US doing great job in Afghanistan

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: ElFenix

i'd like to point out that any info you have is hearsay, and the truth of it cannot be verfied. it goes both ways, of course.

The $87 BILLION Bush is asking for isn't hearsay, is it?

And how much of it is goint to Afghanistan?

Sounds like things are going REAL well, huh?

like i said, you really can't evaluate the truth of what you hear because you can't experience what the truth is yourself. thus, its hearsay.

So you're saying Bush ISN'T asking for $87 BILLION?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

So you're saying Bush ISN'T asking for $87 BILLION?

that was never in contention. what was in contention is the reliability of a US agency as a source of information. stop presenting red herrings.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: BOBDN

So you're saying Bush ISN'T asking for $87 BILLION?

that was never in contention. what was in contention is the reliability of a US agency as a source of information. stop presenting red herrings.

So your "contention" is if someone can't be where events are occuring as they occur they can't know the truth?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: BOBDN

So you're saying Bush ISN'T asking for $87 BILLION?

that was never in contention. what was in contention is the reliability of a US agency as a source of information. stop presenting red herrings.

So your "contention" is if someone can't be where events are occuring as they occur they can't know the truth?

if you're not a firsthand witness whatever you know is hearsay. thats not a contention, thats the definition of hearsay.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: BOBDN

So you're saying Bush ISN'T asking for $87 BILLION?

that was never in contention. what was in contention is the reliability of a US agency as a source of information. stop presenting red herrings.

So your "contention" is if someone can't be where events are occuring as they occur they can't know the truth?

if you're not a firsthand witness whatever you know is hearsay. thats not a contention, thats the definition of hearsay.

Then how do you explain differing accounts of the same event from various "first hand" witnesses?

PS "contention" was your word.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Then how do you explain differing accounts of the same event from various "first hand" witnesses?

PS "contention" was your word.

i know contention is my word. differing accounts of firsthand witnesses aren't in contention either. i am correctly pointing out that since you are not a first-hand witness, all that you know is hearsay. damn, do you dance around or what?

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Then how do you explain differing accounts of the same event from various "first hand" witnesses?

PS "contention" was your word.

i know contention is my word. differing accounts of firsthand witnesses aren't in contention either. i am correctly pointing out that since you are not a first-hand witness, all that you know is hearsay. damn, do you dance around or what?

So if I consider differing accounts from various first hand witnesses then apply the experience and knowledge I've acquired over the years I still can't come to an accurate conclusion?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

So if I consider differing accounts from various first hand witnesses then apply the experience and knowledge I've acquired over the years I still can't come to an accurate conclusion?

whatever conclusion you come to is hearsay at best. you can't even know if your experience and prior knowledge is truthful or not, for the most part.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: BOBDN

So if I consider differing accounts from various first hand witnesses then apply the experience and knowledge I've acquired over the years I still can't come to an accurate conclusion?

whatever conclusion you come to is hearsay at best. you can't even know if your experience and prior knowledge is truthful or not, for the most part.

So for anyone to know about any event they have to be there? And then they may have a different view from others who witness the same event?

So all we are able to comment on or come to a conclusion about is what we personally witness?

And even then we may not agree with other eyewitnesses?

If we aren't there it's hearsay. If we are there we may not see what actually happens but only our version of the event.

So if we get together with all the other people who witness an event and discuss it we can come to a reasonable idea of events based on the conclusions of the witnesses.

That's what we're doing here. We read the news. Watch the news. Listen to the news. From many different sources. (That is I hope we do, I know I do.) Then we come to a conclusion and then we even discuss the conclusions we come to!

Sooner or later time will usually let us know who was right or wrong or closer or further from the truth.

If we can't determine anything without actually being there, if everything is just hearsay, we might just as well end all communication and crawl back into caves.

 

[ElFenix]

that's the definition of hearsay. why are you trying to argue that? that's what hearsay is. jeesh, you'd argue with a physicist saying the sun is powered by fusion.


A statement is not hearsay if--
(1) Prior statement by witness. The declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement, and the statement is (A) inconsistent with the declarant's testimony, and was given under oath subject to the penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in a deposition, or (B) consistent with the declarant's testimony and is offered to rebut an express or implied charge against the declarant of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive, or (C) one of identification of a person made after perceiving the person; or
(2) Admission by party-opponent. The statement is offered against a party and is (A) the party's own statement, in either an individual or a representative capacity or (B) a statement of which the party has manifested an adoption or belief in its truth, or (C) a statement by a person authorized by the party to make a statement concerning the subject, or (D) a statement by the party's agent or servant concerning a matter within the scope of the agency or employment, made during the existence of the relationship, or (E) a statement by a coconspirator of a party during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
that's the definition of hearsay. why are you trying to argue that? that's what hearsay is. jeesh, you'd argue with a physicist saying the sun is powered by fusion.


A statement is not hearsay if--
(1) Prior statement by witness. The declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement, and the statement is (A) inconsistent with the declarant's testimony, and was given under oath subject to the penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in a deposition, or (B) consistent with the declarant's testimony and is offered to rebut an express or implied charge against the declarant of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive, or (C) one of identification of a person made after perceiving the person; or
(2) Admission by party-opponent. The statement is offered against a party and is (A) the party's own statement, in either an individual or a representative capacity or (B) a statement of which the party has manifested an adoption or belief in its truth, or (C) a statement by a person authorized by the party to make a statement concerning the subject, or (D) a statement by the party's agent or servant concerning a matter within the scope of the agency or employment, made during the existence of the relationship, or (E) a statement by a coconspirator of a party during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy.

(2) (C) a statement by a person authorized by the party to make a statement concerning the subject, or (D) a statement by the party's agent or servant concerning a matter within the scope of the agency or employment, made during the existence of the relationship

So under 2 C and D statements we read in the news or hear on broadcast aren't hearsay since the person making the statement is authorized by the party to make the statement concerning the subject AND the person making the statement is the party's agent or servant concerning the matter and is within the scope as an agent or employee.

Thanks for clearing that up for me. I was worried I could never say anything about anything ever again.

Now I know news isn't hearsay. It's authorized statements concerning subjects by agents and employees of the news people who witness events.

I'll even go you one better. Sometimes the news people who witness the events actually report on the events themselves! But that would fall under 2 A.

Wow, am I relieved.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

(2) (C) a statement by a person authorized by the party to make a statement concerning the subject, or (D) a statement by the party's agent or servant concerning a matter within the scope of the agency or employment, made during the existence of the relationship

So under 2 C and D statements we read in the news or hear on broadcast aren't hearsay since the person making the statement is authorized by the party to make the statement concerning the subject AND the person making the statement is the party's agent or servant concerning the matter and is within the scope as an agent or employee.

Thanks for clearing that up for me. I was worried I could never say anything about anything ever again.

Now I know news isn't hearsay. It's authorized statements concerning subjects by agents and employees of the news people who witness events.

I'll even go you one better. Sometimes the news people who witness the events actually report on the events themselves! But that would fall under 2 A.

Wow, am I relieved.

the news isn't necessarily hearsay, but your knowledge is, as you're not the witnessing party nor are you speaking for them. get it?

 

[LilBlinbBlahIce]

I have a cousin who's a refugee lawyer and has been working with the UN in Kabul for the last year and a half. I met her about a month ago right before she was leaving to go back. She says you cannot leave the UN compound without an armed escort and going outside of Kabul, atleast at that moment, was out of the question. Unless things have changed in a month I'm willing to take her word that the place is still total sh!t.