Lone_Gunman
Member
Yep, he's a self-made man for sure.
Bush: Take bin Laden attack threat seriously
- Thread starter rick_reno
- Start date
- Status
Yep, he's a self-made man for sure.
Manedwolf
member
\GoRon said:
Be. Honest.
Not the same old tired rhetoric. Not smirky half-truths. Not coming on and saying the same tired, tired, threadbare platitudes and condescending statements that insult the collective intelligence of the American people.
Be HONEST.
Try this as a drinking game. Take a shot of tequila, vodka, rum, whatever, every time Bush says "9/11" in the State of the Union address next week. Bet you'll be on the floor before long.
Manedwolf
member
GoRon said:
And before that, the darling of Prince Bandar and the bin Laden family, too. In fact, they got flown out of the US at taxpayer expensive without being allowed to be questioned, "for their own safety". Huh.
Notice how much THAT gets mentioned, these days...
Would we have trusted a president in WWII if he was close friends with Hirohito or Hitler's immediate family?
To all those who keep screaming "We are at war!"...why are you okay with that, but are ready to jump on anyone who calls a friend of a friend of a cousin of someone who may or may not empathize with a possible terrorist group?
GoRon
Member
Nice try.
I am not posting this in support of GW or in opposition to the Democrats,Libertarians etc... whomever.
What is the alternative plan?
Nobody except the President even has a plan as far as I can tell.
Someone earlier in this thread said treat terrorism as legal/police action type behavior. We tried that under President Clinton and it failed. Not because Clinton was stupid or he didn't care that we were being attacked. It didn't work because it was the wrong response to what were acts of war committed by non nation state groups against us.
joab
Member
If this was WWII all those of Arab descent would be in internment camps, courtesy of a Democrat president
Camp David
member
Hawkmoon said:
That means that The Patriot Act has been successful; glad to hear your endorsement Hawkmoon! I feel the same! That is why I support it as a tool in the terror war!
Chris Rhines
Member
The handy thing about imprisioning people without due process is that there is now way to know who is being imprisoned, where, why, and for how long. Hell, for all we know, there could be a thousand US citizens stuck in Gitmo, and they all could be guilty of nothing more than asking irritating questions of The Powers That Be. We don't know, so we don't complain much.
So of course you support the state. I'm sure you will, right up until the state comes for you.
- Chris
CAnnoneer
Member
GoRon said:
He has no plan. He is flying by the seat of his pants and by the whispers of his shadow advisers, as always.
Invading Iraq was the biggest military blunder, an almost irrecoverable error. Now we are stuck there and have to ride it out while we bankrupt ourselves. Kind of like an ironjaw trap - if you pull out, you lose your leg, but if you stay there, you bleed to death.
It is the same as a drunk driver running your car into a deep ditch, then saying "well what else would you do from now on?"
CAnnoneer
Member
GoRon said:
Nope. He lost the popular vote in 2000. Without the incumbency and the fearsome mess he created, he would not have won it in 2004.
He got elected by his brother, his friends, judges, and the electoral college. These do not qualify as the entirety of the people of the USA.
Just keeping it real.
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
Camp David said:
Camp David, there is fundamentally no point in even trying to debate the topic at hand with you when you seem to have such a problem with utilizing rational debating techniques.
I, of course, fully expect him to completely ignore this post.
Basura Blanca
Member
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2004
- Messages
- 380
CAnnoneer said:
I would've probably just said irrecoverable and left it at that. I'm curious as to what part you think isn't.
Camp David
member
Justin said:
Justin: A few corrections since you broached the subject. Initially, I rarely ignore any post; a terse review of my prior posts in varous threads herein makes that plain. I do read most of what is published on this board and ignore little; I like the board and learn a lot from it. Secondly, Hawkmoon's earlier post incorrectly alleged that those affected by the Patriot Act were in prison, understanding for which I extended appreciation. Indeed. if you thought about that statement a while, you would understand why I made the claim. The obverse of the statement is even more telling; those not affected by the Patriot Act are not in prison. Yield: the Patriot Act will not affect you as you are not a terrorist, member of a terror cell, or one advocating terrorism. As I have said more than once on this topic and surfaced as my firm opinion, the Patriot Act affects only terrorists or those sympathetic to their aims. Now you can disagree with that opinion, as is your want, but at least respect it. I do realize you do not share my opinion on the Patriot Act but bullying me will not cause me to abandon my support of it.
Lastly, insofar as debate techniques, rhetoric, and discussion, scroll back in this thread and others and review a few posts to digest a simple altrusim; although my opinion may not be personally palpable to your own it is clearly stated, simply articulated, and not combatative; tenets of rational debate under the Socratic Method. Should you disagree cite chapter and verse of where I ventured off your understanding of post discourse.
Regards...
Camp David
Cannoneer,
See Article II section1 of the Constitution of the United States of America. The preisdent is elected not by the popular vote but by the electoral college. Why wasn't that a problem when Clinton was elected without winning the popular vote?
Just keeping it real. We all have to play by the rules.
See Article II section1 of the Constitution of the United States of America. The preisdent is elected not by the popular vote but by the electoral college. Why wasn't that a problem when Clinton was elected without winning the popular vote?
Just keeping it real. We all have to play by the rules.
It doesn't get mentioned because it isn't true.
Hello? Michael Moore? Is that you?
More rumors, half-truths, and lies...
CAnnoneer
Member
Khornet said:
Please look at the original post by GoRon where he claimed GWB was elected by the people of the USA, twice.
As far as Clinton goes, please find a post on this forum or anywhere else where I have supported the electoral college, ever. Then you'd have a better cause to come back and lob transparent insinuations at me.
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
Things that make you go hmmm...
I've never seen "altruism" used that way before...
And palpable?
Are you making a sloppy attempt to accuse me of being stupid, or are you torturing it into being a synonym for "palatable?"
And perhaps you should refresh my memory, but what part of The Socractic Method involves accusing those who disagree with you of being in league with terrorists?
I've never seen "altruism" used that way before...
And palpable?
Are you making a sloppy attempt to accuse me of being stupid, or are you torturing it into being a synonym for "palatable?"
And perhaps you should refresh my memory, but what part of The Socractic Method involves accusing those who disagree with you of being in league with terrorists?
al·tru·ism
n.
1. Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness.
2. Zoology. Instinctive cooperative behavior that is detrimental to the individual but contributes to the survival of the species.
I've never seen it used as anything other than a noun...
But I think he meant "truism."
n.
1. Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness.
2. Zoology. Instinctive cooperative behavior that is detrimental to the individual but contributes to the survival of the species.
I've never seen it used as anything other than a noun...
But I think he meant "truism."
Camp David
member
Justin said:
Wllm. Legrand said:
trea·son (trē'zon)
(n) (1) Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.(2) A betrayal of trust or confidence.
~and~
altruism (n) : the quality of unselfish concern for the welfare of others.
http://dict.die.net/altruism/
palpable (adj) (1) capable of being perceived by the senses or the mind, especially capable of being handled or touched or felt.
http://dict.die.net/palpable/
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
*smacks forehead*
Oops. My mistake.
However, Camp David is using the term "altruism" as a synonym for "truth," or as you pointed out "truism" in his post.
Oops. My mistake.
However, Camp David is using the term "altruism" as a synonym for "truth," or as you pointed out "truism" in his post.
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
Camp David said:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
-Article 3, Section 3 of The United States Constitution
If that's what you really meant, then you are indeed misusing the term.
In light of the above definition, perhaps you ought to explain what you meant when you said "...although my opinion may not be personally palpable to your own..."
Camp David
member
Biker said:
Actually yes Biker I agree, but I used it in specific reference to a post wherein writer seemed to have no allegiance to either:
Wllm. Legrand said:
And I followed up by asking writer for clarification.
Camp David said:
Thus extending the offer to him to make clarification.
Camp David
member
Justin said:
"...capable of being perceived..."; to wit, "...although my opinion may not be personally able to be understood or perceived as your own opinion..."
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
What of all the other posts wherein you toss around accusations of treason?
- Status
