Americans support war in Iraq 2-to-1, poll finds

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
Is it spin to say that Bush linked 9/11 with Saddam/Iraq? Is it safe to say that you believe Bush didn't try to link the two, and despite the recent statements about no solid link, is it your belief that he never wanted the public to think their was...and never tried to plant the seed in the public's mind?
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Gaard
Is it spin to say that Bush linked 9/11 with Saddam/Iraq? Is it safe to say that you believe Bush didn't try to link the two, and despite the recent statements about no solid link, is it your belief that he never wanted the public to think their was...and never tried to plant the seed in the public's mind?
"using this example doesn't help their cause.";)

People can think whatever they want and opine on it. What I think Bush did or didn't do(or try to do or not) is irrelevant to my statement. It also is irrelevant in my support of the Iraq war as I've stated many times.:D
Did Bush purposely try to keep the items separate? No.
Did Bush make sure the two were never used in the same speech? No.
Infer what you may from that:)

CkG
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
It's a little disheartening that you are so quick to chastise others for having, iyo, incorrect opinions but are unwilling to share your own.

A simple question - "Do you think...?"
gets an evasive answer - "What I think is irrelevant..."

But you have every right to be as evasive as you want. :)


 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Gaard
It's a little disheartening that you are so quick to chastise others for having, iyo, incorrect opinions but are unwilling to share your own.

A simple question - "Do you think...?"
gets an evasive answer - "What I think is irrelevant..."

But you have every right to be as evasive as you want. :)
No, I pointed out that the use of "the letter" was incorrect because it was directly related to the joint resolution passed authorizing the use of force against Iraq.;)

I did respond to your line of questioning, however I chose to ask and answer my own set of questions:D Infer from them what you wish.

But yes, it is irrelevant as to my opinion of the war, because it was never a direct factor in my support of the war. I didn't need WMDs or 9/11 to justify my support. All the justification I needed was the direct defiance of the cease-fire agreement by Saddam - for over a decade. I am a firm believer in holding people's feet to the fire in agreements of this magnitude. Saddam allowed himself to get burnt.

CkG
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Under what International Authority did the US invade Iraq? The October '02 resolution proposed by the Administration, passed by Congress and signed by the President deals with giving The President authority to, among other actions, invade a recognized sovereign nation which neither the President, the Congress nor any other body but the UN can grant. The UN Charter is US law by treaty. It controls in this situation because the action crosses internationally recognized borders. The US sought UN authority to act and was denied. Any argument that seeks to state the authority was implied in prior resolutions of the UN Security Counsel or was contained in Article 51 (with out the exigency existing) fails under the weight of the request and denial of the US Draft Resolution. With out some proof of the reason to invade, the US is with out credible defense to the allegation (s) made by many legal scholars regarding the invasion and any subsequent events following the illegal act.
 

glugglug

Diamond Member
Jun 9, 2002
5,340
1
0
What the article doesn't mention is if the 1001 Americans polled were all attending a young Republicans convention during the poll.
 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
You miss my point. It's not just that she craved attention (though she certainly did). She seems so similar to DMA. She had the same chip on her shoulder, the same self-centered perspective, the same anger and contempt for anyone who didn't make it like she did. She was opinionated but not well informed. She was smart and capable, but not nearly so much as she acted. Ironically, I always felt she didn't believe her own self-promotion. I think she still saw herself as a failure and pushed so hard to prove to herself she wasn't. We never discussed the politics of Wal-Mart, but I know she shopped there regularly. I can hear her saying the same kinds of things as DMA.

Re. DMA's rants, I find them ridiculous. He keeps attacking imaginary positions with absurd, over-the-top hyperbole. He makes no attempt whatsoever to consider what someone else really said or to address points raised. He offers no documentation to support his claims, relying solely on screeching his extremist views as gospel truths, over and over. Mostly, in spite of dozens of paragraphs of name-calling and lunacy about "stealing" and "slavery", he never really explains what it is he objects to. We are all wrong, but since he won't provide any specifics, we don't know what we are wrong about. It is impossible to have any kind of a discussion with him, and it is apparent he has no interest in discussions anyway.

On the contrary, Nutfinger, I've addressed many of your points on numerous occasions, YOU fail to discuss, address or take any further action besides personal attack. Clearly it's all you are capable of doing, because you continuously do it to a number of people on this board. Why you are tolerated is beyond my comprehension.

As for specifics, I've provided links on more than one occasion, try checking out the thread on America Generosity, as an example, which holds NUMEROUS links to the fact that PRIVATE American Citizens give over 180 BILLION dollars in CHARITY every single year, with corporations throwing in another 70 billion dollars to boot. Yes, I'm fully aware that these businesses do this as an advertising tactic, but the issue is charitable giving, not motive. Motive is irrelevant.

You fail to pay any attention to a thing I have said, as is evident by your empty assertion that I've used any form of hyperbole. I have stated -over and again- that when you forcibly take the property of one man and give it to another, no matter what your motivation for doing so, you are effectively enslaving that man. You give him no CHOICE in the ways in which the value he has CREATED is spent, and that's wrong.

Someone up above made the claim that "you make no allowance for those who CAN'T take care of themselves," but plainly I was not addressing those people. Those people are NOT the majority of mankind, they are a TINY minority, and the responsibility for their care must fall on those who are closest to them and CHOOSE to take the responsibility. I've known a number of people who've had family members with a disability or another and they, in very noble acts, made the choice to take care of their loved ones. I suspect that a large number of us at least know someone with such family members, and most of the time there is someone willing to help. I have nothing against helping those who CANNOT help themselves, as they are a *completely* different issue. The sorry people for whom I might find any form of contempt are those who WILL NOT help themselves, and to those yes, I am willing to say let them reap the natural consequences of their actions (or inactions) in the way that nature sees best.

Jason
 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Oh, and to be at least a *little* on topic here, Don't you people think that the fact that Saddam's regime was MURDERING and IMPRISONING people for differences of *opinion* is justification enough for his removal? I don't care if they had WMD's or if they were connected to 9/11 or if they ever even *HEARD* of Al Quaeda, the fact is that a brutal dictator was slaughtering innocent people. Have you not paid attention to the news and the 400,000 bodies found in mass graves in Iraq since the occupation began? Why is this the least discussed topic when talking about whether the war was justified?

Yeah, Bush screwed up, IMHO, by playing to the fear card. I understand he did it for idiotic political reasons I don't agree with, but regardless of that nonsense, the war was JUST.

Jason
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Oh, and to be at least a *little* on topic here, Don't you people think that the fact that Saddam's regime was MURDERING and IMPRISONING people for differences of *opinion* is justification enough for his removal? I don't care if they had WMD's or if they were connected to 9/11 or if they ever even *HEARD* of Al Quaeda, the fact is that a brutal dictator was slaughtering innocent people. Have you not paid attention to the news and the 400,000 bodies found in mass graves in Iraq since the occupation began? Why is this the least discussed topic when talking about whether the war was justified?

Yeah, Bush screwed up, IMHO, by playing to the fear card. I understand he did it for idiotic political reasons I don't agree with, but regardless of that nonsense, the war was JUST.

Jason
Dragon,
In the International arena the opinion of a majority of nations seated at the Security Counsel - save the veto of the 'majors' - carries the weight of LAW not the US alone armed with whatever laws it issues for internal justification to do anything internationally. The US is but one affirmative vote or veto. The US must enroll a majority of the seated Counsel member to remove or effect any activity in a sovereign nation.
This nation must always support the International Rule of Law even when it lines up against our wishes and opinions. If anyone supports the violation of International Law to punish another nation or its leaders for an or many violation (s) of International law they defeat what they pretend to enforce.
IMO
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,677
136
Nice attempt at evasion, CkG. Let's introduce the plain language in parentheses between dubya's obfuscations, and indicate word groupings with [].

(2) acting(invading) pursuant to [the Constitution and Public Law 107-243] is consistent with [the United States and other countries] continuing to take the necessary actions against [international terrorists and terrorist organizations], including [those nations(Iraq), organizations, or persons] who [planned, authorized, committed, or aided] [ the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.]
If you'd care to attempt to parse it in any other way, I'm interested, I could use a good laugh... (Iraq) won't fit anywhere else in the statement...

Edit - tweaked [ ]
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
On the contrary, Nutfinger, I've addressed many of your points on numerous occasions, YOU fail to discuss, address or take any further action besides personal attack. Clearly it's all you are capable of doing, because you continuously do it to a number of people on this board. Why you are tolerated is beyond my comprehension.
Yes, dear. Whatever helps you sleep at night.


Kindly show me:
  1. where I made any comment re. charitable giving
  2. where I made any comment re. eminent domain,
  3. where I said my "answer for making people economically better off is to steal from some and give to others"
  4. where I said people "are greedy, cynical monsters"
  5. your basis for citing my "cynical hatred of man"
  6. where I said "EVERY job deserves a high wage even when it's simple, unskilled labor"
  7. where I said "Liberty leads to Serfdom"
  8. where I said I have a right to "Lie, Cheat and Steal your way into more wealth"
  9. where I was "extoling of the virtues of slavery" (not to mention being a "diseased bastard")
  10. your basis for saying "people like you, Bowfinger, care about one thing only: Legalizing theft".
These are all claims you tried to tie to me.



As for specifics, I've provided links on more than one occasion, try checking out the thread on America Generosity, as an example, which holds NUMEROUS links to the fact that PRIVATE American Citizens give over 180 BILLION dollars in CHARITY every single year, with corporations throwing in another 70 billion dollars to boot. Yes, I'm fully aware that these businesses do this as an advertising tactic, but the issue is charitable giving, not motive. Motive is irrelevant.
I've addressed this in that thread. As far as I can tell, this is the one and only time you've offered anything other than your opinions. I may have missed others. You also failed to suggest any purpose for the thread. I don't recall anyone suggesting there is no charitable giving in the U.S. Anyway, more in that thread.


You fail to pay any attention to a thing I have said, as is evident by your empty assertion that I've used any form of hyperbole. I have stated -over and again- that when you forcibly take the property of one man and give it to another, no matter what your motivation for doing so, you are effectively enslaving that man. You give him no CHOICE in the ways in which the value he has CREATED is spent, and that's wrong.
Yep, you keep repeating that hyperbole endlessly. What you keep failing to do is explain what in the hell you're talking about. Who is doing this "stealing"? What is the mechanism they use? Who is advocating it? You said you aren't talking about taxes, so what exactly are you talking about?
 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Kindly show me:
  1. where I made any comment re. charitable giving
  2. where I made any comment re. eminent domain,
  3. where I said my "answer for making people economically better off is to steal from some and give to others"
  4. where I said people "are greedy, cynical monsters"
  5. your basis for citing my "cynical hatred of man"
  6. where I said "EVERY job deserves a high wage even when it's simple, unskilled labor"
  7. where I said "Liberty leads to Serfdom"
  8. where I said I have a right to "Lie, Cheat and Steal your way into more wealth"
  9. where I was "extoling of the virtues of slavery" (not to mention being a "diseased bastard")
  10. your basis for saying "people like you, Bowfinger, care about one thing only: Legalizing theft".
These are all claims you tried to tie to me.
First off, who ever claimed that you commented on Eminent Domain or that every job deserves a high wage or even charitable giving?? You're throwing that out there in another DISHONEST attempt to claim I attributed those to you, which I did not. I commented that the use of Eminent Domain for the benefit of private individuals or corporations, just like forcing higher wagers through legislation, is the equivelant of theft and ought not to be tolerated. Unable to compete with the likes of YOU? Oh please, you're about the most pathetic person on this *entire* board, with hardly a wit about you and no tactic beyond personal attacks in your incredibly small arsenal.

You might want to go back through this and the Wal Mart thread and read your own comments again. You chatter endlessly about forcing businesses to pay higher wages (force how? By means of government legislation, obviously enough, since government is the only legitimate holder of force). Your chatter concerning providing money and services to low-wage people, through government funded programs (where does government get its' money, Bow? They get it from people who WORK and CREATE wealth.) is *precisely* what I mean about stealing from some people to give to others. The point is that social programs created and funded by the government *require* that you take money from those who earn it and give it to those who have not. Where else will the government get the money it plans to give away? You think it's as simple as printing more bills? Are you a FAN of inflation?

Yep, you keep repeating that hyperbole endlessly. What you keep failing to do is explain what in the hell you're talking about. Who is doing this "stealing"? What is the mechanism they use? Who is advocating it? You said you aren't talking about taxes, so what exactly are you talking about?
See above, and this time please PAY ATTENTION.

I believe it was in the Wal Mart thread (correct me if I'm wrong, these many threads are beginning to bleed together at this point...) you made mention to the effect that too much economic freedom lets large corporations lie and cheat their way into more wealth. I don't feel like looking for the posting, but bear with me. My reply was that no, such a system would NOT allow corporations, indeed *anyone* to lie or cheat their way into more profit or anything else.

I'm tired of fielding your nonsense claims, try to get your story straight next time.

Jason
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
The poll just means people are supporting our troops.

Ask them if they supported the war before we shipped any of their friends or family over there to fight, and they would have said no.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
46
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Genesys-

"blame the major media for making people sheep then. most people dont bother to read the news anymore, they let it be beamed to them via satalite or sent via cable. therefore they only hear what the major news outlets tell them. and, if i remember correctly, it was the media who 'linked' Saddam and Al Qaeda to 911, not the President. "

Not exactly. Read it and weep-

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-1.html
I love that letter. I've used it several times. It's kind of a cross between a magic act and a clove of garlic. All you have to do is pull it out of your hat and the apologists disappear. Here it is in it's full glory, again, just to drive the message out to as many people as possilbe:
Presidential Letter
Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate


March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: ( Dear Mr. President: )

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH
Proof positive, straight from the horses's ... err ... mouth, that President George W. Bush did personally and explicity claim a link between Iraq and 9/11. Yet the YABAs still claim Bush never lied about anything. I guess it depends on what the definition of 'is' is.
Which lie is worse, that above or "I did not have sex with that woman?" :confused:
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUYI did respond to your line of questioning, however I chose to ask and answer my own set of questions.
Why?
Because I didn't like your questions, and I have opinions on the ones I presented. It's just a perspective and angle thing is all. The questions you asked were loaded and if answered, my answer might be construed as having aad to a view that I don't actually possess.

And no - Jhhnn, it was not "evasion" - it is actually the way the joint resolution put it. Have you gone back and read Public Law 107-243? Bush used the wording from the legislation that gave him power to invade.

CkG
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Kindly show me:
  1. where I made any comment re. charitable giving
  2. where I made any comment re. eminent domain,
  3. where I said my "answer for making people economically better off is to steal from some and give to others"
  4. where I said people "are greedy, cynical monsters"
  5. your basis for citing my "cynical hatred of man"
  6. where I said "EVERY job deserves a high wage even when it's simple, unskilled labor"
  7. where I said "Liberty leads to Serfdom"
  8. where I said I have a right to "Lie, Cheat and Steal your way into more wealth"
  9. where I was "extoling of the virtues of slavery" (not to mention being a "diseased bastard")
  10. your basis for saying "people like you, Bowfinger, care about one thing only: Legalizing theft".
These are all claims you tried to tie to me.
First off, who ever claimed that you commented on Eminent Domain or that every job deserves a high wage or even charitable giving?? You're throwing that out there in another DISHONEST attempt to claim I attributed those to you, which I did not.
Yes, 'fraid you did. Every quote is taken from one of your posts, in a comment directed at me. To deny your own words is dishonest. Best to simply apologize and move on.


I commented that the use of Eminent Domain for the benefit of private individuals or corporations, just like forcing higher wagers through legislation, is the equivelant of theft and ought not to be tolerated. Unable to compete with the likes of YOU? Oh please, you're about the most pathetic person on this *entire* board, with hardly a wit about you and no tactic beyond personal attacks in your incredibly small arsenal.



You might want to go back through this and the Wal Mart thread and read your own comments again. You chatter endlessly about forcing businesses to pay higher wages (force how? By means of government legislation, obviously enough, since government is the only legitimate holder of force). Your chatter concerning providing money and services to low-wage people, through government funded programs
I just did. You are mistaken. I did not say anything about forcing businesses to pay higher wages -- not once. My ONLY comment about government programs for low-wage people was that Wal-Mart employees are so poorly paid that they do get help from government programs. You are welcome to search through each of my posts for yourself, but your claims are false. Either you're thinking of someone else or you made it up. Either way, this would be another good chance for you to apologize and move on.


(where does government get its' money, Bow? They get it from people who WORK and CREATE wealth.) is *precisely* what I mean about stealing from some people to give to others. The point is that social programs created and funded by the government *require* that you take money from those who earn it and give it to those who have not. Where else will the government get the money it plans to give away? You think it's as simple as printing more bills? Are you a FAN of inflation?

Yep, you keep repeating that hyperbole endlessly. What you keep failing to do is explain what in the hell you're talking about. Who is doing this "stealing"? What is the mechanism they use? Who is advocating it? You said you aren't talking about taxes, so what exactly are you talking about?
See above, and this time please PAY ATTENTION.
Glad to see you're finally starting to explain your opinions.


I believe it was in the Wal Mart thread (correct me if I'm wrong, these many threads are beginning to bleed together at this point...) you made mention to the effect that too much economic freedom lets large corporations lie and cheat their way into more wealth. I don't feel like looking for the posting, but bear with me. My reply was that no, such a system would NOT allow corporations, indeed *anyone* to lie or cheat their way into more profit or anything else.

I'm tired of fielding your nonsense claims, try to get your story straight next time.

Jason
Yes, it was in the Wal-Mart thread, where I quoted the preamble to the Constitution. I pointed out that it said "Nothing about an individual's right to lie and cheat and steal his way to riches." In your reply, you called me a "MORON", "FOOL", "impudent blowhard", and "diseased bastard". Will you try to deny those words too?
 

NinjaGnome

Platinum Member
Jul 21, 2001
2,002
0
76
I just hope that bush doesnt try and start another fight with someone else. We are already unfortunately in this fight and I will probably have to go to Iraq sometime in 2004, I dont want him starting another fight with somneone else so we can lose more men. We are paying for someone elses freedom in our blood which is stupid to me.
 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
First off, who ever claimed that you commented on Eminent Domain or that every job deserves a high wage or even charitable giving?? You're throwing that out there in another DISHONEST attempt to claim I attributed those to you, which I did not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, 'fraid you did. Every quote is taken from one of your posts, in a comment directed at me. To deny your own words is dishonest. Best to simply apologize and move on.
Then you'd better find the *exact* spot where I attributed those to you and quote them, otherwise you can be viewed as a liar. I know for a fact I never once claimed you said a word about Eminent Domain. Don't be a putz, if you can help it.

And as for your bringing up that there is no mention of a person's right to lie, cheat or steal...duh. That's the point I tried vainly to make to you over and over again, that it's *honest* business and trade that should be protected.

Will you ever get this straight?

Jason

 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
First off, who ever claimed that you commented on Eminent Domain or that every job deserves a high wage or even charitable giving?? You're throwing that out there in another DISHONEST attempt to claim I attributed those to you, which I did not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, 'fraid you did. Every quote is taken from one of your posts, in a comment directed at me. To deny your own words is dishonest. Best to simply apologize and move on.
Then you'd better find the *exact* spot where I attributed those to you and quote them, otherwise you can be viewed as a liar. I know for a fact I never once claimed you said a word about Eminent Domain. Don't be a putz, if you can help it.

And as for your bringing up that there is no mention of a person's right to lie, cheat or steal...duh. That's the point I tried vainly to make to you over and over again, that it's *honest* business and trade that should be protected.

Will you ever get this straight?

Jason


Whatever. I'll take my chances on being "viewed as a liar" and a "putz". Everything within quotes is a cut-and-paste from one of your comments addressed to me or about me. Unless you've edited your comments, anyone who cares can verify exactly what you said. I took the time to do it once. I'm not really interested in doing it again.

I also find it ironic that you continue to call me a liar, yet don't even try to defend the other eight lies you told about me. Are you acknowledging those lies, or will you deny your own words for all ten?



 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Pull your head out of your ass, please. Pay attention this time.

I never said you made ANY claims about Eminent Domain, *I* brought it up!

I never said you made any claims about Charitable giving, *I* brought it up!

You've defended your "alternative methods" of meeting the needs of those who don't produce; obviously your "alternative methods" means "alternative to voluntary charity," which means that the government provides some sort of handout. Where does the government get money for Handouts, Bowfinger? From people who DO produce. Observe the chain of events, here, simpleton: The government takes money from Peter(via taxation) to give it to Paul who won't get a job or who won't get an education or some skill so he can get a DECENT job. Taking the earnings of one private citizen and providing them to another is THEFT, and it's just as morally wrong as when the government uses the power of Eminent Domain to take away the homes of private citizens so they can give the land to Costco to build another store.

I didn't claim you SAID that people are Greedy, Cynical monsters, I claimed, and I think rightly so, that your attitude, particularly your insistence that charity is inadequate and requires "Alternative methods" (ie, theft) to provide for those who won't work, indicates that you think of others as greedy (in spite of their 241 BILLION dollars of charity in 2002 alone...)

Regarding your Cynical Hatred of Man, see the above.

I never said that YOU overtly claimed every job deserves a high wage regardless of skill level. Where you came up with that one, I'd really like to know.

The phrase about "Liberty Leads to Serfdom" was coined by me as a paraphrase to something that you said regarding allowing Wal Mart to continue operating its business as it does. As I recall there was also a bit about "unfettered Capitalism," though you did use the word Serfdom in there (though curiously I can't find it on a search now...who's been doing editing, BF?)

As for Extoling the virtues of Slavery, as I've already pointed out before, when you make defense for your "alternative methods" of providing for the needs of those who WON'T provide for themselves, you are talking about taking the bread from those who have earned it and giving some of it to those who have not, with their NEED as their claim, and you give the earners NO CHOICE in whether their money is given away in that fashion. Paint it any color you want, the man who works for the benefit of another without payment is a SLAVE. Of course, you want to give it a new name and call it an "alternative method" for meeting the needs of those who WON'T meet their own needs.

Sorry, BF, but the only liar on this one is YOU, and it's abundantly clear that you are so wrapped up in your dishonesty that you'll just keep on trying to justify it. Absolutely pathetic.

Jason
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
"Everything within quotes is a cut-and-paste from one of your comments addressed to me or about me. Unless you've edited your comments, anyone who cares can verify exactly what you said. I took the time to do it once. I'm not really interested in doing it again."
 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
"Everything within quotes is a cut-and-paste from one of your comments addressed to me or about me. Unless you've edited your comments, anyone who cares can verify exactly what you said. I took the time to do it once. I'm not really interested in doing it again."
And if I do say so myself it's remarkably UNclever of you to copy and paste a snippit of a phrase without *any* larger context at all and then claim that I attributed whatever was about that phrase directly to you.

You are such a boob.

Jason
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,216
126
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Pull your head out of your ass, please. Pay attention this time.

I never said you made ANY claims about Eminent Domain, *I* brought it up!

I never said you made any claims about Charitable giving, *I* brought it up!

You've defended your "alternative methods" of meeting the needs of those who don't produce; obviously your "alternative methods" means "alternative to voluntary charity," which means that the government provides some sort of handout. Where does the government get money for Handouts, Bowfinger? From people who DO produce. Observe the chain of events, here, simpleton: The government takes money from Peter(via taxation) to give it to Paul who won't get a job or who won't get an education or some skill so he can get a DECENT job. Taking the earnings of one private citizen and providing them to another is THEFT, and it's just as morally wrong as when the government uses the power of Eminent Domain to take away the homes of private citizens so they can give the land to Costco to build another store.

I didn't claim you SAID that people are Greedy, Cynical monsters, I claimed, and I think rightly so, that your attitude, particularly your insistence that charity is inadequate and requires "Alternative methods" (ie, theft) to provide for those who won't work, indicates that you think of others as greedy (in spite of their 241 BILLION dollars of charity in 2002 alone...)

Regarding your Cynical Hatred of Man, see the above.

I never said that YOU overtly claimed every job deserves a high wage regardless of skill level. Where you came up with that one, I'd really like to know.

The phrase about "Liberty Leads to Serfdom" was coined by me as a paraphrase to something that you said regarding allowing Wal Mart to continue operating its business as it does. As I recall there was also a bit about "unfettered Capitalism," though you did use the word Serfdom in there (though curiously I can't find it on a search now...who's been doing editing, BF?)

As for Extoling the virtues of Slavery, as I've already pointed out before, when you make defense for your "alternative methods" of providing for the needs of those who WON'T provide for themselves, you are talking about taking the bread from those who have earned it and giving some of it to those who have not, with their NEED as their claim, and you give the earners NO CHOICE in whether their money is given away in that fashion. Paint it any color you want, the man who works for the benefit of another without payment is a SLAVE. Of course, you want to give it a new name and call it an "alternative method" for meeting the needs of those who WON'T meet their own needs.

Sorry, BF, but the only liar on this one is YOU, and it's abundantly clear that you are so wrapped up in your dishonesty that you'll just keep on trying to justify it. Absolutely pathetic.

Jason

I am sending this to the Oxford Dictionary people.

"To Whom it may concern,
I wish to bring it to your attention that Jason has discovered a serious flaw in the English language. Please see this llink
He and a few others insist that your definition of slavery is incorrect and must be amended to suit his needs here. Thank you for your time, and I take it on faith that you will act appropriately.

Best Regards'

PS, I have a couple of requests as well, as follows.

War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength

Thanks again, as I am looking forward to the DMA approved Newspeak version of you fine dictionary."
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY