What good has come of the WMD fiasco?

[ceptimus]

It has proved to the world that the current US Government are either:

1. Liars.

2. Fools.

3. Both of the above.

If the current lot are elected again, that will show the world something about American voters.

[Monketey Ghost]

As if electing actors to positions of power and authority didn't?

As though no repercussions for lying and twisting the truth doesn't?

We can continue swinging our weight around, playing baddest-ass-on-the-block, not giving a fig for what the rest of the world thinks.

Nothing can stop us.

[BTox]

Originally posted by ceptimus
It has proved to the world that the current US Government are either:

1. Liars.

2. Fools.

3. Both of the above.

If the current lot are elected again, that will show the world something about American voters.

No, it only proves that people like you are simpletons and nitwits. The current admin will get elected again. Deal with it.

[jj]

Originally posted by BTox


No, it only proves that people like you are simpletons and nitwits. The current admin will get elected again. Deal with it.

I see, so then you support this administration's use of the Secret Service to hide or ban protests, to suppress political speech, and to throw the full weight of the government, including the threat of violence, against people who wish to peacefully protest the government's policies?

You support this administration's deliberate, scoff-congress appointment of a very unpleasant judge to a Federal Appeals Court in a show of contempt for the entire democractic process?

You support this administration's false tax cuts that do nothing but hasten the day that we all pay AMT?

You support the destruction of the worker base in this country?

Really?

Unless you're in the top half of a percentile of wealth, this admistration is trying to make you poor and work you to death, sans healthcare.

WHY do you support that?

[BTox]

Originally posted by jj

WHY do you support that?

Well, since your entire list is hogwash, you'll have to try again.

[shemp]

Originally posted by ceptimus
It has proved to the world that the current US Government are either:

1. Liars.

2. Fools.

3. Both of the above.

If the current lot are elected again, that will show the world something about American voters.

I think it will only back up what the world already knows.

Also, where is the "Planet X" option?

[Ion]

Originally posted by BTox


No, it only proves that people like you are simpletons and nitwits. The current admin will get elected again. Deal with it.
You have a beef around here with lots of "...simpletons and nitwits..." who don't like Bush's policies, toxy.

But the real simpleton and nitwit that you are will see that your chimp President won't get elected, so you as a servile follower of chimps you will have to be a lapdog elsewhere.

[fishbob]

What good has come of the WMD fiasco? What, didn't you notice? Warning, sarcasm.

1 - We got to invade Iraq, so the world is now safe from terrorists.

2 - We caught Saddam, so the world learned a new word - spiderhole.

3 - We got a bunch of our troops killed and disabled, so the job market won't be as crowded this year.

4 - We rescued Jessica Lynch, so we got another batch of quality TV movie entertainment.

5 - We get to rebuild Iraq, so for those that work for Halliburton, your job is secure.

6 - come on, join the fun.

[jj]

Originally posted by BTox


Well, since your entire list is hogwash, you'll have to try again.

Let's start with the first issue. Do you deny that a "free speech zone" is being established for presidential appearances, where those who are OPPOSED are shuffled off to on pain of arrest and/or violence, and from which press is banned?

Do you deny that this has happened?

Yes or no.

Unless you have some evidence to refute the allegations put forth rather convincingly, naming names and listing court decisions, you have to say that you can't deny it happened.

That, in and of itself, proves incontrovertably that the Secret Service is being used to conciously control political speech in the USA, that is, unless you have some evidence that shows that judges from Pittsburgh to San Francisco are involved in some stunning conspiracy to create falsehoods about various arrests and uses of prior restraint.

Do you? Let's hear it!

Simply alleging that what would seem to be a known fact is somehow "hogwash" is nothing but a refusal to even discuss the real world.

So, DO YOU HAVE ANY COUNTER-EVIDENCE? YES OR NO?

[Ladewig]

Well, first off, not everyone thinks it is a fiasco. Dick Cheney said just last week that "the jury is still out."

"I am a long way at this stage from concluding that somehow there was some fundamental flaw in our intelligence," Cheney said last week in an interview with USA Today and the Los Angeles Times.


story (http://www.thedesertsun.com/news/stories2004/national/20040119003619.shtml)

[Ion]

Originally posted by jj

...
So, DO YOU HAVE ANY COUNTER-EVIDENCE? YES OR NO?
I speak on behalf of toxy, who is not well in this lifetime, to say that toxy doesn't have counter-evidence.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Ladewig
Well, first off, not everyone thinks it is a fiasco. Dick Cheney said just last week that "the jury is still out."
...

Dick Cheney is not a reference of integrity and competence.

"the jury is still out" in your and Cheney's dreams, Lade.

In the world, "the jury has reached a verdict", as long ago as February 2003 when Powell went to lie in U.N. without his pants on, for the world to see it.

[Ion]

In line with this:
Originally posted by Ion

...
But the real simpleton and nitwit that you are toxy will see that your chimp President won't get elected, so you as a servile follower of chimps you will have to be a lapdog elsewhere.
The "Saddam Capture" premium has evaporated for Bush, and the Moon and Mars gags didn't give Bush a spike, according to this poll:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/17/opinion/polls/main593849.shtml

Other findings include:


Americans approving of his handling of Iraq are in the minority.
Tepid support at best for his space initiative.
Only 39% have confidence in his economic decisions.
Most Americans say things are worse now than they were five years ago.


So, Bush goes down the toilet.

As for toxy, he will be a lapdog elsewhere soon, that's in his nature to be a lapdog...

[Ignatius]

I learned that being able to effectively "control the message" is much more important than actually telling the truth.

This is a useful thing to know.

[Aoidoi]

Originally posted by ceptimus
It has proved to the world that the current US Government are either:

1. Liars.

2. Fools.

3. Both of the above.

If the current lot are elected again, that will show the world something about American voters. When was the last time we elected someone who wasn't a liar or a fool? The only way to get elected is to tell people you'll do the impossible... which makes you a liar and/or a fool, depending on whether you believe it yourself.

Dave Barry has some good comments about the Democratic candidates, all of them promising universal healthcare, welfare, lower taxes, and a lower budget. Even assuming the premise of the OP, it's entirely possible that Bush's election would be due to people believing the Dem candidate was more of a liar and a fool than the incumbent. The joy of the 2 party system. ;)

I learned that being able to effectively "control the message" is much more important than actually telling the truth.

This is a useful thing to know.Appearance over substance, the classic political strategy. It doesn't matter what is true, just what people hear and believe. Ain't politics grand?


4 - We rescued Jessica Lynch, so we got another batch of quality TV movie entertainment.Seems like we get one of those in every modern military action... but I think that's more a function of the media trying to put a face on the war than the government. Not that the government minds, of course.

5 - We get to rebuild Iraq, so for those that work for Halliburton, your job is secure.I dunno about you, but I'm not planning on taking any jobs rebuilding Iraq. ;)

6 - It's like the lotto, constant expectation of winning followed by the realization it didn't happen (again).

7 - Lack of WMD makes the Iraqi Information Minister appear more competent in comparison.

8 - You only have to justify going to war, not having won a war.

9 - Troops getting great tans.

10 - Finally getting rid of the stockpile of chem/bio weapons test strips.

11 - Getting the Japanese army involved... that worked out great last time!

12 - Provides a "snipe" for the Dutch to hunt in the desert.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Aoidoi
When was the last time we elected someone who wasn't a liar or a fool?
...

You know when?

When the elected politician didn't kill close to 10,000 Iraqi civilians.

That's recent.

Just before Bush.

[Aoidoi]

Originally posted by Ion

You know when?

When the elected politician didn't kill close to 10,000 Iraqi civilians.

That's recent.

Just before Bush. Um, kinda missed the point, didja?

A) Clinton lied under oath. Using the apparent definitions in this thread, that makes him a liar. He also, as I was pointing out, didn't keep most of his campaign pledges (none of them ever do).

B) Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, fun with cruise missiles and non-chemical weapon producing factories, the Chinese Embassy, and probably some others I can't recall at the moment. Clinton's hands weren't "clean" either, though fewer US servicemen died because of it. The air campaign Clark was in charge of surely took a significant civilian toll, though I don't have the numbers at my fingertips.

Before that we had Bush Sr. who lied to get us into the first gulf war (he did it better than Shrub, though).

Before that Reagan, and his issues with reality are the stuff of legend. Not sure if senility qualifies as fool or liar, but when first elected he was probably both.

I was attempting to point out a couple things:
1) Our political system is not based on reality, it's based on perception. This means liars and fools are the most electable people.
2) This thread may not be a false dichotomy, but to keep it from being so the terms "liar" and "fool" are broad enough to cover nearly everyone on the face of the planet. Including everyone in the thread. ;)

While we're at it, when is somebody going to mention that Bush wasn't elected? Somebody always mentions it when it gets round to Bush bashing time! :D

[Ion]

Originally posted by Aoidoi
Um, kinda missed the point, didja?
...

Nah.

Iraq Body Count (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/background.htm).

And many thousands in Afghanistan.

Bush and fans are this dumb...
Originally posted by Aoidoi

...
1) Our political system is not based on reality, it's based on perception. This means liars and fools are the most electable people.
...

Speak for yourself.

[Reverend Mykeru]

Originally posted by Aoidoi

A) Clinton lied under oath. Using the apparent definitions in this thread, that makes him a liar.

Warning: The following is one breathless sentence:

Of course, when the rest of the world listens to use blather on about what upright and moral people we are, and then watch the spectacle of politicians and a public so brain-dead as to actually draw equivalency between a guy "lying under oath" about a consensual sexual affair and another guy lying to the American populace and the world in order to launch a pre-emptive war which has at last count killed 500 Americans and at least 7,000 Iraqi civilians 40% of which according to population demographics are children under the age of 14, the rest of the world shakes their heads at how it is possible that we can pat ourselves on the back and be such morally stunted sociopaths.

[Aoidoi]

Hey Rev, long time no see!

I rather enjoy being a morally stunted sociopath, it makes discussing politics much more fun. :D

As to Clinton, I couldn't come up with a better example where I know he was lying (I mean, Whitewater, Travelgate, those FBI files, but I'm not sure he was lying), but I think his list of military misadventures doesn't exactly shed glory on his status as a non-fool. The cruise missile attack on a "chemical weapons factory" that apparently was nothing of the sort is particularly analagous, though obviously on a smaller scale.

Before anybody gets particularly excited, I think Bush has screwed the pooch in Iraq. They did a wonderful job of smacking the Iraqi military around, but fixing up the country and getting the people on "our" side has been pretty much a screwup so far, and it appears he's going to pull out without having gotten the country stabilized. I suspect that without US support the interrim government won't last long and the country will collapse into chaos.

But that's all kinda beside the point in this thread. Bush wasn't accused of lack of foresight or poor planning or even being a morally stunted sociopath. He was accused of being a fool or a liar. Which I believe describes every president to hold the office in recent memory, to greater or lesser degree of each. Nobody seems to be arguing the point (yet). Ion apparently disagrees, but hasn't really explained why, just tossed around his usual insults. I'm expecting him to make a comment about my grammar next (if this is going to run to form).

[Ladewig]

Before Clinton was elected he said that he tried pot but didn't inhale. I labeled him a liar at that point. I was surprised that others were surprised to learn he lies about stuff.

As for handling the M. Lewinski question, he should have walked out and said, "call me when you have real questions."

[BTox]

Originally posted by Ion
But the real simpleton and nitwit that you are will see that your chimp President won't get elected, so you as a servile follower of chimps you will have to be a lapdog elsewhere.

Gee, you've ventured off that other thread? Amazing. Too bad you can't vote in this election, eh?

[BTox]

Originally posted by jj
Do you? Let's hear it!

Simply alleging that what would seem to be a known fact is somehow "hogwash" is nothing but a refusal to even discuss the real world.

So, DO YOU HAVE ANY COUNTER-EVIDENCE? YES OR NO?

I should have been more precise - your list was 1) irrelevant (like the above), or 2) hogwash (like the remaining). Better?

[Monketey Ghost]

Originally posted by BTox


I should have been more precise - your list was 1) irrelevant (like the above), or 2) hogwash (like the remaining). Better?

BTox, that's as weak as anything I've seen on this board.

Pathetic.

[BTox]

Originally posted by No Answers


BTox, that's as weak as anything I've seen on this board.

Pathetic.

I agree, his list was weak. And lame.

[shuize]

(deleted)

[BTox]

Originally posted by Ion

You know when?

When the elected politician didn't kill close to 10,000 Iraqi civilians.

That's recent.

Just before Bush.

You sound like that Huzington communist kook who was bounced out of here. How many Iraqi civilians did Clinton "kill"? How many Bosnians? Kosovoans? Afghanis? Sudanese?

[jj]

Originally posted by BTox


I should have been more precise - your list was 1) irrelevant (like the above), or 2) hogwash (like the remaining). Better?

So, then, suppression of peaceful political speech by armed agents of the government is irrelevant? Is that what you meant. Now, let's take the NEXT point, shall we?

Do you deny that the REAL outcome of the fake tax cuts that the Bush administration offered us is that we'll pay AMT instead?

Yes or no. Be specific, cite evidence.

Let's see what a person who says it's ok to suppress peaceful politcal speech says about that. Is it hogwash? Done your taxes yet, boyo?

[jj]

Originally posted by BTox


I agree, his list was weak. And lame.

Your continued acquiesence in the suppression of political speech is once again noted. Did you ever hear of the KGB or the SS?

[EvilBiker]

Originally posted by jj
Did you ever hear of the KGB or the SS?

Probably only from Micheal Dudikoff movies...

[Ion]

Originally posted by BTox

Gee, you've ventured off that other thread? Amazing. Too bad you can't vote in this election, eh?
toxy, that's three wrong sentences.

How does it feel to be a 100% failure like you show that you are?

I can see how you live with affirmative action crutches.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Ladewig
Before Clinton was elected he said that he tried pot but didn't inhale. I labeled him a liar at that point. I was surprised that others were surprised to learn he lies about stuff.

As for handling the M. Lewinski question, he should have walked out and said, "call me when you have real questions."
He didn't kill 10,000 innocent Iraqis, now did he?

As long that he didn't do it, he is a saint compared to Bush-the-killer-who-lies-about-his-killings.

[Ion]

Originally posted by BTox


I should have been more precise - your list was 1) irrelevant (like the above), or 2) hogwash (like the remaining). Better?
No, the list is not.

It's toxy who is irrelevant and hogwash when backed into the corner to prove the fact that free-speech is censored under Bush.

What can I expect from an affirmative action product like toxy who doesn't know responsability based on merit?

Little.

[Ion]

Originally posted by BTox

...
How many Iraqi civilians did Clinton "kill"? How many Bosnians? Kosovoans? Afghanis? Sudanese?
Yes, how many toxy, or better said how few toxy?

[BTox]

Originally posted by jj


So, then, suppression of peaceful political speech by armed agents of the government is irrelevant? Is that what you meant.


Suppression? By moving protestors out of the way of cameras? If you want to wring your hands over that, be my guest.

Originally posted by jj
Now, let's take the NEXT point, shall we?

Hmm. The NEXT point was about the Pickering appointment. I see you've realized that dems have been opposing repub judicial appointments and vice-versa forever. And Clinton made such an appointment using the exact same legal loophole.

Originally posted by jj
Do you deny that the REAL outcome of the fake tax cuts that the Bush administration offered us is that we'll pay AMT instead?

Yes or no. Be specific, cite evidence.

For everyone? The answer is obviously no. For some people, yes. To call tax cuts that result in a loss in tax revenue (and gain for citizens and corporations) of 100+ billion dollars in 2003 "fake" is simply incorrect, i.e. hogwash.

Originally posted by jj
Let's see what a person who says it's ok to suppress peaceful politcal speech says about that. Is it hogwash? Done your taxes yet, boyo?

Did them last year. No AMT. Didn't cash in any options last year so should be no different this year.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Ion
It's toxy who is irrelevant and hogwash when backed into the corner to prove the fact that free-speech is censored under Bush.



Free speech is censored under Bush? How sad... if you only had a brain. Well, what can you expect from a french-"educated" sanitation engineer?

[Ion]

Originally posted by BTox

Free speech is censored under Bush? How sad... if you only had a brain. Well, what can you expect from a french-"educated" sanitation engineer?
Free speech is not censored under Bush?

How sad...

If you only had a brain, toxy.

Well, what can I expect from an affirmative action result like you are, toxy?

[epepke]

I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that a lot of people who couldn't be arsed to vote in the 2000 elections will make damned sure of voting this time.

[Ion]

Originally posted by BTox

Suppression? By moving protestors out of the way of cameras? If you want to wring your hands over that, be my guest.
...
For everyone? The answer is obviously no. For some people, yes. To call tax cuts that result in a loss in tax revenue (and gain for citizens and corporations) of 100+ billion dollars in 2003 "fake" is simply incorrect, i.e. hogwash.
...

1.) Suppression by moving protestors out of the way of cameras.

If you don't want to wring your hands over that, be my guest.

2.) To not call tax cuts for rich citizens and corporations of 100+ billion dollars in 2003 "fake" is simply incorrect, i.e. hogwash.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Ion

1.) Suppression by moving protestors out of the way of cameras.

If you don't want to wring your hands over that, be my guest.

2.) To not call tax cuts for rich citizens and corporations of 100+ billion dollars in 2003 "fake" is simply incorrect, i.e. hogwash.

OK, you've proven you know nothing about these topics as well, no surprise there. Here's two questions perhaps you can finally answer - you claim to know something about science - why is it you never post on the Science, Math, Medicine and Tech forum? Is it because you have not yet seen a thread germane to your discipline, i.e. the biomechanics of hefting a filled, 100 liter trash can?