Zebo
Elite Member
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Sorry, I forgot I needed to use the ultra secret Reynolds decoder 2000
CkG
It's straight from the horses mouth.
Why even bother to respond and ask moonie if your not willing to have a serious debate, why are you even here if you are so sure? I've seen your type, grasshopper was his name, decent guy but full of selfhate namecalling etc, he came and he shifted the blame lots of fake smiles and such and finally banned. Same ole story. Lack of character and name calling it's not your fault, the world we are in we are conditioned to hate, sacasim, and adhom. No one likes it really in thier heart.
Let go luke.
Let naplam summerise for you.
"Project for a New America Century (PNAC), a group founded in 1997 that has advocated war with Iraq and has been instrumental in creating and passing the Iraqi Liberation Act, a bill representing the blueprint for such a conflict. Members include guys like Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz (all senior players in the current Bush admin). These guys started lobbying Clintion as far back as 1998 to hit Iraq. Their greater goal though is not to attack Iraq, nor to steal its oil (left wingers who believe this are being a bit too short sighted), but to establish a "Pax Americana" across the globe. The purpose of this Pax Americana is to grow the U.S., the only superpower that is left, into a global empire by force of arms. Iraq is simply a little piece of this initiative that buys some strength and influence (and takes it away from others such as the Germans, French, Russians, Chinese and Japanese) in the middle east. In this context, one can appreciate why these countries oppose the war - not because they are warm and fuzzy peace lovers, but because they will be under the global thumb of a great and powerful America...
I think the most interesting articles are the first and third articles - "Blood Money" and "The War Against Iraq and America's Drive for World Domination". The first appears to be the most informative, while the third is the most intellectually stimulating. In any event, for anyone that has an open mind, I suggest reading these article - you can agree or disagree, but at least read one and open your mind."
Try this one too since the 70 this has been in the works
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Sorry, I forgot I needed to use the ultra secret Reynolds decoder 2000
CkG
CkG after reading all your posts here, I've to conclude that you alone are the bravest right wing nut & Bush supporter around here, unfortuntely that also means you're the most idiotic...
Grasshopper is the only member who I'm fairly certain would agree with this statement made the other night by another prowar member...<<Sure the Bush administration used half truths and probably some flat out lies but I guess I can forgives them since there end goal was just.>>
In fact, it'd be interesting to know how many of the prowar members here would agree with it. It would require any pro vs con discussion to go in a new direction, I would think.
In fact, it'd be interesting to know how many of the prowar members here would agree with it. It would require any pro vs con discussion to go in a new direction, I would think.
there weren't any 'half-truths' and certainly not any 'flat-out lies'.
loaded fact: they were dealing with a mass murderer who never had any desire to relinquish his wmd program.
statements made by defectors and his own chemical and germ warfare scientists (like taha) prove they're wmd
program was in operation until at least 1994.
the bush administration had to filter some of their iffy intelligence through the prism of saddam's bloody history,
a necessity unfortunately that will not bring you certitudes - not that i think you rationally need them.
lacking the needed defector who could've sat in on saddam's meetings with camcorder in one hand and mike in
the other, recording every detail, every facial reaction, and every change in thinking, you are forced to make
informed predictions.
with saddam you make worse case assumptions to be safe, which with him (or his like) means you'll always
be spot-on.
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
And if Bush & Co made their case in those terms, they would have been honest. Unfortunately, they didn't do that. They lied about what they knew and what they fabricated. They presented forged evidence. They distorted evidence to claim it meant something it didn't. They stated as fact things that were at best speculation. They omitted key information that contradicted their stories. Bush & Co. didn't hedge or qualify their claims. They had "facts, not assertions."
Except they didn't. There were loads of half-truths and flat-out lies. Most of the world already knew this. Much of the U.S. is finally waking up to this. Only die-hard Bush worshippers still claim Bush was honest about his reasons for war. They're getting more and more lonely as the truth continues to ooze out.
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
He's gotten more strident and less rational over the last few weeks as the whole Iraqi war lie unravelled.Originally posted by: cpumaster
CkG after reading all your posts here, I've to conclude that you alone are the bravest right wing nut & Bush supporter around here, unfortuntely that also means you're the most idiotic...Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Sorry, I forgot I needed to use the ultra secret Reynolds decoder 2000
It may just be me, but I've noticed a 'softening' from the prowar side. There will always be those who refuse to acknowledge anything that might damage their view of our president and his administration. But those who supported our leader in the beginning, not because of any rose-colored glasses they may have been wearing but rather because of actual and honest reasons for giving their support, are starting to ask questions.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
He's gotten more strident and less rational over the last few weeks as the whole Iraqi war lie unravelled.Originally posted by: cpumaster
CkG after reading all your posts here, I've to conclude that you alone are the bravest right wing nut & Bush supporter around here, unfortuntely that also means you're the most idiotic...Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Sorry, I forgot I needed to use the ultra secret Reynolds decoder 2000
Buahahaha! Seems like you guys think you know me
I am not right wing, but yes I support Bush - not all the time, but I support any action against Saddam since he has been F'n around for 12 years. Cease-fire is a cease-fire, you break the agreement you get hammered- should have been done a long time ago. North Korea shouldn't have been coddled either - now look at them - they are a potential firebomb.Gaard - there is always a "softening" after Wars are over - people don't feel the "danger" of the situation since it for the most part is gone. It has wained considerably on this forum but I chalk that up to people returning to thier lives and/or getting sick of hearing all the anti-USA/anti-Bush crap that gets spewed around here. You people sound like the world is going to end, it isn't going to end just because Bush went to war - there isn't some big conspiracy to rule the world either.
Lets think about this Bowfinger...which of these are based in logic?
Big conspiracy by Bush to rule the world?
Bush acting on information that everyone agreed was correct?
Yeah - guess I'm the one who be irrational
CkG
Yeah - guess I'm the one who be irrational
------------------------------------
Well at least you're right about that. You left out of your alternatives 'lying moron', but with people like you around I should probably say 'cunning liar' since he seemed to correctly presage there'd be enough toadies like you to pull it off.
------------------------------------
Well at least you're right about that. You left out of your alternatives 'lying moron', but with people like you around I should probably say 'cunning liar' since he seemed to correctly presage there'd be enough toadies like you to pull it off.
Was he the one who said "I'd rather have a free bottle in front of me than a prefrontal lobobomy."? If so I can't tell the difference.
CADkindaGUY
I do believe that Bush and co. have conspired to bend the world to their will.
I do believe that they also fabricated "facts" to garner support for the war.
I also believe that much of the opposition against the war and Bush has become hardboiled because of the assinine slander of calling people traitors, unAmerican, etc. for exercising their 1st amendment rights.
I do believe that Bush and co. have conspired to bend the world to their will.
I do believe that they also fabricated "facts" to garner support for the war.
I also believe that much of the opposition against the war and Bush has become hardboiled because of the assinine slander of calling people traitors, unAmerican, etc. for exercising their 1st amendment rights.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Good for you, you are entitled to your opinion, as am I.
I do believe that Bush used appropriate action regarding Iraq.
I do believe that Bush used "facts" the UN(world) accepted as true(for 12+ years
)I also believe that as much of the opposition against the was and Bush stems from the fact that he is the one in "power"(penis envy
). I also believe that if you exercise your 1st amendment right to "question authority" you should be prepared for others to exercise their rights in response
CkG
Mean MrMustard
Diamond Member
- Jan 5, 2001
- 3,144
- 10
- 81
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
*yawn*
Blah..blah..blah... WMD Blah..blah..blah...
You know full well that WMD wasn't the only reason for the war. Cripes
However, it was the most publicized part.
Can you tell me which UN nations will go on record to say that they don't believe Iraq had WMD?
CkG
I guess it's ok with you if it turns out that the WMD reason turns out to be just a smoke screen we laid out in order to garner support? Not saying it is, mind you...but the more time that passes the possibility grows, IMO. Just so we're clear, your blah, blah, blah is because you don't care if our government lied to the world and you don't think anyone else should care either, or are you just tired of people expressing their displeasure at the ever increasing possibility that they were given a false reason to give their support for this war?
No, the blah..blah..blah is because it is the same tired song, played by the same tired band already. No, we haven't found WMD(yet), but to blame Bush and Bush only is ignorant. Like I posted in a different thread and it has been said by many others as well, - If Iraq "never" had WMD, then why did the UN send Inspectors in? Weren't you guys the ones clamoring for "more time" a couple months ago? If you were - then you surely had to believe that Saddam possesed them(there is no other logical conclusion) But now all of a sudden - "they never existed", "Bush lied", and "blah..blah..blah" which directly contradicts your position of 3 months ago if you supported "more time for inspectors".
If they don't exist and never did - then fine, so be it. But that isn't ONLY Bush's fault - he took what everyone(UN) else believed was true(challenge is still out there
CkG
Um ok, you got us...
Sending in inspectors to check for WMD's and not finding anything thus far is far worse than putting our troop's lives on the line to make sure.
On another note, while it certainly hasn't been enough time to search the entire country for WMD, we have yet to find anything. All this talk Bush gave us about going after Iraq NOW, NOW, NOW... if we don't go now, they could hit us. IMHO, his whole basis for a pre-emptive strike i.e. hit them before they hit us, is a farse. If it was so important that we go after Saddam NOW NOW NOW don't you think there should have been something threatening us directly and there would have at least been something to show that they were a threat that would have materialized in the very near future? Remember, we had to go after him RIGHT NOW!
So what if inspectors hadn't found anything as of yet. We invaded the country and now occupy it we can find anything either. I don't see how Bush fanboys can even deny the consideration that the American people and the world could quite possibly have been taken for a ride.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Originally posted by: ELP
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
*yawn*
Blah..blah..blah... WMD Blah..blah..blah...
You know full well that WMD wasn't the only reason for the war. Cripes
However, it was the most publicized part.
Can you tell me which UN nations will go on record to say that they don't believe Iraq had WMD?
CkG
I guess it's ok with you if it turns out that the WMD reason turns out to be just a smoke screen we laid out in order to garner support? Not saying it is, mind you...but the more time that passes the possibility grows, IMO. Just so we're clear, your blah, blah, blah is because you don't care if our government lied to the world and you don't think anyone else should care either, or are you just tired of people expressing their displeasure at the ever increasing possibility that they were given a false reason to give their support for this war?
No, the blah..blah..blah is because it is the same tired song, played by the same tired band already. No, we haven't found WMD(yet), but to blame Bush and Bush only is ignorant. Like I posted in a different thread and it has been said by many others as well, - If Iraq "never" had WMD, then why did the UN send Inspectors in? Weren't you guys the ones clamoring for "more time" a couple months ago? If you were - then you surely had to believe that Saddam possesed them(there is no other logical conclusion) But now all of a sudden - "they never existed", "Bush lied", and "blah..blah..blah" which directly contradicts your position of 3 months ago if you supported "more time for inspectors".
If they don't exist and never did - then fine, so be it. But that isn't ONLY Bush's fault - he took what everyone(UN) else believed was true(challenge is still out there
CkG
Um ok, you got us...
Sending in inspectors to check for WMD's and not finding anything thus far is far worse than putting our troop's lives on the line to make sure.
On another note, while it certainly hasn't been enough time to search the entire country for WMD, we have yet to find anything. All this talk Bush gave us about going after Iraq NOW, NOW, NOW... if we don't go now, they could hit us. IMHO, his whole basis for a pre-emptive strike i.e. hit them before they hit us, is a farse. If it was so important that we go after Saddam NOW NOW NOW don't you think there should have been something threatening us directly and there would have at least been something to show that they were a threat that would have materialized in the very near future? Remember, we had to go after him RIGHT NOW!
So what if inspectors hadn't found anything as of yet. We invaded the country and now occupy it we can find anything either. I don't see how Bush fanboys can even deny the consideration that the American people and the world could quite possibly have been taken for a ride.
I'd rather have a proactive policy than a reactive one when it comes to National Security.
I'm glad our President chooses to "err on the side of caution" - thank you very much.
I'm also glad this president chooses to enforce the consequences of blatant defiance of resolutions and cease-fire agreements.
CkG
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: HJD1
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Forget your meds tonight? or did you just take a double dose?
So, enlightened one....what is this secret "real" reason(s) we went to war?
CkG
Res Ipsa Loquitor
Nice try, but you'll have to do better than that
CkG
For those not edified by the Law skule experience or common law usage
Res Ipsa Loquitur is a somewhat complicated form of circumstantial evidence, may be relevant to a plantiff's efforts to establish the defendant's unreasonable conduct. Like any circumstantial evidence, res ipsa loquitur evidence permits the drawing of an inference. But there is a key difference between res ipsa loquitur and other circumstantial evidence. With other forms of circumstantial evidence, the jury draws an inference that when combined with other evidence permits the jury to find that the defendent failed to use due care. Where res ipsa loquitur applies, a jury may infer that the defendant acted unreasonably without any other proof.
So when you ask the oft used question... where is your proof or link.... res ipsa loquitur..
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Originally posted by: HJD1
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: HJD1
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Forget your meds tonight? or did you just take a double dose?
So, enlightened one....what is this secret "real" reason(s) we went to war?
CkG
Res Ipsa Loquitor
Nice try, but you'll have to do better than that
CkG
For those not edified by the Law skule experience or common law usage
Res Ipsa Loquitur is a somewhat complicated form of circumstantial evidence, may be relevant to a plantiff's efforts to establish the defendant's unreasonable conduct. Like any circumstantial evidence, res ipsa loquitur evidence permits the drawing of an inference. But there is a key difference between res ipsa loquitur and other circumstantial evidence. With other forms of circumstantial evidence, the jury draws an inference that when combined with other evidence permits the jury to find that the defendent failed to use due care. Where res ipsa loquitur applies, a jury may infer that the defendant acted unreasonably without any other proof.
So when you ask the oft used question... where is your proof or link.... res ipsa loquitur..
I know what res ipsa loquitor(loquitur) means(used it's process many times thoughout highschool debating teachers)
but that alone doesn't answer my question. I simply asked what moonbeam thought the "real reasons" were. Now granted he may try to use what you posted(and assuredly would try) but he posted nothing that even comes close to supporting "a logical assumption" - he just hinted that us "blind patriots" don't know the real reason without backing it up. If he would kindly post things that sane people agree with, which could lead to us using res ipsa loquitor to come to the conclusions which he is infering, then I might be inclined to agree. Until then, i'm off to fix this damn ultra secret reynolds 2000 decoder, it must be on the blink again
CkG
Edit - spelling error
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
Cadguy,
I'm sure that you've also heard of the "Moonbeam duck test"
In times like these we wonder about the underlying motive of the decision makers. We don't know what goes on in the back rooms of their palatial estates. We can only look at what we see. All this is obvious and it is not an attempt to edify but, rather, clarify. Moonster posts a link that supports a position. But, the link is usually bias. So the comments come pouring in... "You give us that as your proof, Ha" It is the same for the contra view. Then the only way to "win" is to invoke the 319 Feringee maxim.... "You are stupid therefore, any thing you provide is also stupid".
I say, The very best one can do is apply the duck test and without bias list what you see and the possible motives.. beyond that one is either an insider, a good guesser or blinded by bias and won't see what is filtered by that bias.
Blood pressure must be an issue on a forum because everyone is applying the duck test unless they have better vision or believe what they hear because otherwise would make them feel bad.
I'm sure that you've also heard of the "Moonbeam duck test"
In times like these we wonder about the underlying motive of the decision makers. We don't know what goes on in the back rooms of their palatial estates. We can only look at what we see. All this is obvious and it is not an attempt to edify but, rather, clarify. Moonster posts a link that supports a position. But, the link is usually bias. So the comments come pouring in... "You give us that as your proof, Ha" It is the same for the contra view. Then the only way to "win" is to invoke the 319 Feringee maxim.... "You are stupid therefore, any thing you provide is also stupid".
I say, The very best one can do is apply the duck test and without bias list what you see and the possible motives.. beyond that one is either an insider, a good guesser or blinded by bias and won't see what is filtered by that bias.
Blood pressure must be an issue on a forum because everyone is applying the duck test unless they have better vision or believe what they hear because otherwise would make them feel bad.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Originally posted by: HJD1
Cadguy,
I'm sure that you've also heard of the "Moonbeam duck test"
In times like these we wonder about the underlying motive of the decision makers. We don't know what goes on in the back rooms of their palatial estates. We can only look at what we see. All this is obvious and it is not an attempt to edify but, rather, clarify. Moonster posts a link that supports a position. But, the link is usually bias. So the comments come pouring in... "You give us that as your proof, Ha" It is the same for the contra view. Then the only way to "win" is to invoke the 319 Feringee maxim.... "You are stupid therefore, any thing you provide is also stupid".
I say, The very best one can do is apply the duck test and without bias list what you see and the possible motives.. beyond that one is either an insider, a good guesser or blinded by bias and won't see what is filtered by that bias.
Blood pressure must be an issue on a forum because everyone is applying the duck test unless they have better vision or believe what they hear because otherwise would make them feel bad.
I know, I know, but the current "Moonbeam duck test" plugin seems to have caused my Ultra Secret Reynolds 2000 Decoder(TM) to malfunction. Is the new firmware going to be out soon?
CkG
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
Cad,
I know, I know, but the current "Moonbeam duck test" plugin seems to have caused my Ultra Secret Reynolds 2000 Decoder(TM) to malfunction. Is the new firmware going to be out soon?
*****************
I think they be awork on the underware at the moment. See MB post regading changing his underware often due to fear of the colored light scheme.
It is best you not have a functioning decoder in that with one that is functional you'd be confronted by a reality that would cause wonderment and fear... not a very good enviornment for the intellectual. Best to be at 1 with the plants then 6's or 7's with they self.. no?
...Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us here the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds; let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own." JFK final of inn. add.
I know, I know, but the current "Moonbeam duck test" plugin seems to have caused my Ultra Secret Reynolds 2000 Decoder(TM) to malfunction. Is the new firmware going to be out soon?
*****************
I think they be awork on the underware at the moment. See MB post regading changing his underware often due to fear of the colored light scheme.
It is best you not have a functioning decoder in that with one that is functional you'd be confronted by a reality that would cause wonderment and fear... not a very good enviornment for the intellectual. Best to be at 1 with the plants then 6's or 7's with they self.. no?
...Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us here the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds; let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own." JFK final of inn. add.
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
Case in point. You used to back up some of your arguments with analysis and links. Now you mostly rely on cheap shots and ridiculous strawman arguments like this one. I never said anything even remotely resembling "conspiracy by Bush to rule the world" yet you pretend that I did. Such dishonesty doesn't help your credibility.
Another example. Who "everyone"? Very little of the rest of the world agreed Bush's information was correct. Well-informed groups in this country regularly disputed Bush's claims. In cases like the aluminum tubes, virtually no one outside the Bush administration felt the tubes were even marginally useful for uranium enrichment, let alone Bush's assertion that this was their only use.
Once again, your over-the-top distortions discredit you.
Maybe that's your problem. You roll your eyes in almost every post, often several times. Maybe it's making you dizzy.Yeah - guess I'm the one who be irrational
It is interesting to debate someone who effectively communicates a well-informed point of view. It becomes tiresome when all you get is a lot of "la la la" and lame comments that have nothing to do with the discussion.
In my opinion, of course.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Case in point. You used to back up some of your arguments with analysis and links. Now you mostly rely on cheap shots and ridiculous strawman arguments like this one. I never said anything even remotely resembling "conspiracy by Bush to rule the world" yet you pretend that I did. Such dishonesty doesn't help your credibility.
Another example. Who "everyone"? Very little of the rest of the world agreed Bush's information was correct. Well-informed groups in this country regularly disputed Bush's claims. In cases like the aluminum tubes, virtually no one outside the Bush administration felt the tubes were even marginally useful for uranium enrichment, let alone Bush's assertion that this was their only use.
Once again, your over-the-top distortions discredit you.
Maybe that's your problem. You roll your eyes in almost every post, often several times. Maybe it's making you dizzy.Yeah - guess I'm the one who be irrational
It is interesting to debate someone who effectively communicates a well-informed point of view. It becomes tiresome when all you get is a lot of "la la la" and lame comments that have nothing to do with the discussion.
In my opinion, of course.
I don't need to post links and such to say that the rest of the world(UN) believed Saddam possesed WMD - it is common knowledge that the UN stated he had WMD.
I also don't need links to say that some here think this was all just a big Bush conspiracy - read the posts. And if you don't subscribe to the "conspiracy" reason for the war - what is your reason then? I took you chiming in with the rest of the parrots to mean that you supported their conspiracy theory- sorry.
"It is interesting to debate someone who effectively communicates a well-informed point of view. It becomes tiresome when all you get is a lot of "la la la" and lame comments that have nothing to do with the discussion." -you
I agree - Show your proof that "the whole Iraqi war lie unravelled" - until then your accusations are pointless to debate.
Oh and I can't wait for this
(thanks X-man for the link - I usually don't read the post on the weekend - only from work)Guess we'll have to wait and see won't we.
CkG
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
So Blair is going to provide evidence after the fact. How nice.
BTW, I know the winning lottery number for Monday night and can prove it. How? I'll tell you what it is, on Tuesday.
BTW, I know the winning lottery number for Monday night and can prove it. How? I'll tell you what it is, on Tuesday.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter