till you said "The pupose is clear: they want the people as stupid as possible so they will be elected in future also."
Where i live (québec) the actual government do the same thing by cuting in education. but thay have the guts to say that they are spending more.
the stupidest will always vote and reelect the dumbest!
Daniel
Where i live (québec) the actual government do the same thing by cuting in education. but thay have the guts to say that they are spending more.
the stupidest will always vote and reelect the dumbest!
Daniel
Nice turnmillwood said:
But back to Bush... why do you think he's getting away with lies, a war without mandate and a general contempt for foreign critisism?
Hans L said:
well, first of all, you have to establish that he lied. that is, how you to prove that he knew what he said / did was wrong, and there is an intent. Establish that first and then we will have a conversation later.
As to your 2nd question, well, he is the president of the United States. he answersr to his constituents. and last I checked, those in foreign countries don't exactly elect him.
so, why should he look after the interest of the world community? Unless, then of course, you care about that little green man two universes away, 🙂
millwood said:
So that even though it is well established that Bush and his top men gave false statements, we have to establish intent or it doesn't count.
And we're supposed to be talking about a president leading his country here? Millwood, you sound like a lawyer defending a drug dealer. 😀
kelticwizard said:
each of us gives false statements all the time, and it is OK. Why? well, for starters, we may not have perfect information all the time. so our "statements" may be based on false input.
the key to prove out a lie is "did he know that it was false when he made that statement".
so you have to prove out an intent before accusing him of a liar. Otherwise, you could be accused of a liar too. Well, unless that you have never made a false statement knowingly or unknowingly.
As to drug dealer, everyone is entitled to his rights under tthe law, that includes the drug dealer. so there isn't any shame in defending the drug dealer. If we were to stripe out the rights of the drug dealer under the law, we wouldn't be a democracy because others can stripe your rights by simply accusing you of being a drug dealer. from that perspective, defending a drug dealer is to defend you.
Yes, you do sound like like a lawyer defending a drug dealer 😛millwood said:
Never mind the election and how he won with a minority of the votes. It's clear he has lied more than once. The intent is a trickier subject of discussion...
"so, why should he look after the interest of the world community? "
This baffles me. Are you just saying this just for the sake of argument or do you really believe the US can and should do anything that is in their own confined interest without regard of the rest of the world?
What about your membership of the UN since the very beginning? Yes, we'll join, but we'll only listen if we like what we hear...
Or do you mean money is power? Let's have a look a the world economies in the year 2002 (couldn't get google to find more current figures). I made it a top 20, just for the occasion 😉 :
rank Country Amount (2002 est.)
1. United States $10.45 trillion
2. China $5.989 trillion
3. Japan $3.651 trillion
4. India $2.664 trillion
5. Germany $2.16 trillion
6. France $1.558 trillion
7. United Kingdom $1.528 trillion
8. Italy $1.455 trillion
9. Russia $1.409 trillion
10. Brazil $1.376 trillion
11. Korea, South $941.5 billion
12. Canada $934.1 billion
13. Mexico $924.4 billion
14. Spain $850.7 billion
15. Indonesia $714.2 billion
16. Australia $525.5 billion
17. Turkey $489.7 billion
18. Iran $458.3 billion
19. Thailand $445.8 billion
20. Netherlands $437.8 billion
Me thinks Bush has every reason to start building up some credit for the tides coming. That includes both money and goodwill
The world isn't a game, were the principle idea is to 'win'. It's a place with close to 6 billion ppl on it who all want a little space, food and respect. How does this fit into your beliefs that the US should do whatever it pleases?
to me he sound more than one who took to much of those drugs and suffers from obfuscateted brain.
Or are lawyers in the US usually of the more oafish kind ?
Let's keep it civil before it's turned into mud throwing. I prefer honest discussion and answers to my questions. 😎
Hans L said:
you are going in circles.
Hans L said:
I am saying precisely what I said: "why should he look after the interest of the world community". no more and no less. If that's tough to understand, I suggest that we stop the conversation right there.
Hans L said:
precisely.
Hans L said:
Money is power some times.
Hans L said:
It fits nicely into my beliefs that each country, including the US, should do what's best in its own interest.
At least as long as only US citizens can elect US presidents.
there is so much intellect in this discussion, 🙂
till said:
you still haven't told me what "conservative newpapers" you were so sure that I read.
what takes you so long?
🙂
The logic of some people in the US and in this thread could be analyzed as following:
If we (the US) say so, it is in interest of the world. As everyone else in the world is a) not gods own country, b) not worlds leading nation c) unimportant d) poor) e) uneducated following US educational christian fanatics system f) not really a human beeing as is no US citizen, who else should tell whats the world interest than we?
If we (the US) call something peace, peacebringing, or democratic, it is, no matter how many people have to die for it. As everything we tell ist truth i can´t be lie.
I we (the US) tell something is not dangerous and poisonous like Uranium ammo, (set here mercury, asbest, glassfibers etc) it is not dangerous as nobody who died from it won a lawsuite in the US until now.
The president of the united states is some kind of god and such everyone who tells him to be wrong is a heretic, terrorist, islamist, communist, and some bad things more, the average republican voter unfortunately does not know the word, but knows they all are ending with *ist.
If we (the US) say so, it is in interest of the world. As everyone else in the world is a) not gods own country, b) not worlds leading nation c) unimportant d) poor) e) uneducated following US educational christian fanatics system f) not really a human beeing as is no US citizen, who else should tell whats the world interest than we?
If we (the US) call something peace, peacebringing, or democratic, it is, no matter how many people have to die for it. As everything we tell ist truth i can´t be lie.
I we (the US) tell something is not dangerous and poisonous like Uranium ammo, (set here mercury, asbest, glassfibers etc) it is not dangerous as nobody who died from it won a lawsuite in the US until now.
The president of the united states is some kind of god and such everyone who tells him to be wrong is a heretic, terrorist, islamist, communist, and some bad things more, the average republican voter unfortunately does not know the word, but knows they all are ending with *ist.
Millwood:
I believe drug dealers are entitled to a vigorous defense. I just believe a president who committed 150,000 troops to an invasion of a country on the other side of the world should have a better explanation than a fellow who is caught with cocaine in the trunk of his car.
When you make decisions of the enormity that Bush made, you really are responsible for actually knowing the score. Arguments of intent just don't cut it.
I believe drug dealers are entitled to a vigorous defense. I just believe a president who committed 150,000 troops to an invasion of a country on the other side of the world should have a better explanation than a fellow who is caught with cocaine in the trunk of his car.
When you make decisions of the enormity that Bush made, you really are responsible for actually knowing the score. Arguments of intent just don't cut it.
kelticwizard said:
I agree with that. I think the pre-war intelligence is probmatic and the post-war planning leaves a lot to be desired. I am a supporter of the war before and after the war but I did not feel good aboutt he cookiness at Pentagon before the war as I don't think they understand the Iraqi people and regional politics, among others. I think a lot can be achieved without a military invasion by alternative means.
Having said that, I think eliminating Saddam is in the best interest of the uS and people in that region. and it is worth our sacrifice.
Going back to the question, it looks like Bush made the right call given the information available to him then. Nobody has 20/20 hindsight and there is no evidence that he knowingly lied to the people about WMD and Saddam.
Did he make a mistake on this issue? likely. Did he do it with the intent to lie to the public? unlikely (or at least unproven at this point).
That's where the intent comes in.
It is so hard to have a discussion with the left fanatics who cannot think and I think your post is refreshing.
We have to reason on the basis of facts and logic and don't let emotion takes over our brains. We may disagree with his decisions but at least have the respect to call him what he is on factual basis. The name calling and picture posting some of us did earlier serves no purposes by portraying a childish picture of us advocating that approach.
Jeff R said:
"Junkyard Wars" came close.
Remember the 3 farmer brothers from PA?
Those guys rocked!
speaker
Jeff R said:
It's called ad hominem and used when you have nothing else.
Zealotry is found everywhere, right & left.
speaker
till said:
Yes, in the US, everyone who believes in God also believes the earth is flat. Der Spiegel says so, so it must be true.....
As far as people objecting to Darwinism being taught, we're a big country with nearly 300 million people in it. The percentage that is quoted as representative is in a region of the US known as the "Bible Belt".
Till, you speak with genuine convinction about who and what we are. How often have you been here to see it firsthand?
speaker
millwood said:
No, I am not. I'm stating the obvious, but since you will not acknowledge that, here are some articles (too many links to choose from):
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0906/p01s02-wosc.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61903-2002Oct21.html
http://www.salon.com/politics/conason/2002/11/18/bush/index.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/06/60minutes/main532107.shtml
http://www.bushlies.com/newlies.php for the most recent lies
http://www.house.gov/appropriations_democrats/caughtonfilm.htm for a shipload of internal stuff
Don't insult my intelligence. Since you seems to be so fond of facts, I'll state another one. My IQ has been tested consistently above 130, hoovering around 135. That's not online, magazine type of tests, put proper half-a-day of testing. So assuming this meets your standards of 'enough intellect', I'm glad to be able to move that you're-dumb-I'm-not-thingy out of the way.
I agree with the idea that everyone should take care of himself, a very liberal thought (european style liberalism) and quite commendable imo. But with great power comes responsibility. Again, life on earth is not a game. World politics is not a game. He who has the most marbles does not automatically win. In fact, there is no winning at all, just surviving in a civilized manner, which btw seems increasingly difficult for large parts of the population.
Do honestly you believe that everybody has the same chances and that it is simply a matter of taking them? If we all take care of our own needs, the world will be a better place? Success is a choice? That's the stuff you grow up with as a teenager in our western society. It's not true to real life and certainly not when you look beyond the borders of your country.
That's sounds good, but it's shallow if you reconsider the consequences. Unless of course, this includes negotiating, making agreements and upholding them.
Have a look at this for a swift explanation of how democracy failed at the last election.
Again, that's the kind of condescending tone I don't care for very much thank you. Is that the best you can do?
I have it on good authority 😉 that playing it against the person is a last resort. 😎
quote
"Don't insult my intelligence. Since you seems to be so fond of facts, I'll state another one. My IQ has been tested consistently above 130, hoovering around 135. That's not online, magazine type of tests, put proper half-a-day of testing. So assuming this meets your standards of 'enough intellect', I'm glad to be able to move that you're-dumb-I'm-not-thingy out of the way. "
Having a high iq doesn't mean you know everything and it also doesn't mean you can't be ill informed or naieve. You quote sources for your information and I apreciate that however your sources aren't necisarly the final authority on these matters. I don't think your dumb I just disagree with your point of view.
On another note if you call gwb's statesments about wmd in iraq lies then you also need to call clinton, schroeder,blair,sheroch,and hans blitz liars also and demonize them and many others on your side as well.
"Don't insult my intelligence. Since you seems to be so fond of facts, I'll state another one. My IQ has been tested consistently above 130, hoovering around 135. That's not online, magazine type of tests, put proper half-a-day of testing. So assuming this meets your standards of 'enough intellect', I'm glad to be able to move that you're-dumb-I'm-not-thingy out of the way. "
Having a high iq doesn't mean you know everything and it also doesn't mean you can't be ill informed or naieve. You quote sources for your information and I apreciate that however your sources aren't necisarly the final authority on these matters. I don't think your dumb I just disagree with your point of view.
On another note if you call gwb's statesments about wmd in iraq lies then you also need to call clinton, schroeder,blair,sheroch,and hans blitz liars also and demonize them and many others on your side as well.
Well, lets all calm down a bit.
Both sides are making some points here and both sides are being stubborn.
I do not think Bush personally lied, despite what many liberals like to claim. He might very well have been too enthusiastic about invading, but if your intelligence guys are giving you some dire warnings that if nothing is done SH will get nukes and stuff, then the pressure to act gets intense. We will NEVER know if, today, had Bush not acted, SH would have had a nuclear capability and might now be making plans to reinvade Kuwait where, if we resisted, he would threaten to blow up part of Israel? That might be a long shot (and I don't it all THAT much of a long shot), but what odds would you be willing to accept? As it turns out, SH himself believed he had WMD, we hear, and while it turns out that he didn't, apparently, word coming out was that he did.
If you all want to continue propagating the very debatable and probably inaccurate notion that Bush is a hard liar, I guess you can do that, but it is not helping the world's situation in the slightest, and it actually makes the world more dangerous. For most of you guys, it allows you to spend some time have fun blasting a conservative, but for others, they will listen to this and then decide to kill innocent people if this false believe helps push them over the edge.
As for Americans being stupid, well, yeah, a lot of us are. Trouble is, those who think they are really smart often turn out to be pretty dumb. Some pretty smart men have been wrong about a lot of things! And some country bumpkins often turn out to be wise beyond belief. But to blame our educational system is a little misguided and the only intent I can see to bring it up here in the way it was brought up is to simply inflame and spread badwill.
There are dumb and smart people on both sides of this issue. One's IQ is not indicative of one's support for the war. I do think that one's IQ can be gleaned by the type of post that one makes here. If one argues in circles, never debates, uses hostile language and invokes name calling, etc., then it is pretty clear that person is either young, not very smart, or simply wants to argue and inflame.
Both sides are making some points here and both sides are being stubborn.
I do not think Bush personally lied, despite what many liberals like to claim. He might very well have been too enthusiastic about invading, but if your intelligence guys are giving you some dire warnings that if nothing is done SH will get nukes and stuff, then the pressure to act gets intense. We will NEVER know if, today, had Bush not acted, SH would have had a nuclear capability and might now be making plans to reinvade Kuwait where, if we resisted, he would threaten to blow up part of Israel? That might be a long shot (and I don't it all THAT much of a long shot), but what odds would you be willing to accept? As it turns out, SH himself believed he had WMD, we hear, and while it turns out that he didn't, apparently, word coming out was that he did.
If you all want to continue propagating the very debatable and probably inaccurate notion that Bush is a hard liar, I guess you can do that, but it is not helping the world's situation in the slightest, and it actually makes the world more dangerous. For most of you guys, it allows you to spend some time have fun blasting a conservative, but for others, they will listen to this and then decide to kill innocent people if this false believe helps push them over the edge.
As for Americans being stupid, well, yeah, a lot of us are. Trouble is, those who think they are really smart often turn out to be pretty dumb. Some pretty smart men have been wrong about a lot of things! And some country bumpkins often turn out to be wise beyond belief. But to blame our educational system is a little misguided and the only intent I can see to bring it up here in the way it was brought up is to simply inflame and spread badwill.
There are dumb and smart people on both sides of this issue. One's IQ is not indicative of one's support for the war. I do think that one's IQ can be gleaned by the type of post that one makes here. If one argues in circles, never debates, uses hostile language and invokes name calling, etc., then it is pretty clear that person is either young, not very smart, or simply wants to argue and inflame.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.