9/11 denialist on "Hannity and Colmes"

[senorpogo]

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2006/07/uw-911-denialist-appears-on-hannity.html

[Pardalis]

This guy is thick. Accusing Fox, on the air, of spouting venim to the world.

What a **ick.

[Mancman]

He thinks the attacks in Madrid, London, Bali and all the suicide bombings in Iraq are all false flags too. What a surprise! (Not)

[Regnad Kcin]

How's this (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1607031&postcount=2032) for a conspiracy theory?

[Johnny C.]

This guy is thick. Accusing Fox, on the air, of spouting venim to the world.

What a **ick.

I cant say I disagree with that. Fox News is the worst cable news network in America.

Hannity ripped that guy a new one. Im one his side for once.

[pgwenthold]

Hannity has a tendency to bring lightweights on his show to make himself look good. During the Cal governor recall, he had Gary Coleman on, and proceeded to hit him with all these big political issues (Coleman was on the ballot).

Of course, no one legitimate took Gary Coleman seriously in the first place and wouldn't waste their time. But Hannity really showed him! Great, Sean, you are so clever. Be sure to put it on your resume ("More politically savvy than Gary Coleman")

He's like the 6th grader who likes to prove how tough he is by beating up 3rd graders. But when the 8th graders show up...

[Sal The Butcher]

I cant say I disagree with that. Fox News is the worst cable news network in America.

Hannity ripped that guy a new one. Im one his side for once.
FOX news is bad for one reason, its known to be verry biased from a conservative viewpoint... which makes networks like NBC seem more credible to the general public

peoples distrust for FOX may lead to them believing something false reported by a rival network

[Nate Whilk]

Here's a link to the Youtube page: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hIe8YUw300

The guy is U. of Wisconsin instructor Kevin Barrett. He converted to Islam in 1992. Here are some choice quotes from that clip. I've bolded a couple of interesting words.

1:05 I am convinced that 9/11 was, in fact, an inside job...I'm interested in training people how to use critical thinking skills to look at the evidence in any area and come to their own conclusions.

2:10 In the classroom I always present things in a fair and balanced manner. Outside of the classroom, when I'm an activist or a satirist, I'll tell it like it is.

2:45 I do know--I don't believe--that 9/11 was an inside job.

3:44 It's a question of science...You think it was 19 guys with boxcutters led by a guy on dialysis in a cave in Afghanistan? That's ridiculous. That's the craziest conspiracy theory of all of them.To revise an old saying, a nut can use the words "critical thinking" and "science" for his own purposes.

[Gravy]

Here's a link to the Youtube page: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hIe8YUw300

The guy is U. of Wisconsin instructor Kevin Barrett. He converted to Islam in 1992. Here are some choice quotes from that clip. I've bolded a couple of interesting words.

To revise an old saying, a nut can use the words "critical thinking" and "science" for his own purposes.
Jim Fetzer TEACHES critical thinking. :jaw-dropp

[Regnad Kcin]

Another example of why these kinds of topics can't be properly debated on just any forum. Podcasts also come to mind, for some reason.

[Axiom_Blade]

This guy's creepy. Way more lucid than Fetzer or the Loose Changers.

And Hannity doesn't bother to ask him for evidence, or challenge him on anything. He just sits there and lamely insults him! Pathetic.

[Admiral]

This guy's creepy. Way more lucid than Fetzer or the Loose Changers.

And Hannity doesn't bother to ask him for evidence, or challenge him on anything. He just sits there and lamely insults him! Pathetic.

There was the residue of thermite- I'm not a 9/11 conspiracy buff, could someone who knows more than I do let me know how that's debunked, or whether the finding was questionable in the first place?

[Senor_Pointy]

The "thermite residue" conclusion is just based on the presence of sulphur in the steel. It's suspect because there wasn't the corresponding aluminum oxide or pure iron you'd expect to accompany the sulfur, and the sulphur is much more easily explained by the huge amount of gypsum sheetrock in the towers.

At least that's what I've heard.

[gumboot]

Not to mention thermite is a really dumb way of demolishing a building...

-Andrew

[delphi_ote]

Not to mention thermite is a really dumb way of demolishing a building...

-Andrew
Especially a building as big as the WTC. I would think that would take a hell of a lot of thermite.

Also, there are no explosions with thermite. So someone rambling about squibs and loud booms that day can't also ramble about thermite.

[gumboot]

Especially a building as big as the WTC. I would think that would take a hell of a lot of thermite.

Also, there are no explosions with thermite. So someone rambling about squibs and loud booms that day can't also ramble about thermite.


Isn't failure of internal logic a beautiful thing?

-Andrew

[valis]

I think the same person was discussed on O'Relilly last night as well.

Minor derail as to Fox News Bashing: All news outlets are staffed by humans and are therefore biased. As the news consumer you have to make up your own mind. The news outlets are there to sell advertising not deliver same sacred unbiased truth.

Of course you as the viewer are human and therefore also biased in your interpratation of what is presented.

[Hellbound]

There was the residue of thermite- I'm not a 9/11 conspiracy buff, could someone who knows more than I do let me know how that's debunked, or whether the finding was questionable in the first place?

Just to add to the explanations already given, only 3% of thermate is composed of sulphur (with none in thermite). And, contrary to assertions, the sulphur is not an enhancer. There's a barium compund (barium nitrate, IIRC) that's the actual enhancer, and makes up about 20 to 30% of thermate. You'd also expect to see residue from this.

[Luke T.]

Unfortunately, none of the students who attend this class will be presented with the overwhelming evidence which completely debunks 9/11 conspiracy theories.

[twinstead]

Unfortunately, none of the students who attend this class will be presented with the overwhelming evidence which completely debunks 9/11 conspiracy theories.

But Barrett promised to give them both sides of the story.

I can't for the life of me understand why you don't believe him ;)

[dubfan]

The "thermite residue" conclusion is just based on the presence of sulphur in the steel. It's suspect because there wasn't the corresponding aluminum oxide or pure iron you'd expect to accompany the sulfur, and the sulphur is much more easily explained by the huge amount of gypsum sheetrock in the towers.

At least that's what I've heard.

That's correct. The only thing I would add is that there are other potential sources of sulfur apart from the wallboard that have not been ruled out. The wallboard is just the most obvious and most plentiful source.

Also, see Huntsman's post for the other compounds you'd expect to find in addition to the sulfur, if you were really at evidence of thermate.

[DavidJames]

That's correct. The only thing I would add is that there are other potential sources of sulfur apart from the wallboard that have not been ruled out. The wallboard is just the most obvious and most plentiful source.

Also, see Huntsman's post for the other compounds you'd expect to find in addition to the sulfur, if you were really at evidence of thermate.I quoted Huntsman's comments in the termite thread, no real responses.

[Belz...]

Jim Fetzer TEACHES critical thinking. :jaw-dropp

You'd think someone thinks his expertise gives him WAY too much authority on the matter.

Kinda like a psychology teacher of mine who chimed for a few hours on the reality of subliminal messages and advertisement.

[Belz...]

Especially a building as big as the WTC. I would think that would take a hell of a lot of thermite.

Also, there are no explosions with thermite. So someone rambling about squibs and loud booms that day can't also ramble about thermite.

Doesn't thermite kinda just "eat" through metal, producing a fair amount of sparks ?

Well, kinda looked that way in the video I saw.

ETA: And is it "thermite" or "thermate" ? Huntsman's confusing me.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Doesn't thermite kinda just "eat" through metal, producing a fair amount of sparks ?

Well, kinda looked that way in the video I saw.

ETA: And is it "thermite" or "thermate" ? Huntsman's confusing me.

Thermate is thermite with sulfer and/or barium nitrate added iirc.

[Kiwiwriter]

Hannity has a tendency to bring lightweights on his show to make himself look good. During the Cal governor recall, he had Gary Coleman on, and proceeded to hit him with all these big political issues (Coleman was on the ballot).

Of course, no one legitimate took Gary Coleman seriously in the first place and wouldn't waste their time. But Hannity really showed him! Great, Sean, you are so clever. Be sure to put it on your resume ("More politically savvy than Gary Coleman")

He's like the 6th grader who likes to prove how tough he is by beating up 3rd graders. But when the 8th graders show up...

He was the only guy with the stature for the job...after you consider previous occupants Ronald Reagan and Jerry Brown. :boggled: :D

[Pardalis]

Arkan, is your avatar a ninja Larry David?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Arkan, is your avatar a ninja Larry David?

Nope. It is Lee Van Cleef from the TV series "The Master" :D

[Kaarjuus]

Minor derail as to Fox News Bashing: All news outlets are staffed by humans and are therefore biased. As the news consumer you have to make up your own mind. The news outlets are there to sell advertising not deliver same sacred unbiased truth.

I always found it extremely amusing when Fox News fans called CNN a leftist channel. And then I realized that from their point of view, this is actually correct. When you are on the far right, then everything else is to the left.

[60hzxtl]

ETA: And is it "thermite" or "thermate" ? Huntsman's confusing me.


I still say it was Termites.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I still say it was Termites.
No, it was Hermits.

[DavidJames]

I still say it was Termites.
If you feed Sulphur to Termites do they become Termates?

[SirPhilip]

Double post..

[SirPhilip]

In elementary school, we read literature and examined why each character did what and why. After months of this, and more complex situations, motives and themes were investigated in other books, you noticed people and events were more easily sized-up - and in some cases easy to predict their outcomes. Your interpretation never fell far from the consenus in class either. It was true, life made a comforting deal of sense. Looking back, I would have never guessed that a decade later, it would be such a rare life skill in American society. With that said, a lot of teachers around this country must feel like failures today. Sadly, the more it becomes evident the Iraq invasion was in actuality, pre-planned (http://www.sundayherald.com/39221), when you consider the loss of life (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/), this administration's mounting (http://www.salon.com/wire/ap/archive.html?wire=D8IQ5J9O0.html) criminal record, you arrive at two hard, sweeping questions:

1) Would they orchestrate the murder of American citizens as a stepping stone to dominating the middle east?

2) Bush has used the attacks incessantly to justify all his actions, and still does. This was, and still is, odd, moreso as it becomes concrete that it was simply illegal. If that really wasn't why Iraq was invaded, what was. Also, what is the underlying reason the attacks are so important. How does the evidence that "the attack were just a cooincidence" against "the attacks were part of a larger plan" stack up.

Saying "no" at this point is being willfully ignorant. The theory of the world trade center attack being a controlled demolition may have little to stand on (no pun intended), but this hardly means this level of speculation isn't warranted.

Extraordinary criminal versatility requires extraordinary big jumps to conclusions.

[Pardalis]

In elementary school, we read literature and examined why each character did what and why. After months of this, and more complex situations, motives and themes were investigated in other books, you noticed people and events were more easily sized-up - and in some cases easy to predict their outcomes. Your interpretation never fell far from the consenus in class either. It was true, life made a comforting deal of sense. Looking back, I would have never guessed that a decade later, it would be such a rare life skill in American society. With that said, a lot of teachers around this country must feel like failures today. Sadly, the more it becomes evident the Iraq invasion was in actuality, pre-planned (http://www.sundayherald.com/39221), when you consider the loss of life (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/), this administration's mounting (http://www.salon.com/wire/ap/archive.html?wire=D8IQ5J9O0.html) criminal record, you arrive at two hard, sweeping questions:

1) Would they orchestrate the murder of American citizens as a stepping stone to dominating the middle east?

2) Bush has used the attacks incessantly to justify all his actions, and still does. This was, and still is, odd, moreso as it becomes concrete that it was simply illegal. If that really wasn't why Iraq was invaded, what was. Also, what is the underlying reason the attacks are so important. How does the evidence that "the attack were just a cooincidence" against "the attacks were part of a larger plan" stack up.

Saying "no" at this point is being willfully ignorant. The theory of the world trade center attack being a controlled demolition may have little to stand on (no pun intended), but this hardly means this level of speculation isn't warranted.

Extraordinary criminal versatility requires extraordinary big jumps to conclusions.

I guess you didn't progress beyond elementary school to make so many fallacies in one post.

[Senor_Pointy]

I guess you didn't progress beyond elementary school to make so many fallacies in one post.

Now that's not nice. In defense of SirPhilip, those conditions do warrant speculation.

Enough speculation to realize all available evidence points to the official conclusion. :rolleyes:

[Belz...]

Thermate is thermite with sulfer and/or barium nitrate added iirc.

AAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!

< runs around, screaming >

[Belz...]

Nope. It is Lee Van Cleef from the TV series "The Master" :D


NEAT! Between Bob_Kark's Eli Wallach, your Lee Van Cleef and another poster's Clint Eastwood, we have the entire trio!!

[azazal]

NEAT! Between Bob_Kark's Eli Wallach, your Lee Van Cleef and another poster's Clint Eastwood, we have the entire trio!!


The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly.. why does that sound like it would fit as the title for a "debate" with 9/11 CT nutcases?? :D

[Hellbound]

Thermate is thermite with sulfer and/or barium nitrate added iirc.

Just to be pendantic, Thermate is the specific name for the formulation used by the U.S. military, and is composed of thermite (68.7%), barium nitrate (29%), sulphur (2%), and fillers (0.3%). It is used as an incendiary device (the Barium nitrate increases the incendiary effect) and can be used for welding.

Thermite, buy itself, has a small radius of effect and burns with little flame. Thermate is specially formulated to increases the flame and burn radius.

[DavidJames]

Just to be pendantic, Thermate is the specific name for the formulation used by the U.S. military, and is composed of thermite (68.7%), barium nitrate (29%), sulphur (2%), and fillers (0.3%). It is used as an incendiary device (the Barium nitrate increases the incendiary effect) and can be used for welding.

Thermite, buy itself, has a small radius of effect and burns with little flame. Thermate is specially formulated to increases the flame and burn radius.and one of the LC loons (johndoe) is saying since barium nitrate is water soluble, it would have washed away and not be found coincidental with the sulphur.

Never mind that finding sulphur still isn't evidence of thermate or termites for that matter

[Hellbound]

and one of the LC loons (johndoe) is saying since barium nitrate is water soluble, it would have washed away and not be found coincidental with the sulphur.

Never mind that finding sulphur still isn't evidence of thermate or termites for that matter

Um...

Barium nitrate isn't what you'd have after the thermate went off. It'd be oxidized. You'd likely end up with Barium oxide and various other barium compounds (barium sulfate, perhaps?).

Of course, sulphur is flammable, as well, and the sulfer from inside a thermite reaction is likely to form various oxides and nitrates of sulphur, rather than a mixture with steel.

Frankly, you don't look for the ingredients that make up thermate, because they were involved in a multi-thousand degree fire. You look for the combustion and reaction products produced by thermate.

His argument is like claiming that a car engine can't run on gas, because no gas comes out the tailpipe.

[Senor_Pointy]

Frankly, you don't look for the ingredients that make up thermate, because they were involved in a multi-thousand degree fire. You look for the combustion and reaction products produced by thermate.

Come on, Huntsman, you don't actually think CTers understand "oxides" and "reaction products" and "evidence" do you? ;)

[Abbyas]

Thermate question

Because barium is soluble, would we expect all evidence of barium nitrate to wash away in water?


NEVERMIND: I see that the question has been answered and that I'm too lazy to read.

[Regnad Kcin]

In elementary school, we read literature and examined why each character did what and why. After months of this, and more complex situations, motives and themes were investigated in other books, you noticed people and events were more easily sized-up - and in some cases easy to predict their outcomes. Your interpretation never fell far from the consenus in class either. It was true, life made a comforting deal of sense. Looking back, I would have never guessed that a decade later, it would be such a rare life skill in American society. With that said, a lot of teachers around this country must feel like failures today. Sadly, the more it becomes evident the Iraq invasion was in actuality, pre-planned (http://www.sundayherald.com/39221), when you consider the loss of life (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/), this administration's mounting (http://www.salon.com/wire/ap/archive.html?wire=D8IQ5J9O0.html) criminal record, you arrive at two hard, sweeping questions:

1) Would they orchestrate the murder of American citizens as a stepping stone to dominating the middle east?

2) Bush has used the attacks incessantly to justify all his actions, and still does. This was, and still is, odd, moreso as it becomes concrete that it was simply illegal. If that really wasn't why Iraq was invaded, what was. Also, what is the underlying reason the attacks are so important. How does the evidence that "the attack were just a cooincidence" against "the attacks were part of a larger plan" stack up.

Saying "no" at this point is being willfully ignorant. The theory of the world trade center attack being a controlled demolition may have little to stand on (no pun intended), but this hardly means this level of speculation isn't warranted.

Extraordinary criminal versatility requires extraordinary big jumps to conclusions.Post hoc ergo propter hoc (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/post-hoc.html), methinks.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Just to be pendantic, Thermate is the specific name for the formulation used by the U.S. military, and is composed of thermite (68.7%), barium nitrate (29%), sulphur (2%), and fillers (0.3%). It is used as an incendiary device (the Barium nitrate increases the incendiary effect) and can be used for welding.

Thermite, buy itself, has a small radius of effect and burns with little flame. Thermate is specially formulated to increases the flame and burn radius.

You have to admit though, I didn't do bad for pulling from memory and being to lazy to search the forum for your exact post :D

[Pardalis]

Post hoc ergo propter hoc (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/post-hoc.html), methinks.

Among many others.

[Regnad Kcin]

Yes, but I was being gentle.

[SirPhilip]

I guess you didn't progress beyond elementary school to make so many fallacies in one post. Did I link to discredited writers again - (hey, I was getting tired of not being refuted, so I left that one unchecked).

[jon]

[/COLOR][/I]2) Bush has used the attacks incessantly to justify all his actions, and still does. This was, and still is, odd, moreso as it becomes concrete that it was simply illegal. If that really wasn't why Iraq was invaded, what was. Also, what is the underlying reason the attacks are so important. How does the evidence that "the attack were just a cooincidence" against "the attacks were part of a larger plan" stack up.

Saying "no" at this point is being willfully ignorant. The theory of the world trade center attack being a controlled demolition may have little to stand on (no pun intended), but this hardly means this level of speculation isn't warranted.

If the events of 9/11 were part of a conspiracy to justify war in Iraq, it must be a pretty lousy conspiracy. Surely any half-competent conspirator would fabricate a more convincing link between these events and Iraq?

[SirPhilip]

Now that's not nice. In defense of SirPhilip, those conditions do warrant speculation.

Enough speculation to realize all available evidence points to the official conclusion. :rolleyes: Keep in mind that I'm a card-carrying Republican who voted Bush in the second time - and would love to embrace the idea that we have a bunch of hard-working, though mishappen, people running this country at the moment who sincerely wanted to bring the light of democracy. The problem is, most likely the truth was, given how clumsily their follies have come to light:

1) George sat down and thought. "I ended up the President - I've done nothing with my life, but now I have a chance to exceed my father, whom I secretly resent..."

2) Cheney grimaced in the mirror: "Well, I'll be goddamned, I ended up the vice president, Nixon did nothing with his presidency, but now I have a chance to make him roll in his grave.."

[Weeks later..]

George: "Are you thinking what I'm thinking.."

Cheney: "Invade Iraq!""

George: "Hell yeah, man!"

[gumboot]

In elementary school, we read literature and examined why each character did what and why. After months of this, and more complex situations, motives and themes were investigated in other books, you noticed people and events were more easily sized-up - and in some cases easy to predict their outcomes.


Um... er... apologies for pointing out the GLARINGLY obvious, but you're talking about STORIES!

Stories are not real life (surprise!). Characters are not real people. Characters have consistant scene-specific objectives, and consistant story-specific Super-Objectives. These together dictate MOTIVATION.

Real people do not work like this. Real life does not have themes. It does not always have motivations. Sometimes people don't even know what is motivating them from one moment to the next.




Sadly, the more it becomes evident the Iraq invasion was in actuality, pre-planned (http://www.sundayherald.com/39221), when you consider the loss of life (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/), this administration's mounting (http://www.salon.com/wire/ap/archive.html?wire=D8IQ5J9O0.html) criminal record, you arrive at two hard, sweeping questions:



Actually I just came to a single conclusion, though I wouldn't call it "hard" or "sweeping".

You don't know what you're talking about.

-Andrew

[Johnny C.]

Arkan, is your avatar a ninja Larry David?
It does look like him. I just bought the fourth season of crub your enthusiasm, since i cancelled hbo. so funny.

[SirPhilip]

If the events of 9/11 were part of a conspiracy to justify war in Iraq, it must be a pretty lousy conspiracy. Surely any half-competent conspirator would fabricate a more convincing link between these events and Iraq? If the attacks didn't occur, there would have been no official (false) premise to invade Iraq, which is national security. The whole gist of my post in a nutshell is just a recognition of a motive. Clearly "evidence" for invading Iraq was intentionally fabricated. If it comes to light Bush had a motive before the attacks to invade Iraq, then the attacks cannot, and should not, be considered cooincidental no matter how many conspiracy theorists up the noise level. The reason they should not be considered cooincidental is there is overwhelming - direct and circumstantial - evidence of overwhelming corruption, that these people are war criminals, feel no guilt or responsibility over the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians and Americans, and it is only a matter of time before the debate stops and Americans accept this.

[Pardalis]

SirPhilips, take this to the political section of the board. This thread is about the 9/11 conspiracy theories.

If you have any real proof to bring forth, please do.

[Foster Zygote]

He's like the 6th grader who likes to prove how tough he is by beating up 3rd graders. But when the 8th graders show up...

That's usually when he cuts off their mic. Works for Bill O'Reilly too.

Steven

[jon]

SirPhilips, take this to the political section of the board. This thread is about the 9/11 conspiracy theories.

If you have any real proof to bring forth, please do.

split to here - http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=59868 - to give SirPhilips a chance to elaborate his point/expand on it.

[TheChadd]

Can we leave fox news aside? We should be happy that for once some airtime was given on fox to attack what most of us here on these forums believe in a mass perversion of the truth, that was being perpetuated in one of your country's universities.

[SirPhilip]

Um... er... apologies for pointing out the GLARINGLY obvious, but you're talking about STORIES!

Stories are not real life (surprise!). Characters are not real people. Characters have consistant scene-specific objectives, and consistant story-specific Super-Objectives. These together dictate MOTIVATION.

Real people do not work like this. Real life does not have themes. It does not always have motivations. Sometimes people don't even know what is motivating them from one moment to the next.

Actually I just came to a single conclusion, though I wouldn't call it "hard" or "sweeping".

You don't know what you're talking about.

-Andrew Bend over and prepare to receive the teachings (http://www2.tech.purdue.edu/cgt/courses/cgt411/covey/48_laws_of_power.htm), dweller in the land of endless sheep.

[valis]

I always found it extremely amusing when Fox News fans called CNN a leftist channel. And then I realized that from their point of view, this is actually correct. When you are on the far right, then everything else is to the left.

I don't know when the president of the network marries Jane Fonda, it's kind of easy to belive he might just be a tad left leaning.

I can't prove it but I will bet there is a higher percentage of Democrats at Fox than there is Republicans at CNN.

[Axiom_Blade]

Bend over and prepare to receive the teachings (http://www2.tech.purdue.edu/cgt/courses/cgt411/covey/48_laws_of_power.htm), dweller in the land of endless sheep.

Hhhmm...A lot of that reads like "48 Rules for Cult Leaders."

[Regnad Kcin]

Bend over and prepare to receive the teachings (http://www2.tech.purdue.edu/cgt/courses/cgt411/covey/48_laws_of_power.htm), dweller in the land of endless sheep.Platitudinous silliness.

[Kaarjuus]

I don't know when the president of the network marries Jane Fonda, it's kind of easy to belive he might just be a tad left leaning.

They have no idea what the word "left" means. For an extreme right-wing American, any other American not agreeing with his views is leftist. For me, they're all to the right.

[Pardalis]

SirPhilip, if you have anything of substance that would indicate the government's involvement in 9/11 please provide it. I'm still waiting.

[kookbreaker]

Bend over and prepare to receive the teachings (http://www2.tech.purdue.edu/cgt/courses/cgt411/covey/48_laws_of_power.htm), dweller in the land of endless sheep.

Rouser?

[SirPhilip]

SirPhilip, if you have anything of substance that would indicate the government's involvement in 9/11 please provide it. I'm still waiting. See this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=59868) for the continuation of the dialoge regarding it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_doubt).

[Pardalis]

All you have is inuendo and assumptions. You take what you think might be motives as evidence. It's not.

[twinstead]

All you have is inuendo and assumptions. You take what you think might be motives as evidence. It's not.

It just goes to show that if one is predisposed to believe something, the standard of evidence to prove it can be humorously low.

[DavidJames]

It just goes to show that if one is predisposed to believe something, the standard of evidence to prove it can be humorously low.There is a corollary here somewhere to the old saying when all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

It might start like...

When you believe in a conspiracy theory...

but I can't think of a concise conclusion, anyone?

[Kaarjuus]

When you believe in a conspiracy theory...

but I can't think of a concise conclusion, anyone?

When something starts to look like a conspiracy, everything starts to look like a conspiracy?

[SirPhilip]

All you have is inuendo and assumptions. You take what you think might be motives as evidence. It's not. You don't say?

[SirPhilip]

It just goes to show that if one is predisposed to believe something, the standard of evidence to prove it can be humorously low. Corruption, unlike woo, is quite a real observable phenomena these days. In fact it is turning into an entertainment industry of sorts writing about it. Since this administration has conspired constantly against the public trust, it is only a question of speculating about what opportunities they had in the past, since it is obvious they would seize any, to advance an agenda the public is only now uncovering..

[twinstead]

Corruption, unlike woo, is quite a real observable phenomena these days. In fact it is turning into an entertainment industry of sorts writing about it. Since this administration has conspired constantly against the public trust, it is only a question of speculating about what opportunities they had in the past, since it is obvious they would seize any, to advance an agenda the public is only now uncovering..

That is all well and good, but no matter what, before one goes accusing folks of mass murder IMHO there just needs to be some more substance than speculation, even if it is justified speculation.

[Pardalis]

You don't say?

What the f*** does that mean? :mad:

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Corruption, unlike woo, is quite a real observable phenomena these days. In fact it is turning into an entertainment industry of sorts writing about it. Since this administration has conspired constantly against the public trust, it is only a question of speculating about what opportunities they had in the past, since it is obvious they would seize any, to advance an agenda the public is only now uncovering..

This is exactly why your reasoning, on its own, can not stand. Let's simplify your statements

1) The gov't is currently constantly conspiring against the public trust. As this stands, it is an unsupported assertion
2) Therefore the gov't has always constantly conspired against the public trust. Although a pattern of behavior can be useful, it does not, by itself guarantee that the pattern is always true currently, and has always been true in the past
3) Therefore, any action that can be assigned a the property of conspiring against the public trust again, this is provided without support or logical justification must be the result of the gov't.

Now, without going through and naming every fallacy, of every step of your logic, we can just look at the last one to see where it falls apart. Your third step is equivalent to saying:
P: All dogs are furry
Q: Sam is furry
Q->P: Sam is a dog
This is a fallacy as Sam may be a cat, bear, water buffalo, etc.

Not only are you using faulty logic, but you haven't even supported your assertion that Sam is furry, or that all dogs are furry.

[Regnad Kcin]

Rouser?Not bad. Let's find out:

SirPhilip, where do you stand on the JFK assassination? Lone nutter, or conspiracy?

[SirPhilip]

That is all well and good, but no matter what, before one goes accusing folks of mass murder IMHO there just needs to be some more substance than speculation, even if it is justified speculation. Well, as damning evidence actually mounts on other issues, prominent people and organizations will start to raise these questions. Hopefully, laws will be re-written so anyone wanting to run for such a high position of government is screened using a PCL-R (http://www.hare.org/scales/pclr.html) test by a dozen independent criminal psychologists. The truth is, those who saw that Bush was morally insane, were the bright people. It was so many of us, who knew, but ignored the underlying character of the people we elected, and instead assumed they were at least being constructive, that were willfully ignorant and blindly faithful. If one thing happens in the 21'st century, not only in the U.S but globally, I hope it is recognizing the utter importance of not allowing demented people in positions of power.

Before anyone responds to this with the same question about evidence, this isn't a conspiracy theory, this is about crime on a mass scale. It's unfortunate, after all this destruction and discord, that so many people in this country have to suffer until an utterly damning piece of evidence to take these criminals down immediately shows up.

[senorpogo]

Before anyone responds to this with the same question about evidence, this isn't a conspiracy theory, this is about crime on a mass scale. It's unfortunate, after all this destruction and discord, that so many people in this country have to suffer until an utterly damning piece of evidence to take these criminals down immediately shows up.

More rhetoric, no proof. Got it!

[Pardalis]

More rhetoric, no proof. Got it!

Thanks for the post senor, it saved me the time to read his.

[twinstead]

Before anyone responds to this with the same question about evidence, this isn't a conspiracy theory, this is about crime on a mass scale. It's unfortunate, after all this destruction and discord, that so many people in this country have to suffer until an utterly damning piece of evidence to take these criminals down immediately shows up.

Interesting diatribe, but I would hope that if I am ever accused of a crime on a mass scale that the people accusing me have exactly utterly damning evidence.

I'm still trying to figure out how, without utterly damning evidence, this administration is any different than any other administration.

I hold a dim view of most politicians, but IMHO to make the jump to accuse people of mass murder, based on 'developing' evidence of unrelated things, just makes it seem that you have ideological bias.

Do you consider yourself objective?

[SirPhilip]

Not bad. Let's find out:

SirPhilip, where do you stand on the JFK assassination? Lone nutter, or conspiracy? Great shot, whoever did it.

[SirPhilip]

More rhetoric, no proof. Got it! If you don't want to believe there was foreknowledge or even involvement in the attacks, that's your opinion. There's plenty of evidence to drag these criminals in front of a U.N tribunal for starting an illegal war, but nothing has been done. It could be that there is none, however, like I pointed out, there is quite a reason to suspect such at this point. Without a doubt, we'll see if there was one way or the other..

[senorpogo]

If you don't want to believe there was foreknowledge or even involvement in the attacks, that's your opinion.

This isn't a matter of opinion. Either they had foreknowledge of the attacks or they did not. I have not seen convincing evidence that they possessed any foreknowledge.

[Regnad Kcin]

Great shot, whoever did it.Nope, not Rouser. :D

[kookbreaker]

Nope, not Rouser. :D

Good call.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Well, as damning evidence actually mounts on other issues

What issues? How are they relevant?


, prominent people and organizations will start to raise these questions.

What people? What organizations? What evidence would cause them to connect these events?

...The truth is, those who saw that Bush was morally insane,

What does the phrase "morally insane" mean? What evidence do you have showing that President Bush fits the definition?

...
Before anyone responds to this with the same question about evidence, this isn't a conspiracy theory, this is about crime on a mass scale. It's unfortunate, after all this destruction and discord, that so many people in this country have to suffer until an utterly damning piece of evidence to take these criminals down immediately shows up.

Are you seriously saying that the bigger the crime the less conclusive the evidence needs to be?

[SirPhilip]

This isn't a matter of opinion. Either they had foreknowledge of the attacks or they did not. I have not seen convincing evidence that they possessed any foreknowledge. Neither have I, but that hasn't been my point. Let's use the other half of our brains, once again:

1) It is likely that they would, if given the opportunity, do so, as it has been clear there was a criminal agenda that wasn't public going on.

2) Evidence in this situation serves to reduce the likelyhood of what they could have done. This isn't an innocent (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002/05/15/bush-warned.htm) until proven guilty situation, this is a case where if the opportunity presented itself, it was likely taken advantage of. That "if" is what is important, and what is imperitive dialogue, since neither of us have any way of knowing until he's impeached (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_to_impeach_George_W._Bush) and a real investigation is under way. Personally, I think he knew they would occur and there is a high likelyhood that there was indirect scheming to ensure that occured.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Great shot, whoever did it.

I confess... I was the grassy knoll.

Not the shooter, mind you, just the knoll.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Neither have I, but that hasn't been my point. Let's use the other half of our brains, once again:

1) It is likely that they would, if given the opportunity, do so, as it has been clear there was a criminal agenda that wasn't public going on.

2) Evidence in this situation serves to reduce the likelyhood of what they could have done. This isn't an innocent (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002/05/15/bush-warned.htm) until proven guilty situation, this is a case where if the opportunity presented itself, it was likely taken advantage of. That "if" is what is important, and what is imperitive dialogue, since neither of us have any way of knowing until he's impeached (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_to_impeach_George_W._Bush) and a real investigation is under way. Personally, I think he knew they would occur and there is a high likelyhood that there was indirect scheming to ensure that occured.
P: All dogs are furry
Q: Sam is furry
Q->P: Sam is a dog
This is a fallacy as Sam may be a cat, bear, water buffalo, etc.

Not only are you using faulty logic, but you haven't even supported your assertion that Sam is furry, or that all dogs are furry.

Are you seriously saying that the bigger the crime the less conclusive the evidence needs to be?

[Pardalis]

Are you seriously saying that the bigger the crime the less conclusive the evidence needs to be?

You know the wise old saying, "For every devastation, there is an opportunity..." ;)

[SirPhilip]

I confess... I was the grassy knoll.

Not the shooter, mind you, just the knoll. I'm a shooter and also collect military firearms, among them the Carcano M38 is about the most mediocre centerfire "sniper rifle" anyone could grab at a gunshop; it also fires a poorly designed cartridge with lousy ballistics, so my opinion is basically that Oswald was:

1) Very bored.

2) Rebelling against hippie culture.

3) Very bored and rebelling against hippie culture.

[SirPhilip]

P: All official logic is fuzzy
Q: Sam is naked
Q->P: Sam is an Emperor
This is a fallacy as Sam may not be a Naploeon, Stalin, Saddam, etc.

Not only are you using faulty logic, but you haven't even supported your assertion that Sam is furry, or that all dogs are furry. Are you seriously saying that the bigger the crime the less conclusive the evidence needs to be? Q: The Emperor is naked.
Q->P: The Emperor has no clothes (http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2003/10/17_byrd_emperor.htm).

The emperor must then be guilty of countless crimes, limited only by opportunity and utility.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I'm a shooter and also collect military firearms, among them the Carcano M38 is about the most mediocre centerfire "sniper rifle" anyone could grab at a gunshop; it also fires a poorly designed cartridge with lousy ballistics, so my opinion is basically that Oswald was:

1) Very bored.

2) Rebelling against hippie culture.

3) Very bored and rebelling against hippie culture.

I read a review of sorts that Tom Clancy wrote on what he called "a flatulent hollywood fantasy", Oliver Stones "JFK" wherein he said that he personally handled Oswalds rifle while visiting FBI headquarters and determined that hitting the president from the book repository was not that big a deal and could have easily been done.

I couldn't find an on-line version of the essay, but you can find the book it was printed in here:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0425186229/qid=1152920569/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-4958118-7768846?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

[senorpogo]

Neither have I, but that hasn't been my point. Let's use the other half of our brains, once again:

1) It is likely that they would, if given the opportunity, do so, as it has been clear there was a criminal agenda that wasn't public going on.

Why is this clear? How do you know what they would do?

2) Evidence in this situation serves to reduce the likelyhood of what they could have done. This isn't an innocent (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002/05/15/bush-warned.htm) until proven guilty situation, this is a case where if the opportunity presented itself, it was likely taken advantage of.

Knowing that a terrorist group wants to attack your country and knowing the particulars while doing nothing to stop it are completely different situations. Rhetoric does not equal proof.

That "if" is what is important, and what is imperitive dialogue, since neither of us have any way of knowing until he's impeached (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_to_impeach_George_W._Bush) and a real investigation is under way. Personally, I think he knew they would occur and there is a high likelyhood that there was indirect scheming to ensure that occured.

Proof, evidence, anything? Belief proves nothing.

[senorpogo]

Q: The Emperor is naked.
Q->P: The Emperor has no clothes (http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2003/10/17_byrd_emperor.htm).

The emperor must then be guilty of countless crimes, limited only by opportunity and utility.

LOL!

[SirPhilip]

What does the phrase "morally insane" mean? What evidence do you have showing that President Bush fits the definition? Seriously, that isn't funny.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Q: The Emperor is naked.
Q->P: The Emperor has no clothes (http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2003/10/17_byrd_emperor.htm).

The emperor must then be guilty of countless crimes, limited only by opportunity and utility.

Quoting a former Grand Cyclops of the Klan, nice.

/golfclap

"The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth in every state in the Union."

- Senator Robert Byrd

[SirPhilip]

Proof, evidence, anything? Belief proves nothing. I really don't know what it takes for any reasonable person with an IQ above a turnip not to believe Bush has - how can I put this - questionable morals. (Why not tell us. A lobotomy? Has it been a year since you read or watched the news? Did you take a massive bong rip and write that in the throes of short-term memory loss?). Most people here, even if they disagree that my contention of involvement is jumping to conclusions, will agree that is valid, due to overwhelming circumstantial evidence.

[SirPhilip]

Quoting a former Grand Cyclops of the Klan, nice.

/golfclap

"The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth in every state in the Union."

- Senator Robert Byrd I suspected sooner or later I'd end up using some miserable liberal as a reference link, but didn't think I'd strike out like that. Still, this is irrelevant
to the valid points he raised, early on.

[Regnad Kcin]

Please list three of Mr. Bush's "questionable morals." Thanks.

[Regnad Kcin]

Quoting a former Grand Cyclops of the Klan, nice.

/golfclap

"The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth in every state in the Union."

- Senator Robert ByrdSword, do you have a date for that quote?

[senorpogo]

I really don't know what it takes for any reasonable person with an IQ above a turnip not to believe Bush has - how can I put this - questionable morals.

I have not recently had an IQ test so I am not sure how I'd compare to a turnip. I am, however, a college graduate who has achieved a master's degree.

(Why not tell us. A lobotomy?
No. I have not had a lobotomy.

Has it been a year since you read or watched the news?
No. I watch the news nightly and spend a large deal of time surfing blogs and news sites.

Did you take a massive bong rip and write that in the throes of short-term memory loss?).
I have never used drugs outside of alcohol and I have not been drunk while posting on this thread.

Most people here, even if they disagree that my contention of involvement is jumping to conclusions, will agree that is valid, due to overwhelming circumstantial evidence.

To clarify - you are claiming that the majority of people here will agree that there is overwhelming evidence that Bush had foreknowledge of the attacks of 9/11?
Please provide this overwhelming evidence so I too can agree with it.

[SirPhilip]

I read a review of sorts that Tom Clancy wrote on what he called "a flatulent hollywood fantasy", Oliver Stones "JFK" wherein he said that he personally handled Oswalds rifle while visiting FBI headquarters and determined that hitting the president from the book repository was not that big a deal and could have easily been done. Assuming you had a M38 in good condition, with zeroed sights, had cleaned the barrel, firing surplus ammunition, your shots would probably group within an 8 inch circle at 100 yards from the full length rifle. Oswald's was the carbine variant with a shorter barrel. Tom Clancy's crap is well known for it's lack of authenticity and mind-numbing length. One wonders if the man simply has an uncontrollable, obsessive compulsive habit for typing anything at length regarding military life. Anything by Richard Marcinko is a vastly more entertaining read.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Sword, do you have a date for that quote?

1946, I think. Three years after Byrd claims he disassociated himself from the klan.

[Regnad Kcin]

Well, I'm willing to cut a man a little slack on memory of dated events from 60 years prior, never mind the possibility he's done a little growning up since then.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Well, I'm willing to cut a man a little slack on memory of dated events from 60 years prior, never mind the possibility he's done a little growning up since then.

One can hope.

Wanna meet back here in 60 years and see if the holocaust deniers at Loose Change have done any growing up?

[Nate Whilk]

I always found it extremely amusing when Fox News fans called CNN a leftist channel. And then I realized that from their point of view, this is actually correct. When you are on the far right, then everything else is to the left.I find it depressing that people on the left (many of whom say every viewpoint should be considered) don't acknowledge the opposite: if you're on the far left, CNN would look centrist. Or even on the right.

If the events of 9/11 were part of a conspiracy to justify war in Iraq, it must be a pretty lousy conspiracy. Surely any half-competent conspirator would fabricate a more convincing link between these events and Iraq?I have to say I don't think this reasoning is productive. It resembles "Uri Geller's failures proves he's real, because a conjuror would never fail."

[Nate Whilk]

Saying "no" at this point is being willfully ignorant. The theory of the world trade center attack being a controlled demolition may have little to stand on (no pun intended), but this hardly means this level of speculation isn't warranted.Personally, I'm not that interested in speculation. I am interested in compelling evidence.

[Gravy]

I really don't know what it takes for any reasonable person with an IQ above a turnip not to believe Bush has - how can I put this - questionable morals. (Why not tell us. A lobotomy? Has it been a year since you read or watched the news? Did you take a massive bong rip and write that in the throes of short-term memory loss?). Most people here, even if they disagree that my contention of involvement is jumping to conclusions, will agree that is valid, due to overwhelming circumstantial evidence.
You're comparing people here to turnips, lobotomy patients, and potheads. Yet you voted for Bush AFTER he invaded Iraq. Me and my friends, and millions of people around the world, were marching in the streets over this in 2002 and 2003. Thanks for all your help, SirPhilip.

[SRW]

I'm a shooter and also collect military firearms, among them the Carcano M38 is about the most mediocre centerfire "sniper rifle" anyone could grab at a gunshop; it also fires a poorly designed cartridge with lousy ballistics, so my opinion is basically that Oswald was:

1) Very bored.

2) Rebelling against hippie culture.

3) Very bored and rebelling against hippie culture.

In 63 them hippies were some fine shooters, at least when they didn't eat too many coo coo pops.

[SirPhilip]

You're comparing people here to turnips, lobotomy patients, and potheads. Yet you voted for Bush AFTER he invaded Iraq. Me and my friends, and millions of people around the world, were marching in the streets over this in 2002 and 2003. Thanks for all your help, SirPhilip. John Kerry, who I consider equally corrupt, likely would have immediately disrupted the Iraq effort, plus I figured at the time "He started it, let him clean it up..".

[SirPhilip]

Personally, I'm not that interested in speculation. I am interested in compelling evidence. Aren't we all..

[SirPhilip]

Well, I'm willing to cut a man a little slack on memory of dated events from 60 years prior, never mind the possibility he's done a little growning up since then. Just a little off the top and sides please.

[SirPhilip]

I have not recently had an IQ test so I am not sure how I'd compare to a turnip. I am, however, a college graduate who has achieved a master's degree. Well, I suppose I shouldn't be too shocked, we see educated people who should know better on the tube all the time, but in your case, simply because I can't believe anyone could be this thick, "Do you have proof Bush is not moral.." I'll assume was a jab a humor.

To clarify - you are claiming that the majority of people here will agree that there is overwhelming evidence that Bush had foreknowledge of the attacks of 9/11? Please provide this overwhelming evidence so I too can agree with it. I've made it clear several times my position (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probable_cause) is strong suspicion, despite being that, which becomes increasingly more possible as time goes by.

[SirPhilip]

Please list three of Mr. Bush's "questionable morals." Thanks. If you are going to try to break my balls, seriously, at least be more creative.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

If you are going to try to break my balls, seriously, at least be more creative.

No, what Regnad (and, I think, everyone else in this thread) have been asking for is evidence. So far, you have provided nothing more than supposition, claims lacking support evidence, and insults.

ETA: Hell, you won't even define a phrase when asked to, instead resorting to further insults.

[SirPhilip]

No, what Regnad (and, I think, everyone else in this thread) have been asking for is evidence. So far, you have provided nothing more than supposition, claims lacking support evidence, and insults.

ETA: Hell, you won't even define a phrase when asked to, instead resorting to further insults. Let me get this straight, you think (I use that term loosely) George W Bush has not behaved in a morally or ethically questionable way, or - a huge stretch I know - criminal manner? I think we should address something far more of interest to this forum's readers. There is an urban myth that, deep under the earth, spirits are tortured in hell. This was a big hit with alarmist fundamentalists, but was debunked immediately. Since your head must be buried thousands of feet under it, have you heard anything? Groans, shrieks, even impish breathing. Anything?

[gumboot]

Let me get this straight, you think (I use that term loosely) George W Bush has not behaved in a morally or ethically questionable way, or - a huge stretch I know - criminal manner?


As the citizen of an anti-American nation that has had incredible dislike of the United States for longer than any Arab nation, and furthermore a nation that was one of the most outspoken opponants of the invasion of Iraq, I state that no, I do not believe that George W Bush has behaived in a morally or ethically questionable way, let alone a criminal manner.

Now, I don't agree with some of his methodology, nor with his speechwriter. Were I an American, I would not even consider voting for him. But it is a stretch from "disagreement" or even "wrong" to "morally or ethically questionable".

For the sake of an ignorant foreigner, would you mind detailing this dispicable behaivour?

-Andrew

[senorpogo]

Well, I suppose I shouldn't be too shocked, we see educated people who should know better on the tube all the time, but in your case, simply because I can't believe anyone could be this thick, "Do you have proof Bush is not moral.." I'll assume was a jab a humor.

Let's assume that I am being serious. Let's assume that I am that thick. (Actually, you've apparently already done so.) Please enlighten me on how Bush is not moral AND how him displaying that lack of morals logically proves that he would happily kill 3,000 Americans for his own gain.

Even if Bush is immoral, even if he's acted immorally in the past, even if you prove both those claims with 100% certainty, it does not logically follow that he had foreknowledge of the acts on 9/11. Heck, even if you can prove that Bush WOULD let 3,000 Americans die in those attacks you wouldn't have proven that he DID allow 3,000 Americans to die in those attacks.

I've made it clear several times my position (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probable_cause) is strong suspicion, despite being that, which becomes increasingly more possible as time goes by.

How is it becoming increasingly more possible? And where is the probable cause? Sir, you're accusing a sitting president of complicity of murder and have nothing more than a strong suspicion, a suspicion that you cannot articulate well enough to convince even a small number of people here at this board. Doesn't this tell you something about your arguments, evidence, and beliefs? Or is it - again - because we're all stupid?

Also, I can't help but notice you didn't answer my previous question, "To clarify - you are claiming that the majority of people here will agree that there is overwhelming evidence that Bush had foreknowledge of the attacks of 9/11?"

Finally, please refrain from the personal attacks. If you look, I've been polite enough to focus on the argument and not the person so the least I think you can do is show me the same respect. You can just cut it out from your posts and I'll just pretend that you're insulting me the whole while.

[Gravy]

John Kerry, who I consider equally corrupt, likely would have immediately disrupted the Iraq effort, plus I figured at the time "He started it, let him clean it up..".
Who could argue with that impeccable logic?

[ktesibios]

Depending on how you define "morality", you can probably slag just about anyone in the world as "morally insane" (excepting, of course, myself, since I am by definition perfect), politician or not.

For example, quite a few Presidents have cheated on their wives. Both Franklin Roosevelt and Warren Harding are known to have done so, yet as Presidents the former is generally acknowledged as a very high achiever and the latter as an utter sadsack. The philandering isn't necessary to the assessment of either, nor should it be.

Dig deep enough into anyone's history and you can most likely find some shady stuff. If the problem at hand is to assess someone's performance at their job, you have either to demonstrate that the shadiness is relevant to their performance or else to ignore it as irrelevant.

Now as to things which are relevant to a performance review of a President, I personally don't think that George W. Bush is a particularly competent executive nor someone who consistently exercises good judgement nor a clear thinker nor someone whose basic political outlook is one I can support. That's an opinion; we happen to have a "Politics and Current Events" forum devoted to the purpose of arguing about such things.

When we come to talking about stuff that's part of external physical reality, such as exactly what happened on 9/11 and who was responsible, opinions about anyone's "morality" are as completely useless in solving the problem as they would be to me in solving the problem of why the BA-6A on my workbench thumps when it goes into gain reduction. There is neither a Democratic nor Republican diagnosis of that problem, there is only the diagnosis to which logically considering the evidence, and testing hypotheses suggested by the evidence, will eventually lead.

I do so wish that people would stop confusing political opinion or personal affinity for evidence and logic in the real world.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Let me get this straight, you think (I use that term loosely) George W Bush has not behaved in a morally or ethically questionable way, or - a huge stretch I know - criminal manner? I think we should address something far more of interest to this forum's readers. There is an urban myth that, deep under the earth, spirits are tortured in hell. This was a big hit with alarmist fundamentalists, but was debunked immediately. Since your head must be buried thousands of feet under it, have you heard anything? Groans, shrieks, even impish breathing. Anything?

I have made no statements as to my opinion of the ethicalness of any of President Bush's actions. What I have said, repeatedly, is for you to provide evidence supporting your assertion that there is a sufficient pattern of major corruption in the administration to warrant suspecting them of involvement in the 9/11 attacks without having hard evidence directly tying them to the attacks.

Secondly, stop with the personal attacks or I will being reporting posts to the mods.

[SirPhilip]

I have made no statements as to my opinion of the ethicalness of any of President Bush's actions. What I have said, repeatedly, is for you to provide evidence supporting your assertion that there is a sufficient pattern of major corruption in the administration to warrant suspecting them of involvement in the 9/11 attacks without having hard evidence directly tying them to the attacks. It's a baffling mystery to you why Bush's approval ratings became so low and a good portion of high profile people on both political parties are calling into question very serious premeditated corruption charges, evidence of which, circumstantial and otherwise (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060714/ap_on_go_ot/cia_leak_lawsuit), is comprehensively available on the web.

Secondly, stop with the personal attacks or I will being reporting posts to the mods. Keep responding to my replies like a JREF Paranormal Claims Department AI web script and I'll eventually be reduced to actually smacking you around for mocking proper skepticism (http://movies.crooksandliars.com/CSPAN-Pre-War-Intel-Failures.wmv). Until then, I'll nicely encourage you to read what I write before responding and stop with the bad attempts at humor, like asking me to pull a CNN political bombshell that will immediately result in impeachment proceedings and a warcrimes tribunal out of my hat to convince you there is a basis for an enormous distrust in this administration, which is reflected throughout this country and the world right now.

[Regnad Kcin]

If you are going to try to break my balls, seriously, at least be more creative.Please list three of Mr. Bush's "questionable morals." Thanks.

[SirPhilip]

Please list three of Mr. Bush's "questionable morals." Thanks. No, you've depressed me enough the past two days. Try to fathom how someone would accuse Bush of questionable morals, and maybe if your guesswork is encouraging I'll reveal the mysteries of common sense to you, and you can perform these feats regularly without concrete evidence and amaze your friends.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

No, you've depressed me enough the past two days. Try to fathom how someone would accuse Bush of questionable morals, and maybe if your guesswork is encouraging I'll reveal the mysteries of common sense to you, and you can perform these feats regularly without concrete evidence and amaze your friends.

Phil, the crowd around here appears (at least to me) to be fairly liberal. Many, if not most, of them likely wouldn't hasitate to accuse Bush of having moral issues.

What they will hesitate to do, however, is hesitate to accuse him or anyone of murdering 3,000 of his own countrymen without damned good evidence.

[Regnad Kcin]

No, you've depressed me enough the past two days. Try to fathom how someone would accuse Bush of questionable morals, and maybe if your guesswork is encouraging I'll reveal the mysteries of common sense to you, and you can perform these feats regularly without concrete evidence and amaze your friends.In other words, you delight in floating insinuations, but can't manage to support them, push come to shove. I thought as much, but wanted to make sure.

[Levantine]

Wow, I'm disappointed. This is turning out like when I was in elementary school and my buddy told me he could fly. I asked him to do it and his reply was "I could, but I don't want to". And SirPhillip has the balls to accuse OTHERS of mocking proper skepticism.

Evidence or nothing. Your argument looks like a whole lot of nothing SirPhillip.

[SirPhilip]

In other words, you delight in floating insinuations, but can't manage to support them, push come to shove. I thought as much, but wanted to make sure. No no, I delight in you asking me asinine questions like: "Please list three of Mr. Bush's "questionable morals." Thanks." and me not answering them. Much like a Daily Show freeform sketch of sorts with a constant punchline, but without any direction. Actually I'm lying, that part of this dialogue is just disheartening to read. Free clue: It is likely that asking the average punk teenager off the street you will get an adaquete answer on all three questions off the top of their heads.

[SirPhilip]

Wow, I'm disappointed. This is turning out like when I was in elementary school and my buddy told me he could fly. I asked him to do it and his reply was "I could, but I don't want to". And SirPhillip has the balls to accuse OTHERS of mocking proper skepticism.

Evidence or nothing. Your argument looks like a whole lot of nothing SirPhillip. You've got to believe me, it's an emotional thing. I would briskly answer if the themes of will, triumpth and a monolithic birth of insight didn't suddenly come into play. I just can't bring myself to answer: "Please list three of Mr. Bush's "questionable morals.." and affirm that Bush having questionable morals is up for debate at this point without at least him trying to apprehend why anyone would say such a thing. I'm going to wait patiently until his four neurons go into superposition with others that talk to the two on the left side of his head, the trumpets sound, and he exclaims: "I was blind but now I see - those things really are morally questionable, what the hell is the holdup impeaching him?"

[SirPhilip]

Phil, the crowd around here appears (at least to me) to be fairly liberal. That is something that I seriously doubt. Or perhaps it's just a question of butting heads over your own wrongheadedness, not politics.


Many, if not most, of them likely wouldn't hasitate to accuse Bush of having moral issues. What they will hesitate to do, however, is hesitate to accuse him or anyone of murdering 3,000 of his own countrymen without damned good evidence.

I clearly said that this should be acknowledged as an opportunity that Bush would likey have acted upon, and (foreknowledge, or indirect involvement) therefore should be entertained as a real possibility, not baseless conspiracy, based on mounting circumstantial evidence of other criminal and unethical activity. Trying to make an argument by reducing how the higher ups could have known through public channels about the attacks is ludicrous (http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=7102).

[NDBoston]

That is something that I seriously doubt. Or perhaps it's just a question of butting heads over your own wrongheadedness, not politics.

I clearly said that this should be acknowledged as an opportunity that Bush would likey have acted upon, and (foreknowledge, or indirect involvement) therefore should be entertained as a real possibility, not baseless conspiracy, based on mounting circumstantial evidence of other criminal and unethical activity. Trying to make an argument by reducing how the higher ups could have known through public channels about the attacks is [cfr.org/publication.html?id=7102"]ludicrous[/URL].


This was my favorite part from the link you provided on the book review.

Relying heavily on innuendo and circumstantial evidence, he alleges that these two powerful families were somehow responsible for (among other things): the Iran-contra scandal, the collapse of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (B.C.C.I.) and George W. Bush's narrow victory in the contested 2000 presidential election. His charges are so extreme -- and so varied -- that you finish the book expecting to read that the Bushes and Saudis were also behind the Knicks' lousy record last season, or the firing of the beloved Dallas Cowboys coach, Jimmy Johnson, in 1992. Oh, wait -- Unger actually does make that charge, spelling out the Saudi-Cowboys link in an extended footnote.

I'm a Liberal Democrat. I also was at 7WTC for 3 years up until 9-11.

You will allow me to wonder how the controlled demolition of my building happened when there was no constructon going on the top 18 floors during my time there. Not to mention the fact that people were on a number of those floors 24/7 because they were trading areas.

I have a large hatred for any of the Bush clan because of our involvement in the Iraqi war. I'm also smart enough not to take that hatred and have it blind me to the facts. Go talk to a structural engineer. Ask them what they think of the theories of Steven Jones.

[Regnad Kcin]

No no, I delight in you asking me asinine questions like: "Please list three of Mr. Bush's "questionable morals." Thanks."That's not a question. Questions have those little squiggly marks at the end of the sentence.

I asked -- that is, requested -- for you to support this (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1769384&postcount=98):I really don't know what it takes for any reasonable person with an IQ above a turnip not to believe Bush has - how can I put this - questionable morals. (Why not tell us. A lobotomy? Has it been a year since you read or watched the news? Did you take a massive bong rip and write that in the throes of short-term memory loss?). Most people here, even if they disagree that my contention of involvement is jumping to conclusions, will agree that is valid, due to overwhelming circumstantial evidence.Since the "circumstantial evidence" is "overwhelming," you should be able to provide a little sampler of it. Since you seem so convinced of your position, I would imagine it to be an easy task.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

It's a baffling mystery to you why Bush's approval ratings became so low

Public opinion poll ratings are irrelevent to establishing a history of corruption serious enough to lend provisional support the assertion that President Bush's administration would have viewed the Sept. 11 attacks as nothing more than an opportunity to follow through on nefarious Plan X.


and a good portion of high profile people on both political parties are calling into question very serious premeditated corruption charges, evidence of which, circumstantial and otherwise (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060714/ap_on_go_ot/cia_leak_lawsuit), is comprehensively available on the web.

Based on this logic, practically any prior administration can be accused of the same.


Keep responding to my replies like a JREF Paranormal Claims Department AI web script and I'll eventually be reduced to actually smacking you around for mocking proper skepticism (http://movies.crooksandliars.com/CSPAN-Pre-War-Intel-Failures.wmv). Until then, I'll nicely encourage you to read what I write before responding and stop with the bad attempts at humor, like asking me to pull a CNN political bombshell that will immediately result in impeachment proceedings and a warcrimes tribunal out of my hat to convince you there is a basis for an enormous distrust in this administration, which is reflected throughout this country and the world right now.

Perhaps you could then point out [specifically] how I have failed to follow good scientific/critical thinking as defined here (http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/jarrett/talks/LiU/sci_method_2.html); especially sections

Through the scientific method, we aim for objectivity: basing conclusions on external validation. And we avoid mysticism: basing conclusions on personal insights that elude external validation.

Science leads us toward rationalism: basing conclusions on logic and evidence. And science helps us avoid dogmatism: basing conclusions on authority rather than logic and evidence.
and

Modern skepticism is embodied in the scientific method, which involves gathering data to test natural explanations for natural phenomenon. A claim becomes factual when it is confirmed to such an extent that it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement. But all facts in science are provisional and subject to challenge, and therefore skepticism is a method leading to provisional conclusions.

ETA: Whereas you have continually used "poisoning the well", argumentum ad populum/argumentum ad numerum, argumentum ad hominem, argumentum ad misericordiam, and dicto simpliciter fallacies so often in your posts they are practically a textbook example of how not to present a logically valid debate argument.

[senorpogo]

ETA: Whereas you have continually used "poisoning the well", argumentum ad populum/argumentum ad numerum, argumentum ad hominem, argumentum ad misericordiam, and dicto simpliciter fallacies so often in your posts they are practically a textbook example of how not to present a logically valid debate argument.

There's also a tendency to avoid direct questions. Don't know which argumentum that is.

[SirPhilip]

Public opinion poll ratings are irrelevent to establishing a history of corruption serious enough to lend provisional support the assertion that President Bush's administration would have viewed the Sept. 11 attacks as nothing more than an opportunity to follow through on nefarious Plan X. - Public opinion poll ratings are at an all time low, primarily, I would guess, because of possibly illegal civilian wiretapping, lack of public trust, and strong controversy over the information and motives used toinvade Iraq.

- Nefarious plans are what impeachment proceedings and warcrimes trials are for uncovering.

Based on this logic, practically any prior administration can be accused of the same. I'd use Kim Jong's regime as an example, but you'd probably respond with the same blockheaded rationalizations, utterly failing to see the forest (what we can assume about a person's character) for the trees (what the person has been proven beyond a doubt to have actually done that has been criminal).[/quote]

Perhaps you could then point out [specifically] how I have failed to follow good scientific/critical thinking as defined here (http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/jarrett/talks/LiU/sci_method_2.html); especially sections. As much as I'd love to have a reproducible method to root out organized crime, political corruption, and profiling methods which ensure things like the rift and slow burn to what everyone knew anyway in this country don't occur again, civilization hasn't advanced that far yet. My point has been about the importance of intuition, which a lot of Republicans, myself included, put on a back burner because we didn't have any substantial reason to consider that the character of those involved were completely corrupt. This has been rapidly changing the past two years. That is my point in a nutshell. If you can't recognize this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_impeachment), may I suggest watching Scorsese films for three days straight and actually reading up on the subject?

ETA: Whereas you have continually used "poisoning the well", argumentum ad populum/argumentum ad numerum, argumentum ad hominem, argumentum ad misericordiam, and dicto simpliciter fallacies so often in your posts they are practically a textbook example of how not to present a logically valid debate argument.You still don't get it I don't have evidence to actually convict the Bush administration of war crimes or impeach him, and this hasn't been the focus of what I've written. When dealing with people, reason is a combination of intuition (what we assume about a person based on backround and trappings) and their actual behavior. Republicans like me overlooked the former and gave him the benefit of the doubt, because democracy in Iraq was a worthy goal.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

- Public opinion poll ratings are at an all time low, primarily, I would guess, because of possibly illegal civilian wiretapping, lack of public trust, and strong controversy over the information and motives used toinvade Iraq.

Again, you are making nothing but assumptions here.


- Nefarious plans are what impeachment proceedings and warcrimes trials are for uncovering.

No, impeachments are for
In the constitutions of several countries, impeachment is the first of two stages in a specific process for a legislative body to remove a government official without that official's agreement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment



I'd use Kim Jong's regime as an example, but you'd probably respond with the same blockheaded rationalizations, utterly failing to see the forest (what we can assume about a person's character) for the trees (what the person has been proven beyond a doubt to have actually done that has been criminal).
Assumptions are not used in trials, scientific endeavors, or even investigative journalism. You are trying to rationalize your claims without having to back them up.


As much as I'd love to have a reproducible method to root out organized crime, political corruption,
You are willfully ignoring the most relevant points of the like I provided in an attempt to create a strawman. Stop it and address the points I highlighted from the Shermer article.


and profiling methods

Profiling methodology is used to make educated guesses about the characteristics of a criminal.


which ensure things like the rift and slow burn to what everyone knew anyway in this country don't occur again,

No, that is why the US has a checks and balances form of gov't.


civilization hasn't advanced that far yet.

Unsubstantiated opinion.


My point has been about the importance of intuition, which a lot of Republicans, myself included, put on a back burner because we didn't have any substantial reason to consider that the character of those involved were completely corrupt. This has been rapidly changing the past two years. That is my point in a nutshell.

Intuition also tells us:
The Earth is flat.
The Sun revolves around the Earth.
Gambler's luck fallacy.
Monte Haul fallacy.
1 <>.999...
And many other things which, upon application of logic and evidence show to be wrong.


If you can't recognize this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_impeachment), may I suggest watching Scorsese films for three days straight and actually reading up on the subject?

Scorsese is a Hollywood director. Suggesting that he has some expert insight into criminal law and gov't is a blatant appeal to authority fallacy


You still don't get it I don't have evidence to actually convict the Bush administration of war crimes or impeach him, and this hasn't been the focus of what I've written. When dealing with people, reason is a combination of intuition (what we assume about a person based on backround and trappings) and their actual behavior. Republicans like me overlooked the former and gave him the benefit of the doubt, because democracy in Iraq was a worthy goal.
And you still don't get that making a claim, based upon pattern recognition (which in humans can lead to false positives) without, at least circumstantial, evidence is nothing more than mental masturbation.

[SirPhilip]

That's not a question. Questions have those little squiggly marks at the end of the sentence. I asked -- that is, requested -- for you to support this (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1769384&postcount=98):Since the "circumstantial evidence" is "overwhelming," you should be able to provide a little sampler of it. Since you seem so convinced of your position, I would imagine it to be an easy task. Not sure why you want just three, but these are a few of the main ones that are responsible for the enormous public distrust, and a few simple, valid reasons why:

1) The wiretapping fiasco.

"...no court has held squarely that the Constitution disables the Congress from endeavoring to set limits on that power. To the contrary, the Supreme Court has stated that Congress does indeed have power to regulate domestic surveillance... the NSA surveillance program... would appear to be inconsistent with the law." - Congressional Research Service, January 2006 One has to wonder what Bush was thinking at the time he tried to pull this, or did he simply have his nose buried in a mound of cocaine.

2 ) Blaming the falsehoods that were used as an argument for the invasion of Iraq on the intelligence community, which was disputed at the time and reported to the administration. You could argue why would anyone with half a brain would implicate themselves later on when this was found out to be false, but a clear pattern of recklessness, conspiracy, and indifference exists in an alarming amount of decisions this administration has made.

3) The subsequent outing of Valerie Plame, which is hopefully going to a criminal court soon.

It isn't hard to infer a portrait of recklessness, attempts to subvert the constitution, indifference from these and a myriad of other concerns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_impeachment). Which has been, and will be, eventually at a tribunal, brought to a global stage.

[RandFan]

It's a baffling mystery to you why Bush's approval ratings became so low and a good portion of high profile people on both political parties are calling into question very serious premeditated corruption charges, evidence of which, circumstantial and otherwise (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060714/ap_on_go_ot/cia_leak_lawsuit), is comprehensively available on the web. Argument ad populum? What high profile people? What evidence?

[RandFan]

Not sure why you want just three, but these are a few of the main ones that are responsible for the enormous public distrust, and a few simple, valid reasons why:

1) The wiretapping fiasco.

"...no court has held squarely that the Constitution disables the Congress from endeavoring to set limits on that power. To the contrary, the Supreme Court has stated that Congress does indeed have power to regulate domestic surveillance... the NSA surveillance program... would appear to be inconsistent with the law." - Congressional Research Service, January 2006 One has to wonder what Bush was thinking at the time he tried to pull this, or did he simply have his nose buried in a mound of cocaine.

2 ) Blaming the falsehoods that were used as an argument for the invasion of Iraq on the intelligence community, which was disputed at the time and reported to the administration. You could argue why would anyone with half a brain would implicate themselves later on when this was found out to be false, but a clear pattern of recklessness, conspiracy, and indifference exists in an alarming amount of decisions this administration has made.

3) The subsequent outing of Valerie Plame, which is hopefully going to a criminal court soon.

It isn't hard to infer a portrait of recklessness, attempts to subvert the constitution, indifference from these and a myriad of other concerns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_impeachment). Which has been, and will be, eventually at a tribunal, brought to a global stage. Cite for #1? I don't think you have anything there. No one is charging Bush for #3. #2 is your opinion. Yes, it was disputed. Intelligence usually is. We don't live in a world where everything is so starkly defined. Did Bush rely too heavily on faulty evidence? Sure. Is there a criminal case there? No. That's a fantasy.

[SirPhilip]

Cite for #1? I don't think you have anything there. No one is charging Bush for #3. #2 is your opinion. Yes, it was disputed. Intelligence usually is. We don't live in a world where everything is so starkly defined. Did Bush rely too heavily on faulty evidence? Sure. Is there a criminal case there? No. That's a fantasy. Note that I said "public distrust"?

[Stellafane]

Not sure why you want just three, but these are a few of the main ones that are responsible for the enormous public distrust, and a few simple, valid reasons why:

1) The wiretapping fiasco.

"...no court has held squarely that the Constitution disables the Congress from endeavoring to set limits on that power. To the contrary, the Supreme Court has stated that Congress does indeed have power to regulate domestic surveillance... the NSA surveillance program... would appear to be inconsistent with the law." - Congressional Research Service, January 2006 One has to wonder what Bush was thinking at the time he tried to pull this, or did he simply have his nose buried in a mound of cocaine.

2 ) Blaming the falsehoods that were used as an argument for the invasion of Iraq on the intelligence community, which was disputed at the time and reported to the administration. You could argue why would anyone with half a brain would implicate themselves later on when this was found out to be false, but a clear pattern of recklessness, conspiracy, and indifference exists in an alarming amount of decisions this administration has made.

3) The subsequent outing of Valerie Plame, which is hopefully going to a criminal court soon.

It isn't hard to infer a portrait of recklessness, attempts to subvert the constitution, indifference from these and a myriad of other concerns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_impeachment). Which has been, and will be, eventually at a tribunal, brought to a global stage.

Hi SirPhilip. Please forgive me if I'm not following along properly, but is it your contention that, since Bush is capable of the three things you list, he can be presumed capable of masterminding 9/11?

[SirPhilip]

Argument ad populum? What high profile people? What evidence? Well, as to a recent high profile recognition (http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/09/13/bush/index.html) of Bush's obsession with control. As for evidence, I've pointed out numerous times that this is the goal, and something I hope will soon solidify to the point where everyone around the world doesn't have to bear a witness to a psychopath helplessly.

[Pardalis]

As for evidence, I've pointed out numerous times that this is the goal, and something I hope will soon solidify to the point where everyone around the world doesn't have to bear a witness to a psychopath helplessly.

Do you have expertise in psychiatry?

[RandFan]

Well, as to a recent high profile recognition (http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/09/13/bush/index.html) of Bush's obsession with control. As for evidence, I've pointed out numerous times that this is the goal, and something I hope will soon solidify to the point where everyone around the world doesn't have to bear a witness to a psychopath helplessly.Yeah, the CTers are working on that. They say it is soon so you might be right.

[Regnad Kcin]

Well, as to a recent high profile recognition (http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/09/13/bush/index.html) of Bush's obsession with control...Sept. 13, 2001 is "recent?"

[senorpogo]

Well, as to a recent high profile recognition (http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/09/13/bush/index.html) of Bush's obsession with control. As for evidence, I've pointed out numerous times that this is the goal, and something I hope will soon solidify to the point where everyone around the world doesn't have to bear a witness to a psychopath helplessly.

Let's retrace the steps -

Sir Philip posts and says, "It's a baffling mystery to you why Bush's approval ratings became so low and a good portion of high profile people on both political parties are calling into question very serious premeditated corruption charges, evidence of which, circumstantial and otherwise, is comprehensively available on the web."

Okay, high profile people calling into question serious premeditated corruption charges. And apparently there is evidence of this.

RandFan asks, "Argument ad populum? What high profile people? What evidence?"

So RandFan wants to know what high profile people are calling into question yaddity yaddity and where this evidence is on the web.

Sir Philip then answers these straight forward requests by claiming Bush is obsessed with control and by linking to an article that does not address which high profile people care calling into question corruption charges.

[SirPhilip]

Again, you are making nothing but assumptions here. You catch on quick.


No, impeachments are for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment Unless this is a joke or you are grinding metal now, how does this contradict the context in which I used the term.

Assumptions are not used in trials, scientific endeavors, or even investigative journalism. You are trying to rationalize your claims without having to back them up.This is getting tiring. Crime, criminals, and organized crime isn't a scientific endevour, it's based on probable cause, reasonable doubt, and finally, burden of proof. Evidence is nice because then we don't have to infer or prove things beyond a reasonable doubt, or have a dialogue with people like you who cannot recognize an antisocial personality.

You are willfully ignoring the most relevant points of the like I provided in an attempt to create a strawman. Stop it and address the points I highlighted from the Shermer article. Profiling methodology is used to make educated guesses about the characteristics of a criminal.The points you made are out of context with a dialogue that is centered around reasonable doubt and inferrable character traits based on past actions. There is no evidence, nor did I claim there was any. The PCL-R in particular is instrumental to this. With that said, kindly pull your head out of your ass and recognize what one is (http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/psychology/robert_hare/3.html).

Unsubstantiated opinion. I bet OJ Simpson is a nice guy too, I can't believe so many people thought he was guilty, despite no hard, damning proof. Otherwise why would we even assume..


Intuition also tells us:
The Earth is flat.
The Sun revolves around the Earth.
Gambler's luck fallacy.
Monte Haul fallacy.
1 <>.999...
And many other things which, upon application of logic and evidence show to be wrong. Large macrocosmic rocks, cards, and mathematical gymnastics aren't alive. A large rock, for example, cannot recklessly invade another country as a method of pretending it is on a mission from God to make their prominent father respect them.

Scorsese is a Hollywood director. Suggesting that he has some expert insight into criminal law and gov't is a blatant appeal to authority fallacy I hate to break this to you, but the line between this administration and organized crime has been blurring for some time.

And you still don't get that making a claim, based upon pattern recognition (which in humans can lead to false positives) without, at least circumstantial, evidence is nothing more than mental masturbation. I'm aware of that, I'm also aware that historically, this doesn't apply to people (ever heard the term What Would [Name] Do?). Especially drones like powerful megalomaniacs, princes, heirs, kings, who behave in fundamentally identical ways that transcend time, culture, and religious trappings.

[Regnad Kcin]

Not sure why you want just three, but these are a few of the main ones that are responsible for the enormous public distrust, and a few simple, valid reasons why:

1) The wiretapping fiasco.

"...no court has held squarely that the Constitution disables the Congress from endeavoring to set limits on that power. To the contrary, the Supreme Court has stated that Congress does indeed have power to regulate domestic surveillance... the NSA surveillance program... would appear to be inconsistent with the law." - Congressional Research Service, January 2006 One has to wonder what Bush was thinking at the time he tried to pull this, or did he simply have his nose buried in a mound of cocaine.

2 ) Blaming the falsehoods that were used as an argument for the invasion of Iraq on the intelligence community, which was disputed at the time and reported to the administration. You could argue why would anyone with half a brain would implicate themselves later on when this was found out to be false, but a clear pattern of recklessness, conspiracy, and indifference exists in an alarming amount of decisions this administration has made.

3) The subsequent outing of Valerie Plame, which is hopefully going to a criminal court soon.

It isn't hard to infer a portrait of recklessness, attempts to subvert the constitution, indifference from these and a myriad of other concerns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_impeachment). Which has been, and will be, eventually at a tribunal, brought to a global stage.Thank you for finally responding to my request.

I don't see what you post as evidence for Mr. Bush's "questionable morals," however. Rather, examples of an ambitious Executive branch. One or more points above may be persuasive in assembling a compelling case for review, but morality would not be the square where I would place my chips.

[gumboot]

I swear... every time I see one of SirPhilip's links I expect to click it and be presented with a photo of a concrete core or 3" rebar on 4' centres.

It's uncanny...they have that same weird anti-logic thing going on...

-Andrew

[Axiom_Blade]

Cite for #1? I don't think you have anything there. No one is charging Bush for #3. #2 is your opinion. Yes, it was disputed. Intelligence usually is. We don't live in a world where everything is so starkly defined. Did Bush rely too heavily on faulty evidence? Sure. Is there a criminal case there? No. That's a fantasy.

So, the scandals around illegal wiretapping, the war in Iraq, and Valerie Plame are completely bogus?! Damn. I really have been brainwashed by the librul media.

[gumboot]

So, the scandals around illegal wiretapping, the war in Iraq, and Valerie Plame are completely bogus?! Damn. I really have been brainwashed by the librul media.


It's amazing what the media will turn into a "scandal".

-Andrew

[jon]

[snip]

Okay, high profile people calling into question serious premeditated corruption charges. And apparently there is evidence of this.

RandFan asks, "Argument ad populum? What high profile people? What evidence?"


To help SirPhilip out slightly ;) Bob Graham's probably the most significant 'high profile' person calling for Bush's impeachment. Graham's book Intelligence Matters, and James Ridgeway's The 5 Unanswered Questions About 9/11* both at least offer interesting arguments re. the failings of the Bush administration. They both claim that the Bush administration failed to defend the US from the type of attack we saw on 9/11/01 and therefore bears some of the responsibility for this. No idea what this means in terms of impeachment/criminality (as much as anything else, lots of the criticisms would apply as much to Clinton's and even Bush Snr's administrations as to Bush Jnr).

* Ridgeway's book, despite the title, is very critical of Conspiracy Theory. His objections to the 9/11 Commission's report aren't so much based around the denotative content of its report, but its failure to attribute blame to those Ridgeway sees as responsible.

Anyway, that's way too long a post. Sorry :D

[Stellafane]

Well, as to a recent high profile recognition (http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/09/13/bush/index.html) of Bush's obsession with control. As for evidence, I've pointed out numerous times that this is the goal, and something I hope will soon solidify to the point where everyone around the world doesn't have to bear a witness to a psychopath helplessly.

Hi SirPhilip. I know you have your hands full with multiple questions, but I'm hoping mine won't get lost. Again, do you think Bush's past actions indicate he's capable of masterminding 9/11?

[SirPhilip]

Hi SirPhilip. Please forgive me if I'm not following along properly, but is it your contention that, since Bush is capable of the three things you list, he can be presumed capable of masterminding 9/11? I don't believe he masterminded 9/11 due to the problems others have mentioned. I think it is reasonable, based on his behavior, to assume that:

1) Invading Iraq was of strong special interest, that somehow justified a reckless and impulsive and subversive series of actions to do just that. Why? Who knows.
Organized crime, religious thinking, maybe simply spearheaded by Bush to overshoot his father and accomplish something grand in his life.

2) That the Bush administration, given the huge calamity this has caused and the complete indifference toward the public trust, and utter lack of personal responsibility, brings up red flags.

If Bush is strongly suspected, and especially proved, to have engaged in unethical or corrupt actions on one thing, this opens a pandoras box. The root of someone's actions is their personality, and what we can infer by their actions. This is why so many people Bush don't believe anything he says anymore, because constant criticism of his actions, either on the news, in magazines, or at cafes, is a daily part of life.

[gumboot]

1) Invading Iraq was of strong special interest, that somehow justified a reckless and impulsive and subversive series of actions to do just that.


And we're back to this old gaping chasm of logic...

If 9/11 was either allowed to happen, or made to happen, just so Bush could invade Iraq to feed his ego, why bother invading Afghanistan? I suspect a good chunk of the opposition to the Iraq war was quite simply a feeling that the US was being a bit greedy invading TWO countries in response to only ONE terrorist attack.

-Andrew

[Stellafane]

I don't believe he masterminded 9/11 due to the problems others have mentioned. I think it is reasonable, based on his behavior, to assume that:

1) Invading Iraq was of strong special interest, that somehow justified a reckless and impulsive and subversive series of actions to do just that. Why? Who knows.
Organized crime, religious thinking, maybe simply spearheaded by Bush to overshoot his father and accomplish something grand in his life.

2) That the Bush administration, given the huge calamity this has caused and the complete indifference toward the public trust, and utter lack of personal responsibility, brings up red flags.

If Bush is strongly suspected, and especially proved, to have engaged in unethical or corrupt actions on one thing, this opens a pandoras box. The root of someone's actions is their personality, and what we can infer by their actions. This is why so many people think Bush don't believe anything he says anymore, because constant criticism of his actions, either on the news, in magazines, or at cafes, is a daily part of life.

Thanks for the clarification. So if I understand correctly, Bush was not involved in 9/11. Is it therefore safe for me to conclude you believe that 9/11 basically happened more or less in accordance with the "official" version? And further, that you believe Bush is capable of impeachable offenses (and may in fact have already committed them), although definite proof of such is still lacking?

[SirPhilip]

So, the scandals around illegal wiretapping, the war in Iraq, and Valerie Plame are completely bogus?! Damn. I really have been brainwashed by the librul media. Swordboy and his amigos should really go on tour. Someone really needs to tell all the stupid people in Washington, among the GOP and Democratic parties, and around the world, that everything must be on the up and up because there's no criminally damning evidence yet, just a colossal amount of circumstantial reasons for distrusting this administration, which is identical to the flat earth fallacy.

[Pardalis]

1) Invading Iraq was of strong special interest, that somehow justified a reckless and impulsive and subversive series of actions to do just that.

I'm not sure it "justifies" it, but it could explain it, sure.

Why? Who knows. Organized crime, religious thinking, maybe simply spearheaded by Bush to overshoot his father and accomplish something grand in his life.

Or maybe because of the strategic geo-political situation of Iraq, and the possibility of it detaining WMDs. But you're right, who knows?

2) That the Bush administration, given the huge calamity this has caused and the complete indifference toward the public trust, and utter lack of personal responsibility, brings up red flags.

True. Red flags as to doubt this administration is competent enough to handle the situation.

If Bush is strongly suspected, and especially proved

"especially proved?" :confused:

to have engaged in unethical or corrupt actions on one thing, this opens a pandoras box.

The said "pandora's box" is the conspiracist paranoiacs. Your hatred of Bush, which is understandable, is the facilitator for conspiracy belief, not proof of a conspiracy. It galvanises paranoia.

The root of someone's actions is their personality, and what we can infer by their actions. This is why so many people Bush don't believe anything he says anymore, because constant criticism of his actions, either on the news, in magazines, or at cafes, is a daily part of life.

So what?

[SirPhilip]

And we're back to this old gaping chasm of logic...

If 9/11 was either allowed to happen, or made to happen, just so Bush could invade Iraq to feed his ego, why bother invading Afghanistan? I suspect a good chunk of the opposition to the Iraq war was quite simply a feeling that the US was being a bit greedy invading TWO countries in response to only ONE terrorist attack. This is what you call a "gaping chasm of logic"?

[Pardalis]

SirPhilip, is your avatar any help in understanding that in order to validify your assumption, you have to look at it with perspective?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

You catch on quick.
Yet more personal attacks. How mature.


Unless this is a joke or you are grinding metal now, how does this contradict the context in which I used the term.

You said Nefarious plans are what impeachment proceedings and warcrimes trials are for uncovering. and I pointed out that impeachments are In the constitutions of several countries, impeachment is the first of two stages in a specific process for a legislative body to remove a government official without that official's agreement. You're interpretation of the impeachment process is overly narrow in definition and misrepresents the process. Impeachment is roughly equivalent to indictment; that is to say determining if there is sufficient evidence to conduct trial from removal from office. It is not the investigative procedure that is used to gather the evidence to begin the process; which is what your definition implied it to be.


This is getting tiring. Crime, criminals, and organized crime isn't a scientific endevour, it's based on probable cause, reasonable doubt, and finally, burden of proof.

Since it appears your familiarity with these terms comes from television, allow me to clearly define them for you:
probable cause - The most widely held common definition would be "a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed" and that the person is linked to the crime with the same degree of certainty. An alternative definition has been proposed, "reason to believe that an injury had criminal cause", which is claimed to be more protective of individual rights as was intended by the authors of the Bill of Rights. See the critique below.

In the context of warrants, the Oxford Companion to American Law defines probable cause as "information sufficient to warrant a prudent person's belief that the wanted individual had committed a crime (for an arrest warrant) or that evidence of a crime or contraband would be found in a search (for a search warrant)." "Probable cause" is a stronger standard of evidence than a reasonable suspicion, but weaker than what is required to secure a criminal conviction. Even hearsay can supply probable cause if it is from a reliable source or is supported by other evidence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probable_cause

probable cause - Probable cause is a relatively low standard of proof, which is used in the United States to determine whether a search, or an arrest, is warranted. It is also used by grand juries to determine whether to issue an indictment. In the civil context, this standard is often used where plaintiffs are seeking a prejudgment remedy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_doubt


burden of proof - There are generally three broad types of burdens.

A legal burden or a burden of persuasion is an obligation that remains on a single party for the duration of the claim. Once the burden has been entirely discharged to the satisfaction of the trier of fact the party carrying the burden will succeed in their claim. For example the presumption of innocence places a legal burden upon the prosecution to prove all elements of the offence (generally beyond a resonable doubt) and to disprove all the defences.

An evidentiary burden or burden of leading evidence is an obligation that shifts between parties over the course of the hearing or trial. A party may submit evidence that the court will consider prima facie proof of some state of affairs. This creates an evidentiary burden upon the opposing party to present evidence to refute the presumption.

A tactical burden is an obligation similar to an evidentiary burden. Presented with certain evidence, the Court has the discretion to infer a fact from it unless the opposing party can present evidence to the contrary. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_doubt


Evidence is nice because then we don't have to infer or prove things beyond a reasonable doubt,

Evidence is used to in court to eliminate "reasonable doubt". Your sentence makes no sense.


or have a dialogue with people like you who cannot recognize an antisocial personality.
[quote]
Whee, more opinions from you. Opinions are worth even less than anectdotes in investigations.

[quote]
The points you made are out of context with a dialogue that is centered around reasonable doubt and inferrable character traits based on past actions. There is no evidence, nor did I claim there was any. The PCL-R in particular is instrumental to this. With that said, kindly pull your head out of your ass and recognize what one is (http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/psychology/robert_hare/3.html). So, you are back to claiming that the greater, or more encompassing, the crime, the less evidence is needed. Lovely.


I bet OJ Simpson is a nice guy too, I can't believe so many people thought he was guilty, despite no hard, damning proof. Otherwise why would we even assume..

More strawmen. Try leaving them on the farm and using a logically valid argument.


Large macrocosmic rocks, cards, and mathematical gymnastics aren't alive. A large rock, for example, cannot recklessly invade another country as a method of pretending it is on a mission from God to make their prominent father respect them.

Obtuse refusal to recognize that "intuition" and "common sense" can be wrong. I should have expected as much.


I hate to break this to you, but the line between this administration and organized crime has been blurring for some time.

Unsubstantiated opinion


I'm aware of that, I'm also aware that historically, this doesn't apply to people (ever heard the term What Would [Name] Do?). Especially drones like powerful megalomaniacs, princes, heirs, kings, who behave in fundamentally identical ways that transcend time, culture, and religious trappings.
argumentum ad antiquitatem

[gumboot]

This is what you call a "gaping chasm of logic"?


Yes. I think I made that clear.

When someone claims that the US administration orchestrated or allowed 9/11 purely so they could invade Iraq, yet the US used the 9/11 attacks as a pretext to invade Afghanistan, I call that a gaping chasm of logic.

Imagine this...

A person takes out a loan, and claims it is to buy a new boat. They then proceed to buy a new boat with that loan.

I then claim that they took out the loan to buy a new car.

I have demonstrated a gaping chasm of logic.

-Andrew

[SirPhilip]

Yet more personal attacks. How mature.
You said and I pointed out that impeachments are You're interpretation of the impeachment process is overly narrow in definition and misrepresents the process. Impeachment is roughly equivalent to indictment; that is to say determining if there is sufficient evidence to conduct trial from removal from office. It is not the investigative procedure that is used to gather the evidence to begin the process; which is what your definition implied it to be. Diverting to a irrelevant semantic rationalization. I wrote:

"Nefarious plans are what impeachment proceedings and warcrimes trials are for uncovering." Impeach means to make an accusation against, as well as charge a public official with improper conduct.

Evidence is used to in court to eliminate "reasonable doubt". Your sentence makes no sense. Evidence, such as DNA, is usually damning enough to invalidate counter arguments based on probable assumption.

Example:

"John was known to associate with hate groups, Robert, the victim was black. Several witnesses also described a 6'3, thin white male with curly hair fleeing the scene at the time, which roughly matches the description o f John."

"Your honor the blood found on the ground at the crime scene where the struggle occured was found to not be John's, but rather the other suspect, Pete's."

Case very likely closed.

Whee, more opinions from you. Opinions are worth even less than anectdotes in investigations. Especially when you make the CIA a scapegoat (http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2006/05/11/cia/) and fall guy and everyone starts to get a little curious and suspicious.

So, you are back to claiming that the greater, or more encompassing, the crime, the less evidence is needed. Lovely. More strawmen. Try leaving them on the farm and using a logically valid argument.Your supposed logically valid counter-argument is the Bush administration has not engaged in any behavior that would suggest corruption or merit investigation, and this is patently false.


Obtuse refusal to recognize that "intuition" and "common sense" can be wrong. I should have expected as much. They are frequently wrong, another user commented that I hate Bush, which is a failure of assumption; I certainly feel sorry for him, he's enormously unpopular around the world right now for an ever increasing series of reasons, which you refuse to acknowledge has any validity in basing an opinion on his past and future actions, which have been exhaustively covered by the independent press.

[SirPhilip]

Yes. I think I made that clear.When someone claims that the US administration orchestrated or allowed 9/11 purely so they could invade Iraq, yet the US used the 9/11 attacks as a pretext to invade Afghanistan, I call that a gaping chasm of logic. Then why isn't a simple matter to resolve this enormous controversy with flippant, shallow explanations like this idiotic excuse for critical thinking you just **** forth.
People must not be as insightful as you I suppose.

Imagine this...

A person takes out a loan, and claims it is to buy a new boat. They then proceed to buy a new boat with that loan.

I then claim that they took out the loan to buy a new car.

I have demonstrated a gaping chasm of logic. You also demonstrate a gaping chasm of logic by not reviewing counter evidence before rushing to invade another country. You also raise serious doubts about your character by not showing any sense of personal responsibility or accountability for directly instigating the deaths of thousands, which leads some people to think you are a psychopath. In fact, by blaming your descisions on God's will, some people are actually convinced you are one. Invade Iraq for unofficial reasons, or not invade Iraq first - who knows why. One thing seems to be a valid assumption, whatever behind the scenes sheming that did happen wasn't well coordinated. In any event, the Bush family is astronomically powerful and influential, you could make dozens of assumptions. It has been a constant subject of news articles and editorials the world over the suspicious nature of these descisions.

PS: Do you work at Fox news?

[gumboot]

Wow, this suddenly must mean it is impossible for there to have been any agenda to invade Iraq or invade Afghanistan initially, despite a massive ongoing scandal. Do you work at Fox news?


No. I do not.

What "massive ongoing scandal" pray tell?

I am, for the sake of argument, accepting your claim there was an agenda pre 9/11 to invade Iraq. You claimed 9/11 was allowed to happen to enable that agenda. You mentioned nothing about Afghanistan. In this way, there was a gap in your logic.

Now you claim there was an agenda to invade Afghanistan as well (a shoddy attempt to fill said gap).

I would really LOVE to hear your explanation for why the US wanted to invade Afghanistan pre 9/11. Quite frankly I don't believe there was any reason whatsoever to invade Afghanistan, until a bunch of terrorists hiding there attacked the US.

I do not require evidence. A brief summary of Bush's motivations for invading Afghanistan will be sufficient. As you are intimately familiar with the inner workings of his mind this should be a simple task.

-Andrew

[SirPhilip]

What "massive ongoing scandal" pray tell? The one every news outlet, independent or not, dreams up everyday by distorting things that happen in washington and abroad to generate dissent and distrust, of course.


I am, for the sake of argument, accepting your claim there was an agenda pre 9/11 to invade Iraq.Why? I have no idea if there was. I think there might have been because I think Bush's character is profoundly corrupt.

You claimed 9/11 was allowed to happen to enable that agenda. You mentioned nothing about Afghanistan. In this way, there was a gap in your logic.This is moot to discuss, there is no publically damning evidence for any of these things yet. News articles and editorials examining the unfolding dramas in Washington paint an emerging picture however. This of course, is not evidence either. It also isn't baseless. News articles and editorials are intended to inform the reader, to base an opinion on events and people. The majority of these articles regarding the Bush administration are very troubled, are countless, in variety, and one eventually concludes a lot of drama is being played out in Washington, with the Bush administration as the defendants.

I would really LOVE to hear your explanation for why the US wanted to invade Afghanistan pre 9/11. Quite frankly I don't believe there was any reason whatsoever to invade Afghanistan, until a bunch of terrorists hiding there attacked the US. I do not require evidence. A brief summary of Bush's motivations for invading Afghanistan will be sufficient. As you are intimately familiar with the inner workings of his mind this should be a simple task. I believe he's either one of two things: a primary psychopath, or deeply in denial about the gravity of his actions, which explains his magical thinking. If you want me to make an actual argument, fine: most likely he believes that this is God's will and not his problem to bear (any psychologists like to add commentary?), which is really worse than any conspiracy theory, and credible. By the way I want you to rebute that. Bad. My apologies also to people who have been following this and wondered why I was responding to this inane apologist rhetoric, instead of the main issue. I was bored.

[SirPhilip]

You also demonstrate a gaping chasm of logic by not reviewing counter evidence before rushing to invade another country. You also raise serious doubts about your character by not showing any sense of personal responsibility or accountability for directly instigating the deaths of thousands, which leads some people to think you are a psychopath. In fact, by blaming your descisions on God's will, some people are actually convinced you are one. Invade Iraq for unofficial reasons, or not invade Iraq first - who knows why. One thing seems to be a valid assumption, whatever behind the scenes sheming that did happen wasn't well coordinated. In any event, the Bush family is astronomically powerful and influential, you could make dozens of assumptions. It has been a constant subject of news articles and editorials the world over the suspicious nature of these descisions. I also think it's shameful, especially on a forum dedicated to critical thinking, and considering how destructive this kind of thing is, how you and others conveniently avoid commenting on things like the above. What's wrong? Yeah, he does think God told him to invade Iraq, because he actually had the audacity to fricking say that in public. You want me to use the scientific method to prove he probably believes he's a Biblical character involved in an end times drama, too? Every newpaper editorial and column is coming down on these people for accountability, day in, day out. Everyone reads it and the picture is never positive, always critical, and always insinuating corruption and deceit. Constantly reinforcing an indirect scheme. You actually expect anyone with two braincells to rub together to believe these are all memes that lead up to nothing?

[valis]

- Public opinion poll ratings are at an all time low, primarily, I would guess, because of possibly illegal civilian wiretapping...

Don't forget possible cannabilism and possible mopery and well possible anything. Anything is possible.


- Nefarious plans are what impeachment proceedings and warcrimes trials are for uncovering.


So we should put everyone on trial and see how it turns out?

[gumboot]

SirPhilip, congratulations. You have exceeded Christophera in ineptitude. Mad as Christophera was, at least he was consistant. He perpetually maintained what he was claiming was indisputed evidence.

You flitter about like a butterfly on the wind.

-Andre

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Diverting to a irrelevant semantic rationalization. I wrote:

"Nefarious plans are what impeachment proceedings and warcrimes trials are for uncovering." Impeach means to make an accusation against, as well as charge a public official with improper conduct.

You're skipping the big step of investigation.


Evidence, such as DNA, is usually damning enough to invalidate counter arguments based on probable assumption.

Example:

"John was known to associate with hate groups, Robert, the victim was black. Several witnesses also described a 6'3, thin white male with curly hair fleeing the scene at the time, which roughly matches the description o f John."

"Your honor the blood found on the ground at the crime scene where the struggle occured was found to not be John's, but rather the other suspect, Pete's."

Case very likely closed.

If you first example, you need to provide evidence showing that John associated with hate groups. Assertions, opinions, and anecdotal evidence are useless with support evidence.


Especially when you make the CIA a scapegoat (http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2006/05/11/cia/) and fall guy and everyone starts to get a little curious and suspicious.

More opinions.


Your supposed logically valid counter-argument is the Bush administration has not engaged in any behavior that would suggest corruption or merit investigation, and this is patently false.

I have said not such thing. I have repeatedly stated that you have to provide evidence and logically sound justification for the claims you are making. I have made no statements, implicitly or otherwise, as to suggest that the administration is completely clean. You are setting up a false dichotomy.


They are frequently wrong, another user commented that I hate Bush, which is a failure of assumption; I certainly feel sorry for him, he's enormously unpopular around the world right now for an ever increasing series of reasons, which you refuse to acknowledge has any validity in basing an opinion on his past and future actions, which have been exhaustively covered by the independent press.
The only thing I am refusing to acknowledge as facts are the opinions you are throwing around willy-nilly.

[Gravy]

I also think it's shameful, especially on a forum dedicated to critical thinking, and considering how destructive this kind of thing is, how you and others conveniently avoid commenting on things like the above. What's wrong? Yeah, he does think God told him to invade Iraq, because he actually had the audacity to fricking say that in public. You want me to use the scientific method to prove he probably believes he's a Biblical character involved in an end times drama, too? Every newpaper editorial and column is coming down on these people for accountability, day in, day out. Everyone reads it and the picture is never positive, always critical, and always insinuating corruption and deceit. Constantly reinforcing an indirect scheme. You actually expect anyone with two braincells to rub together to believe these are all memes that lead up to nothing?

Did God tell you to vote for Bush again after we invaded Iraq, SirPhilip? You're whining about the man who YOU put in office. Suck it up. We all make mistakes. Take responsibility for your actions.

[jon]

[snip] Yeah, he does think God told him to invade Iraq, because he actually had the audacity to fricking say that in public. You want me to use the scientific method to prove he probably believes he's a Biblical character involved in an end times drama, too?

Just to be pedantic, just because Bush claims to believe in a certain type of God it doesn't necessarily follow that he does. It is not easily possible to know what is going on inside Bush's mind. He may well be a believer, but he could also be exaggerating his belief (for example, in order to appeal to certain voters).

[SirPhilip]

You're skipping the big step of investigation. If you first example, you need to provide evidence showing that John associated with hate groups. Assertions, opinions, and anecdotal evidence are useless with support evidence.Sigh, stupid descent into semantics again. Nice try. That example was summarized, assuming a degree existed.

I have said not such thing. I have repeatedly stated that you have to provide evidence and logically sound justification for the claims you are making. I have made no statements, implicitly or otherwise, as to suggest that the administration is completely clean. You are setting up a false dichotomy. My opinion, as well as the vast majority of other people, assume that the public trust has been violated over and over, because what we read and see in the news affirms this. You, and others here, feel this has no worth in convincing anyone there is such a thing, without direct substantiation. Maybe I'm not being simple here: if you don't have the higher brain functions to tell something is probably fishy based on mounting educated opinion, you've got your head way up your ass. This dialogue is nothing but:

Me: I read the news everyday (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/01/05/gingrich/), and what I read is constantly critical (http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/03/01/keillor/index.html) of the administration, and for good reason.

You (and a few others here): That is worthless, and your opinion that White House corruption probably exists and is a problem right now has no basis. We don't want to entertain the idea unless you can convict them. This is simply an exchange of opinions. You don't want to acknowledge there is corruption. I do.

The only thing I am refusing to acknowledge as facts are the opinions you are throwing around willy-nilly. The reason for this dialoge is because several people here don't believe educated opinions are valid in assuming corruption right now. This is false.

[SirPhilip]

Just to be pedantic, just because Bush claims to believe in a certain type of God it doesn't necessarily follow that he does. It is not easily possible to know what is going on inside Bush's mind. He may well be a believer, but he could also be exaggerating his belief (for example, in order to appeal to certain voters). This is sad, and pathetic.

[SirPhilip]

Did God tell you to vote for Bush again after we invaded Iraq, SirPhilip? You're whining about the man who YOU put in office. Suck it up. We all make mistakes. Take responsibility for your actions. I still don't feel it was a mistake; I didn't feel concerns about Bush's personality were valid concerns or indicators at the time - although the more deeper in controversy and corruption they get today and the more people want him impeached, I'm starting to accept what a poor descision this was.

[SirPhilip]

SirPhilip, congratulations. You have exceeded Christophera in ineptitude. Mad as Christophera was, at least he was consistant. He perpetually maintained what he was claiming was indisputed evidence. You flitter about like a butterfly on the wind. This is a butting of heads over personal opinion - actually I don't even think that. I've been very abrasive, and I suppose I should expect others using rhetorical devices that debunk claims to demand proof for my asserts that there is political corruption in the White House. Free clue: There probably is a lot of political corruption in the white house when so many high profile people are up in arms about it and it's easy to make connections and base news editorials on them.

[jon]

This is sad, and pathetic.

Great, just go straight for the personal attack :D

I'm having a hard time figuring out how you decide what to believe and what not to believe... If you believe Bush is 'morally insane' why would you be so sure he is telling the truth about his belief in God? Why trust some of Bush's statements (without convincing evidence) and assume others to be lies (without convincing evidence)?

[SirPhilip]

Don't forget possible cannabilism and possible mopery and well possible anything. Anything is possible. Let's hope some real evidence comes to light very soon, so my psychic impressions will be validated.

So we should put everyone on trial and see how it turns out? Nah, there's no reason to suspect wrongdoing in the white house. Just this scale of probability, smoking briskly.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Since I'm off to a meeting I'll keep this brief.

Sigh, stupid descent into semantics again. Nice try. That example was summarized, assuming a degree existed.

Dodging the issue.


My opinion, as well as the vast majority of other people, assume that the public trust has been violated over and over, because what we read and see in the news affirms this.

Argument ad populum


You, and others here, feel this has no worth in convincing anyone there is such a thing, without direct substantiation.

Strawman


Maybe I'm not being simple here: if you don't have the higher brain functions to tell something is probably fishy based on mounting educated opinion, you've got your head way up your ass. This dialogue is nothing but:

Attack the argument, not the person.


Me: I read the news everyday (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/01/05/gingrich/), and what I read is constantly critical (http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/03/01/keillor/index.html) of the administration, and for good reason.

Red herring.


You (and a few others here): That is worthless, and your opinion that White House corruption probably exists and is a problem right now has no basis. We don't want to entertain the idea unless you can convict them. This is simply an exchange of opinions.

Strawman


You don't want to acknowledge there is corruption. I do.

False dichotomy


The reason for this dialoge is because several people here don't believe educated opinions are valid in assuming corruption right now. This is false.
Strawman, and unsupported opinion.

[Stellafane]

Let's hope some real evidence comes to light very soon, so my psychic impressions will be validated.

Nah, there's no reason to suspect wrongdoing in the white house. Just this scale of probability, smoking briskly.

Hi SirPhilip. I'm still struggling to understand your position, and the course of action you think ought to be undertaken. Are you saying that Bush should be impeached, based on what you believe is a past history that indicates he's likely committing impeachable offenses? If not, what is it that you think we should be doing?

[H'ethetheth]

As the citizen of an anti-American nation that has had incredible dislike of the United States for longer than any Arab nation, and furthermore a nation that was one of the most outspoken opponants of the invasion of Iraq, I state that no, I do not believe that George W Bush has behaived in a morally or ethically questionable way, let alone a criminal manner.

Now, I don't agree with some of his methodology, nor with his speechwriter. Were I an American, I would not even consider voting for him. But it is a stretch from "disagreement" or even "wrong" to "morally or ethically questionable".

[off-topic pedantery]
Conspiracy nuttery aside, this is a very strange thing to say in my opinion. If you call a politician "wrong", what is it that you disagree on? I don't imagine it's facts, so it seems to me you are precisely questioning (some of) the morals of the Bush administration.
[/off-topic pedantery]

Anyway, carry on. :popcorn1

[pgwenthold]

I don't know when the president of the network marries Jane Fonda, it's kind of easy to belive he might just be a tad left leaning.

I can't prove it but I will bet there is a higher percentage of Democrats at Fox than there is Republicans at CNN.

Like who, Alan Combes? That is Fox's idea of a "liberal," while I think most people on the left see him as pretty impotent.

Is there anyone on Fox that is near as left as Lou Dobbs is on the right?

[gumboot]

Conspiracy nuttery aside, this is a very strange thing to say in my opinion. If you call a politician "wrong", what is it that you disagree on? I don't imagine it's facts, so it seems to me you are precisely questioning (some of) the morals of the Bush administration.


Well, he and his party are really conservative... and I'm not. I probably shouldn't have used the word "wrong". I wouldn't have voted for him because I don't agree with some of his stances, as they are too conservative.

But I don't consider his stances to be "morally questionable". They are the moral positions of his spectrum of people (conservative) and they are entirely allowed to have their moral positions. I don't agree with all of them, and I have different moral positions on some matters, but I don't think that automatically makes their moral positions somehow "immoral" or "wrong". They're just "different".

I guess I have a range of acceptable morality outside my own which I consider different, but not immoral. Beyond that range of variation I *would* consider their moral stance to be immoral (say, if they wanted to see all children IQ tested and the smart ones segregated into special elite government camps...).

-Andrew

[SirPhilip]

As the citizen of an anti-American nation that has had incredible dislike of the United States for longer than any Arab nation, and furthermore a nation that was one of the most outspoken opponants of the invasion of Iraq, I state that no, I do not believe that George W Bush has behaived in a morally or ethically questionable way, let alone a criminal manner. Much of the criticism is domestic. A lot of us Republicans who supported him personally, and the belief that intervening in the middle east was the right thing to do, despite complications and uncertainties, have given Bush and his administration ample benefit of the doubt in this regard, thinking he threw himself into a gamble of historical proportions to do the right thing, while liberals constantly lampooned him as incompetant and mishappen, and of questionable integrity. Much of the public's trust has been based a lot on this faith. Unfortunately, his character, and those under him, is one of the most controversial things in the United States now, and plays merry devil with the troops on the ground's morale. I still don't support pulling out of Iraq, in fact we should have had a much larger force there from the beginning..

[gumboot]

is one of the most controversial things in the United States now, and plays merry devil with the troops on the ground's morale.



I really doubt it does. What plays "merry devil" with the morale of the troops is constant remarks in the media and from the public that Iraq is a disaster, they they have failed in their mission, and that they should all just give up now.

-Andrew

[SirPhilip]

I really doubt it does. What plays "merry devil" with the morale of the troops is constant remarks in the media and from the public that Iraq is a disaster, they they have failed in their mission, and that they should all just give up now.

-Andrew Of course it does, and Fox and others were right in accentuaing the positive. I still have no respect for the liberals who have tried to derail these efforts from the start, regardless whether it was legal or not. But as much as everyone there understood what the mission was - if I was on the ground, the main thing I'd be concerned about was the legality of it and the character of the leaders. A lot of these men (and women) have given life, limb and their sanity to stabilize some random country whose populace depises their presence. Throw in rampant zealotism to make it easy to dehumanize the populace and it's a recipe for paranoid psychosis. Indeed, one soldier recently refused to ship off because of the controsvery of it being illegal. What always has bothered me is why the administration has not made dedicated efforts to dispel this idea, which is increasingly festering among the public.

[Hellbound]

Of course it does, and Fox and others were right in accentuaing the positive. I still have no respect for the liberals who have tried to derail these efforts from the start, regardless whether it was legal or not. But as much as everyone there understood what the mission was - if I was on the ground, the main thing I'd be concerned about was the legality of it and the character of the leaders. A lot of these men (and women) have given life, limb and their sanity to stabilize some random country whose populace depises their presence. Throw in rampant zealotism to make it easy to dehumanize the populace and it's a recipe for paranoid psychosis. Indeed, one soldier recently refused to ship off because of the controsvery of it being illegal. What always has bothered me is why the administration has not made dedicated efforts to dispel this idea, which is increasingly festering among the public.

You are uninformed.

The war was not illegal. It violated no national or international law. It is a legal war.

Second, a percentage of the population despises us, some others dislike us, many are indifferent, and many like us. The totality of popular opinion is more on the pro America side, although many believe we could and should be doing more.

The picture you paint above is the one the media presents, and it is factually incorrect and heavily biased.

[gumboot]

if I was on the ground, the main thing I'd be concerned about was the legality of it and the character of the leaders.



In war after war after war the main concern for soldiers on the ground was what the public thought of them.

It was rejection from the public that caused extensive psychological damage in Vietnam Vets. It was lack of loyalty from partners that has caused major problems in the first Gulf War, in Afghanistan, and in Iraq.

When these young people are sent across the world, far from their families, for months at a time, cut off from the "real world", fighting for their own survival, what hurts them most is when the people back home they are fighting for forget about them, or worse yet, turn against them.

Soldiers need strong reassurances from their society that what they are doing is right and just, otherwise they suffer severe psychological trauma.

-Andrew

ETA. I should mention "Black Hawk Down". I have a special edition of the DVD, which includes an audio commentary track from a collection of soldiers and officers that were actually part of the operation. What struck me was how much it hurt them that they were pulled out after that one mission. The second most interesting thing was how often they reasserted the fact that the mission of 3 October was successful - they captured the men they went to capture. This was very important to them. They didn't want to be seen as a failure. None of them even raised the issue of whether they should have been there in the first place.

[Hellbound]

In war after war after war the main concern for soldiers on the ground was what the public thought of them.

It was rejection from the public that caused extensive psychological damage in Vietnam Vets. It was lack of loyalty from partners that has caused major problems in the first Gulf War, in Afghanistan, and in Iraq.

When these young people are sent across the world, far from their families, for months at a time, cut off from the "real world", fighting for their own survival, what hurts them most is when the people back home they are fighting for forget about them, or worse yet, turn against them.

Soldiers need strong reassurances from their society that what they are doing is right and just, otherwise they suffer severe psychological trauma.

-Andrew

To a degree ;)

Having been there, the main thing on your mind is keeping your a$$ from getting shot/stabbed/crushed/broken/battered/blown up/burned/tattered/etc.

What the public thinks of you usually isn't much of a problem over there (at least when we were there), although this began to change once more services were put in place and bases improved (as television or other news from the states became available and public opinion became more noticeable). It plays a much larger role in how you recover after you get back...the transition from wartime thinking (24-hour a day "How do I not get shot?" thinking) to peacetime thinking ("I wonder if I need to stop for milk on the way home?"). It was a secondary concern in theatrre, though...your perception by your peers in your unit mattered more.

[gumboot]

To a degree ;)

Having been there, the main thing on your mind is keeping your a$$ from getting shot/stabbed/crushed/broken/battered/blown up/burned/tattered/etc.


Sorry, I should have clarafied that.

Of course not getting shot etc. is numero uno... then your buddies in your unit, etc...

I guess I should refine it to: "the primary outside force that affects morale". Sir Philip was claiming this was 1) legality of the war and 2) if Bush is corrupt.

I doubt either of these are of much concern to the troops. The first (and maybe the second) may be a little bit of concern to officers, with the level of concern increasing as you go up the ranks...

But as they say in Black Hawk Down:

"Y'know what I think? Don't really matter what I think. Once that first bullet goes past your head, politics and all that s*** just goes right out the window."

-Andrew

[SirPhilip]

You are uninformed. The war was not illegal. It violated no national or international law. It is a legal war. Legal yes, however, the "argument" for invading Iraq was based on false information (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_of_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq). Bush later claimed God told him (http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v19n2/bader_review.html) to invade Iraq, which is a refreshing way to learn those conspiracy ideas are probably not true. In other words, Bush believes this is some kind of ongoing end times narrative starring himself, and two-dimensional characters called other human beings, which weep, bleed, and kill each other. Some though, seem to think this isn't a meaningful narrative, that invading Iraq should have been for practical reasons, and that Bush is accountable for these reasons. This must be deeply disturbing to him.

To quote Amy Wilson: "It's true :)".

Second, a percentage of the population despises us, some others dislike us, many are indifferent, and many like us. The totality of popular opinion is more on the pro America side, although many believe we could and should be doing more. Pro Bush isn't pro-america - or perhaps it is. He's something of an apt figuredhead, with Cheney in tow, to this bloated consumerist culture.

The picture you paint above is the one the media presents, and it is factually incorrect and heavily biased. Many are still giving Bush the benefit of the doubt. I'm not anymore.

[Gravy]

Again, thanks so much for voting for Bush after he invaded Iraq, SirPhilip. Now will you please take your whining to the politics subforum?

[SirPhilip]

Again, thanks so much for voting for Bush after he invaded Iraq, SirPhilip. Getting more and more lame...

Now will you please take your whining to the politics subforum? Sure, as soon as the dialogue reaches equilibrium. In the meantime, stop actually whining?

[Hellbound]

Legal yes, however, the "argument" for invading Iraq was based on false information (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_of_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq). Bush later claimed God told him (http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v19n2/bader_review.html) to invade Iraq, which is a refreshing way to learn those conspiracy ideas are probably not true. In other words, Bush believes this is some kind of ongoing end times narrative starring himself, and two-dimensional characters called other human beings, which weep, bleed, and kill each other. Some though, seem to think this isn't a meaningful narrative, that invading Iraq should have been for practical reasons, and that Bush is accountable for these reasons. This must be deeply disturbing to him.

Good. Glad to hear you will no longer be making the false claim of an illegal war. It would've saved quite a bit of time and useless typing if you had simply stated this, rather than falsly claiming it as an illegal war.

And I agree some think he should be held accountable. Personally, I feel that the WMD argument was an embellishment of the truth used as justification. However, I do think there was enough reason for going in without that argument. There were humanitarian reasons, as well as the fact that Saddam had continually (over the last 10 years or so) violated previous U.N. sanctions that were, when passed, authorized to be enforced militarily.

Pro Bush isn't pro-america - or perhaps it is. He's something of an apt figuredhead, with Cheney in tow, to this bloated consumerist culture.

Um, what does this have to do with anything I said? I didn't mention anything about Bush, or pro-Bush, or anything else. I was referring specifically to sentiments towards America.

Many are still giving Bush the benefit of the doubt. I'm not anymore.

That's nice and all, but again, what does this have to do with anything?

[SirPhilip]

Good. Glad to hear you will no longer be making the false claim of an illegal war. It would've saved quite a bit of time and useless typing if you had simply stated this, rather than falsly claiming it as an illegal war. I didn't in the first place; but the arguments Bush and his administration based the invasion on have been proven to be falsehoods. Everyone knows that the invasion had nothing to do with strong evidence, even though it was legal and morally imperitive. This however doesn't justify the deceit, lack of accountability, and secrecy of the Bush administration. It also makes the idea that ethics played a primary role in invading Iraq very suspicious, and raises the question what did Bush feel was so vitally important about Iraq to implement an "end justifies any means" policy.

However, I do think there was enough reason for going in without that argument. Indeed there was, and it was why a great majority of us supported him despite harsh criticism. We felt he was led by moral imperitives and a bold, constructive agenda in the middle east.

There were humanitarian reasons, as well as the fact that Saddam had continually (over the last 10 years or so) violated previous U.N. sanctions that were, when passed, authorized to be enforced militarily. No argument there.

[Hellbound]

I didn't in the first place...

Um, yes. Yes you did. Not only did you claim it, you went on to suggest that there was already sufficient evidence to convict for such athing:
There's plenty of evidence to drag these criminals in front of a U.N tribunal for starting an illegal war, but nothing has been done.
...but the arguments Bush and his administration based the invasion on have been proven to be falsehoods.[/QUOTE]

And I never disputed this. I did dispute your assertion that it was an illegal war, and your continued references to war crimes (of which I've not seen evidence).