Incredibly depressing poll.

[fskimospy]

No. Stop thread crapping. Go make your own thread.

 

[woolfe9999]

Then you also need to explain to us all why US Law does not apply to the US.

I posted my support, which is Hans Blix showing he found weapons designed to carry biological and/or chemical weapons and US law which says these items are WMDs.

You posted your personal opinion. Of the two, your opinion is meaningless. You need to explain WHY the US Law does not apply to the US and/or that Hans Blix lied.




Actually, the discussion of WMDs is 100% related to your thread where you whine that people think WMDs were found in Iraq. Because you have apparently forgotten what you typed, I will quote you:



If you did not want this item discussed in your thread, you should not have made it part of your original post.

This thread is about an opinion poll. The most widespread definition of WMD is nuclear, biological and chemical weapons:

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

The most widely used definition of "weapons of mass destruction" is that of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons (NBC) although there is no treaty or customary international law that contains an authoritative definition.

Because the thread is about an opinion poll, the relevant issue here is how the poll respondents define "WMD," not how it is defined in some code book. The number of Americans who are even familiar with the legal definition you cite is certainly small, probably vanishingly small. You yourself didn't know it until what, 2 days ago? And you have a history of opining and posting on this topic. Since people in general are not aware of this definition, that means the stated number of respondents, or roughly the stated number, believe there were NBC weapons in Iraq, because that is what is meant most often when the term is used in common parlance. You can't use a legal definition that is at variance with common parlance to justify a poll assessing public opinion.

Not only that, but this particular definition is even more remote from public understanding than most. It's used for local law enforcement purposes, specifically with respect to terrorists. These kinds of definitions have nothing to do with how the term is used by people in general or our elected officials. The most salient example is that when the Bush Admin used the term, they repeatedly defined it as NBC, right down to the specific examples they used.

- wolf

 

[sm625]

What do u expect from people who vote for Romneybama. Frickin mittens frickin romney? And a frickin kenyan. People are just so braindead they deserve to be bankster-raped. And that is exactly what they are getting.

 

[Jhhnn]

Then you also need to explain to us all why US Law does not apply to the US.

It applies only in the US, and in certain cases where offshore conspiracy exists to violate US law, ie, the WoD.

US law does not apply in Iraq or any other country.

If we applied your definition of WMD's in other aspects of life, you'd be shown to be an utter fool.

Cybr- "It's a bull!"

Me- "It's a steer, Cybr- it has no testicles."

Cybr- "It's a bull!"

ROTW outside the fringe-whack nexus- "It's a steer, Cybr- it has no testicles. You're making yourself look stupid."

Cybr- "It's a bull!"

Shee-it, Cybr- anybody with a few grey cells to rub together has to dumb themselves down to believing in Roswell & Bigfoot to appreciate what you're saying.

 

[Ninjahedge]

The bottom line is simple.

2/3rds of republicans would not believe the Sky was Blue if Obama said it.

That is the sad fact.


BTW, unless you are a moderator, JUST PUT CYBR ON IGNORE!!!!! Geez guys. I know there is a temptation to see what he has written, but the "man" has been batting close to 1000 on the inflammatory scale here... He is either colossally ignorant, or he just LOVES to irritate people online.

 

[Bowfinger]

This thread is about an opinion poll. The most widespread definition of WMD is nuclear, biological and chemical weapons:

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



Because the thread is about an opinion poll, the relevant issue here is how the poll respondents define "WMD," not how it is defined in some code book. The number of Americans who are even familiar with the legal definition you cite is certainly small, probably vanishingly small. You yourself didn't know it until what, 2 days ago? And you have a history of opining and posting on this topic. Since people in general are not aware of this definition, that means the stated number of respondents, or roughly the stated number, believe there were NBC weapons in Iraq, because that is what is meant most often when the term is used in common parlance. You can't use a legal definition that is at variance with common parlance to justify a poll assessing public opinion.

Not only that, but this particular definition is even more remote from public understanding than most. It's used for local law enforcement purposes, specifically with respect to terrorists. These kinds of definitions have nothing to do with how the term is used by people in general or our elected officials. The most salient example is that when the Bush Admin used the term, they repeatedly defined it as NBC, right down to the specific examples they used.

- wolf

Moreover, the definition he cites specifically states it is defined "For purposes of this section." It is not intended to be the official, all-purpose definition of WMDs. It is the definition to be used for that specific law.

Which is a really good thing for the United States. That law also defines Weapons of Mass Destruction to include "any destructive device as defined in section 921 of this title." Section 921 defines "destructive device" as " any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas -- bomb, grenade, rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces, missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce, mine, or [similar device]." It also includes any weapon, excluding shotguns, with a bore of more than 1/2 inch. In other words, the majority of munitions used by the U.S. military are weapons of mass destruction according to this statute (as are many larger fireworks, I suspect).

That means essentially every country in the world has massive stockpiles of WMDs. We must invade them all! Even worse, it makes the U.S. guilty of flagrant, wholesale war crimes ... IF this statute applies as Cybrsage pretends. Fortunately, nobody but him believes it does, and I don't think he does either. He's just lying, exhibiting his customary intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Jhhnn]

The bottom line is simple.

2/3rds of republicans would not believe the Sky was Blue if Obama said it.

And they'd firmly believe night was day if Rush told 'em so...

 

[woolfe9999]

Moreover, the definition he cites specifically states it is defined "For purposes of this section." It is not intended to be the official, all-purpose definition of WMDs. It is the definition to be used for that specific law.

Which is a really good thing for the United States. That law also defines Weapons of Mass Destruction to include "any destructive device as defined in section 921 of this title." Section 921 defines "destructive device" as " any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas -- bomb, grenade, rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces, missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce, mine, or [similar device]." It also includes any weapon, excluding shotguns, with a bore of more than 1/2 inch. In other words, the majority of munitions used by the U.S. military are weapons of mass destruction according to this statute (as are many larger fireworks, I suspect).

That means essentially every country in the world has massive stockpiles of WMDs. We must invade them all! Even worse, it makes the U.S. guilty of flagrant, wholesale war crimes ... IF this statute applies as Cybrsage pretends. Fortunately, nobody but him believes it does, and I don't think he does either. He's just lying, exhibiting his customary intellectual dishonesty.

Yeah, I don't even understand why posters above are arguing about his legal definition. It isn't relevant to the thread topic which is an opinion poll, unless it can be shown that the poll respondents were relying on that definition. That to me is a wholly sufficient response to his antics.

For years on P&N I've been trying to impress upon people the importance of distinguishing legal definitions from common definitions, and it never seems to stick. The fallacy comes up repeatedly, thread after thread. It's not just where someone cites a legal definition where the common definition is the applicable one, but also where people substitute common definitions where the legal one is applicable (as with threads about criminal cases, for example.)

I had a client once who was stopped by a cop for speeding, and this client was rather belligerent. He told the officer that he would "kick his ass" if he didn't "back off." He was charged under a California statute with making a "terrorist threat." A "terrorist threat" is basically any specific threat of violence that puts the person in reasonable fear for his life or safety. According to that legal definition, one has to wonder how many "terrorists" we have right here in the U.S.

- wolf

 

[Ninjahedge]

It is as impossible as differentiating popular "theory" from Scientific "Theory".

 

[woolfe9999]

It is as impossible as differentiating popular "theory" from Scientific "Theory".

Yes, that is another example that illustrates the exact same problem. I honestly don't understand how any educated person doesn't know that a word can have different meanings in different contexts.

 

[First]

Then you also need to explain to us all why US Law does not apply to the US.

lol troll.

 

[NeoV]

I find it more depressing that there are likely hundreds of thousands, if not a few million people in this country - that think just like Cyber does...

 

[cybrsage]

No. Stop thread crapping. Go make your own thread.

Wait, you laugh at people who believing wmds were found saying they are stoopid and then cry when you are shown it is actually the truth.

If you do not want WMDs in Iraq discussed, do not start a thread which talks about WMDs in Iraq.

 

[cybrsage]

This thread is about an opinion poll. The most widespread definition of WMD is nuclear, biological and chemical weapons:

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



Because the thread is about an opinion poll, the relevant issue here is how the poll respondents define "WMD," not how it is defined in some code book. The number of Americans who are even familiar with the legal definition you cite is certainly small, probably vanishingly small. You yourself didn't know it until what, 2 days ago? And you have a history of opining and posting on this topic. Since people in general are not aware of this definition, that means the stated number of respondents, or roughly the stated number, believe there were NBC weapons in Iraq, because that is what is meant most often when the term is used in common parlance. You can't use a legal definition that is at variance with common parlance to justify a poll assessing public opinion.

Not only that, but this particular definition is even more remote from public understanding than most. It's used for local law enforcement purposes, specifically with respect to terrorists. These kinds of definitions have nothing to do with how the term is used by people in general or our elected officials. The most salient example is that when the Bush Admin used the term, they repeatedly defined it as NBC, right down to the specific examples they used.

- wolf

The respondents were correct, though not for the reason they thought. Esk is just crying because he wants to laugh at them for saying there were WMDs in Iraq - but cannot since there were.

 

[cybrsage]

I find it more depressing that there are likely hundreds of thousands, if not a few million people in this country - that think just like Cyber does...

I find it depressing there are people like you who think US laws should not apply to the US.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes, that is another example that illustrates the exact same problem. I honestly don't understand how any educated person doesn't know that a word can have different meanings in different contexts.

You don't honestly think it's because he doesn't know, do you?

 

[Bowfinger]

I find it depressing there are people like you who think US laws should not apply to the US.

You're lying again, intentionally spreading misinformation in violation of forum rules. Seems a good reason to quote this again:

antisocial personality disorder (formerly called sociopathy) - a condition characterized by repetitive behavioral patterns that are contrary to usual moral and ethical standards and cause a person to experience continuous conflict with society. Symptoms include aggression, callousness, impulsiveness, irresponsibility, hostility, a low frustration level, marked emotional immaturity, and poor judgment. A person who has this disorder overlooks the rights of others, is incapable of loyalty to others or to social values, is unable to experience guilt or to learn from past behaviors, is impervious to punishment, and tends to rationalize his or her behavior or to blame it on others.
​

Get help. You don't have to be such a misfit, doomed to being scorned and derided wherever you go. You can learn to become a positive to the world around you instead of such a negative.

 

[cybrsage]

Moreover, the definition he cites specifically states it is defined "For purposes of this section." It is not intended to be the official, all-purpose definition of WMDs. It is the definition to be used for that specific law.

For purposes of this section - the section talks about what is and is not WMDs as determined by the FBI.

Which is a really good thing for the United States. That law also defines Weapons of Mass Destruction to include "any destructive device as defined in section 921 of this title." Section 921 defines "destructive device" as " any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas -- bomb, grenade, rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces, missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce, mine, or [similar device]." It also includes any weapon, excluding shotguns, with a bore of more than 1/2 inch. In other words, the majority of munitions used by the U.S. military are weapons of mass destruction according to this statute (as are many larger fireworks, I suspect[. That means essentially every country in the world has massive stockpiles of WMDs. We must invade them all! Even worse, it makes the U.S. guilty of flagrant, wholesale war crimes ... IF this statute applies as Cybrsage pretends. Fortunately, nobody but him believes it does, and I don't think he does either. He's just lying, exhibiting his customary intellectual dishonesty.

Sigh...why on Earth would we invade a nation simply because it has WMDs? Are you really stupid enough to "forget" that the UNSC issued resolutions banning WMDs from Iraq but NOT from all the other nations on the planet (such as the UK which has nuclear weapons). Seriously, you need to engage your brain when you post things - you show yourself to be an indiot when you do not, such as here.

You have yet to show that the US law does not apply to the US...and call me a liar for posting the US law and saying it applies to the US. Remember, the US is the nation which invaded over WMDs, so US law applies. Unless, of course, you are going to continue to try and argue that US law does not apply to the US.

Seriously, you are getting worse and worse with your pathetic attempts to say I am lying.

 

[cybrsage]

You're lying again, intentionally spreading misinformation in violation of forum rules.

Why are you saying I am spreading misinformation for saying US Laws apply to the US and saying those who say I am wrong for this obviously do not agree?

Seems a good reason to quote this again:

antisocial personality disorder (formerly called sociopathy) - a condition characterized by repetitive behavioral patterns that are contrary to usual moral and ethical standards and cause a person to experience continuous conflict with society. Symptoms include aggression, callousness, impulsiveness, irresponsibility, hostility, a low frustration level, marked emotional immaturity, and poor judgment. A person who has this disorder overlooks the rights of others, is incapable of loyalty to others or to social values, is unable to experience guilt or to learn from past behaviors, is impervious to punishment, and tends to rationalize his or her behavior or to blame it on others.
​

​

We already KNOW you have this disorder - please stop telling us about it all the time.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

...and another thread augers in, courtesy of cybrsage and his enablers.

 

[cybrsage]

OK, I will leave you all to your "hahaha, people think that WMDs were found in Iraq - they are stoopid" thread where you claim it is off topic to talk about WMDs being found in Iraq.

You guys can pat each other on the back for how "smart" you are, proclaiming US law does not apply to the US and that the WMDs found in Iraq do not exist. Have at it. You all know you are wrong, but that never stopped you from refusing to admit it before, why start now, eh?

 

[fskimospy]

Thanks! Maybe it is possible for people to grow up a little.

 

[woolfe9999]

The respondents were correct, though not for the reason they thought. Esk is just crying because he wants to laugh at them for saying there were WMDs in Iraq - but cannot since there were.

Ridiculous and irrelevant. The "respondents" defined WMD as NBC weapons, meaning they believed there were NBC weapons in Iraq, which there were not. The OP's point that these respondents are out of touch with reality therefore stands.

The distinction here is of course critical, because not only did they believe something that was not true, but they believed the allegations of the Bush administration, who repeatedly claimed there were NBC weapons in Iraq. In other words, they continue to be suckered, even up through today, even AFTER the Bush admin itself has repudiated these allegations.

 

[woolfe9999]

You don't honestly think it's because he doesn't know, do you?

No, but sometimes I prefer to treat someone as stupid rather than dishonest. Their wounded pride might just prompt them to fess up. Not likely, but possible.

 

[First]

You all know you are wrong, but that never stopped you from refusing to admit it before, why start now, eh?

lol you're a persistent troll.