overcome? Huh? Maybe a, maybe the main character gets into a relationship and suffers a little heartbreak? Somethin' like what... Gotta story brewing there? Working on, working on that for quite some time? Huh? Draw from real life experience? Little, little heartbreak? You know? Work it into the story? Make the characters a little more three dimensional? Little, uh, richer experience for the reader? Make those second hundred pages really keep the reader guessing what's going to happen? Some twists and turns? Yea, talking about that 3 years ago. Been working on that the whole time? Nice little narrative? Beginning, middle, and end? A little epilogue? Some friends become enemies, some enemies become friends? Everybody learns that the hero's journey isn't always a happy one? But at the end your main character is richer from the experience? Yeah? Yeah? Oh, I look forward to reading it.
Pretty much. I realize it's not quite as fresh as storylines created by manatees with idea-balls, but I like to think of it as "classic" and "literary." ;) :tongue:

If we do away with all our freedoms, the scary muslim terrorists won't hate us anymore. So we'll be safe.

No, we will have to do MUCH more than merely "do away with all our freedoms". We'll all have to convert to Islam and make it compulsory (in violation of the First Amendment), and cut off all relations with Israel. Even THEN they might not stop hating us.

The Patriot Act was a BAD, not to mention unconstitutional, idea.

And when I think of Barack Obama getting elected to the Presidency, it scares me to think what he might do with the power granted to the President by the Patriot Act. That is why, despite not being a fan of John McCain, I will nevertheless not DARE even THINK of voting for Barack Obama, because to me, a vote for Obama is a vote for terrorism in the name of "religion".

No, we will have to do MUCH more than merely "do away with all our freedoms". We'll all have to convert to Islam and make it compulsory (in violation of the First Amendment), and cut off all relations with Israel. Even THEN they might not stop hating us.

The Patriot Act was a BAD, not to mention unconstitutional, idea.

And when I think of Barack Obama getting elected to the Presidency, it scares me to think what he might do with the power granted to the President by the Patriot Act. That is why, despite not being a fan of John McCain, I will nevertheless not DARE even THINK of voting for Barack Obama, because to me, a vote for Obama is a vote for terrorism in the name of "religion".

You're going to have to do better at explaining that link, 'cause as that reads it make absolutely no sense. No reason, no causality, just an accusation with no basis in reality. You should meet Nicea Sancta and The Smiling Frogs. If that's how you really think, then they're you're kind of people.

No, we will have to do MUCH more than merely "do away with all our freedoms". We'll all have to convert to Islam and make it compulsory (in violation of the First Amendment), and cut off all relations with Israel. Even THEN they might not stop hating us.

The Patriot Act was a BAD, not to mention unconstitutional, idea.

And when I think of Barack Obama getting elected to the Presidency, it scares me to think what he might do with the power granted to the President by the Patriot Act. That is why, despite not being a fan of John McCain, I will nevertheless not DARE even THINK of voting for Barack Obama, because to me, a vote for Obama is a vote for terrorism in the name of "religion".

When has anything Obama has said or done fallen under the catagory of "terrorism in the name of "religion"?

This better not be your way of saying that you think Obama is a radical Muslim, because if it is so help me I will flame you to ash.

This better not be your way of saying that you think Obama is a radical Muslim, because if it is so help me I will flame you to ash.

Calm down, it's what he wants. You're a respectable poster who does not need to waste your power on the likes of him.

Calm down, it's what he wants. You're a respectable poster who does not need to waste your power on the likes of him.

Logically, I suppose. But on the other hand, I find something repulsive in ignoring bigoted defamation, especially when its probably racially motivated.

I actually doubt very many people think Obama's a Muslim. I suspect that for many people, its an excuse to avoid admitting that they oppose him because of race, given that religious prejudice is more acceptable than racial prejudice.

Expect more of this shit as well. McCain's campaign is planning to increase the negativity after next debate, probably by trying to link him to Rezco and that former terrorist he knows. We'll probably also see some crypto-racism form unofficial campaign surrogates.:headbang:

I don't know where you're getting this from... The stated aims of which terrorists? It must be a minority you're talking about, since the stated aims of most islamists is fighting the "Near enemy", not the "Far enemy". Most of them are unconcerned with a global jihad.
The amusing thing is that the main goals of the brand Osama follows is very much similar to the neo-con desire: Unify and empower your group (religion or nation-state) by building up a new, internal mythos and with a clear external threat that only you, with the help of your group, can defeat (as you're of a special class).

... Then when the people don't rise up to follow you you decide they have become decadent and decide to repress them as well, at least until the 'get' your message.
John Allen Muhammad is Muslim (Albeit not a very good one), so that theory's out. Maybe they need to be screaming in Arabic or something like that (Afterall, if they're not from an Arabian desert then they're not real Muslims, right?)
So islamic Persians (damn, I wish I knew more mid. east ethnic groups) are completely ignored then? :p

Expect more of this shit as well. McCain's campaign is planning to increase the negativity after next debate, probably by trying to link him to Rezco and that former terrorist he knows. We'll probably also see some crypto-racism form unofficial campaign surrogates.:headbang:

As Bush said "Bring it on." The more negative he gets, the more desperate his attempts will appear. I hate to get ahead of myself but I'm seeing a landslide win for Obama.

The amusing thing is that the main goals of the brand Osama follows is very much similar to the neo-con desire: Unify and empower your group (religion or nation-state) by building up a new, internal mythos and with a clear external threat that only you, with the help of your group, can defeat (as you're of a special class).

... Then when the people don't rise up to follow you you decide they have become decadent and decide to repress them as well, at least until the 'get' your message.


Have you by chance seen the documentary called "The Power Of Nightmares"?. It makes this correlation really strongly. A grade stuff, available for free streaming online somewhere...

Big Brother is the protector of democracy.

So islamic Persians (damn, I wish I knew more mid. east ethnic groups) are completely ignored then? :p

Yup, along with the Turks, Pashtuns (Afghans, that's probably who you were trying to think of), Caucasians, and everybody else, 'cause we all know that the only real Muslims are teh ebil Aryabs.

EDIT: You know, in retrospect I probably should have gone with the "Aren't all those foreign people Arabs? They're all terrorists and darker skinned than me." Or something along those lines, because I've actually heard legitimate arguments to say that Arabs really are the only actual Muslims. I personally don't hold with that theory in the least, but its main argument revolved around the Arabs being converted during Muhammeds actual lifespan, making them the only "real" followers of his words, making their descendants the only true followers in their stead. Like I said, not exactly an air-tight theory, but I've heard it mentioned in academic discussion in real life.

That is why, despite not being a fan of John McCain, I will nevertheless not DARE even THINK of voting for Barack Obama, because to me, a vote for Obama is a vote for terrorism in the name of "religion".

....and this is based on....?

What an intellectual discussion this is.