When Bush is gone...

[zenith-nadir]

Bush-bashing has risen to unprecedented heights but he won't be the poster boy for all the ills in the world forever. So what will everyone do when Bush is gone?

[punchdrunk]

The same thing right-wingers did when Clinton left office: keep blaming him.

[DavidJames]

Bush-bashing has risen to unprecedented heights but he won't be the poster boy for all the ills in the world forever. So what will everyone do when Bush is gone?I will continue to fight evil and champion goodness and honesty regardless of which party is in power :)

[TragicMonkey]

Bush-bashing has risen to unprecedented heights but he won't be the poster boy for all the ills in the world forever. So what will everyone do when Bush is gone?

Clinton-bashing was just as popular during his presidency. And Hoover-bashing during Hoover's presidency.

My prediction, for the million dollars, is that:

The next president will come in for some harsh criticism during his or her presidency!
:mdance:

[rikzilla]

Bush-bashing has risen to unprecedented heights but he won't be the poster boy for all the ills in the world forever. So what will everyone do when Bush is gone?

I dunno...dodge the inevitable impeachment hearings by lobbing ineffectual but really, really expensive cruise missiles at tents and camels??? No wait!! That's only if the Dems manage to win back the White House...which isn't likely considering their dearth of good ideas. Running as "Not Bush" will be even less effective next time around when the Republicans can say "We're not Bush either"...(unless Jeb wins the nomination that is)....

-z

[Regnad Kcin]

Bush-bashing has risen to unprecedented heights but he won't be the poster boy for all the ills in the world forever...Of course he isn't "the poster boy for all the ills in the world" now. I judge him and his actions with regard to their specificity.

Nice try at loading the deck, though.

[zenith-nadir]

Nice try at loading the deck, though.Actually it was sarcasm, but I do find Bush is often lambasted for just about everything these days. I just wonder what people will do without him around. ;)

[demon]

Arafat-bashing had risen to unprecedented heights but he can`t be the poster boy for all the ills in the world forever. So what will everyone do now Arafat is gone?

What do you reckon ZN? Business as usual eh?;)

[Manny]

So what will everyone do when Bush is gone?We will willingly give our lives to Zod. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=45699&highlight=neil)

[zenith-nadir]

We will willingly give our lives to Zod. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=45699&highlight=neil)Ya...but didn't Zod crash his hovercar leaving his mistress to rot at the bottom of a river for eight hours before reporting the accident?

...oh wait a sec...that was Ted Kennedy...carry on! ;)

[Ausmerican]

So what will everyone do when Bush is gone?

English professors will celebrate the possible rebirth of well spoken english, comedians will weep at the loss of such a font of material.

[Mark]

The mess Bush has created is going to take years and years to clean up. I predict that the next president will take a lot of the heat for what Bush left behind.

[RandFan]

...comedians will weep at the loss of such a font of material. According to Ed McMahon Johnny Carson's biggest regret about retiring was missing the chance to make hay from Bill Clinton's escapades. Somehow I doubt that comedians will ever be short of material.

[Tricky]

Historians will decide. While there is controversy about all the presidents (and indeed, all the people) in history, there seems to be a consensus on many. Lincoln was good. Harding was bad. FDR changed the country forever. Grant was corrupt (more correctly, Grant was drunk and his underlings were corrupt).

How will Bush be remembered? Probably as a footnote. Aside from a useless war (and he's not the first to do that) he has done nothing to make himself memorable. Clinton might have not done that much either, but he was kind of a groundbreaking president. He was the first Republicrat. He learned the trick of appealing to the rank and file of both parties (which infuriated the core Republicans to the point that they decided that they would do anything to destroy him.) Clinton is being furiously copied by lots of politicians, including McCain.

To me though, Dubya is just Reagan without the charm. No vision. No perception. Just a sock puppet for the wealthy.

[RandFan]

To me though, Dubya is just Reagan without the charm. No vision. No perception. Just a sock puppet for the wealthy. I think Bush has potential to be of significant historical significance. The war was visionary with the possibility to bring great change to a very troubled region. Much rests on the outcome but if the outcome is good then his legacy will be assured. You might find the war useless and that is fine. It might end up being useless but it did overthrow Saddam and his two thug sons. If Iraq stabilizes and America can withdraw without civil war then that will have been a huge victory even if the costs were high.

A lot of "ifs" I'll grant you but the possibility is very real.

[Tricky]

I think Bush has potential to be of significant historical significance. The war was visionary with the possibility to bring great change to a very troubled region. Much rests on the outcome but if the outcome is good then his legacy will be assured. You might find the war useless and that is fine. It might end up being useless but it did overthrow Saddam and his two thug sons. If Iraq stabilizes and America can withdraw without civil war then that will have been a huge victory even if the costs were high.

A lot of "ifs" I'll grant you but the possibility is very real.
Yes it did overthrow a bunch of thugs. I see no evidence that they won't be replace by other thugs. Nor do I see it as bringing good change to a troubled region. Terrorism is up, not down. In my opinion, the war is recruiting for the terrorists.

As you and I both say, time will tell. Things will eventually settle down (I hope) but it is kind of impossible to say if what remains will be better or worse than what was there before the invasion. My own feeling is that as soon as the US leaves Iraq, it will become a puppet of Iran. I'm guessing, that is not what Bush had in mind.

[CapelDodger]

So what will everyone do when Bush is gone?
Much as they did after they didn't have Nixon to kick around anymore.

The real question is : will Bush carry a bigger chip on his shoulder than Nixon did?

[Solitaire]

So what will everyone do when Bush is gone?

Decypher this cryptic sequence on a Japanese metro train... (http://www.jollygoodjokes.co.za/jgj_search_joke.asp?at_num=5600)

[CapelDodger]

As you and I both say, time will tell. Things will eventually settle down (I hope) but it is kind of impossible to say if what remains will be better or worse than what was there before the invasion. My own feeling is that as soon as the US leaves Iraq, it will become a puppet of Iran.
I think that unlikely, but my late-night interjection is : the Middle East is yesterday's obsession. All this "spreading democracy" rhetoric is encountering the same complications that Wilson's "self-determination" rhetoric tripped over. The focus should be on Africa and the other big players - China and India. But instead, the US is consumed internationally, domestically, financially and philosophically by this out-dated "oil-is-all" adventure. While pushing abstinence instead of free condoms in Stars and Stripes wrappers. Sorry guys, but you've really lost the plot.

[Dr Adequate]

Bush-bashing has risen to unprecedented heights but he won't be the poster boy for all the ills in the world forever. So what will everyone do when Bush is gone?Well, if you replace him with another worthless dishonest incompetent lazy halfwit, I'll bash him instead. And if you replace him with someone competent, energetic, honest and intelligent, I'll congratulate you on regaining your national dignity.

[Orwell]

Bush-bashing has risen to unprecedented heights but he won't be the poster boy for all the ills in the world forever. So what will everyone do when Bush is gone?

I'll dance a little jig, sing "na-na-na-na-hey-heyyy Goodbye", and then I'll start bitching about the new prez, 'cause there's a pretty good chance that Dubya's replacement will be pretty bad... But I think that Dubya's incompetence is hard to beat, so it's probable that the new guy (or gal) won't be as bad.

[mumblethrax]

So what will everyone do when Bush is gone?
Quit drinking.

[Mephisto]

I think Bush has potential to be of significant historical significance. The war was visionary with the possibility to bring great change to a very troubled region. Much rests on the outcome but if the outcome is good then his legacy will be assured. You might find the war useless and that is fine. It might end up being useless but it did overthrow Saddam and his two thug sons. If Iraq stabilizes and America can withdraw without civil war then that will have been a huge victory even if the costs were high.

A lot of "ifs" I'll grant you but the possibility is very real.

The adverse "ifs" are equally possible. I think Bush has potential historical significance too. His war will hopefully be looked upon as the LAST war the US ever waged on false pretenses and the lies of a criminal administation.

Certainly everything rests on the outcome, but I'm not quite the optimist you are, RF and I believe that Bush's legacy will be one of extreme embarrassment and shame for generations to come. The fact that he overthrew (actually our soldiers overthrew him) Saddam & Sons is already overshadowed by our human rights abuses and the civilian casualty count, as an accomplishment it won't seen as worthy of the resultant carnage and continued terrorism.

Iraq will never stabilize just as Israel has never stabilized. I'm dismayed to admit that Bush will probably be remembered as favorably as was Reagan. Time has a way of clouding the mind and sweetening the memory.

[epepke]

The mess Bush has created is going to take years and years to clean up. I predict that the next president will take a lot of the heat for what Bush left behind.

I think you're quite right about this.

[Charlie Monoxide]

I think Bush has potential to be of significant historical significance. The war was visionary with the possibility to bring great change to a very troubled region. Much rests on the outcome but if the outcome is good then his legacy will be assured. You might find the war useless and that is fine. It might end up being useless but it did overthrow Saddam and his two thug sons. If Iraq stabilizes and America can withdraw without civil war then that will have been a huge victory even if the costs were high.

A lot of "ifs" I'll grant you but the possibility is very real.You know Randfan, I've liked the occasional post from you. What you are writing here just shows that you are a typical Bush apoligist. You are spinning a war sold on WMD's to now freeing those poor Iraqi's from the tyranny of a dictator's sons. I don't recall Bush mentioning Saddam's sons when he was talking about yellowcake and mushroom clouds. Maybe I missed the pre-war newscast where Bush and his cohorts told us that the reason we are sending these many American and coalition people to potentially die, was to "free" these Iraqi people.

Please help me out ...

Charlie (Bush is charge and is responsible) Monoxide

[RandFan]

Certainly everything rests on the outcome, but I'm not quite the optimist you are, RF and I believe that Bush's legacy will be one of extreme embarrassment and shame for generations to come. The fact that he overthrew (actually our soldiers overthrew him) Saddam & Sons is already overshadowed by our human rights abuses and the civilian casualty count, as an accomplishment it won't seen as worthy of the resultant carnage and continued terrorism. Well I certainly don't think Saddam's attrocities are overshadowed by our abuses.

Iraq will never stabilize just as Israel has never stabilized. I'm dismayed to admit that Bush will probably be remembered as favorably as was Reagan. Time has a way of clouding the mind and sweetening the memory. "Never"? In any event, Israel and Iraq are very different.

[Dr Adequate]

I think Bush has potential to be of significant historical significance. The war was visionary... Visionary?

That's one word for it, I guess.

And the prophet George spake unto the Americites, saying: "Behold, ye Americites, and hearken ye peoples even unto the ends of the Earth: for my message is not given unto the chosen people of the Lord alone, but unto all nations that are Willing; for God hath vouchsafed me a vision."

And the people cried: "What is your vision?" for that they knew that the prophet George was a man of great wisdom, yea, though he dissimulated it very carefully.

Then the prophet spoke again to the people saying, "Behold, God hath shown me in a dream that in the land of the Iraqites dwell innumerable devils: and so we must spend our gold, yea, even the gold as yet not minted nor mined, that we may send forth our young men to seize the land of the Iraqites, that our armies may drag forth the devils into the light of day and so destroy them".

And the people hearkened to him; but the Francites heeded him not; and thus when the Americites seethed the roots of the field in the fat of an ox, they called them not by the name "French fries", which was an abomination unto them; even thus were they revenged on the Francites.

And the young Americites girded up their loins and went forth, and there was a great slaughter of Iraqites, and of Americites also. And when the land of the Iraqites was fallen to them, then did the Americites speak unto the prophet George, saying: "Our gold is spent and the blood of our children also: and behold, the day is ours. But whither are they fled, the devils of your vision? This land is ours, and we have searched its rocks and its dry places: behold, there are no devils. Alas! was it then for an idle dream you brought us hither?"

And he answered them, saying: "O ye of little faith! Have we not overthrown the unrighteous king and the unjust princes, even as it was foretold?"

And the people were silent thereat.

[RandFan]

You know Randfan, I've liked the occasional post from you. What you are writing here just shows that you are a typical Bush apoligist. I know, those who have a view different from your world view are apologists. I understand. Rhetoric trumps logic. Thanks.

You are spinning a war sold on WMD's to now freeing those poor Iraqi's from the tyranny of a dictator's sons. I don't recall Bush mentioning Saddam's sons when he was talking about yellowcake and mushroom clouds. Maybe I missed the pre-war newscast where Bush and his cohorts told us that the reason we are sending these many American and coalition people to potentially die, was to "free" these Iraqi people.

Please help me out ... I'm not spinning anything. I have said many times on this forum that Bush used WMD to sell the war but WMD was not the only reason for our intervention. Hell, I have started numerous threads on the subject and have agreed that Bush overplayed the WMD. That's not the point. Regime change was always a priority even during the Clinton administration. The policy existed for a number of reasons.

I know that it is politically expedient for those who don't like Bush to tie him only to the WMD and refuse to acknowledge that there actually could have been other motives for the war and WMD was simply the easiest way to sell it. Painting Bush as one dimensional and stupid makes for good politics. However none of this obviates the fact that Bush as well as other world leaders desired regime change and if that regime change is effective then Bush will get credit for making the decision to overthrow Saddam. None of your rhetoric will change that.

Calling me an apologist might make you feel better about your own world view and perhaps you believe that it will help you score some rhetorical points but in the end it really doesn't advance your argument and only personalizes the discussion.

I'll make you a deal. I'll avoid personalizing the discussion if you will have the kindness to do the same. Fair enough?

[RandFan]

{snip}


And the people were silent thereat. Was there a point?

[Dr Adequate]

Was there a point? Don't ask me, I don't write this stuff. I just translate it using my Magic Hat.

[RandFan]

Don't ask me, I don't write this stuff. I just translate it using my Magic Hat. That's kind of what I figured. I'm not famaliar with "Magic Hat". Around here we call it ganja, herb or weed. But hey, what ever floats your boat.

[zenith-nadir]

I remember the Reagan years. Everyone HATED Regan, called him a warmonger, a bully, etc. Hell there were even anti-Reagan music videos, one I remember was by Genesis, "Land Of Confusion". People thought he was about to start WW3.

Yet now, after his death, he is fondly remembered as a communicator, a peacemaker and a guy who had a role in ending Cold War. Hard to believe that is that the same guy depicted in the Genesis video...

I am definitely no Bush fan but I feel years from now Bush will be remembered positively for his role in the WOT and reshaping the middle east.....while Clinton will be remembered for only one thing, Monica Lewinsky. ;)

[demon]

ZN:
"I remember the Reagan years. Everyone HATED Regan, called him a warmonger, a bully, etc...Yet now, after his death, he is fondly remembered as a communicator, a peacemaker and a guy who had a role in ending Cold War."

That depends on who you talk to.
There are a lot of people who recall the dolt and could list for you a hunderd crimes his admirers have yet to acknowledge, though the World Court has already recognised America as the world`s first terrorist state under his watch.
You`d do well to steer clear of these stomach-curdling platitudes ZN, for a dangerous buffoon who presided over the sale of crack cocaine to his own people by the CIA.
Like I said, depends who you talk to.

[zenith-nadir]

though the World Court has already recognised America as the world`s first terrorist state under his watch.When I look at the track records of Syria, Saudi Arabia, Saddam, the Taliban, Iran...to name a few...I find it ironic that the World Court has already recognised America as the world`s first terrorist state.

[Dr Adequate]

I remember the Reagan years. Everyone HATED Regan, called him a warmonger, a bully, etc. What, everyone? Even all the people who voted for him? Twice? Or is this the usual paranoia the the American Right feel even in those times when they're in power?

[zenith-nadir]

What, everyone? While you chose to play semantic games with the word "everyone" I put to you that many people in America and around the world had just as much of a hate-on for Reagan that they do for Bush.

[Dr Adequate]

While you chose to play semantic games with the word "everyone" I put to you that many people in America and around the world had just as much of a hate-on for Reagan that they do for Bush.Playing semantic games with the word "everyone", eh? Like you're doing as you hastily backpedal out of the arena? Dear me, tut tut.

[zenith-nadir]

Playing semantic games with the word "everyone", eh? Like you're doing as you hastily backpedal out of the arena? Dear me, tut tut.It always amazes me when posters decide to take a word like "everyone" and then argue what it really means is "everyone in the USA". That is not only a semantic game, it is pointless and frankly so off in left field and off topic it's comical.

I know I didn't mean "everyone in the USA", when I used the word "everyone", most people who read my post knew it didn't mean "everyone in the USA", when I used the word "everyone". It is only you Dr. Barely Adequate who has chosen to play a semantic game and decide that "everyone" means "everyone in the USA". Then after that feat of brilliance you play the "zenith is backpedalling" card.

Your objection is meaningless. Have a nice day.

[Mephisto]

Well I certainly don't think Saddam's attrocities are overshadowed by our abuses.

They may not be in our eyes, but the current dilemma is usually the worst dilemma and we're the invaders there - even U.S. politicians/combat veterans are beginning to see that the reason for the area's turmoil is our presence. Besides, we're much more efficient at killing Iraqi citizens than Saddam was - look how many have died in the short time we've been in Iraq.

I wonder how many relatives of Saddam's sadism are currently fighting in the ranks of the insurgents? I wonder what the ratio of those relatives are in the ranks of the New-Improved Iraqi army? The fact is, neither you nor I know the answer, and just because the elimination of Saddam's cruelty has been an oft-cited benefit of this illegal war doesn't mean the average Iraqi wants our continued presence there, nor does it mean that we have the right to stay.


"Never"? In any event, Israel and Iraq are very different.

Yes, they are different in the same manner that Iraq and Vietnam are different. I think the conflicts are similar in the ways that most matter to our troops there:


1. Israel invaded Palestine, the U.S. invaded Iraq. Invaders are never the good guys.

2. They are beseiged by Muslim terrorists/extremists who use "suiciders" as a weapon and don't hesitate to target civilians.

3. The Palestinian insurgents want the Israelis out of Palestine, the Iraq insurgents want Americans out of Iraq.

4. Both Palestine and Iraq are havens for recruiting and training future generations of terrorists.

5. The Palestinians and the Iraqis have virtually no military while both the U.S. and Israel boast the latest high-tech weaponry - yet both Palestine and Iraq have proven that fanatical religous extremists with small arms can maintain a guerilla war indefinitely.

You can also ask "NEVER?" in your most incredulous voice, regarding peace in Israel, but the only reason Israel is enjoying a modicum of peace now is that they've made concessions regarding the terroritory they held. I applauded Israel for making such a grand move, but the fact remains, extremists on BOTH sides are still calling for blood. I have watched the violence in Israel for over 40 years without much break - is THAT the kind of Democracy we're passing on to the Iraqi people?

Not much freedom or justice in a country where you can die violently just for going to the market.

[Mephisto]

I remember the Reagan years. Everyone HATED Regan, called him a warmonger, a bully, etc. Hell there were even anti-Reagan music videos, one I remember was by Genesis, "Land Of Confusion". People thought he was about to start WW3.

Yet now, after his death, he is fondly remembered as a communicator, a peacemaker and a guy who had a role in ending Cold War. Hard to believe that is that the same guy depicted in the Genesis video...

I am definitely no Bush fan but I feel years from now Bush will be remembered positively for his role in the WOT and reshaping the middle east.....while Clinton will be remembered for only one thing, Monica Lewinsky. ;)

I remember the Reagan years too! He was a warmonger and a bully, and I loved the anti-Reagan music (the Ramones especially). THAT is one of the biggest problems I have with Bush, that he's going to be remembered by people who didn't live under his reign, as a fine, articulate statesman. As I said, time has a way of clouding the mind and sweetening the memory.

I remember the whole Reagan affair - he DIDN'T end the Cold War, and he DIDN'T bring down the Iron Curtain - Communism was failing miserably anyway and it was just a matter of time. I also remember Reagan's snafu with Catsup and school lunches (although to be fair, this has been disputed), and I remember that Nancy Reagan used to consult an Ass-troll-iger before planning her day. What a pair of kooks!

If I personally have anything to do with it, Bush will be remembered for Iraq, but not because it was such a great success - he will be remembered for being the only President to ever invade a sovereign country, he will be remembered for turning a record financial surplus into a record federal deficit, he will be remembered for being the President in office during the most devastating attack on American soil, he will be remembered as the President who concocted evidence and lied to the American people in order to start a war to show Daddy he could win (which is WHY he's so insistent that we stay the course), and he will be remembered as the only President whose abilities to articulate match those of a (failing) fourth grade student.

I think that 2,000+ dead Americans cancels out a clandestine BJ in the Oval Office anytime. Monica who?

[Dr Adequate]

It always amazes me when posters decide to take a word like "everyone" and then argue what it really means is "everyone in the USA". And, as you would notice if you were not too busy battling against your straw man, I did not decide to take a word like "everyone" and then argue what it really means is "everyone in the USA".

As I am a citizen of the UK, that would be a really unlikely thing for me to do, don't you agree?

I did, on the other hand, take "everyone" to mean "everyone", and I would certainly cite as a counterexample the people who voted for Reagan.

Your only evidence that "everyone HATED Reagan", is with reference to... er ... a popular beat combo known as Genesis. Without playing word games, are they representative of "everyone"?

[Dr Adequate]

It is only you Dr. Barely Adequate who has chosen to play a semantic game and decide that "everyone" means "everyone in the USA". You could of course admit that this is not true, and that what I have instead decided is that "everyone" includes "everyone in the USA".

This is meant to be a skeptics' forum, and I have to explain quantifiers?

[Dr Adequate]

I keep wondering about this. Do I wake or sleep?

Protagonist : Everyone is male.
Antagonist : This census report for the USA shows that everyone is not male. It records over a hundred million women.
Protagonist : It always amazes me when posters decide to take a word like "everyone" and then argue what it really means is "everyone in the USA".

[zenith-nadir]

I think that 2,000+ dead Americans cancels out a clandestine BJ in the Oval Office anytime.Ahhh...yes. But Clinton will always be remembered for: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky." ;)

Your post brings up something that puzzles me.

The "crime of the century" is the often-touted 2000+ soldiers who died in Iraq because of Bush. I am not saying you have to change your opinion Mephisto, all I am saying is when you join the army to defend your country and take the oath you do it voluntarily knowing that you could die - in training or in combat. You understand the risks, as does your family.

Every person lost in war is an individual milestone of sadness and tragedy for the family they left behind but why is 2,000+ dead American soldiers often manipulated to score political points against Bush? Why can't every time we report a number of soldiers lost we report the number of civilians who were saved? 2000+ American soldiers died but 26,000,000 Iraqis were saved and handed democracy in a place that has never seen democracy.

Bush is bad because 2000+ soldiers died in the Iraq war. The way this number is turned into political gain against Bush always puzzles me.

[zenith-nadir]

This is meant to be a skeptics' forum, and I have to explain quantifiers?If you require quantifiers for every word typed at JREF rather than use your own brain to reason it out then you are definitely in the wrong place Einstein. Just an FYI.

[DavidJames]

26,000,000 Iraqis were saved and handed democracy in a place that has never seen democracy.If Bush and friends had promoted the war with this as the primary reason, there would be much less controversy. But he didn't.

[zenith-nadir]

If Bush and friends had promoted the war with this as the primary reason, there would be much less controversy. But he didn't.Ahhhh. Now that I can agree with. Bush is bad because he misled the world about WMD. That is easier for me to swallow morally that using artificial death count milestones.

[Regnad Kcin]

I remember the Reagan years. Everyone HATED Regan, called him a warmonger, a bully, etc. Hell there were even anti-Reagan music videos, one I remember was by Genesis, "Land Of Confusion". People thought he was about to start WW3.Then you really don't "remember the Reagan years." The man enjoyed quite high levels of admiration, respect, and affection.

Yet now, after his death, he is fondly remembered as a communicator, a peacemaker and a guy who had a role in ending Cold War. Hard to believe that is that the same guy depicted in the Genesis video...No. After his death there are still, as there were at the time, scholars and laymen who judge Mr. Reagan as above average and below average on any number of issues.

I am definitely no Bush fan but I feel years from now Bush will be remembered positively for his role in the WOT and reshaping the middle east.....while Clinton will be remembered for only one thing, Monica Lewinsky. ;)You may "feel" whatever you like, but it is near impossible to determine what the next three years, as well as the after-term ripple effect, will bring. Wishful thinking aside, it would be difficult to imagine a man more ill-equipped to hold the office than Mr. Bush.

And hey, nice Clinton ad-hom. Always important to get one in!

Edited for spelling.

[Mephisto]

Ahhh...yes. But Clinton will always be remembered for: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky." ;)

Hey, he's not the first guy to lie about having an affair, he's probably not even the first President to do it, he is, however, the first President to do it with a Southern accent on television, AND to question the definition of the word, IS. The most humorous thing from the whole fiasco was all the late-night "pouring over" Ken Starr's soft-porn tome that went on behind closed doors.


Your post brings up something that puzzles me.

The "crime of the century" is the often-touted 2000+ soldiers who died in Iraq because of Bush. I am not saying you have to change your opinion Mephisto, all I am saying is when you join the army to defend your country and take the oath you do it voluntarily knowing that you could die - in training or in combat. You understand the risks, as does your family.

Certainly this is true, ZN, but because some patriots are willing to take the risk doesn't mean their dedication should be used haphazardly. You don't send "cherry" firemen into a blazing building simply because they knew the dangers of the job beforehand. You don't send young police recruits alone into a smuggler's den or gang hideout simply because they've accepted the fact they may have to battle these two groups in their career. The fact that people like soldiers, firemen and policemen are willing to accept the inherent dangers of their jobs should make them valuable assets to our society, NOT commodities to be used on a whim.

Every person lost in war is an individual milestone of sadness and tragedy for the family they left behind but why is 2,000+ dead American soldiers often manipulated to score political points against Bush? Why can't every time we report a number of soldiers lost we report the number of civilians who were saved? 2000+ American soldiers died but 26,000,000 Iraqis were saved and handed democracy in a place that has never seen democracy.

I'm all for optimistic (FACTUAL) journalism, but if we're not counting the dead, how can we keep track of the ones "we've saved? And whose definition of "saved" are we using? Are they "saved" if they support our troops, they're thankful for Democracy and willing to work for cheap in the Halliburton oil fields, or are they "saved" if they've walked away from an errant air-strike on their neighborhood?

Also, the number "saved" is changing daily. Iraqis are dying by hundreds monthly in attacks by insurgents as well as our "collateral damage." We also can't forget those Iraqis who take up the insurgent cause for whatever reasons.

Bush is bad because 2000+ soldiers died in the Iraq war. The way this number is turned into political gain against Bush always puzzles me.

No, ZN, Bush is bad because this whole war is based on lies. Bush is bad because 2,000+ families have lost a father, son, brother, sister, uncle, or daughter. Bush is bad because those 2,000+ deaths have affected friends, co-workers and acquaintences who knew those killed. Bush is bad because he wanted us in Iraq so badly that he gave up the search for Bin Laden, diverted troops from Afghanistan and the fight against the Taliban and mired us in a conflict so wrong that it will influence terrorist actions against us for decades to come.

[Regnad Kcin]

What, everyone?While you chose to play semantic games with the word "everyone"...In regard to this, as well as your continued defense of your choice of term in subsequent posts, you did not mean "everyone;" you meant "many people." "Many people" is not "all people," which is what "everyone" means. That's why there are different words. Of course you know this, so why not acknowledge as much.

Ironically, I had a similar discussion with Dr Adequate on another thread, where I demonstrated, using accepted dictionary definitions, that when Mr. Clinton said he did not have "sexual relations" with Ms. Lewinsky he was technically correct, therefore not lying*. The Dr was not persuaded, so I suppose it's difficult sometimes to divorce oneself from one's belief, even in the face of contrary evidence.

*To review, "sexual relations" means "intercourse."

[RandFan]

They may not be in our eyes, but the current dilemma is usually the worst dilemma and we're the invaders there - even U.S. politicians/combat veterans are beginning to see that the reason for the area's turmoil is our presence. Besides, we're much more efficient at killing Iraqi citizens than Saddam was - look how many have died in the short time we've been in Iraq. Are you seriously suggesting that we are intentionally killing Iraqi citizens?

I wonder how many relatives of Saddam's sadism are currently fighting in the ranks of the insurgents? I wonder what the ratio of those relatives are in the ranks of the New-Improved Iraqi army? The fact is, neither you nor I know the answer... ? What's your point? The rest of your statement doesn't follow.

...and just because the elimination of Saddam's cruelty has been an oft-cited benefit of this illegal war doesn't mean the average Iraqi wants our continued presence there, nor does it mean that we have the right to stay. Complex statement. 1.) I don't believe that it is illegal. 2.) Whether or not the average Iraqi wants us there is not germane to anything that I have so far said. 3.) It doesn't mean that the average Iraqi doesn't want our continued presence there. 4.) Whether we have the right to stay is not germane to our discussion. 5.) It doesn't mean that we don't have the right to stay.

Yes, they are different in the same manner that Iraq and Vietnam are different. I think the conflicts are similar in the ways that most matter to our troops there: So you are saying that the difference is the same?

1. Israel invaded Palestine, the U.S. invaded Iraq. Invaders are never the good guys.

2. They are beseiged by Muslim terrorists/extremists who use "suiciders" as a weapon and don't hesitate to target civilians.

3. The Palestinian insurgents want the Israelis out of Palestine, the Iraq insurgents want Americans out of Iraq.

4. Both Palestine and Iraq are havens for recruiting and training future generations of terrorists.

5. The Palestinians and the Iraqis have virtually no military while both the U.S. and Israel boast the latest high-tech weaponry - yet both Palestine and Iraq have proven that fanatical religous extremists with small arms can maintain a guerilla war indefinitely.

You can also ask "NEVER?" in your most incredulous voice, regarding peace in Israel, but the only reason Israel is enjoying a modicum of peace now is that they've made concessions regarding the terroritory they held. I applauded Israel for making such a grand move, but the fact remains, extremists on BOTH sides are still calling for blood. I have watched the violence in Israel for over 40 years without much break - is THAT the kind of Democracy we're passing on to the Iraqi people?

Not much freedom or justice in a country where you can die violently just for going to the market. You left out some very important differences.

1.) The Iraqis have their own state.

2.) The motivation of the insurgents is not the same as the average citizen. The average citizen wants stability and autonomy. The goals of the US and the goals of the average Iraqi are the same. We want to leave and we want them to have a stable government

3.) The purpose of the insurgents is to expel the US and to exact punishment for perceived slights. We want to leave. Our presence will not be an eternal source of irritation.

[Regnad Kcin]

...The "crime of the century" is the often-touted 2000+ soldiers who died in Iraq because of Bush...Really? I have not ever heard nor read the war tally described as the "crime of the century." Would you please provide a cite?

[Mephisto]

Are you seriously suggesting that we are intentionally killing Iraqi citizens?

Do you think it matters to their families if we killed them unintentionally?

You left out some very important differences.

1.) The Iraqis have their own state.

2.) The motivation of the insurgents is not the same as the average citizen. The average citizen wants stability and autonomy. The goals of the US and the goals of the average Iraqi are the same. We want to leave and we want them to have a stable government

3.) The purpose of the insurgents is to expel the US and to exact punishment for perceived slights. We want to leave. Our presence will not be an eternal source of irritation.

You're right and maybe we're both being a little too selective in the differences we're leaving out. I'm sure you'll find holes in my list as well - it's really too bad that this whole catastrophic fiasco wasn't as well thought out - amazing insights from the odd couple (the eternal optimist & the terminal cynic). We should hire on as consultants for the war in Iran - we'd have the good points and the worst case scenarios covered.

1. The Iraqis had their own state when we invaded it. Another Vietnam parallel - we had to destroy the country in order to save it.

2. Yes, the average Iraqi citizen wants nothing more than the average American citizen. What WE don't have is an occupying army that is attracting foreign extremists (this is according to plan - remember "fight them there") and enraging the homegrown insurgents as well. What we're not facing is exactly what Murtha said, "we are the targets, we are the reason the area is unstable." A poll in Iraq stated that 80% of Iraqi citizens want us out of there - now what percentage is required for overall change in a Democracy? I can't remember.

3. No, you're right, our presence won't be an eternal source of irritation, but all the human-rights violations, all the secret prisons, all the innocent dead and all the carnage won't be forgotten. Our presence won't be a source of irritation indefinitely, but casualties of coalition soldiers as well as Iraqi citizens will continue primarily BECAUSE of our presence there. I don't think this fact is completely lost to the average Iraqi.

[demon]

Regnad Kcin:
"Really? I have not ever heard nor read the war tally described as the "crime of the century.""

Everyone else has;)

[RandFan]

Do you think it matters to their families if we killed them unintentionally? It's impossible to say absolutely.

You're right and maybe we're both being a little too selective in the differences we're leaving out. I'm sure you'll find holes in my list as well - it's really too bad that this whole catastrophic fiasco wasn't as well thought out - amazing insights from the odd couple (the eternal optimist & the terminal cynic). We should hire on as consultants for the war in Iran - we'd have the good points and the worst case scenarios covered.

1. The Iraqis had their own state when we invaded it. Another Vietnam parallel - we had to destroy the country in order to save it.

2. Yes, the average Iraqi citizen wants nothing more than the average American citizen. What WE don't have is an occupying army that is attracting foreign extremists (this is according to plan - remember "fight them there") and enraging the homegrown insurgents as well. What we're not facing is exactly what Murtha said, "we are the targets, we are the reason the area is unstable." A poll in Iraq stated that 80% of Iraqi citizens want us out of there - now what percentage is required for overall change in a Democracy? I can't remember.

3. No, you're right, our presence won't be an eternal source of irritation, but all the human-rights violations, all the secret prisons, all the innocent dead and all the carnage won't be forgotten. Our presence won't be a source of irritation indefinitely, but casualties of coalition soldiers as well as Iraqi citizens will continue primarily BECAUSE of our presence there. I don't think this fact is completely lost to the average Iraqi. Good response. I'll let it stand without retort. Thanks Mephisto.

[demon]

Mephisto:
"Do you think it matters to their families if we killed them unintentionally?"

Try this one on for size:

quote:
Iraq envoy accuses US of "cold blooded murder"

Iraq envoy accuses US of killing

Iraq's ambassador to the UN has demanded an inquiry into what he said was the "cold-blooded murder" of his young unarmed relative by US marines.
Samir Sumaidaie said his 21-year-old cousin was shot as he helped marines who were carrying out searches at his village in the restive Anbar province.
Mr Sumaidaie said the ramifications of such a "serious crime" were enormous for both the US and Iraq...

... In a letter to colleagues, Mr Sumaidaie explained in detail what happened to his cousin Mohammed al-Sumaidaie on 25 June in the village of al-Sheikh Hadid.

He said Mohammed, an engineering student, was visiting his family home when some 10 marines with an Egyptian interpreter knocked on the door at 1000 local time.

He opened the door to them and was "happy to exercise some of his English", said the ambassador.

When asked if there were any weapons in the house, Mohammed took the marines to a room where there was a rifle with no live ammunition.

It was the last the family saw him alive. Shortly after, another brother was dragged out and beaten and the family was ordered to wait outside.

As the marines left "smiling at each other" an hour later, the interpreter told the mother they had killed Mohammed, said Mr Sumaidaie.

"In the bedroom, Mohammed was found dead and laying in a clotted pool of his blood. A single bullet had penetrated his neck."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4643481.stm


Just one more reported incident that is indicative of the extent of US and UK criminality...I`m with you on this one, I bet there is hardly an Iraqi that remains unaffected in some detrimental way or other by Bush and Blair`s concocted fraud of a war.

[RandFan]

Just one more reported incident that is indicative of the extent of US and UK criminality. So accusations are fact in your eyes? No need for the other side of the story?

There have been atrocities. There is no doubt about that and there is NO EXCUSE. I condemn all such incidents. However it is appropriate to understand these incidents from both sides and to give context and perspective.

Most importantly these people lived under extreme circumstances with no hope in sight while under Saddam's thumb. As difficult as things are now there is reason for hope. It is why the Iraqis turn out to vote. We conveniently forget that when it suits our purposes.

[Dr Adequate]

If you require quantifiers for every word typed at JREF rather than use your own brain to reason it out then you are definitely in the wrong place Einstein. Just an FYI. Let me guess. You wanted to sound contemptuous, but without the trouble of being right, making a post with content, or finding out what a quantifier is. Hence this meaningless babble.

[demon]

RF:
"So accusations are fact in your eyes? No need for the other side of the story?"

You want to be directing that question at those who cheered this war on in the first place.
WMD indeed!

[Dr Adequate]

Ironically, I had a similar discussion with Dr Adequate on another thread, where I demonstrated, using accepted dictionary definitions, that when Mr. Clinton said he did not have "sexual relations" with Ms. Lewinsky he was technically correct, therefore not lying*. The Dr was not persuaded, so I suppose it's difficult sometimes to divorce oneself from one's belief, even in the face of contrary evidence.

*To review, "sexual relations" means "intercourse." Please post your reference or crawl back under your rock. I can remember no such discussion, but if, as you maintain, it took place, I'd like everyone to see it. Oh, and by the way, when Clinton said "I did not have sex with that woman", he was lying. Get over it.

[RandFan]

RF:
"So accusations are fact in your eyes? No need for the other side of the story?"

You want to be directing that question at those who cheered this war on in the first place.
WMD indeed! That's a non sequitur. And I'm directing my question at you. You're not making a To Quoque argument are you?

[Dr Adequate]

That's a non sequitur. And I'm directing my question at you. You're not making a To Quoque argument are you? Tsk, tsk.

Randfan, please afford yourself decorously (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=48099&page=3).

[Mephisto]

. . . snip . . .Samir Sumaidaie said his 21-year-old cousin was shot as he helped marines who were carrying out searches at his village in the restive Anbar province.
Mr Sumaidaie said the ramifications of such a "serious crime" were enormous for both the US and Iraq...

It's very unfortunate that atrocities will continue on both sides of this conflict as long as we're there to perpetuate them. Without the atrocities there wouldn't be fuel to keep the fire going - take away the fuel by leaving Iraq and we can't be blamed for the subsequent fires that is unless you're counting Abu-Grahib, the soldiers filmed burning bodies in Afghanistan while taunting Al-Qaeda sympathizers and all the various atrocities suffered in our name.

[RandFan]

Sorry for the derail.

*To review, "sexual relations" means "intercourse." That is ONE definition.

Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sexual+relations&r=66)
pl.n.

Sexual intercourse.
Sexual activity between individuals.

bartleby.com (http://www.bartleby.com/61/41/S0304100.html)
PLURAL NOUN:1. Sexual intercourse.
2. Sexual activity between individuals.

Infoplease (http://www.infoplease.com/dictionary/sexual+relations)
1. sexual intercourse; coitus.
2. any sexual activity between individuals.

All Politics CNN (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/08/17/time/clinton.html)

When Is Sex Not "Sexual Relations"?

And in a recent TIME/CNN poll, 87% of those questioned said that oral sex was, well, sex. Hiding behind the ultimate tortuous legalism could help the President get through his testimony, but it won't pass the laugh test with the American people--which is why Clinton won't be parsing the meaning of "sexual relations" in any public statements.

To review, "sexual realtions ALSO means sexual activity between individuals.

Sorry, carry on.

[RandFan]

Tsk, tsk.

Randfan, please afford yourself decorously (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=48099&page=3). "Tsk, tsk"? Is it too much to ask for you to have a point?

"...here's a good idea. Have a point, it makes is so much more interesting for the listener."

--Planes, Trains and Automobiles

[Dr Adequate]

If my point flies right over your head, is it my fault that you're so short?

[RandFan]

If my point flies right over your head, is it my fault that you're so short? You would need a point first before it could take wing, no?

[zenith-nadir]

Then you really don't "remember the Reagan years." The man enjoyed quite high levels of admiration, respect, and affection.Bush has his supporters today just as Reagan had his supporters then.. but I didn't do enough drugs in the Reagan years to forget today that he was villified by people all over the world, much as Bush is villified today. I remember the Reagan years.

You may "feel" whatever you like, but it is near impossible to determine what the next three years, as well as the after-term ripple effect, will bring. Wishful thinking aside, it would be difficult to imagine a man more ill-equipped to hold the office than Mr. Bush.Like I said I am not a Bush fan. The guy is a dull and charisma-less politician.

And hey, nice Clinton ad-hom. Always important to get one in!Come on....Getting busted for a B.J. in the Oval office with an intern is right up there with George Washington Crossing the Delaware in the memorable-moments-in-American-Presidential-History. :D

Certainly this is true, ZN, but because some patriots are willing to take the risk doesn't mean their dedication should be used haphazardly.I agree 100%. But when you sign up you don't get the luxury of cherry-picking when you go into combat and when you don't. I feel hanging them out there like a number or a trophy to attack Bush is tasteless, but that's just my opinion.

I'm all for optimistic (FACTUAL) journalism, but if we're not counting the dead, how can we keep track of the ones "we've saved? And whose definition of "saved" are we using?It's not a matter of having an actual scoreboard counting the trees in the forest rather it's seeing the forest from the trees. Whether you agree or disagree with the war it's end result was the liberation of Iraq from a cruel tyrant. Yes it's messy, yes it's chaotic, yes it involves a long-term commitment, but you can't unring the bell now, nor can you throw your hands up in the air and bail out. So is freeing a nation of 26,000,000 human beings worth sacrificing something?

Bush is bad because 2,000+ families have lost a father, son, brother, sister, uncle, or daughter. Bush is bad because those 2,000+ deaths have affected friends, co-workers and acquaintences who knew those killed.That's what I am talking about. I find that tasteless.

Really? I have not ever heard nor read the war tally described as the "crime of the century." Would you please provide a cite?It's a sarcastic euphemism. I guess I'm goofy that way, because at home and at work I communicate pretty well with others without qualifying and quantifying every last word. Maybe it's just me.:)

In regard to this, as well as your continued defense of your choice of term in subsequent posts, you did not mean "everyone;" you meant "many people." "Many people" is not "all people," which is what "everyone" means. That's why there are different words. Of course you know this, so why not acknowledge as much.Because I have this really cool thing called a brain. And when Regnad Kcin says "everyone" in a general statement I can rationalize that there is no ultimate "everyone" so he must mean a large group of people. Concurrently Regnad unless I am in a court of law I feel semantic objections such as this are nothing more than a derail. But that's just my opinion.

Let me guess. You wanted to sound contemptuous, but without the trouble of being right, making a post with content, or finding out what a quantifier is. Hence this meaningless babble.Sorry Dr. but your endless tirade about my use of the word "everyone" is also a derail. To make objections regarding my objection to your endless tirade about my use of the word "everyone" is a further derail. Perhaps you have something to contribute regarding the topic of the thread and not waste anymore time on your objection to my use of the word "everyone"?

[Dr Adequate]

Perhaps we could indeed pass over your hysterical and humiliating attempt to lie about the meaning of the word "everyone", and your halfwitted and contemptible attempt to twist my words, and instead notice that when you said...I remember the Reagan years. Everyone HATED Regan, called him a warmonger, a bully, etc. ... you were in fact not telling the truth.

[fishbob]

The "crime of the century" is the often-touted 2000+ soldiers who died in Iraq because of Bush. I am not saying you have to change your opinion Mephisto, all I am saying is when you join the army to defend your country and take the oath you do it voluntarily knowing that you could die - in training or in combat. You understand the risks, as does your family.

Hold on here. When someone joins the army to defend their country, their understanding of 'defend your country' does not include being sent into danger for the purposes of domestic political posturing. 2100+ soldiers have died because their commander in chief has used the military irresponsibly.

[Mephisto]

Originally Posted by Mephisto :

Certainly this is true, ZN, but because some patriots are willing to take the risk doesn't mean their dedication should be used haphazardly.

I agree 100%. But when you sign up you don't get the luxury of cherry-picking when you go into combat and when you don't. I feel hanging them out there like a number or a trophy to attack Bush is tasteless, but that's just my opinion.

No doubt about the fact that some military missions may be less popular than others, but I remember taking an oath to protect the U.S. and to defend the Constitution - can you show me where our soldiers in Iraq are doing that?


Originally Posted by Mephisto :
I'm all for optimistic (FACTUAL) journalism, but if we're not counting the dead, how can we keep track of the ones "we've saved? And whose definition of "saved" are we using?

It's not a matter of having an actual scoreboard counting the trees in the forest rather it's seeing the forest from the trees. Whether you agree or disagree with the war it's end result was the liberation of Iraq from a cruel tyrant. Yes it's messy, yes it's chaotic, yes it involves a long-term commitment, but you can't unring the bell now, nor can you throw your hands up in the air and bail out. So is freeing a nation of 26,000,000 human beings worth sacrificing something?

If we don't have a "scoreboard" to measure our success there, how do we know when we're finished? We did in fact liberate Iraq from an oppressive dictator, but that won't make much difference if we kill an inordinate amount of Iraqi citizens to do so. You're right in that nothing can be done now - once the idiot child has smacked the hornet's nest with the baseball bat and the hornets are swarming you can't ask them to forget it ever happened. Freeing a nation of 26,000,000 is only worth something if A. they want to be free, B. they've asked for and they're gracious for our help, and C. we don't INVADE to give it to them, as I've said over and over before, you can't force Freedom, Democracy and Justice on a people at the point of a gun.


Originally Posted by Mephisto :
Bush is bad because 2,000+ families have lost a father, son, brother, sister, uncle, or daughter. Bush is bad because those 2,000+ deaths have affected friends, co-workers and acquaintences who knew those killed.

That's what I am talking about. I find that tasteless.

And I find it equally tasteless - the fact, from this holiday on, so many families will have memories that are less than ideal, all because the idiot son of an ********* wanted to play soldier!

[zenith-nadir]

Perhaps we could indeed pass over your hysterical and humiliating attempt to lie about the meaning of the word "everyone", and your halfwitted and contemptible attempt to twist my words, and instead notice that when you said...... you were in fact not telling the truth.Ok. So now I am a liar because you cannot differenciate between everyone and everyone. :D You are too much. Since you persist in wanking off over my use of the word "everyone" I have a solution. How about you don't read my posts and then you won't be confused for several posts? And then people won't have to be bored reading your multiple posts about the word "everyone". Does that sound fair?

Hold on here. When someone joins the army to defend their country, their understanding of 'defend your country' does not include being sent into danger for the purposes of domestic political posturing. 2100+ soldiers have died because their commander in chief has used the military irresponsibly.I expect my military to follow orders. I don't expect them to pick and choose which orders they feel to follow. That said, I understand that they may have objections to their orders, but when they sign up they loose the right to pick and choose how to 'defend their country'. The deaths are being used to politicize, and the death toll is being used to demonize the war, I find that tasteless. Every soldier who gives their life for their country must be honored rather than be used for political gain.

Domestic political posturing is something completely different. It has nothing to do with following orders or supporting our troops. The death toll is being used in this very thread for domestic political posturing and to demonize the war.

I was one of those people who was misled by Bush and Co. I believed them and they lied to me. But I cannot unring the Iraq war bell so either I move forward and play the cards that are delt or I waste loads of energy looking backwards and politicize and the death toll.

No doubt about the fact that some military missions may be less popular than others, but I remember taking an oath to protect the U.S. and to defend the Constitution - can you show me where our soldiers in Iraq are doing that?

I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me,The President ordered them into Iraq Mephisto. When you took the oath that is what you are expected to do. You can't pick and chose.

If we don't have a "scoreboard" to measure our success there, how do we know when we're finished?There is no halfway with you is there. ;) All or nothing huh? My point was freeing a nation of 26,000,000 human beings from Saddam is a nobel cause.

We did in fact liberate Iraq from an oppressive dictator, but that won't make much difference if we kill an inordinate amount of Iraqi citizens to do so.Less Iraqis will die now after the war than if Saddam had remained in power and Uday & Qusay took over. It is the insurgents that are ruining it for Iraqis, not the Americans. And I firmly believe that the insurgents know exactly what they are doing and they are not robots triggered by American foreign policy.

You're right in that nothing can be done now - once the idiot child has smacked the hornet's nest with the baseball bat and the hornets are swarming you can't ask them to forget it ever happened.I guess I am different. I don't waste too much time on the past because I cannot change it. I won't forget Bush lied to me but I cannot go back in time and right that wrong. So instead of wasting all that energy on something I cannot reverse I choose to look forward and make the best out of now.

Freeing a nation of 26,000,000 is only worth something if A. they want to be free, B. they've asked for and they're gracious for our help, and C. we don't INVADE to give it to them, as I've said over and over before, you can't force Freedom, Democracy and Justice on a people at the point of a gun.That's a great bit of propoganda but didn't we just do exactly that?

http://www.lastsuperpower.net/images/iraqi-woman-voter2

[Mephisto]

http://www.lastsuperpower.net/images/iraqi-woman-voter2

HEY! What are you doing with Manny's woman?

No hard feelings either way, eh, mate? We're just on different sides of the same fence and we can't forget that's what Democracy is all about. My problem with making the best out of situations handed to me by airhead politicians is that I'm tired of drinking lemonade while they have champagne.

[Dr Adequate]

Ok. So now I am a liar because you cannot differenciate between everyone and everyone. Ooh, nice. Why don't you tell us what the definition of "is" is? And then we can talk about how to differentiate between "everyone" and "everyone", since this distinction means so much to you.

What is the difference, by the way?:D You are too much. Since you persist in wanking off over my use of the word "everyone" I have a solution. How about you don't read my posts and then you won't be confused for several posts? And then people won't have to be bored reading your multiple posts about the word "everyone". Does that sound fair? If you are determined to continue "wanking off" (to use your quaint little phrase) about "the difference betweeen everyone and everyone", then I'm not sure I will ignore you. I may just stick around and laugh myself sick.

[zenith-nadir]

HEY! What are you doing with Manny's woman?Shhhhhh! :D

No hard feelings either way, eh, mate? We're just on different sides of the same fence and we can't forget that's what Democracy is all about. My problem with making the best out of situations handed to me by airhead politicians is that I'm tired of drinking lemonade while they have champagne.Absolutely no hard feelings. I believed Bush and Powell regarding the WMD. I sat there watching Powell's speech at the UN and went "wow, we got 'em now"...only to realize that I was totaly misled in January of this year when the US abandoned the hunt for WMD. I was frikkin pissed! I could not believe that Powell would put on that entire dog and pony show in front of the world and it was all B.S.

But I cannot go back so I must go forward. The only good thing to come out of this is 26,000,000 people are rid of Saddam and all the other Arabs in the Middle East are lookin' at Manny's woman and thinking "hey, how come we don't get to vote?".

[Dr Adequate]

Ok. So now I am a liar because you ... I have no idea what is responsible for your character, but it is frankly libellous to blame it on me.

You are a liar because you lied, because you are a liar.

[Regnad Kcin]

Ironically, I had a similar discussion with Dr Adequate on another thread, where I demonstrated, using accepted dictionary definitions, that when Mr. Clinton said he did not have "sexual relations" with Ms. Lewinsky he was technically correct, therefore not lying*. The Dr was not persuaded, so I suppose it's difficult sometimes to divorce oneself from one's belief, even in the face of contrary evidence.

*To review, "sexual relations" means "intercourse."Please post your reference or crawl back under your rock. I can remember no such discussion, but if, as you maintain, it took place, I'd like everyone to see it.A pleasure, sport.

In the thread titled "So you want details about who lied," here is my first entry - post #87. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1275621&highlight=sexual+relations#post1275621)

Scrolling down to post #94, we find your reply, quoting a portion of my entry, "Mr. Clinton did not have 'sexual relations' with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky," after which you wrote:

Earth to mad person: YES HE DID!Then, in post #111 I replied to you (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1276766&highlight=sexual+relations#post1276766), "Ad hom, and all-caps shouting don't alter the fact that, by definition, he did not.

(Thanks to Tony for quoting and therefore repeating the relevant portion of my post to that effect in post #108 above.)"

I hope to read your apology shortly.

Oh, and by the way, when Clinton said "I did not have sex with that woman", he was lying.That's because, by the way, that's not what the man said (http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:Z9HdcMEUbtUJ:www.historychannel.com/speeches/archive/speech_441.html).

RandFan chimed in with cites regarding definitions of the term "sexual relations." And yes, it is accepted that the term may mean sexual activity (for which oral sex would be included, of course). However, as I mentioned in the other thread, the cites indicate secondary definitions for the term. The primary definition, which is to say the predominant one, is intercourse. And since Mr. Clinton did not engage in intercouse with Ms. Lewinsky, he by definition did not have sexual relations with her.

I make no claim as to whether or not he was right to engage in a bit of lawyerly semantic shenanigans, merely that the words he chose with the sentence in question were correctly utilized.

Get over it.It is apparent that your manners are on a par with your scholarship: wanting.

[zenith-nadir]

I have no idea what is responsible for your character, but it is frankly libellous to blame it on me.

You are a liar because you lied, because you are a liar.So I am "libellous" and "a liar" because you are unable to rationalize that there is no such thing as an ultimate "everyone" when the term is used in casual conversation.....errrr....ahhhh...ok. :boggled: :D

[Regnad Kcin]

z-n, try as you might to suggest otherwise, words mean something. That's why we have different words: to communicate different things.

So why not simply write that you overstated your case in a moment of enthusiasm and meant to say that "many people" did not like Reagan?

You can do it. I know you can.

[Mycroft]

Do you think it matters to their families if we killed them unintentionally?

Yes.

Why wouldn't it?

[Mycroft]

It's very unfortunate that atrocities will continue on both sides of this conflict as long as we're there to perpetuate them. Without the atrocities there wouldn't be fuel to keep the fire going - take away the fuel by leaving Iraq and we can't be blamed for the subsequent fires that is unless you're counting Abu-Grahib, the soldiers filmed burning bodies in Afghanistan while taunting Al-Qaeda sympathizers and all the various atrocities suffered in our name.

We could (and would be) blamed for all the violence we were not there to prevent if we were to withdraw.

[Mycroft]

Perhaps we could indeed pass over your hysterical and humiliating attempt to lie about the meaning of the word "everyone", and your halfwitted and contemptible attempt to twist my words, and instead notice that when you said...... you were in fact not telling the truth.

A hyperbolic statement is not a lie.

If I say "everyone cheats on their taxes" it's understood I don't mean literally everyone, but am merely stating that it's common behavior.

To fixate on such minutia, particularly after his actual meaning has been explained to you several times is somewhat dishonest.

[Mycroft]

Hold on here. When someone joins the army to defend their country, their understanding of 'defend your country' does not include being sent into danger for the purposes of domestic political posturing. 2100+ soldiers have died because their commander in chief has used the military irresponsibly.

When was the last time the US fought a war in it's own soil so that it's soldiers literally "defended their country"?

All of our wars since the Mexican/American war have been somewhere else, and soldiers that enlist understand that.

[zenith-nadir]

z-n, try as you might to suggest otherwise, words mean something. That's why we have different words: to communicate different things. So why not simply write that you overstated your case in a moment of enthusiasm and meant to say that "many people" did not like Reagan? You can do it. I know you can.Because it is insignificant. There is nothing to be gained by me jumping through hoops to satisfy Dr. A.
They way I used the word "everyone" was in no way to mean "everyone in the USA", all 275 million or "everyone in the world" all 6+ billion. To even attempt to suggest that is ridiculous. To then make it a bone of contention post after post is laughable and a total derail.

But the lunacy doesn't stop there, I am now branded by Dr A as "libellous" and "a liar". OMFG that is hilarious! It is taking something utterly innocuous and making a federal case out of it, it is nothing more than mental mastubation.

[delphi_ote]

They way I used the word "everyone" was in no way to mean "everyone in the USA", all 275 million or "everyone in the world" all 6+ billion.

I've got an idea. Instead of telling everyone what you DIDN'T mean and making us guess until we get it right, how about you just say what it was you meant?

[Dr Adequate]

A hyperbolic statement is not a lie.

If I say "everyone cheats on their taxes" it's understood I don't mean literally everyone, but am merely stating that it's common behavior.

To fixate on such minutia, particularly after his actual meaning has been explained to you several times is somewhat dishonest. :dl:
An accurate statement is not a lie.

If I say "everyone did not hate Reagan", it's understood that I mean that everyone did not hate Reagan.

To fixate on such minutiae, particularly after my actual meaning has been explained to you several times is somewhat dishonest.

[Dr Adequate]

* double post *

[Dr Adequate]

* Again. Odd. *

[Dr Adequate]

So I am "libellous" and "a liar" because you are unable to rationalize that there is no such thing as an ultimate "everyone" when the term is used in casual conversation.....errrr....ahhhh...ok. :boggled: :D No, let's try again. You are a liar because you tell lies.

For example, it is your pretence, and yours alone that:

(a) I took everyone to mean only "everyone in the USA".
(b) I took everyone to mean "everyone" (without exception).

By the way, these two ridiculous impostures contradict one another completely. Could you make up your mind which absurd lie you wish to tell?

[gnome]

My take on the "sexual relations" argument:

Technical meanings aside, and whether he committed perjury aside... it is clear that Clinton intended for americans to believe that nothing of a sexual nature occurred between him and Monica. This was an intentional deception, and even as an admirer of much of his policy and political rhetoric, I have to admit that he did this, and it was wrong.

But i would choose a president that deceived us about personal misconduct over one that deceives us about national and foreign policy anyday.

[LW]

If I say "everyone cheats on their taxes" it's understood I don't mean literally everyone, but am merely stating that it's common behavior.

[Off-topic tangent]
Actually, in this particular example the message that gets through is "I cheat on my taxes".
[/Off-topic tangent]

[RandFan]

If I say "everyone did not hate Reagan", it's understood that I mean that everyone did not hate Reagan.To be intellectually honest, figures of speech are not always exact. The word "everyone" is a common indefinite pronoun that is used for effect.

To quote Rodney Dangerfield

"I told my psychiatrist that everyone hates me. He said I was being ridiculous everyone hasn't met me yet."

Merriam Webster (http://www.m-w.com/) defines hyperbole (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=hyperbole) as:

Main Entry: hy·per·bo·le
Pronunciation: hI-'p&r-b&-(")lE
Function: noun
extravagant exaggeration (as "mile-high ice-cream cones") I hate to be so patronizing but I think you actually know this. Why you are pressing such a ridiculous point is beyond me.

The word "everyone" is actually one of the most used, for effect (exageration), indefinite pronouns. Now of course that fact does not make its use logically valid. But it is clear that humans often communicate using such figures of speech without lying. It's called exaggerating and it would be counter productive to label everyone who used such figures of speech as liars.

Hyperbole in Academic and Research Speech? (http://www.lsa.umich.edu/eli/micase/Kibbitzer/Kibbitzer_3.htm)

Details:



1) First, consider indefinite pronouns: Overgeneralization with certain nonspecific personal pronouns, specifically everyone, everybody, no one, and nobody, occurs frequently in MICASE and fairly regularly as hyperboles. The percentages of overgeneralized usages are noted below.Nobody 49%
No One 34%
Everybody 31%
Everyone 25%



These figures are quite high, and people use these words simply to refer to a large group of people, or a sizable proportion of a certain group, without exceptions.

everyone loves Professor Cameron
for example people take off Monday and they'll take off Friday but Wednesday, everyone seems to be at work and everyone's working on Wednesday
everybody has condemned Kelvin ever since for that term
now there might be, some things, in the rap community that like everybody would agree with Now, if you want to challenge the hyperbole that is fine but calling someone a liar who uses hyperbole is to demonstrate ignorance of language or intellectually dishonesty. Unless you have another option. I'm open to suggestions.

[Dr Adequate]

I hate to be so patronizing but I think you actually know this. Why you are pressing such a ridiculous point is beyond me. I am not pressing any such point. Other people are pretending I am, because having told this halfwitted lie, they can then pretend that I am being dishonest.Now, if you want to challenge the hyperbole that is fine but calling someone a liar who uses hyperbole is to demonstrate ignorance of language or intellectually dishonesty. Unless you have another option. I'm open to suggestions. I did not call him a liar for his use of hyperbole (that, if you can be bothered to read the thread, is part of his clumsy lies). I call him a liar because he drivels out stupid lies about the contents of my posts: and he has, apparently, deceived you, so it is, apparently, necessary to point this out.

[RandFan]

RandFan chimed in with cites regarding definitions of the term "sexual relations." And yes, it is accepted that the term may mean sexual activity (for which oral sex would be included, of course). However, as I mentioned in the other thread, the cites indicate secondary definitions for the term. The primary definition, which is to say the predominant one, is intercourse. And since Mr. Clinton did not engage in intercouse with Ms. Lewinsky, he by definition did not have sexual relations with her. By denition he did have sexual relations with her. Perhaps not by HIS definition but no one within the sound of his voice took his words to mean that he might have had a BJ or two but not intercourse. As the article states, "that doesn't pass the laugh test". So no, it does not fit the definition as Clinton hoped it would be recieved. Now you can say he crossed his fingers behind his back and omited some pertinent information that would give us a more clear picture of his meaning but that doesn't change his usage of the word and how he knew it would be percieved. That IS a lie.

[RandFan]

I am not pressing any such point. Other people are pretending I am, because having told this halfwitted lie... What half-witted lie?

I've gone back through the thread and you are the one who challenged the use of the word first.

zenith-nadir Yesterday, 04:25 AM (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1305509#post1305509)
I remember the Reagan years. Everyone HATED Regan... This was hyperbole.

Dr. Adequate Yesterday, 05:02 AM (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1305526#post1305526)
What, everyone? Even all the people who voted for him? Twice? Or is this the usual paranoia the the American Right feel even in those times when they're in power?The word was hyperbolic and appropriate as hyperbole considering Regan was burned in effigy and protested around the world. Regan was mocked in popular songs and held to ridicule in popular culture. Which is fine but it's not a lie to express that many people disliked Reagan and to exaggerate to say everyone hated him.

And as I say, you can challenge the appropriateness of the exaggeration but to call zenith-nadir a liar is unjustified.

[Mycroft]

[Off-topic tangent]
Actually, in this particular example the message that gets through is "I cheat on my taxes".
[/Off-topic tangent]

I actually used that example because I was reading a book written by a tax collector. He used the phrase, then said it wasn't literally true, but that most people did cheat on their taxes.

[zenith-nadir]

Disruptive trolls (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll#Disruptive_trolls)

Off topic messages: Those that are irrelevant to the focus of the forum.

Intentionally posting an outrageous argument, deliberately constructed around a fundamental but obfuscated flaw or error. The repeated objection to my use of the word everyone as in "I remember the Reagan years. Everyone HATED Regan..." is an outrageous argument, deliberately constructed around a fundamental but obfuscated flaw or error and irrelevant to the focus of the forum.

And as I say, you can challenge the appropriateness of the exaggeration but to call zenith-nadir a liar is unjustified.Not only is it unjustified it's so far off in left field and off-topic that one can technically call it trolling. :rolleyes:

[Dr Adequate]

What half-witted lie?

I've gone back through the thread and you are the one who challenged the use of the word first. And I did not do so either on the grounds that "everyone" should mean either: "everyone in the US", nor "everyone without exception". I gave a counterexample involving millions of people who knew Reagan best and got to vote, not just on whether he was a good guy, but on whether he should be leader of the free world, and voted yes. This is not mere pedantry, as though I had said "Everyone? I bet he didn't hate himself", or "Everyone? I bet there was at least one person in Outer Mongolia who'd never heard of him." And as I say, you can challenge the appropriateness of the exaggeration but to call zenith-nadir a liar is unjustified. As I have pointed out, I call him a liar because of his lies about the content of my post: his hyperbole I regard merely as inaccurate.

[Dr Adequate]

The repeated objection to my use of the word everyone ... ... is a made-up fantasy in your head: a pathetic smokescreen to try to hide the fact that you keep whining on about my use of the word "everyone" by repeatedly telling dumb lies about what I meant by it. You know, nutty stuff like this:It always amazes me when posters decide to take a word like "everyone" and then argue what it really means is "everyone in the USA". ... when I have made no such argument; or crazy lies like this:They way I used the word "everyone" was in no way to mean "everyone in the USA", all 275 million or "everyone in the world" all 6+ billion. To even attempt to suggest that is ridiculous.
... when I have suggested no such thing.

[zenith-nadir]

As I have pointed out, I call him a liar because of his lies about the content of my post: his hyperbole I regard merely as inaccurate.:boggled:

What is your deal? Really. So far you have succeeded in nothing greater than turning this thread into a long derail and name-calling session. I object in the strongest possible terms here and now to your consistent derail of this thread.

I would like you to not reposnd to my posts until you have something relevant to add to the focus of the forum. As far as I am concerned this thread is D.O.A thanks to you.

[Dr Adequate]

What is your deal? Really. Well, let's see if I can explain it to you.

If, instead of debating me, you lie (inconsistently, as I have noted) about the contents of my posts and then spend page after page insisting that these made-up opinions are mine, and debating them as though they were mine, this makes rational debate impossible. If I can't even use a simple word like "everyone", which, as has been pointed out, is rather flexible in meaning, without a couple of pages of lies from you about what I meant by it and what I was "arguing" and what I was "suggesting", based on my use of one trivial word ... then this is not debate. It's merely a public exposure of your character.

[Dr Adequate]

The word was hyperbolic and appropriate as hyperbole considering Regan was burned in effigy and protested around the world. Sometimes hyperbole goes so far as to make the discussion meaningless, though. I might as well say "Everyone LOVED Reagan." He was one of the more popular of your Presidents, was he not?

What ZN was claiming, if I understand him correctly, is that Reagan is more popular now then he was.I remember the Reagan years. Everyone HATED Regan, called him a warmonger, a bully, etc. Hell there were even anti-Reagan music videos, one I remember was by Genesis, "Land Of Confusion". People thought he was about to start WW3.

Yet now, after his death, he is fondly remembered as a communicator, a peacemaker and a guy who had a role in ending Cold War. Hard to believe that is that the same guy depicted in the Genesis video... The trouble is that the people who hated him once probably still do. The reason that Iranians no longer burn the man in effigy is probably not because they've now decided to value him as "a communicator and a peacemaker". The people who called him a "warmonger" probably still would, if you asked them. Phil Collins probably doesn't like him more now than then, either.

One would not argue that he must have waned in popularity on the grounds that you don't see so many pro-Reagan bumper stickers any more.

[Mycroft]

What ZN was claiming, if I understand him correctly, is that Reagan is more popular now then he was.

Okay, fine. So why not argue that instead of fixating on his use of the word "everybody"?

[fishbob]

When was the last time the US fought a war in it's own soil so that it's soldiers literally "defended their country"?

All of our wars since the Mexican/American war have been somewhere else, and soldiers that enlist understand that.

That is a response to a statement that is completely not anything that I posted.

[Dr Adequate]

Okay, fine. So why not argue that... I did. Look.... instead of fixating on his use of the word "everybody"?I didn't. That was one of ZN's stupid lies. The fact that ZN has screamed and lied and whined interminably about my use of the word "everyone" does not mean that I am remotely interested in his usage of the word.

So, why are you asking me why I don't argue what I just argued? and why are you complaining that I am fixating on the halfwitted nonsense which my post didn't mention and which you have just dragged up again?

Dishonesty? Stupidity? Malice?

[Mycroft]

That is a response to a statement that is completely not anything that I posted.


You said, "When someone joins the army to defend their country, their understanding of 'defend your country' does not include being sent into danger for the purposes of domestic political posturing."

Perhaps I did misunderstand you, and if I did please feel free to correct me, but when you placed the emphasis on 'defend your country' it seemed to me that you were objecting to using the military in any way that wasn't directly defending the USA.

What I meant to point out is that for the last 100 years or so, all of the conflicts we've sent our troops into could be argued were not defensive. In modern times, our military has always been used as an instrument of our governments foreign policy, and soldiers that volunteer understand that.

It's not really correct to say our soldiers "didn't sign up for..." because the truth is they signed up for whatever their government asks of them. That's what being a soldier is.

[Mark]

It's not really correct to say our soldiers "didn't sign up for..." because the truth is they signed up for whatever their government asks of them. That's what being a soldier is.

I don't think that is correct. I know a soldier can be court martialed for following orders they know to be illegal.

[Melendwyr]

The motivation of the insurgents is not the same as the average citizen. The average citizen wants stability and autonomy. That's actually what they had before.

However, the general motivation of the insurgents is essentially the same as the occupying forces: they each want to control the nature of the Iraqi government, and they're willing to use force to do it. Ironic, no?

[Mycroft]

I did. Look.I didn't. That was one of ZN's stupid lies. The fact that ZN has screamed and lied and whined interminably about my use of the word "everyone" does not mean that I am remotely interested in his usage of the word.

As RandFan pointed out, if you go back and read posts #35, 36, 37, 38 and so on, you're clearly fixating on ZN's use of the word "everyone."


So, why are you asking me why I don't argue what I just argued? and why are you complaining that I am fixating on the halfwitted nonsense which my post didn't mention and which you have just dragged up again?

Dishonesty? Stupidity? Malice?

Because I can read, and what I'm reading is different from what you're asserting now.

[fishbob]

You said, "When someone joins the army to defend their country, their understanding of 'defend your country' does not include being sent into danger for the purposes of domestic political posturing."

Perhaps I did misunderstand you, and if I did please feel free to correct me, but when you placed the emphasis on 'defend your country' it seemed to me that you were objecting to using the military in any way that wasn't directly defending the USA.

What I meant to point out is that for the last 100 years or so, all of the conflicts we've sent our troops into could be argued were not defensive. In modern times, our military has always been used as an instrument of our governments foreign policy, and soldiers that volunteer understand that.

It's not really correct to say our soldiers "didn't sign up for..." because the truth is they signed up for whatever their government asks of them. That's what being a soldier is.

My use of the phrase 'defend your country' was taken from a prior post I was responding to. You apparently see some equivalence between 'defend your country' and 'being sent into danger for the purposes of domestic political posturing'. I intended none. I can imagine scenarios in which US soldiers in Iraq would actually be defending the US ( for example, if Saddam actually had WMDs ).

A volunteer soldier is contracted with the government. In that contract, the soldier is responsible to follow authorized orders while the government is responsible (maybe implied but unstated) to wisely and carefully issue those orders. Sending soldiers our soldiers into danger in a foreign country for the purpose of domestic political posturing is a breach of this contract.

So it is really correct to say our soldiers "didn't sign up for..." because the truth is the decision to send them to Iraq was not wise or careful or actually in defense of our country. You might argue that our soldiers are in Iraq due to mistakes by the government, rather than intentional misuse of authority, however the government has yet to admit any mistakes.

[Mycroft]

I don't think that is correct. I know a soldier can be court martialed for following orders they know to be illegal.

Yes, I did make the assumption the orders were not illegal. :)

[fishbob]

As RandFan pointed out, if you go back and read posts #35, 36, 37, 38 and so on, you're clearly fixating on ZN's use of the word "everyone."

Because I can read, and what I'm reading is different from what you're asserting now.

Go back and read again, because you clearly misinterpreted Dr. A. Try not to make a habit of this.

[Mycroft]

My use of the phrase 'defend your country' was taken from a prior post I was responding to. You apparently see some equivalence between 'defend your country' and 'being sent into danger for the purposes of domestic political posturing'. I intended none. I can imagine scenarios in which US soldiers in Iraq would actually be defending the US ( for example, if Saddam actually had WMDs ).

A volunteer soldier is contracted with the government. In that contract, the soldier is responsible to follow authorized orders while the government is responsible (maybe implied but unstated) to wisely and carefully issue those orders. Sending soldiers our soldiers into danger in a foreign country for the purpose of domestic political posturing is a breach of this contract.

So it is really correct to say our soldiers "didn't sign up for..." because the truth is the decision to send them to Iraq was not wise or careful or actually in defense of our country. You might argue that our soldiers are in Iraq due to mistakes by the government, rather than intentional misuse of authority, however the government has yet to admit any mistakes.


I agree the government does have a responsibility to its soldiers, but your characterization of this endevor as "domestic political posturing" is essentially saying that because you don't agree with this action that it makes it a violation of the governments responsibility to the soldier.

You yourself agree that WMDs would have been a valid reason to invade Iraq. Given that the international consensus was that Iraq did have them, don't you then agree that the decision to invade (even if you disagree with it) was something more than "domestic political posturing"?

[Mycroft]

Go back and read again, because you clearly misinterpreted Dr. A. Try not to make a habit of this.

I read it several times.

ZN: "I remember the Reagan years. Everyone HATED Regan..." #32

Dr A: "What, everyone? Even all the people who voted for him? Twice?..." #35

ZN: "While you chose to play semantic games with the word "everyone"..." #36

Dr A: "Playing semantic games with the word "everyone", eh? Like you're doing as you hastily backpedal out of the arena? Dear me, tut tut." #37

ZN:" "It always amazes me when posters decide to take a word like "everyone"..." #38

It clearly shows Dr A making an issue of the word everyone beginning with post # 35.

If Dr A wants to change the thrust of his argument from taking issue with the word "everyone" and instead focusing on the underlying assumption that Reagan is more popular today than he was when in office, that’s fine. But to claim he didn’t ever focus on the world “everyone” is just plain revisionism.

Not that it’s an important point, but cripes, just be honest about it.

[zenith-nadir]

Go back and read again, because you clearly misinterpreted Dr. A. Try not to make a habit of this.Ok, so the dead horse needs to beaten until we are all sure it's really dead. Fine.

Here is my statement.

I remember the Reagan years. Everyone HATED Regan, called him a warmonger, a bully, etc. Hell there were even anti-Reagan music videos, one I remember was by Genesis, "Land Of Confusion". People thought he was about to start WW3.

Here is Dr Adequate first response to me.

What, everyone? Even all the people who voted for him? Twice? Or is this the usual paranoia the the American Right feel even in those times when they're in power?So Dr. Adequate, not me, expanded on my unfortunate hyperbole "everyone" to mean "all the people who voted for him, twice". Which I did not in any way, shape or form.

Then I said:

While you chose to play semantic games with the word "everyone" I put to you that many people in America and around the world had just as much of a hate-on for Reagan that they do for Bush.As in, Dr Adequate was playing a semantic game to INCLUDE "all the people who voted for him, twice" in the meaning of my use of the word "everyone" just to be argumentative.

There is absolutely no misinterpreting that. Then the very next post was Dr Adequate's reponse to me.

Playing semantic games with the word "everyone", eh? Like you're doing as you hastily backpedal out of the arena? Dear me, tut tut.Now I was "backpedaling out of the arena".

This pointless taunting by Dr Adequate directed at me continued to the point where I am called a halfwit, a liar and libelous. Not only is that flaming a poster it is a total derail. It is so off topic that this thread is still derailed by it.

So everyone stop the cock and bull story about how poor Dr Adequate was misinterpreted. OK?

As I said this thread is D.O.A. now, thanks to Dr Adequate.

[fishbob]

I agree the government does have a responsibility to its soldiers, but your characterization of this endevor as "domestic political posturing" is essentially saying that because you don't agree with this action that it makes it a violation of the governments responsibility to the soldier.

Not at all. Whether I agree or not with the decision to send our troops to Iraq has no bearing at all on the fact that the justifications for invasion of Iraq were misrepresentations of fact. Whether I agree or not with the decision to send our troops to Iraq has no bearing on the fact that the government has failed to hold up its end of the deal with our troops.

[fishbob]

So Dr. Adequate, not me, expanded on my unfortunate hyperbole "everyone" to mean "all the people who voted for him, twice". Which I did not in any way, shape or form.


Untwist your self-righteous knickers. Basic reading comprehension shows that Dr A pointed out your hyperbole by noting that everyone INCLUDES all the people that voted for Reagan, twice. Nowhere did he say anything even close to meaning that everyone consisted ONLY of all the people that voted for Reagan, twice.

Everything went to hell when you missed this basic point. Everything you posted after that sounds like backpeddling.

[Mycroft]

Not at all. Whether I agree or not with the decision to send our troops to Iraq has no bearing at all on the fact that the justifications for invasion of Iraq were misrepresentations of fact.

Uhm, that’s really another topic. Many would argue (with strong evidence to support them) was that the world consensus was that Iraq had WMDs.


…Whether I agree or not with the decision to send our troops to Iraq has no bearing on the fact that the government has failed to hold up its end of the deal with our troops.

Previously you said:

”A volunteer soldier is contracted with the government. In that contract, the soldier is responsible to follow authorized orders while the government is responsible … to wisely and carefully issue those orders.”

If those orders are issued wisely (a subjective judgment) depends directly on if you agree with the governments policy or not.

[fishbob]

If those orders are issued wisely (a subjective judgment) depends directly on if you agree with the governments policy or not.

Not at all. When the facts are uncovered, a consensus of people more knowledgable than I will judge. I am just placing my bet on how the judgement will turn out.

[Mycroft]

Untwist your self-righteous knickers. Basic reading comprehension shows that Dr A pointed out your hyperbole by noting that everyone INCLUDES all the people that voted for Reagan, twice. Nowhere did he say anything even close to meaning that everyone consisted ONLY of all the people that voted for Reagan, twice.

Nobody claimed that ZN meant only those that voted for Reagan, nor did anyone claim that was Dr A’s claim. Rather, the issue was Dr A’s pedantic fixation on the literal meaning of a touch of hyperbole.

If I were to make the claim that everybody loves ice cream, no rational person would take that to mean literally that ice cream is loved throughout the world by each and every human being. Rather, the intent that I mean that many people (maybe even most people) do like ice cream is clearly understood. Taking issue with the intent, ”many more people dislike ice cream than you realize” is rational, but taking issue with the literal meaning, ”Everybody loves ice cream? What about people who are allergic to milk?” is only being argumentative for its own sake and is not productive.


Everything went to hell when you missed this basic point. Everything you posted after that sounds like backpeddling.

I don’t even particularly agree with ZNs point, but he doesn’t look like he was backpedaling at all.

[Mycroft]

Not at all. When the facts are uncovered, a consensus of people more knowledgable than I will judge. I am just placing my bet on how the judgement will turn out.

Okay, so even you admit the jury is still out on that one.

I would suggest further that when one volunteers for the military, one understands they may be asked to further a political decision they or their families don't agree with.

Would you agree with that?

[fishbob]

Okay, so even you admit the jury is still out on that one.

I would suggest further that when one volunteers for the military, one understands they may be asked to further a political decision they or their families don't agree with.

Would you agree with that?

Yes, the jury is still out. But the odds are leaning strongly toward domestic political pandering.

Yes, but I was not talking about disagreement about political decisions in general. I was specifically talking about self-serving decisions, involving our soldiers, that are based on gaining domestic political advantage.
_ _ _ _ _
dern speeling eroors

[Dr Adequate]

It clearly shows Dr A making an issue of the word everyone beginning with post # 35. Are you still whining on about this?

Good grief.

As you would notice if you actually read the posts you quoted, I objected to the content of his post, on the grounds that, since "everyone" did not "HATE" Reagan, saying so is no basis for an argument. I replied to the substance of his post.

The halfwit ZN then started telling a long and stupid series of lies about what I meant by the word "everyone", starting with the stupid lie that I was arguing that "everyone" meant "everyone in the US" while ignoring the substance of my post.
While you chose to play semantic games with the word "everyone"...
It always amazes me when posters decide to take a word like "everyone" and then argue what it really means is "everyone in the USA
It is only you Dr. Barely Adequate who has chosen to play a semantic game and decide that "everyone" means "everyone in the USA".
Sorry Dr. but your endless tirade about my use of the word "everyone"... [Note: this in reply to a post which did not us the word "everyone".]
Ok. So now I am a liar because you cannot differenciate between everyone and everyone.
you are unable to rationalize that there is no such thing as an ultimate "everyone" when the term is used in casual conversation.....
They way I used the word "everyone" was in no way to mean "everyone in the USA", all 275 million or "everyone in the world" all 6+ billion. To even attempt to suggest that is ridiculous.The repeated objection to my use of the word everyone as in "I remember the Reagan years. Everyone HATED Regan..." is an outrageous argument
So Dr. Adequate, not me, expanded on my unfortunate hyperbole "everyone" to mean "all the people who voted for him, twice".
You notice that his lies are wildly inconsistent, and the latest one is the stupidest. I have never argued that "everyone" should mean "two-time Reagan voters".

I have argued only that his statement is meaningless hyperbole, and since he himself describes it as "unfortunate hyperbole", it looks like I was right.

Try not to be petulant and dishonest simultaneously.

[LW]

The halfwit ZN then started telling a long and stupid series of lies about what I meant by the word "everyone", starting with the stupid lie that I was arguing that "everyone" meant "everyone in the US" while ignoring the substance of my post.

Just a suggestion Dr.

Remember that adding insults doesn't make your case stronger, it makes it weaker.

[Regnad Kcin]

Just a suggestion Dr.

Remember that adding insults doesn't make your case stronger, it makes it weaker....As I await the Dr's apology for demonstrating he was mistaken, with the expectation that I will be further insulted instead.

[Mycroft]

I have argued only that his statement is meaningless hyperbole, and since he himself describes it as "unfortunate hyperbole", it looks like I was right.

Except his statement was not at all meaningless, but very clear to everyone but you. The essence of ZNs argument is that Reagan is more popular now than he was when he was in office. That statement was not diminished by his hyperbolic use of the word "everybody." Rather, it was your fixation on that word that made discussion of the accuracy of his opinion impossible.


Try not to be petulant and dishonest simultaneously.

Nice.

[Dr Adequate]

Except his statement was not at all meaningless, but very clear to everyone but you. The essence of ZNs argument is that Reagan is more popular now than he was when he was in office. When you say that it is "clear to everyone but me", you are not telling the truth.
Sometimes hyperbole goes so far as to make the discussion meaningless, though. I might as well say "Everyone LOVED Reagan." He was one of the more popular of your Presidents, was he not?

What ZN was claiming, if I understand him correctly, is that Reagan is more popular now then he was.
You see the difference between your magic fantasy world and reality?
Rather, it was your fixation on that word that made discussion of the accuracy of his opinion impossible. As has been pointed out to you, ZN's obsessive yet strangely inconsistent lies about what I meant by "everyone", quoted extensively above, do not consistitute a "fixation" on my part, but on his. And, now, on yours. Would you like to stop bleating out these ludicrous lies, and discuss ... oh, anything of substance?

[Dr Adequate]

...As I await the Dr's apology for demonstrating he was mistaken, with the expectation that I will be further insulted instead. If you're the guy who claims to have proved that oral sex is not sex, then I advise you to take another run at it. On a thread devoted to that purpose.

[Dr Adequate]

Remember that adding insults doesn't make your case stronger, it makes it weaker. Surely it should do neither?

However, as ZN is a stupid liar, and I have proved it, and I wish to repay him for his froth of stupid malevolent bilious lies, I think I shall point out, if it's OK by you, that he is a stupid liar.

[zenith-nadir]

Surely it should do neither?

However, as ZN is a stupid liar, and I have proved it, and I wish to repay him for his froth of stupid malevolent bilious lies, I think I shall point out, if it's OK by you, that he is a stupid liar.I wish to register an official complaint to the mods at JREF. Throughout this thread Dr Adequate has persisted in a smear campaign against me which baseless and amounts to nothing greater than flaming a poster and a total derail.

Why the mods allow this repeated name-calling is beyond me.

Dr, Adequate you conduct in this thread is disgraceful.

[Mycroft]

I wish to register an official complaint to the mods at JREF. Throughout this thread Dr Adequate has persisted in a smear campaign against me which baseless and amounts to nothing greater than flaming a poster and a total derail.

Why the mods allow this repeated name-calling is beyond me.

Dr, Adequate you conduct in this thread is disgraceful.

Click on that little red & white roadsign in the lower left hand portion of his post.

[Dr Adequate]

"This, however, is what I have done. I have already curbed their insolence; and, by the same means, I shall curb it again. I declare, then, that they are most impudent liars - mentiris impudentissime. If the charges they have brought against me be true, let them prove it; otherwise they stand convicted of falsehood, aggravated by the grossest effrontery. Their procedure in this case will show who has the right upon his side. I desire all men to take a particular observation of it; and beg to remark, in the meantime, that this precious cabal, who will not suffer the most trifling charge which they can possibly repel to lie upon them, made a show of enduring, with great patience, those from which they cannot vindicate themselves, and conceal, under a counterfeit virtue, their real impotency. My object, therefore, in provoking their modesty by this sharp retort, is to let the plainest people understand that, if my enemies hold their peace, their forbearance must be ascribed, not to the meekness of their natures, but to the power of a guilty conscience." * (http://philosophy.eserver.org/pascal-provincial-letters.txt)

[Mephisto]

. . . just smack everyone upside the head and let it stand. The two lessons we can learn here are:

1. Making broad statements about American politicians isn't necessarily excusable, as JREF has a notable international audience. Americans can sometimes be ethno-centrically oriented enough that they make statements without considering viewpoints of people in other countries and cultures. We Yanks would do well to occasionally consider other's viewpoints.

2. Losing one's temper can be disastrous to your argument - although most of us here have (and will continue to do so) suffered foot-in-mouth syndrome at one time or another. Please be empathic toward each other, it gives you a better viewpoint of everyone's stance, even if you don't like where they're standing.

I've always considered myself a political anomaly and I have friends and people I respect here on both sides of the political spectrum. I would like to believe that all of us here can resolve this without the JREF moderators or anyone being banned.

[Regnad Kcin]

If you're the guy who claims to have proved that oral sex is not sex, then I advise you to take another run at it. On a thread devoted to that purpose.Since you are evidently not dense I can only gather that you are being willfully obtuse. I have, twice now, shown, with references, that Mr. Clinton said the words "sexual relations," not "sex," when he denied engaging in the same.

So the argument is not that "oral sex is not sex" at all. "Sexual relations" is a term accepted to mean (at least in American English as demonstrated by my dictionary references) intercourse. Since Mr. Clinton did not have intercourse with the young brunette intern in question, this next statement is true:

Mr. Clinton did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky.

Shall I expect an apology, or another insult-laden response?

[Dr Adequate]

Since you are evidently not dense I can only gather that you are being willfully obtuse. I have, twice now, shown, with references, that Mr. Clinton said the words "sexual relations," not "sex," when he denied engaging in the same. A distinction without a difference.

Sex : sexual activity, including specifically sexual intercourse. (OED)
So the argument is not that "oral sex is not sex" at all. "Sexual relations" is a term accepted to mean (at least in American English as demonstrated by my dictionary references) intercourse. In this case, oral intercourse (http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/oral_intercourse1.html). I provide a link in case the concept has never come your way.Mr. Clinton did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky. Yes he did. She gave him a blowjob.

[Regnad Kcin]

Thanks for the link! Read it twice and...funny thing...nowhere did it use the term sexual relations.

And "she gave him [more than a single] blowjob."

[Dr Adequate]

Thanks for the link! Read it twice and...funny thing...nowhere did it use the term sexual relations. No, it used the word "intercourse", which is what you claimed that "sexual relations" means.

[Regnad Kcin]

"A distinction without a difference," eh? Of course there's a difference. That's why there are two (or more) separate terms: "sex" (that is, "sexual activity"), and "sexual relations" (commonly known as "intercourse").

Now back to our regularly scheduled evening of tying oneself into a knot over the proper meaning of "everyone."

[Regnad Kcin]

No, it used the word "intercourse", which is what you claimed that "sexual relations" means.Careful, my friend. I don't claim it. Dictionaries do.

[Dr Adequate]

"Sexual relations" is a term accepted to mean (at least in American English as demonstrated by my dictionary references)... I can't find your dictionary references (don't hide your light under a bushel! do share them with us!) but I did spot RandFan's:

Dictionary.com
pl.n.
Sexual intercourse.
Sexual activity between individuals.

bartleby.com
PLURAL NOUN:1. Sexual intercourse.
2. Sexual activity between individuals.

Infoplease
1. sexual intercourse; coitus.
2. any sexual activity between individuals.

Perhaps your dictionary is broken.

[Dr Adequate]

Careful, my friend. I don't claim it. Dictionaries do.Splendid. We're all in agreement on that point, then. "Sexual relations" certainly includes intercourse.

And oral intercourse is, obviously, a form of intercourse. Moreover, of sexual intercourse, since it is a sexual act.

[Dr Adequate]

"A distinction without a difference," eh? Of course there's a difference. That's why there are two (or more) separate terms: "sex" (that is, "sexual activity"), and "sexual relations" ... for which all three dictionaries RandFan cited give, as one definition: "sexual activity" in those very words.

A distinction without a difference, you see?

[Regnad Kcin]

From dictionary.com:

sexual relations
pl.n.

1. Sexual intercourse.
2. Sexual activity between individuals.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

---

sexual relations
noun plural

Coitus

Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

---

coitus
noun

[P]hysical union of male and female genitalia accompanied by rhythmic movements leading to the ejaculation of semen from the penis into the female reproductive tract

Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

---

This is the third time now I've referenced the term. And again, although American Heritage allows that there is a secondary meaning to encompass sexual activity (of which oral sex would of course be included), dictionaries list their definitions in order of strength. Never mind that Merriam-Webster doesn't even consider anything but intercourse when definining the term.

By weight of established dictionary references and rules, "sexual relations" is given to mean "intercourse."

[Regnad Kcin]

Turning to my bookshelf I see I've amassed quite a few dictionaries over the years. Most of them are family items and, as such, go back a few years.

Only one publisher, Webster's, has an entry for "sexual relations." It is found in both their "Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary" (1967) and "New Collegiate Dictionary" (1973). The sole definition? Coitus.

[RandFan]

Only one publisher, Webster's, has an entry for "sexual relations." It is found in both their "Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary" (1967) and "New Collegiate Dictionary" (1973). The sole definition? Coitus. And this proves...what? That you found a dictionary with a sole definition...from, get this, 1973. Kcin, a definition is not an immutable law that governs the universe. Words evolve over time and a dictionary simply tells us the accepted usage of the word.

To quote James Randi (http://www.randi.org/jr/081503.html), "Bearing in mind that a dictionary does not define a word, but rather gives its current and accepted usage..." (emphasis Randi's)
Please note the terms "current" and "accepted usage". You have been shown by me and Dr A 3 definitions that demonstrate that the current "accepted usage" of the word is "sexual activity".

Which is why Clinton's claim doesn't pass the laugh test.

[Mycroft]

Turning to my bookshelf I see I've amassed quite a few dictionaries over the years. Most of them are family items and, as such, go back a few years.

Only one publisher, Webster's, has an entry for "sexual relations." It is found in both their "Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary" (1967) and "New Collegiate Dictionary" (1973). The sole definition? Coitus.

In general I think you make a lot more sense than Dr A, but this here is paper thin. I mean, wet tissue thin.

My personal opinion; Clinton should never have been asked the question. It's beneath the dignity of the office of the Presidency. Having been asked, he should have refused to answer.

However, he was asked, he did answer, and his answer was a lie. It’s too bad he did that. I personally don’t think it was an impeachable offense, but facts are facts. Digging up 30 year old dictionaries and arguing over the definition of is doesn’t change that he had relations with that woman that involved sex. They were sexual relations. Nobody cares which orifice extracted the Clinton semen, or that it went home with her on her dress and not inside her. The facts remain that through a sexual act, she extracted his semen, and it went home with her. He had sexual relations with that woman.

[Dr Adequate]

From dictionary.com:

sexual relations
pl.n.

1. Sexual intercourse.
2. Sexual activity between individuals. Fine. So:

(1) Is oral intercourse intercourse?
(2) Is a blowjob sexual activity between individuals?

If the answer to either of those two questions is "yes", then Clinton "had sexual relations with that woman".

[LW]

Surely it should do neither?

It hurts your credibility. My 11 year stint on the Internet has convinced me that insults and misrepresentation of facts goes often hand in hand. Not always, of course, but often enough to throw a shadow of doubt over your version of events.

Putting this into more mathematical terms: your use of insults is a piece of evidence that lowers the probability that your other arguments are correct.

However, as ZN is a stupid liar, and I have proved it,

Think about what you wrote for a moment. Proved that he is stupid? PROVED? The only thing that I can say is that we seem to have quite different standards for "proof".

and I wish to repay him for his froth of stupid malevolent bilious lies,

My two oldest nieces are nine and six. Their mother doesn't accept "but she started" as an excuse from them. The usability of that defence starts to wear down after the age of one.

I have had Z-n on ignore for longer that I can remember (except for a short while after the forum upgrade that cleared the ignore lists). The main reason for that is that he occasionally posts stuff that I find extremely insulting. The annoyance that I get from those posts by far exceeds the information that he provides in his good posts, so to the ignore he went. Don't follow his example.

I think I shall point out, if it's OK by you, that he is a stupid liar.

It is OK by me except that now I have to downgrade my personal assesment of you as a poster from the class of "posters who know what they are writing about" down to "posters who usually know what they are writing about but check their arguments with some care".

[Dr Adequate]

It hurts your credibility. My 11 year stint on the Internet has convinced me that insults and misrepresentation of facts goes often hand in hand. Not always, of course, but often enough to throw a shadow of doubt over your version of events.

Putting this into more mathematical terms: your use of insults is a piece of evidence that lowers the probability that your other arguments are correct.
No. The reasoning you have put forward would apply only if you were unable to see the actual arguments. Since you are, it doesn't matter whether I resemble in literary style some other people who are wrong.

Even if you were restricted to such information, you might also consider that a man who had repeatedly been the subject of stupid lies might wish to call the stupid liar who told stupid lies about him a stupid liar, and yet be honest. Indeed, forthright.

You might also wish to consider that there are certain arguments to which the only possible response is, in effect, "you are a liar", and ZN and I were having one. The only issue under dispute is whether, when he indulges in his halfwitted fantasies about the contents of my posts, he is lying or telling the truth. If someone followed me around shouting "you said that you're a mutant baby-eating space monster", there would be very little to say in reply except that he was lying and that I had said nothing of the sort.
Think about what you wrote for a moment. Proved that he is stupid? PROVED? The only thing that I can say is that we seem to have quite different standards for "proof". Apparently. Mine's empirical, what's yours?
My two oldest nieces are nine and six. Their mother doesn't accept "but she started" as an excuse from them. No, I bet she tells them off, and I bet she hopes the telling-off will make them wish they won't do it again. This is how adults should treat petulant children, don't you agree?
I have had Z-n on ignore for longer that I can remember (except for a short while after the forum upgrade that cleared the ignore lists). The main reason for that is that he occasionally posts stuff that I find extremely insulting.Insulting and true, or insulting and false?

May I take it that you do in fact essentially agree with my estimate of ZN's character?
It is OK by me except that now I have to downgrade my personal assesment of you as a poster from the class of "posters who know what they are writing about" down to "posters who usually know what they are writing about but check their arguments with some care".
A strange conclusion. I say that ZN is a most impudent liar. If I am wrong in saying that, then you should indeed find me less trustworthy. If I am right, then I have told the truth. And ZN is a most impudent liar.

[Mycroft]

A strange conclusion. I say that ZN is a most impudent liar. If I am wrong in saying that, then you should indeed find me less trustworthy. If I am right, then I have told the truth. And ZN is a most impudent liar.

Except that when I review your "proof" I disagree with your conclusions. What I see is you fixating on a piece of fluff hyperbole, then calling him a liar simply because the two of you disagree on exactly what that hyperbole meant.

For example, you say:

”I have never argued that "everyone" should mean "two-time Reagan voters".

Wha…?! If you’re taking issue with his hyperbole, you’re arguing for a literal interpretation. A literal interpretation of “everyone” certainly would include people who voted for Reagan twice.

But to make it even worse, you’ve even specifically named two-time Reagan voters back in your first post where you started this:

”What, everyone? Even all the people who voted for him? Twice? Or is this the usual paranoia the the American Right feel even in those times when they're in power?”

So what do we parse this sentence to mean except you pointing out that taken literally, “everyone” means everyone, including those that voted for Reagan twice, yet that’s what you claim was a lie.

[fishbob]

Except that when I review your "proof" I disagree with your conclusions. What I see is you fixating on a piece of fluff hyperbole, then calling him a liar simply because the two of you disagree on exactly what that hyperbole meant.


What I see ZN and you fixating on is the piece of fluff hyperbole, while what I see is Dr A fixating on ZN's backpeddling after being called on the fluff hyperbole. This means that the furor is due an offset in subject matter. It sort of sounds like you guys are addressing the same issue, but you are clearly not.

Take 2 aspirin and call me in the morning.
My bill is in the mail.

[Regnad Kcin]

And this proves...what? That you found a dictionary with a sole definition...from, get this, 1973.Just what I've been proving since I took up the topic. Perhaps you've missed my earlier posts.

Anyway, I figured someone would jump on my additional cite of two older dictionaries (and yet ignore my current ones!). So I stopped at the library today and found that both the current Webster's as well as Merriam-Webster's define "sexual relations" as coitus. There is no other definition.

In addition, numerous other dictionaries provide no entry for the term at all.

Kcin, a definition is not an immutable law that governs the universe. Words evolve over time and a dictionary simply tells us the accepted usage of the word...Yes.

You have been shown by me and Dr A 3 definitions that demonstrate that the current "accepted usage" of the word is "sexual activity".No. You have provided no such demonstration pertaining to "accepted usage" of "sexual relations." I, on the other hand, have provided numerous dictionary cites supporting the definition as I was given to understand the term when Mr. Clinton used it. Your bone, if you will, is with those dictionaries, not me.

Moreover, I have stated that your references do not effectively support your case, considering multiple definitions are placed in order of their strength. All of your cites indicate that the primary definition of "sexual relations" is intercourse. Add to that the weight of my cites, several of which put forth that there is no secondary definition, and my case is made.

Which is why Clinton's claim doesn't pass the laugh test.I am not debating the man's unfortunate attempt to work his way out of what was surely a fine mess. This is a discussion on words and their meanings (which is why it's not off-topic, by the way).

Laugh if you like.

[Edited for small redundancy.]

[Regnad Kcin]

In general I think you make a lot more sense than Dr A...Thank you.

...but this here is paper thin. I mean, wet tissue thin.If you like.

My personal opinion; Clinton should never have been asked the question. It's beneath the dignity of the office of the Presidency. Having been asked, he should have refused to answer.A worthwhile point of view.

However, he was asked, he did answer, and his answer was a lie. It’s too bad he did that. I personally don’t think it was an impeachable offense, but facts are facts.As I've demonstrated, over and over again, yes, "facts are facts." And the fact is sexual relations = intercourse. No lie was given.

Digging up 30 year old dictionaries......was done out of personal curiosity, following my demonstration utilizing current dictionaries.

I enjoy the image "digging up" together with "30 year old" conjures, by the way. Surely you didn't mean to imply anything by that?

and arguing over the definition of is...Have I done that?

...doesn’t change that he had relations with that woman that involved sex. They were sexual relations.(Sigh.)

Nobody cares which orifice extracted the Clinton semen, or that it went home with her on her dress and not inside her.Nor do I. All I'm saying is he used the correct term.

Would you have the man get up in front of members of the fourth estate and say, "I did not bang, pork, shag, bone, screw, or shtup that woman, Ms. Lewinsky?" He was, unfortunately, trying to convey something of an extremely sensitive nature in the most delicate and seemly way possible. "Sexual relations" pretty much does it.

The facts remain that through a sexual act, she extracted his semen, and it went home with her. He had sexual relations with that woman.No. You are attempting to mold an accepted dictionary definition to conform to your (slight) bias.

I am not judging Mr. Clinton one way or the other, and frankly hope I am capable of dispassionate analysis on the subject of language. It is my judgement that he told the truth: he did not have "sexual relations" (that is, intercourse (that is, coitus)) with the woman in question. Like it or not.

[Regnad Kcin]

Fine. So:

(1) Is oral intercourse intercourse?
(2) Is a blowjob sexual activity between individuals?

If the answer to either of those two questions is "yes", then Clinton "had sexual relations with that woman"."Is oral intercourse intercourse?"

Please.

Now you're attempting to work the same sort of tortured definition Mr. Clinton was accused of doing.

[DavidJames]

It is my judgement that he told the truth: he did not have "sexual relations" (that is, intercourse (that is, coitus)) with the woman in question.While that may be true, he did so (IMO) with the express intent of deceiving the questioners. I agree with Mycroft, the question should not have been asked or refused to be answered.

[RandFan]

Anyway, I figured someone would jump on my additional cite of two older dictionaries (and yet ignore my current ones!). So I stopped at the library today and found that both the current Webster's as well as Merriam-Webster's define "sexual relations" as coitus. There is no other definition. One more time. Definitions are not immutable laws of nature. Merriam-Webster is not sacrosanct or the final say on anything.

To say there are not other definitions is demonstrably false. I gave you dictionary definitions. www.dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com) to name one of them. Are you denying that dictionary.com is a dictionary? If you continue in this vain it will be a lie.

In addition, numerous other dictionaries provide no entry for the term at all Demonstrably untrue. I have given you the links of the other DICTIONARIES.

No. You have provided no such demonstration pertaining to "accepted usage" of "sexual relations." Yes I have, putting your fingers in your ears and humming won't make the dictionary definitions that I listed go away. You can pretend that I didn't post dictionary definitions (usage) but it is not true.

I, on the other hand, have provided numerous dictionary cites supporting the definition as I was given to understand the term when Mr. Clinton used it. Your bone, if you will, is with those dictionaries, not me. Not at all. Usage is usage and I have shown by numerous dictionaries that usage of the term is any sexual activity. You are tap dancing. The definitions won't go away.

Moreover, I have stated that your references do not effectively support your case... Stating something and proving it are two different things. The usage of the word stands. If Bill Clinton had really intended the meaning you are suggesting then he could have made that clear.

Bill Clinton: I did not have sexual intercourse with that woman but I did have sexual activity with her.


All of your cites indicate that the primary definition of "sexual relations" is intercourse. Doesn't fly. Again, the "usage of the word" is all that is important and sexual activity was clearly what was understood and for good reason.

I am not debating the man's unfortunate attempt to work his way out of what was surely a fine mess. This is a discussion on words and their meanings (which is why it's not off-topic, by the way). Words have meaning and it was Bills use of these words with meaning that got him in that fine mess. Sexual relations means sexual activity. Coitus is but one of those sexual activities. Putting a fine point on it only makes Bill Clinton look dishonest.

[zenith-nadir]

he is lying or telling the truth.This has gone far enough. I refuse to be repeatedly called a liar.

Let's revisit this one last time to show how Dr. Adequate is responsible for A) a total derail and B) a one-sided flame war:

I remember the Reagan years. Everyone HATED Regan, called him a warmonger, a bully, etc. That is an innocent hyperbole that any grade school student with basic reading comprehension would understand NOT TO MEAN:

What, everyone? Even all the people who voted for him? Twice? Dr Adequate took the hyperbole "everyone" and just to be argumentative he included "Even all the people who voted for him".

At this point I saw the semantic game coming and knew immediatety that it was 100% argumentative to debate "everyone" included all the people who voted for Reagan. Period. End of story.

Then I replied:

While you chose to play semantic games with the word "everyone" I put to you that many people in America and around the world had just as much of a hate-on for Reagan that they do for Bush.Which meant I did not include "all the people who voted for him" and that Dr Adequate was playing a pointless semantic game just to be argumentative with the hyperbole "everyone" that any grade school student with basic reading comprehension would understand NOT TO MEAN "the people who voted for Reagan".

But this derail gets twisted even further into stupidity.

Playing semantic games with the word "everyone", eh? Like you're doing as you hastily backpedal out of the arena? Dear me, tut tut.Because I would not agree with Dr Adequate's position that "all the people who voted for Reagan" were included in the hyperbole "everyone" I was now guilty of backpedaling out of the arena. Holy cow, now Dr. Adequate is taunting me as well as fixated on the word "everyone". There is absolutely no mistake about that.

Oh, but there is:

Untwist your self-righteous knickers. Basic reading comprehension shows that Dr A pointed out your hyperbole by noting that everyone INCLUDES all the people that voted for Reagan, twice. Nowhere did he say anything even close to meaning that everyone consisted ONLY of all the people that voted for Reagan, twice.

Everything went to hell when you missed this basic point. Everything you posted after that sounds like backpeddling.Everything went to hell fishbob when Dr. Adequate missed the point that everyone was a hyperbole which did not include "all the people that voted for Reagan, twice".

Basic reading comprehension is not reserved for me alone, and basic reading comprehension should have shown Dr. Adequate that at no point when I used the word "everyone" did I mean to include "all the people that voted for Reagan, twice". That would be a ridiculous claim.

Dr Adequate even admits:

I did, on the other hand, take "everyone" to mean "everyone", and I would certainly cite as a counterexample the people who voted for Reagan.So it WAS an innocent hyperbole that any grade school student with basic reading comprehension would understand NOT TO MEAN "Even all the people who voted for him" that Dr Adequate did take to mean "Even all the people who voted for him".

Then Dr Adequate continues page after page after page totaly derailing this thread:

Perhaps we could indeed pass over your hysterical and humiliating attempt to lie about the meaning of the word "everyone", and your halfwitted and contemptible attempt to twist my words, and instead notice that when you said...... you were in fact not telling the truth.

Ooh, nice. Why don't you tell us what the definition of "is" is? And then we can talk about how to differentiate between "everyone" and "everyone", since this distinction means so much to you. What is the difference, by the way? If you are determined to continue "wanking off" (to use your quaint little phrase) about "the difference betweeen everyone and everyone", then I'm not sure I will ignore you. I may just stick around and laugh myself sick.

I have no idea what is responsible for your character, but it is frankly libellous to blame it on me.

You are a liar because you lied, because you are a liar.

To fixate on such minutiae, particularly after my actual meaning has been explained to you several times is somewhat dishonest.

No, let's try again. You are a liar because you tell lies....Could you make up your mind which absurd lie you wish to tell?

I am not pressing any such point. Other people are pretending I am, because having told this halfwitted lie, they can then pretend that I am being dishonest. I did not call him a liar for his use of hyperbole (that, if you can be bothered to read the thread, is part of his clumsy lies). I call him a liar because he drivels out stupid lies about the contents of my posts: and he has, apparently, deceived you, so it is, apparently, necessary to point this out.

Then after repeated requests by me for Dr Adequate to desist this derail he continues to derail and flame me.

As I have pointed out, I call him a liar because of his lies about the content of my post: his hyperbole I regard merely as inaccurate.

... is a made-up fantasy in your head: a pathetic smokescreen to try to hide the fact that you keep whining on about my use of the word "everyone" by repeatedly telling dumb lies about what I meant by it. You know, nutty stuff like this: ... when I have made no such argument; or crazy lies like this:
... when I have suggested no such thing.

Well, let's see if I can explain it to you.

If, instead of debating me, you lie (inconsistently, as I have noted) about the contents of my posts and then spend page after page insisting that these made-up opinions are mine, and debating them as though they were mine, this makes rational debate impossible. If I can't even use a simple word like "everyone", which, as has been pointed out, is rather flexible in meaning, without a couple of pages of lies from you about what I meant by it and what I was "arguing" and what I was "suggesting", based on my use of one trivial word ... then this is not debate. It's merely a public exposure of your character.

I did. Look.I didn't. That was one of ZN's stupid lies. The fact that ZN has screamed and lied and whined interminably about my use of the word "everyone" does not mean that I am remotely interested in his usage of the word.

So, why are you asking me why I don't argue what I just argued? and why are you complaining that I am fixating on the halfwitted nonsense which my post didn't mention and which you have just dragged up again?

Dishonesty? Stupidity? Malice?

Are you still whining on about this?

Good grief.

As you would notice if you actually read the posts you quoted, I objected to the content of his post, on the grounds that, since "everyone" did not "HATE" Reagan, saying so is no basis for an argument. I replied to the substance of his post.

The halfwit ZN then started telling a long and stupid series of lies about what I meant by the word "everyone", starting with the stupid lie that I was arguing that "everyone" meant "everyone in the US" while ignoring the substance of my post.

[Note: this in reply to a post which did not us the word "everyone".]

You notice that his lies are wildly inconsistent, and the latest one is the stupidest. I have never argued that "everyone" should mean "two-time Reagan voters".

I have argued only that his statement is meaningless hyperbole, and since he himself describes it as "unfortunate hyperbole", it looks like I was right.

Try not to be petulant and dishonest simultaneously.

Just a suggestion Dr.

Remember that adding insults doesn't make your case stronger, it makes it weaker.Adding insults? For three pages Dr Adequate derailed this thread insulting me over an innocent hyperbole that any grade school student with basic reading comprehension would understand not to mean "Even all the people who voted for Reagan".

I did, on the other hand, take "everyone" to mean "everyone", and I would certainly cite as a counterexample the people who voted for Reagan.

And after repeated requests by me for Dr Adequate to desist this derail he continued to derail and flame me. What a total waste of time and to debate that it was not a derail and one-sided flame war by Dr Adequate is misrepresenting the facts which I have layed out perfectly clear twice now.

As I said before because Dr. Adequate took an innocent hyperbole that any grade school student with basic reading comprehension would know didn't mean "the people who voted for Reagan":

I did, on the other hand, take "everyone" to mean "everyone", and I would certainly cite as a counterexample the people who voted for Reagan....he succeded in killing this thread. It is D.O.A.

[Skeptic]

Yes, but I was not talking about disagreement about political decisions in general. I was specifically talking about self-serving decisions, involving our soldiers, that are based on gaining domestic political advantage.

I don't see much difference. In my experience, every time somebody disagrees with a government's political decisions, the first thing they do is call it a "self-serving decision based on gaining domestic political advantage"--or worse.

[Manny]

Dr Adequate took the hyperbole "everyone" and just to be argumentative he included "Even all the people who voted for him". Just for the record, when you asked, and I quote, "So what will everyone do when Bush is gone?" and I responded that we will willingly give our lives to Zod, I did not mean to imply that everybody will willingly give our lives to Zod. Some people will be unwilling.

Dr. A, I apologize if you didn't understand that.

[Snide]

One more time. Definitions are not immutable laws of nature....But wasn't the whole point of backwards Nick's dictionary hunt to show not that Clinton was absolutely telling the truth, but simply that it could be argued reasonably that Clinton did not technically perjure himself? (I should ask kcin, but I clicked "quote" on your post first, and I must stay the course! :))

I think he made that point very well. Showing just one reputable, current dictionary usage of the term to mean only coitus was sufficient. For perjury to be proved, you must show all (reputable) dictionaries agree on the term to include other sexual activity.

It wouldn't surpirse me if Slick Willy, beforehand, did his homework, like he was known to do in meetings of all kinds (to the point of seeming to be the the most-informed person in the room...see Al Franken's latest book, and one of Brown's recent posts), hunted down dicitonaries a la kcin, and found a term he could use that would obscure, but still, technically, not perjure himself if the truth of the BJs was learned.

[delphi_ote]

Dr Adequate took the hyperbole "everyone" and just to be argumentative he included "Even all the people who voted for him".

If that's what actually happened, why do you need this little narrative explaination? Dr. A never actually did any of the things you've implied there. You assumed he did and have been treating your assumption as fact and repeating it for pages and pages.

Now you're crying that this thread has been derailed when all you need to do was either a) Apologize to Dr. A for your inaccurate statements or b) ignore him. Dorothy, have the ruby red slippers on your feet.

[zenith-nadir]

I remember the Reagan years. Everyone HATED Regan, called him a warmonger, a bully, etc.

What, everyone? Even all the people who voted for him? Twice?

While you chose to play semantic games with the word "everyone" I put to you that many people in America and around the world had just as much of a hate-on for Reagan that they do for Bush.

Playing semantic games with the word "everyone", eh? Like you're doing as you hastily backpedal out of the arena? Dear me, tut tut.

Dr. A never actually did any of the things you've implied there. You're absolutely right delphi_ote, what I quoted above never actually happened.

[RandFan]

But wasn't the whole point of backwards Nick's dictionary hunt to show not that Clinton was absolutely telling the truth, but simply that it could be argued reasonably that Clinton did not technically perjure himself? (I should ask kcin, but I clicked "quote" on your post first, and I must stay the course! :)) As to the "technical" nature of Clinton's testimony I have conceded that the argument can be made and I posted a link explaining in detail how that argument could be made but it had nothing to do with a dictionary definition. It had more to do with the definition that was agreed on between Clinton's lawyers and Jones' legal defense team. See When Is Sex Not "Sexual Relations"? (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/08/17/time/clinton.html)

So, if Kcin is trying to argue that point with me he is wasting his time because I have conceded that the argument can be made but for different reasons.

I think he made that point very well. Showing just one reputable, current dictionary usage of the term to mean only coitus was sufficient. For perjury to be proved, you must show all (reputable) dictionaries agree on the term to include other sexual activity. Please see the above link.

It wouldn't surpirse me if Slick Willy, beforehand, did his homework, like he was known to do in meetings of all kinds (to the point of seeming to be the the most-informed person in the room...see Al Franken's latest book, and one of Brown's recent posts), hunted down dicitonaries a la kcin, and found a term he could use that would obscure, but still, technically, not perjure himself if the truth of the BJs was learned. I have little doubt that Clinton did his homework. My point was with kcin when he said:
*To review, "sexual relations" means "intercourse." Which is misleading because it also means any sexual activity.

Here's the problem. Bill Clinton got up in front of America and said he didn't have sexual relations with Monica Lewinski.

1.) What did Bill Clinton technically mean?

2.) What message did Bill Clinton hope to convey?

If those two things don't reconcile then Bill Clinton lied. There is little room for doubt about the answer to the above two questions. Your post would seem to demonstrate that you agree with the answers that most of us would give.

Bill Clinton wanted to have his cake and eat it to.

To review, "Sexual Relations" also means sexual activity.

[delphi_ote]

You're absolutely right delphi_ote, what I quoted above never actually happened.

Unbelievable! Now you're trying to put words in my mouth. The underlined words are yours, not his. Your description of the events is entirely your own. Is that true or not?

[Snide]

As to the "technical" nature of Clinton's testimony I have conceded that the argument can be made and I posted a link explaining in detail how that argument could be made but it had nothing to do with a dictionary definition. It had more to do with the definition that was agreed on between Clinton's lawyers and Jones' legal defense team. See When Is Sex Not "Sexual Relations"? (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/08/17/time/clinton.html)

So, if Kcin is trying to argue that point with me he is wasting his time because I have conceded that the argument can be made but for different reasons.

Please see the above link.

I have little doubt that Clinton did his homework. My point was with kcin when he said:
Which is misleading because it also means any sexual activity.

Here's the problem. Bill Clinton got up in front of America and said he didn't have sexual relations with Monica Lewinski.

1.) What did Bill Clinton technically mean?

2.) What message did Bill Clinton hope to convey?

If those two things don't reconcile then Bill Clinton lied. There is little room for doubt about the answer to the above two questions. Your post would seem to demonstrate that you agree with the answers that most of us would give.

Bill Clinton wanted to have his cake and eat it to.

To review, "Sexual Relations" also means sexual activity.I see where you're coming from.

Clinton lied, but did not perjure himself beyond reasonable doubt. Slick Willy indeed.

edited...missed important word "lied"

[zenith-nadir]

The underlined words are yours, not his.How much more twisted can this become? Really. I linked the "words" that were underlined.

What, everyone? Even all the people who voted for him? Twice? Or is this the usual paranoia the the American Right feel even in those times when they're in power?Those underlined words are Dr. Adequate's words. Those words are from Dr. Adequate's first response to my statement:

I remember the Reagan years. Everyone HATED Regan, called him a warmonger, a bully, etc.

That statement used an innocent hyperbole that any grade school student with basic reading comprehension would understand not to include:

Even all the people who voted for him? Twice?

Instead Dr Adequate obviously did not comprehend my use of the word "everyone" because he questions "everyone":

What, everyone? Even all the people who voted for him? Twice?

So for the fourth or fifth time now:

Everyone HATED Regan...

...does not include...

Even all the people who voted for him?

Let's do it again so we know the horse is dead for sure.

Everyone HATED Regan...

...does not include...

Even all the people who voted for him?

Period. End of story.

Unbelievable! Now you're trying to put words in my mouth.This entire derail was because Dr Adequate put words in my mouth.

I remember the Reagan years. Everyone HATED Regan, called him a warmonger, a bully, etc.

What, everyone? Even all the people who voted for him? Twice? He was being argumentative and trying to include:

Even all the people who voted for him

...in the innocent hyperbole "everyone". That innocent hyperbole "everyone" was in no way shape or form meant, on any level, to include:

Even all the people who voted for him

Enough already, drop it, move on.

[delphi_ote]

Those underlined words are Dr. Adequate's words.

Dr. A did not say "and just to be argumentative." Those were the underlined words I quoted you as saying. They are your words, not his.

[fishbob]

I don't see much difference. In my experience, every time somebody disagrees with a government's political decisions, the first thing they do is call it a "self-serving decision based on gaining domestic political advantage"--or worse.Sometimes a descriptive phrase is used to actually describe something.
But not in your experience. This explains much.

[Regnad Kcin]

Anyway, I figured someone would jump on my additional cite of two older dictionaries (and yet ignore my current ones!). So I stopped at the library today and found that both the current Webster's as well as Merriam-Webster's define "sexual relations" as coitus. There is no other definition.
One more time. Definitions are not immutable laws of nature. Merriam-Webster is not sacrosanct or the final say on anything."Immutable laws of nature?" C'mon.

A dictionary offers definitions of words and terms to aid in deciphering spoken or written communications.

To say there are not other definitions is demonstrably false. I gave you dictionary definitions. www.dictionary.com to name one of them. Are you denying that dictionary.com is a dictionary? If you continue in this vain it will be a lie.Calm down, friend. I said that there were no other definitons of "sexual relations" in the two dictionaries I saw in the library save the single word "coitus." And it is the only definition for one of the cites at dictionary.com, which I've referenced myself in these discussions.

In addition, numerous other dictionaries provide no entry for the term at all...
Demonstrably untrue. I have given you the links of the other DICTIONARIES.What did I write directly above? "Numerous other dictionaries." Not all, many.
No. You have provided no such demonstration pertaining to "accepted usage" of "sexual relations."We're going to go around and around on this. So I'm going to let it go.

But first, here's my take:

I, like Mr. Clinton, am middle-aged. So when he said, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky" I immediately took it to mean he did not engage in intercourse with her. That's what the term meant to me (based in part on my sense as a reader/writer that it has become a bit dated). Nothing else.

Now, it turned out to be exactly the case. He didn't have intercourse with her. But when it came to light that he did engage in other panky that was certainly hanky, no shortage of people went back and parsed his statement. And in it they, individually, or along with the vox populi, saw that "sexual relations" was a term hardly in common use. And it sounded sufficiently vague.

So in keeping with the Slick-Willie-lying-politician-evil-liberal-AntiChrist caricature that was then being actively promoted by his opponents, comics, and others, "sexual relations" was deemed an example of him engaging in just another lie.

No. You have provided no such demonstration pertaining to "accepted usage" of "sexual relations."
Yes I have, putting your fingers in your ears and humming won't make the dictionary definitions that I listed go away. You can pretend that I didn't post dictionary definitions (usage) but it is not true.Y'know, I have a good deal of admiration for much of the content of your contributions to these boards. Plus your tone is generally kind and mannered. But you are doing yourself no favors here.

1) I am not "putting [my] fingers in [my] ears and humming..." I indeed see what you've posted and have never claimed otherwise. What I am saying is that my cites and reasoning are the more likely and, as such, persuasive.

My evidence:

-- Numerous cites revealing coitus (or intercourse) to be the sole dictionary definition for the term "sexual relations."

-- Any cites (including yours) that reveal a definition of sexual activity do so as a secondary definition to "coitus," making it the weaker of the two.

So, you might say, is that secondary definition not sufficient? Yes and no. It's there all right (again, in only some dictionaries), but the total weight of the assembled dictionary definitions combined serve to strengthen the case for "coitus."

2) I have not "pretend[ed] that [you] didn't post dictionary definitions..." Again, I have discussed them, including my first posting of the dictionary.com cites before you did.

I, on the other hand, have provided numerous dictionary cites supporting the definition as I was given to understand the term when Mr. Clinton used it. Your bone, if you will, is with those dictionaries, not me.
Not at all. Usage is usage and I have shown by numerous dictionaries that usage of the term is any sexual activity.It's enjoyable to debate you, but it is tiring correcting you.

Dictionaries don't show "usage," they show definitions. (Words and terms may enter as well as be removed from edition to edition, but even slang definitions cannot be any more than what they are: solutions to the puzzle of language comprehension.) And when there is more than one, they are placed in order of strength. "Any sexual activity" always comes after "coitus" or "intercourse." That is, if a dictionary even lists "any sexual activity," which I have shown in many instances to be the case.

You are tap dancing. The definitions won't go away.Back atcha.

Moreover, I have stated that your references do not effectively support your case...
Stating something and proving it are two different things.Back atcha.

The usage of the word stands.(sigh)

Look, here's a way you can help prove your case. Find me a couple instances in print prior to Monica Lewinsky where the author was using "sexual relations" to mean "any sexual activity." Yes, I know, words change over time. But some don't. And some remain fairly consistent year to year.

If Bill Clinton had really intended the meaning you are suggesting then he could have made that clear...How the hell do you know what he "really intended?" I'm telling you, when he said "sexual relations," I said to myself he didn't have sex (that is, conventional coitus) with her. And considering that's what turned out to be the case, it seems pretty clear that's exactly what he "really intended."

Again, I've acknowledged it turned out to be a bit of sleight-of-hand, insofar as he was presumably scrambling to maintain some personal, family, and official dignity. I don't blame him. But while his statement was, in retrospect, a clever sidestep, it wasn't a lie.

All of your cites indicate that the primary definition of "sexual relations" is intercourse.Doesn't fly. Again, the "usage of the word" is all that is important and sexual activity was clearly what was understood and for good reason.Now who's putting their fingers in their ears?

By the way, you seem fixated a bit on this "usage of the word" business. I look forward to your cites pre-Monica.

I am not debating the man's unfortunate attempt to work his way out of what was surely a fine mess. This is a discussion on words and their meanings (which is why it's not off-topic, by the way).
Words have meaning...How 'bout that!

...and it was Bills use of these words with meaning that got him in that fine mess. Sexual relations means sexual activity. Coitus is but one of those sexual activities."Sexual relations" very clearly, and very specifically means only coitus according to numerous cites I've provided.

Putting a fine point on it only makes Bill Clinton look dishonest.I fail to understand how that follows, but it's late.

Look, you're an okay dude. I even get a kick out of Dr Adequate, even if he was boorish to me numerous times. So I'm gonna let this one go for now unless there's any new evidence you can bring to the table.

That's the figurative table, by the way. Not the primary definition meaning an article of furniture supported by one or more vertical legs and having a flat horizontal surface.

[Dr Adequate]

I wish to register an official complaint to the mods at JREF. Throughout this thread Dr Adequate has persisted in a smear campaign against me which baseless and amounts to nothing greater than flaming a poster and a total derail.
Hey, ZN ... how did that work out for you?

Y'know, your "official complaint" and all?

Let's say it again: you are a most impudent liar.

[RandFan]

"Immutable laws of nature?" C'mon.

A dictionary offers definitions of words and terms to aid in deciphering spoken or written communications. Yes, which is why it is silly to insist that there could only possibly be one meaning to Bills statement. It is logically valid to assume that there could have been another meaning. Further it is reasonable to assume that Bill hoped that there would be another meaning.

I, like Mr. Clinton, am middle-aged. So when he said, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky" I immediately took it to mean he did not engage in intercourse with her. That's what the term meant to me (based in part on my sense as a reader/writer that it has become a bit dated). Nothing else. Fair enough but it was not what I took it to mean and clearly not what most people took it to mean. A person who shares semen with another person is having sex. It's just beyond silly to technically say it isn't sex or "sexual relations". Further there are dictionary definitions to make that point. That some have not for some reason kept up to date with the others doesn't obviate the other definitions.

Now, it turned out to be exactly the case. He didn't have intercourse with her. But when it came to light that he did engage in other panky that was certainly hanky, no shortage of people went back and parsed his statement. And in it they, individually, or along with the vox populi, saw that "sexual relations" was a term hardly in common use. And it sounded sufficiently vague. I don't buy that at all. When people found out the Bill Clinton put his penis in an orifice of Monica Lewinsky they didn't stop to say, "oh, it was a mouth and not a vagina, big difference." There simply was no need to parse anything.

So in keeping with the Slick-Willie-lying-politician-evil-liberal-AntiChrist caricature that was then being actively promoted by his opponents, comics, and others, "sexual relations" was deemed an example of him engaging in just another lie. Skip the straw man. It was a lie.

Here's the problem. Bill Clinton got up in front of America and said he didn't have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky.

1.) What did Bill Clinton technically mean?

2.) What message did Bill Clinton hope to convey?

If those two things don't reconcile then Bill Clinton lied. There is little room for doubt about the answer to the above two questions. Your post would seem to demonstrate that you agree with the answers that most of us would give. I'll say it again, if Bill wanted to make certain no one misunderstood he could have said he only received a BJ from Lewinsky but Clinton DIDN'T want us to know that. You know that is true.

-- Numerous cites revealing coitus (or intercourse) to be the sole dictionary definition for the term "sexual relations." Irrelevant since I have shown numerous cites that give sexually activity as a definition.

-- Any cites (including yours) that reveal a definition of sexual activity do so as a secondary definition to "coitus," making it the weaker of the two. The flimsiest evidence I've ever heard.

So, you might say, is that secondary definition not sufficient? Yes and no. It's there all right (again, in only some dictionaries), but the total weight of the assembled dictionary definitions combined serve to strengthen the case for "coitus." So, count dictionaries to determine what Bill meant? Sorry, I'm not buying it. I don't think you are either.

I can't read Bill's mind. He could have meant what you say he meant but you can't read his mind either.

Again, here is the problem:

A.) Bill putting his penis in the mouth of Monica Lewinsky was every bit as embarrassing as putting his penis in Monica's vagina. Effectively, from a personal and political standpoint, there is NO difference. And you know that.

B.) It is reasonable to assume that Bill wanted us to believe that there was no sexual activity between Him and Monica.

Based on A & B what is the parsimonious conclusion as to Bill's intent.

1.) That he didn't have coitus with Monica but by all means feel free to think he was spilling his semen on Monica's dress after removing his penis from her mouth

or

2.) That he didn't have any sexual activity with Monica Lewinsky.

This is not a tough one Kcin.

Dictionaries don't show "usage," they show definitions. That is your opinion and I most certainly disagree. James Randi is not an expert and his opinion doesn't prove anything but I think he makes a compelling argument that Dictionaries DO show usages.

Look, here's a way you can help prove your case. Find me a couple instances in print prior to Monica Lewinsky where the author was using "sexual relations" to mean "any sexual activity." I don't need to help my case. How do I prove what the author meant? That is a rather silly request.

Here are some question that need answering Kcin, how likely is it that Bill Clinton knew that the words "no sexual relations" would suggest "no sexual activity"? Why the distinction? Bill Clinton is a smart guy. He knows that "sexual activity" is every bit as problematic as coitus. Isn't it likely that he would know that people would be upset regardless of which orifice his little Willey entered? Isn't it likely that his words were chosen to dispel any and all ideas that he had sexual activity with Lewinsky? There's not a lot of wiggle room there.

You are ok also Kcin,

Thanks

[Dr Adequate]

”I have never argued that "everyone" should mean "two-time Reagan voters". Wha…?! If you’re taking issue with his hyperbole, you’re arguing for a literal interpretation. Wrong.

A literal interpretation of “everyone” certainly would include people who voted for Reagan twice.
* sighs, humors Mycroft *

As I said:
”I have never argued that "everyone" should mean "two-time Reagan voters".
And I have not.

I have mentioned, in passing (which produced ZN's prolonged hissy fit) that "everyone" should include the American electorate, especially when we're talking about what "everyone" thought about an American politician.

[zenith-nadir]

Hey, ZN ... how did that work out for you?

Y'know, your "official complaint" and all?

Let's say it again: you are a most impudent liar.At this point it is clear to anyone reading this thread that you are A) 100% off-topic and B) trolling for a response in every sense of the word.

But just for fun let's revisit your contribution to this thread.

I did, on the other hand, take "everyone" to mean "everyone", and I would certainly cite as a counterexample the people who voted for Reagan.

you were in fact not telling the truth.

it is frankly libellous to blame it on me.

You are a liar because you lied, because you are a liar.

No, let's try again. You are a liar because you tell lies.

Could you make up your mind which absurd lie you wish to tell?

I call him a liar because he drivels out stupid lies

As I have pointed out, I call him a liar because of his lies

That was one of ZN's stupid lies.

Dishonesty? Stupidity? Malice?

The halfwit ZN then started telling a long and stupid series of lies

You notice that his lies are wildly inconsistent, and the latest one is the stupidest.

Try not to be petulant and dishonest simultaneously.

As has been pointed out to you, ZN's obsessive yet strangely inconsistent lies

However, as ZN is a stupid liar, and I have proved it, and I wish to repay him for his froth of stupid malevolent bilious lies, I think I shall point out, if it's OK by you, that he is a stupid liar.

I say that ZN is a most impudent liar. If I am wrong in saying that, then you should indeed find me less trustworthy. If I am right, then I have told the truth. And ZN is a most impudent liar.

Let's say it again: you are a most impudent liar.

If that is not trolling and flaming Dr less-than Adequate I dunno what is.

[Dr Adequate]

You don't? Really? How sad. That is calling a stupid liar a stupid liar when he drivels out stupid lies about me.

[zenith-nadir]

You don't? Really? How sad. That is calling a stupid liar a stupid liar when he drivels out stupid lies about me.

Here, I linked it for ya...
Flaming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaming): "Flaming is the act of posting messages that are deliberately hostile and insulting, usually in the social context of a discussion board (usually on the Internet)."


A flame is typically not intended to be constructive, to further clarify a discussion, or to persuade other people. The motive for flaming is often not dialectic, but rather social or psychological.
Internet troll (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll#Other_Examples): "a troll is a person who posts inflammatory messages on the internet, such as on online discussion forums, to disrupt discussion or to upset its participants."


off topic messages: Those that are irrelevant to the focus of the forum.
inflammatory messages.
rehashing a highly controversial past topic.
intentionally posting an outrageous argument.

[Dr Adequate]

And you don't see the difference between that and calling a stupid liar a stupid liar when he drivels out stupid lies about me?

You may well reply "no" to that question. I have two hypotheses which would cover that. One is that you're stupid, and the other is that you're a liar.

[Dr Adequate]

If that's what actually happened, why do you need this little narrative explaination? Dr. A never actually did any of the things you've implied there. You assumed he did and have been treating your assumption as fact and repeating it for pages and pages.

Now you're crying that this thread has been derailed when all you need to do was either a) Apologize to Dr. A for your inaccurate statements or b) ignore him. Dorothy, have the ruby red slippers on your feet.
Nice try. But --- what you said was true in every single respect.

So is ZN likely to listen?

Perhaps you could gain his confidence by telling him that you're a twelve-foot purple penguin named Montague Fortescue Smythe-Smythe-Smith-Smythe-Jones, and then when he comes to accept you as being as big a liar as he is, you could start sort of steering him towards not being a pathetic ludicrous fantasist.

I've kind of exhausted the "telling the exact truth" technique. It has done no him no good. Perhaps it's time to get subtle.

[zenith-nadir]

I have two hypotheses which would cover that. One is that you're stupid, and the other is that you're a liar.Even when it's pointed out to you that you are trolling and flaming, using the exact definitions of the terms, you continue to add to your long litany of insults. It is at this point I realize that I am guilty of "feeding the Troll" and must bow out.

Have a nice day.

[RandFan]

That is your opinion and I most certainly disagree. James Randi is not an expert and his opinion doesn't prove anything but I think he makes a compelling argument that Dictionaries DO show usages. Argument from authority. Sorry. I tried to get around it but looking back it is an argument from authority. Never mind.

[delphi_ote]

Have a nice day.

There's no place like home. There's no place like home...