Will This World Ever Know Peace?

[rich]

Will This World Ever Know Peace?

Saddam captured!

Al Quaeda and Osamos-bin-Laden, and terrorism are still at Large!

What is new?

[a random hack]

Will This World Ever Know Peace?

no, but RT might :)

[vicente]

Friday December 19, 2003
WASHINGTON (AP) - Americans think the war in Iraq was the right decision by a 2-1 margin and are more inclined to approve of the job done by President Bush in foreign policy and terrorism.

To me, it sounds like a similiar 1938 poll of Germans in reference to Hitler. The only thing different is that Bush is much more evil.

9-11 was Preventable
"Appointed by the Bush administration, Kean, a former Republican governor of New Jersey, is now pointing fingers inside the administration and laying blame. "There are people that, if I was doing the job, would certainly not be in the position they were in at that time because they failed. They simply failed," Kean said."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/17/...ain589137.shtml (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/17/eveningnews/main589137.shtml)

If this was not a Republican White House, appointed by a Rightwing SCOTUS, a Republican controlled Senate and House, with 90% of the other party "cowed" into place by a Rightwing media, the truth of 9-11 would be at least partially known.

In my opinion, ego is the reason why 63% of the public, duped into Bush's web of lies and deceit, have their head in the sand regarding 9-11. That in itself is more horrifying than 9-11 itself.

Something that also bothers me about 9-11 was the following three quotes from May 2002:

"I don't think anybody could have predicted that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile," Condoleeza Rice

"I did not anticipate that the terrorist would turn four commercial airlines into missiles on 9-11" Dick Cheney

"Had I known that the enemy was going to use those airplanes to kill on that fateful morning, I would have done everything in my power to protect the American people". George W Bush

Call me cynical, but to me they are saying, yes, we knew of the hijackings,...the terrorists were going to attempt to get the Egyptian sheik out of jail, thus giving us a reason to invade Afganistan, for which we already had an approved plan.
But even without the mind blowing evidence already known, and the thousand as yet UNANSWERED QUESTIONS, the fact is that any public official who said "Who would have thought ... " that they would use planes as weapons ... should have had their resignation demanded.

Now, not to subtract from the literally hundreds of strange occurances previous to 9-11, such as warnings from Egypt, Russia, Israel etc...consider this:

The beginning of October 2001, Condi Rice leaked to the media that the NSA intercepted and listened in on a call from Bin Laden to his Saudi stepmother on 9-9-2001, saying the hijacking would go down on 9-11-2001. Condi let this out to show Bin Laden knew,...but it also shows that Condi knew,...yet the "White House cowed media" never followed up.

I say:
Condi Knew
Bush Knew
Cheney Knew

As a retired USAF veteran who swore to uphold the US Constitution, I've never been more ashamed of my Country.

[rich]

Extracted from Vicente's post:


"I don't think anybody could have predicted that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile," Condoleeza Rice


"I did not anticipate that the terrorist would turn four commercial airlines into missiles on 9-11" Dick Cheney

"Had I known that the enemy was going to use those airplanes to kill on that fateful morning, I would have done everything in my power to protect the American people". George W Bush

I do not think that any of those statements are evidence, by themselves, that Rice, Cheney and Bush knew in advance we were going to be attacked on 9/11/01. I doubt that any living being, except the perpertrators could have even imagined such a scenario. Thanks to the passengers on that flight to Washington, this country escaped irreparable damage.

However, I am ashamed of how militaristic minded some of the American people are. They call it patriotism, though their goal is The USA being ruler of the world. Sort of a USE, United States of Earth. A good idea, except that different nations have different needs/aspirations. Should all conform, and be the same? 21st Century problems seeking workable solutions. Above all, we need leadership. :unsure:

[thirst4sun]

The WORLD may never find peace but you oneday may find peace within yourself :D

[Lifebright]

We are addicted to struggle; a more powerful drug even than nicotine.

(Un)Fortunately, there is no patch to aid one in the 'struggle' <_< to end this most insidious of all cravings.

[Fujoubou]

World peace ... what's that ?

How can there be peace when some people are selfish and scared about everything. Or other people that whant to free themself and give lesson to others by any means necessary.

Best example is the ying-yang, there always goin to be good and bad people.

[sahyo]

We are addicted to struggle

"struggle" not which most people "addicted"

[Lifebright]

"struggle" not which most people "addicted

asheera 'giving' 'struggle' in not sharing thoughts on people's greatest addiction? :P :D

belief struggle is needed, real, is ego's last stand

or...

?

[sahyo]

cannot "giving" "struggle", hehe :P ;)

isn't "struggle" which is "people's greatest addiction" :)

belief struggle is needed, real, is ego's last stand

no :)

[Lifebright]

no :)

okay :)

[vicente]

Know God, no Peace; Gnow Peace, no God.

Vicente
:)

[rich]

Know-it-all

There are many. :)

[Lifebright]

Know-it-all

There are many.

or...

Sharing-it-all

we are one dancing 'two' dancing one.

:)

[rich]

:)

[rich]

Originally posted by Fujoubou@Dec 23 2003, 09:42 PM
World peace ... what's that ?

How can there be peace when some people are selfish and scared about everything. Or other people that whant to free themself and give lesson to others by any means necessary.

Best example is the ying-yang, there always goin to be good and bad people.
ying yang, like flipping a coin, yes/no? heads vs tails?

heads you win, and tails I lose? or vice versa? silly or :wacko: wacko?

[sahyo]

we are one dancing 'two' dancing one.

when that notion ceases

[rich]

imagining notions ;) :blink: eye trickery ;)

[sahyo]

:D

[rich]

" :D

[zygoat]

richie,
Sort of a USE, United States of Earthisn't that the ultimate goal?UNITY
United we stand,divided we fall,
and if are backs should ever be against the wall
we'll be together

come on people now
smile on your brother
and try and LOVE one another right now

UTAH is different than NEW YORK is it not?
GREAT BRITAIN is different than the UNITED STATES
CANADA is different than AUSTRALIA
GERMANY is different than FRANCE......

MERRY CHRISTMAS AND HAPPY HOLIDAYS TO ALL
AND TO ALL A GOOD NIGHT!!! :D

[rich]

"

:) agreeing with zygoat :D

[DavidS]

Originally posted by rich@Dec 24 2003, 07:07 PM
imagining notions ;)* :blink: eye trickery ;)
And what about imagining that one isn't imagining anything and that one operates with absolutely no notions whatsoever? Wouldn't that also be eye/I trickery? - 'believing' that one can and does hide/vanish 'behind' "Look, I'm not here!" :lol:

"The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light. But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!"

Merry wax-and-wane·imus, y'all! :lol:

[DavidS]

Originally posted by vicente@Dec 23 2003, 08:55 PM
Know God, no Peace; Gnow Peace, no God.

Know God, Know Harmony; Gnow Peace, no Life (no cause for alarm in the later case, however - it is never a 'permanent' State - All is Yang-Yin-Yang-Yin-Yang-Yin jingle-bell 'change', remember?)
:D

[rich]

when that notion ceases


What is a notion, but an idea or fixation in one's mind.
Notions cease when one voluntarily or involuntarily ceases to think about them. :P :lol:

P.S. I ying yanging yang yinging

[sahyo]

yes when thought ceases :D

[sahyo]

voluntarily or involuntarily

doernotdoer, richie? :)

[rich]

doernotdoer

a not doing doer :unsure: or maybe a doing not doer :o

Why kid you? I just plain :) don't know. :)

[zygoat]

we are dancing on one's( "to" es) get it?hope so(sew)play on words :huh:

[rich]

we are dancing on one's( "to" es) get it?hope so(sew)play on words

"to"es rhymes with nose,
but sew rhymes with so,
Why didn't you choose two,
or too meaning also?or all sew?
Some would probably sue. :lol:

[a random hack]

isn't "struggle" which is "people's greatest addiction"


What is people's greatest addiction?

[sahyo]

isn't struggle, hehe :D

[a random hack]

:lol:

[slayer]

Originally posted by vicente@Dec 19 2003, 09:20 AM
(1) The only thing different is that Bush is much more evil.

(2) 9-11 was Preventable
"Appointed by the Bush administration, Kean, a former Republican governor of New Jersey, is now pointing fingers inside the administration and laying blame. "There are people that, if I was doing the job, would certainly not be in the position they were in at that time because they failed. They simply failed," Kean said."

(3) In my opinion, ego is the reason why 63% of the public, duped into Bush's web of lies and deceit, have their head in the sand regarding 9-11. That in itself is more horrifying than 9-11 itself.

(4) Call me cynical, but to me they are saying, yes, we knew of the hijackings,...the terrorists were going to attempt to get the Egyptian sheik out of jail, thus giving us a reason to invade Afganistan, for which we already had an approved plan.



Why am I not surprised that all the relativist idiots in this room (site) are ignorant liberal, anti-American nimronds! Vicente, you're the biggest moron of the group it appears, quite a feat considering the existence of Fu, Rich, and Sonrisa, and the idiot who thinks we didn't land on the moon.

re (1): No, you stupid ass, Bush is not more evil than Hitler. Your malicious and ignorant comments are offensive. Bush didn't order the murder of over 12 million people, you imbecile.

re (2): Of course 9-11 was preventable, but only in the sense that if we had known what airline, what day, which people, and how, then yeah it was preventable. Why don't you think things out for once in your life, you simpleton! The US had been receiving plenty of warnings about this and that possible attack. The problem is that you can't act on everyone that comes in and some are so general in detail that they're almost useless. It's like me saying, "hey, I'm going to punch you in your idiot face oneday" -- but you really can't do much about it unless I tell you when, who I am, etc. Moron!

re (3): In my opinion you're stupid.

re (4): How about I call you a dumb shit instead?!

Look, dimwit, we continue to have threats against us, e.g., that they'll sabotage ships coming into US harbors, that they'll contaminate the water, that they'll hijack more planes, that they'll use Anthrax, etc., etc., -- So now come up with a plan to stop all those things from happening, you giant imbecile!

slayer of anti-Americans and relativists,

slayer

[DavidS]

Originally posted by slayer@Jan 30 2004, 09:23 PM
re (1): No, you stupid ass, ...

re (2): ...Moron!

re (3): In my opinion you're stupid.

re (4): How about I call you a dumb shit instead?!

Look, dimwit, ....
Chill, mighty slayer. You often make 'good' points, but I could write a treatise on the 'stupidity' of thinking of, feeling about, and saying to people one wishes to engage in meaningful conversation with that they are 'stupid' etc. - because of the effects of such 'behavior' on the would-be participants in such conversation (not the least, 'on' such thinker, feeler, and sayer him/herself) as well as on the 'course' and 'outcome' of the conversation. Assuming that you wish to be positively effective and are willing to consider less 'denigrating' and 'combative' strategies as possibly being more 'beneficial' in the foregoing regards, let me recommend a visit to the following sites:

http://www.cnvc.org/

and

http://www.nonviolentcommunication.com/

Sincerely, David

[slayer]

David S,

I agree, the tone I take sometimes is not conducive to reasoning with someone. But, sometimes someone is so far from being reasoned with -- as evidence from the maliciousness and stupidity of his claim -- that I think it a terrible waste of time to even try.

What do you say to someone who would compare Bush with Hitler? It makes you wonder whether they know anything at all about Hitler, the Holocaust, the Nazis, or even Bush. And if they did know anything at all, they'd know that the claim that Bush is more evil than Hitler is an outrageous falsehood, one that is also an insult to Jews and gypsies and all the other victims. No, people who say such things are beyond reason. They're beyond reason because if they knew the facts, they wouldn't say such things. And if they know the facts and still say such things, then there's no reasoning with them. What could I tell them? And if they don't know the facts and still say such things, then what do the facts matter to them? They're irrational and I won't waste my time with them.

What I wonder...is why do I rarely see anyone correcting these people who make preposterous claims? Why am I the only one outraged?

There was one person who actually said that we didn't land on the moon. I noticed a couple of people telling him or her otherwise (Rich and Sonrisa, if I recall correctly), but what doesn't get pointed out is the obvious anti-American slant to their comments. What would you think if someone said the Holocaust never happened? Of course you'd think they were anti-Semitic. Being anti-American has become in vogue now, it seems.

There once was a time when you couldn't just say anything about the president of the United States or our government without carefully considering the veracity of those claims. And you had better have had some evidence for the things you said. Now, any idiot feels free to say whatever. But worse, that same idiot doesn't even have evidence for the claims. He just assumes this or that, relies on poor speculation, and worse argumentation to accuse others of whatever he's already inclined to believe. There's no checking of the facts. There's no weighing which argument is best. There's no being critical about one's own opinions. And there's no checking one's sources. A lot of people get their information from websites, sites which are run by people or organizations with an open bias. But of course anything they read that says what they already are inclined to believe, oh that must be true. Dogma it's called.

I'd love to read one argument on here, for once, that speaks against Bush or America, or whatever, that doesn't rely on pop psychology. How many times can one say "Bush wants this or that" without having any evidence of the kind? I'm supposed to believe that this moron has special access to Bush's mental states? I can refute any anti-Bush argument I've seen on here with the simple question: How do you know Bush thinks or wants that? And then we're left with their pop psychology.

No, David, I won't stop calling someone who makes idiotic claims an idiot. I understand that you (most) find me offensive. Of course it's against your sensitivities to say to anyone, "Hey, you're wrong" or "Hey, that's foolish" or "Hey, only a cruel bastard would say that." I suffer from no such sensitivities. But the question is, isn't there a time when you should get angry? when you should lash out at morons? when you should get fed up with the intelligence level of the average person? when you should cringe because the herd is chewing the cud and they're smiling in self-approbation? Honestly, I'm sickened by the comments that people make on here. It makes me nauseous to think that they have the right to vote.

So, no, I'm not always like this in my responses. If you'll read what I've written to Cold Philter or Thomas, you'll notice that when someone puts forth an argument, even ones I've disagreed with, I'm courteous. And you'll notice that my "idiots" and "morons" are always preceded by my comments on what was claimed.

Of course the replies to my arguments are just quotes, but no counter-argument. As if just quoting me is proof of how wrong I am. But you know as well as I do that my claims are very carefully supported. I may be harsh, but I don't lack reasons (and explicit ones).

So, Vicente is a moron for claiming what he claimed -- a malicious moron.

I don't feel it's wrong to call him that, I feel it's right and just. I feel it's almost the moral thing to do. To ignore evil is to be its accomplice. And ignorance is the mother of fear, hate, prejudice, and all that which leads to evil.

my sermon is over,

slayer

[DavidS]

Originally posted by slayer@Jan 31 2004, 03:50 AM
my sermon is over
Mine, too... methinks, there's 'truth' on both 'sides' of the 'story' ... Amen. :P

[Thomas Knierim]

Originally posted by slayer@Jan 30 2004, 09:23 PM
re (1): No, you stupid ass, ...

re (2): ...Moron!

re (3): In my opinion you're stupid.

re (4): How about I call you a dumb shit instead?!

Look, dimwit, ....

In addition to what David said, I'd like to mention that these constitute "ad hominem" attacks, which are generally not acceptable in debate. Their use is discouraged in the TBV's forum rules. I will ignore occasional occurences, since I know that controversial debates can overheat easily, but I don't condone continued usage.

Thomas

[slayer]

Originally posted by Thomas Knierim@Feb 1 2004, 10:47 PM
In addition to what David said, I'd like to mention that these constitute "ad hominem" attacks, which are generally not acceptable in debate. Their use is discouraged in the TBV's forum rules. I will ignore occasional occurences, since I know that controversial debates can overheat easily, but I don't condone continued usage.

Thomas

Thomas,

I appreciate your position and your authority here. If I continue to post here, I'll abstain from such responses.

I find it more than a little frustrating that what is condoned (by people on this site) are blatant falsehoods, Bush bashing, America bashing, and truth bashing.

Not that someone isn't bound to claim something false when two or more people argue a position, but that there's a huge difference between falsehoods that seem to follow from the reasoning given and falsehoods that are proferred without the slightest evidence or argument.

I don't recall how Vicente justified "Bush is more evil than Hitler." Of course, as Vicente well knows, such justification isn't required on a site where almost everyone already opposes Bush. It never occured to him that he might have to argue for why Bush is evil and why he's more evil than Hitler. I think he would be safe to assume Hitler is evil.

But it's more than that it didn't occur to him that that's what one does when arguing such a point, it's that he felt his character would be unscathed and he safe from personal attack for making such an outrageous claim. I'm usually unable to check myself when I read such posts. The only reason why I haven't responded in kind to more people is that thinking about the number of replies a thorough job would entail is exhausting.

If I claim that the Dutch are all racist morons, I would think it would be out of line without at least the semblance of a reasonable argument. You're telling me then that it's not out of line to make such claims, but it's out of line to call people who make these claims irrational morons, or nimrods, or dimwits. But in explaining why the claims are ridiculous and malicious, aren't I giving more of an argument for why these people are morons and idiots than they themselves do for why Bush is more evil than Hitler?

Nevertheless, I don't mean this in the way of trying to persuade you to modify your rule about ad hominems against people who post here. I simply want to express the dilemma which I find myself. I'll debate whether to continue to contribute to this site in light of the fact that I must abstain from venting what seems justified anger at the people who post maliciously moronic, unsubstantiated claims. I hope you won't deny that some claims are moronic and malicious and unsubstantiated.

sincerely,

slayer

[sahyo]

venting what seems justified anger at the people

were feeling "venting" anger, slayer, or just seeming?.."at"?

some claims are moronic and malicious and unsubstantiated

yes, though only imagined definitions assigned words, eh? ;)

[slayer]

Articulate Asheera,

Since I'm suffering from insomnia today, I will pass the time by analysing whatever the heck you could mean by your apparent question and claim.

Mind you, this is just an exercise in futility for me.

LOL...I have to laugh at myself as I begin this project. I'm thinking the Jews of Egypt laughed a similar laugh when told they would have to build pyramids.

Let's start with: were feeling "venting" anger, slayer, or just seeming?.."at"?

1. Are you asking if I felt 'venting anger', where 'venting' is an adjective?
2. Are you asking if I was angry, or if I only seemed angry?
3. Are you asking me where I'm "at"?
4. Are you asking me where my anger is "at"?
5. Are you asking me if elephants can fly?

Let's try: yes, though only imagined definitions assigned words, eh? ;) [/

1. Are you claiming that words have imagined definitions?
2. Are you claiming that words don't really mean anything?
3. Are you claiming to be from another planet?
4. Are you claiming that because we assign words their definitions, that therefore they don't really mean what we think they mean?
5. Are you claiming that words are insufficient means to knowledge?
6. Are you claiming that you can eat 20 gold fish?
7. Are you claiming to be Jar Jar Binks?

Okay, I'm tired now,

Yeah! I'M tired, as in ME, as in I, as in SLAYER,

slayer

[Thomas Knierim]

Slayer: I appreciate your position and your authority here. If I continue to post here, I'll abstain from such responses.

Thank you, I appreciate it. I think you make interesting contributions and I hope you will stay on.

Slayer: I simply want to express the dilemma which I find myself. I'll debate whether to continue to contribute to this site in light of the fact that I must abstain from venting what seems justified anger at the people who post maliciously moronic, unsubstantiated claims.

It is a philosophical dilemma. I am not very sympathetic to selective misinformation either. On the other hand, everyone is entitled to express his/her opinion on TBV, even if that opinion is considered ill informed by the majority. Dialectical debate is designed to expose false facts, fallacious arguments and the like. A debator always has an advantage over someone who misrepresents things, because he only needs to debunk the opponent's misrepresentation without even making claims of his own.

Nothing is as persuading as a calm and clear argument revealing the truth.

What concerns 'justified anger' - this is really an oxymoron since anger is rarely -if at all- justified. Anger is understandable from a human point of view. Everyone has some sensitive issues making him/her susceptible to anger. Thus, anger is forgivable. Unfortunately though, expressions of anger are detrimental to the overall debate since they have a tendency to stall productive exchange. This cannot be in the interest of any discussion board.

Slayer: I hope you won't deny that some claims are moronic and malicious and unsubstantiated.

Some claims made here do indeed have the qualities you mention. :duh: In this case it would be recommendable IMO to convert the thought of an "ad hominem" (=this guy is an idiot) into a thought of "ad oratio" (=this argument is idiotic), for example by stating: "The said is nonsensical, because....; the mentioned argument is malicious, because...," and so on.

Cheers, Thomas

[slayer]

Originally posted by Thomas Knierim@Feb 2 2004, 05:13 AM
What concerns 'justified anger' - this is really an oxymoron since anger is rarely -if at all- justified. Anger is understandable from a human point of view. Everyone has some sensitive issues making him/her susceptible to anger. Thus, anger is forgivable. Unfortunately though, expressions of anger are detrimental to the overall debate since they have a tendency to stall productive exchange. This cannot be in the interest of any discussion board.




I understand the point you're making in the above quote. I tend to agree with it (as I agreed with your response overall), but not entirely.

I disagree that all responses in a debate should be directed at promoting exchange. Of course by exchange you mean the exchange of reasons for and against a claim, and not the exchange of insults. Sometimes the appropriate thing to do is to to castigate and express your anger at people. Anger is the appropriate response under many circumstances, some of those circumstances occuring in the exchange of ideas. People will make maliciously false claims because they know that if you tell a lie enough times and long enough, people will eventually attach some credence to the lie merely because of its longevity or popularity. After all, it must not be true that we landed on the moon, or else so many people wouldn't be denying it. It must be true that the Holocaust never happened, it's just a ploy by the Jews to gain sympathy and to legitimize their claim to the land they call Israel. No, these aren't attempts to promote exchange. I say it's more just, more civil, more conducive to the attainment of truth, that these people be exposed and banned from our discussions, not the people who get angry at them and express their anger and reasons for their anger.

My opinions aside, I understand the rules of this discussion board. I don't share your views about anger in discussion, nor the views of a great many contributors about truth, Bush, America, proper etiquette, enlightenment, "reality", what they call "philosophy", and the list goes on.

But in light of this, since I actually offer reasons for my disagreements, I am of potential great benefit to the people here -- by forcing them to defend their positions in ways they're probably not used to, or maybe have never done. They will understand their positions better, perhaps see why their claim is less reasonable than mine (and dare I say 'wrong'). Or they might end up strengthening their position and certainly their justification for holding such a belief.

The World's Benefactor,

slayer

PS. Just so no one will complain that all I do is disparage and belittle you all, I want to make the following claim. I took a peek at the Genius Forum and have concluded that most of those people are more deluded and fundamentally wrong about life, reality, the truth, etc., than the people here. See, I don't just disparage all of you. Of course I don't think I'm really disparaging or belittling anyone.

[rich]

slayer,

You are entitled to your views and opinions about any topic or person.

The same criteria applies to all people on this forum. All of us think our

point of view is correct. If some of us believe that President Bush

deceived the American people, there is certainly enough evidence to substantiate

that opinion. There are many who do not think it was morally correct for President

Bush to destroy Baghdad, and bomb the hell out of it as was done.

There are many who believe the opposite. Perhaps the will of the American People

will prevail in this election. At least in America, we have the right to disagree with

each other. It happens to be my belief, thatmight does not make right.!

This post should not be considered as Bush bashing. B)

[slayer]

Originally posted by rich@Feb 2 2004, 06:41 PM
(1) There are many who do not think it was morally correct for President Bush to destroy Baghdad, and bomb the hell out of it as was done.

(2) There are many who believe the opposite. Perhaps the will of the American People will prevail in this election.

(3) This post should not be considered as Bush bashing. B)

Rich,

I agree with everything you've said, with possibly one exception.

re (1): Sure, people think lots of things. What's more interesting though is whether what they think is true or not, at least for our purposes on this site. It's certainly not a settled case that it was morally wrong to bomb Baghdad the way we did.

re (2): From the standpoint of democracy, then I too hope the will of the American people will prevail in this election. I do think Bush is currently quite popular, so on a personal preference, I again hope that the will of the American people will prevail. I'll spare you my complaints about our democratic system.

re (3): I don't think anyone would accuse you of bashing anyone in this post.

Mind you, I wouldn't accuse you of Bush bashing if you should claim that Bush is a war monger, that Bush is a liar, or even that Bush is evil, so long as at least the semblance of a rational argument is presented.

slayer

[sahyo]

slayer:

Why am I not surprised that all the relativist idiots

slayer:

The reason I am bothered by Asheera's posts is because they're irrelevant and a waste of time.

slayer confused?

[Pamela Canaday]

Mind you, I wouldn't accuse you of Bush bashing if you should claim that Bush is a war monger, that Bush is a liar, or even that Bush is evil, so long as at least the semblance of a rational argument is presented.Wow. I hadn't even realized that anybody was still debating about whether or not Bush is a war monger, a liar, and evil.

I'd hesitate to call him evil because I'm not sure how I define the word evil or how I feel about its connotations.

Nice war these past few weeks.
Sometimes it makes me want to say "I told you so." to all the people who insisted that this wouldn't be a problem.
I refrain though.
People are dying by the dozen. The fact that Bush is an idiot pales in comparison.

[sonrisa]

Pam :D

u GO girl!! :thumbsup:

[slayer]

Hello TBV-ers,

This will be one of my final few posts, as I've discovered another forum, one where people actually give arguments for their positions! WOW.

Let me address the latest simpleton (Pam) before I go to sleep though.

Pam: Wow. I hadn't even realized that anybody was still debating about whether or not Bush is a war monger, a liar, and evil.

slayer -- Riiight, and from this mental state of yours what follows? And from the fact that people debate it what follows? Or from the fact that people no longer debate it what follows? Or, from the fact that you imply it what follows? NICE!

Pam: Nice war these past few weeks.
Sometimes it makes me want to say "I told you so." to all the people who insisted that this wouldn't be a problem.

slayer -- What's amusing is that you think that predicting that there would be problems is something to be proud of. Wow, pretty amazing prognosis on your part.

Look, I'm Pam: In the next war people will die and there will be resistance! Hilarious.

Enjoy your "I told you so" victory over those geniusses who said the war wouldn't be a problem.

Pam: The fact that Bush is an idiot pales in comparison.

slayer -- Well, no, simple one, that fact that you assert he's an idiot doesn't make him an idiot. And since you give no argument, as expected, you give no reasonable person a reason to believe what you're saying is true.

But continue to post your typical liberal folderol, because we all know that morons will applaud your efforts. E.g,. "u GO girl!!"

You know, sometimes I wish I were as idiotic as you are, Pam. Then I could make the following claims and actually think that I've given good arguments.

Uhm, the fact that I can say "the fact that Pam is an idiot" makes it the case that Pam is an idiot.

Uhm, the fact that I make snide remarks about Bush makes it the case that he's an idiot.

Uhm, people are dying in a war, therefore the war was a bad idea.

Uhm, people are dying in a war, therefore Bush was wrong.

Uhm, everyone here but slayer agrees with me, therefore I'm right.

Uhm, news flash: People are dying by the dozen!....in a war!!!!

enjoy bliss,

slayer

[Pamela Canaday]

This will be one of my final few posts, as I've discovered another forum, one where people actually give arguments for their positions! WOW.

I thought my argument was obvious.

Pam: Wow. I hadn't even realized that anybody was still debating about whether or not Bush is a war monger, a liar, and evil.

slayer -- Riiight, and from this mental state of yours what follows? And from the fact that people debate it what follows? Or from the fact that people no longer debate it what follows? Or, from the fact that you imply it what follows? NICE!

Interesting.
You don't dispute it. You just don't like the fact that it's being said?
Do you also object to me calling Clinton a liar, womanizer, and scam artist?
Or is that simply more in step with your political beliefs?

Pam: Nice war these past few weeks.
Sometimes it makes me want to say "I told you so." to all the people who insisted that this wouldn't be a problem.

slayer -- What's amusing is that you think that predicting that there would be problems is something to be proud of. Wow, pretty amazing prognosis on your part.

What's amazing is what you read into my post.
I want to say "I told you so." Because people who said this scenario (you know, the one in the news) was likely to happen were viewed as "Anti-Bush Liberals" rather then seen as having valid concerns.

People who didn't think that the US soldiers would have such an easy time were ignored.
Did you miss the numerous implications that it was going to be a relatively easy war? Did you miss the implications that the US would be overwhelmingly welcomed?

Pam: The fact that Bush is an idiot pales in comparison.

slayer -- Well, no, simple one, that fact that you assert he's an idiot doesn't make him an idiot. And since you give no argument, as expected, you give no reasonable person a reason to believe what you're saying is true.

Ummm
Did you see the last Press Conference?
Have you listened to any of his speeches?
Do you actually disagree? Or are you simply being confrontational?

[slayer]

Pamela Canaday,

Pam: I thought my argument was obvious.

slayer -- 'obvious to you' doesn't imply obvious to others. By the way, what argument? You simply state that Bush is a war monger, a liar, and evil. You need to look up "argument" in the dictionary.

Pam: Interesting.
You don't dispute it. You just don't like the fact that it's being said?
Do you also object to me calling Clinton a liar, womanizer, and scam artist?
Or is that simply more in step with your political beliefs?

slayer -- Why is it interesting? I know why it's interesting for you. You think that my not disputing the claim means I concede the claim or feel like I can't refute the claim. It's interesting to you because you make poor assumptions. It's not that I JUST don't like the fact that it's being stated, as opposed to ARGUED, but that I don't like the fact that it's JUST being stated, as opposed to ARGUED. Take a year to figure out the difference there.

I'll let you make more poor assumptions about what I think about the second question, considering that I won't answer it. Hmmm, interesting!!! Must mean whathever my little mind think it means -- signed, Pam.

Pam: What's amazing is what you read into my post.
I want to say "I told you so." Because people who said this scenario (you know, the one in the news) was likely to happen were viewed as "Anti-Bush Liberals" rather then seen as having valid concerns.

slayer -- Why is it AMAZING?

Anyone who said there wouldn't be any problems is a moron. Why would you say "I told you so" regarding something so obviously true, namely that there would be problems in a war? It's like saying, "I told you so, Sonrisa, that the world wasn't flat." Yeah, really impressive. Way to get that satisfaction by being right about the world not being flat and by being smarter than Sonrisa. Genius!!!

Pam: People who didn't think that the US soldiers would have such an easy time were ignored.
Did you miss the numerous implications that it was going to be a relatively easy war? Did you miss the implications that the US would be overwhelmingly welcomed?

slayer -- Wrong. People who thought that the war would be easy are idiots. You're complaining about being ignored by idiots. Keep caring what they think. Keep finding solace in that you were right all along, right about what the majority of mankind was right about. Way to go!

No, I didn't miss any of those implications, I didn't even miss the explicit claims. What I did do is dismiss these people as morons. While you, on the other hand, have a need to redeem yourself in their eyes, because they thought of you as an anti-Bush liberal, which you are. Oh no, they pegged you right for the wrong reasons! Deal with it, anti-Bush liberal.

Pam:Ummm
Did you see the last Press Conference?
Have you listened to any of his speeches?
Do you actually disagree? Or are you simply being confrontational?

slayer -- Brace yourself, but I disagree with your statements. So, I not only actually disagree, but I disagree. You're so brainwashed that you can't even fathom someone disagreeing with you. Again, stop surrounding yourself with a bunch of Sonrisas, and for once in your life you might have to stop and give arguments (there goes that foreign word again!) for your statements and emotes.

"ARGUMENT" -- look it up before you respond to me again, please,

thank you,

slayer

[Pamela Canaday]

slayer -- 'obvious to you' doesn't imply obvious to others. By the way, what argument? You simply state that Bush is a war monger, a liar, and evil. You need to look up "argument" in the dictionary.
I stated that Bush was an idiot. I don't believe I stated the other things. I also think he's a liar. (There, now I've stated that.) Argument: He lied during the State of The Union Speech in 2003.

Since you criticized my "argument" I'm fairly certain you read it.

Pam: Interesting.
You don't dispute it. You just don't like the fact that it's being said?
Do you also object to me calling Clinton a liar, womanizer, and scam artist?
Or is that simply more in step with your political beliefs?

slayer -- Why is it interesting? I know why it's interesting for you. You think that my not disputing the claim means I concede the claim or feel like I can't refute the claim. It's interesting to you because you make poor assumptions.

Interesting that you make assumptions concerning what I think of you.
My only opinion of you, so far, is that you are probably fun to discuss things with in person.

It's not that I JUST don't like the fact that it's being stated, as opposed to ARGUED, but that I don't like the fact that it's JUST being stated, as opposed to ARGUED. Take a year to figure out the difference there.

Since time is relative, I suppose you could argue that.


slayer -- Why is it AMAZING?

I was simply mimicking your speech.
Sorry if that wasn't apparent.

Anyone who said there wouldn't be any problems is a moron.
Agreed.
Although I didn't hear anybody say that there wouldn't be any problems.

Why would you say "I told you so" regarding something so obviously true, namely that there would be problems in a war?

I'm using "I told you so" to refer to myself, yes. It might be more accurate to say "We told you so" but I hesitate to associate myself with all of the people who predicted that things would be harder then the Bush Administration implied because I don't consider myself to be either liberal or conservative.


slayer -- Wrong. People who thought that the war would be easy are idiots. You're complaining about being ignored by idiots. Keep caring what they think. Keep finding solace in that you were right all along, right about what the majority of mankind was right about. Way to go!

I find no solace in the fact that Bush and his Administration were wrong.
Why would I?
Edit: I do care what they think since they're running things right now.
Why wouldn't I?

No, I didn't miss any of those implications, I didn't even miss the explicit claims. What I did do is dismiss these people as morons.

I thought you disagree with the idea that Bush is an idiot. Or are we simply talking about semantics here? The difference between an idiot and a moron?
Bush may not have made these statements directly, as in the case of Wolfowitz, but he implied them.

Pam:Ummm
Did you see the last Press Conference?
Have you listened to any of his speeches?
Do you actually disagree? Or are you simply being confrontational?

slayer -- Brace yourself, but I disagree with your statements.

Brace yourself, they were not statements.
Way to be evasive.

You're so brainwashed that you can't even fathom someone disagreeing with you.
Is there actually still debate concerning whether or not Bush lied?
If so, then debate it.

[slayer]

Finally!

Pam: I stated that Bush was an idiot. I don't believe I stated the other things. I also think he's a liar. (There, now I've stated that.) Argument: He lied during the State of The Union Speech in 2003.

slayer -- Thank you so much for finally including a premise to support your claim. Now you have an argument! And I challenge that he lied during the State of the Union Speech in 2003. And since you say no more about it, nor shall I. Now show he lied.

And you still have no argument for "he's an idiot." You did manage to give an argument for one claim at least. Congratulations.

Pam: Since you criticized my "argument" I'm fairly certain you read it.

slayer -- That's just what you're not getting. I'm criticizing you for not having an argument. I'm challenging your claim and criticizing you for not giving an argument. So much for certainty.

Pam: Interesting that you make assumptions concerning what I think of you.
My only opinion of you, so far, is that you are probably fun to discuss things with in person.

slayer -- First, I'm tons of fun to argue with in person. Sparks shoot out of my ass as I gesticulate obscenely with my hips.

Second, I was ascribing you these opinions because of your comment that it was "Interesting." You know, the one where you put your index finger on your chin, say "hmmmm," and then say, "Interesting."

So why the original "Interesting"? The world awaits your disingenuous response.

Pam: I'm using "I told you so" to refer to myself, yes.

slayer --- Hello I TOLD YOU SO.

Pam: I hesitate to associate myself with all of the people who predicted that things would be harder then the Bush Administration implied

slayer -- The Bush Administration had assessed the situation very well. Please show me where they implied anything less. And then I'll show you where they explicitly explain how difficult it would be. The world awaits.

Pam: I find no solace in the fact that Bush and his Administration were wrong.

slayer -- It's good that you can't find solace about a non-existent phenomenon. Oh that's right! You can simply assume they were wrong, give no argument for this claim (and it's a claim), and that makes it true.

Did you not do the homework I left for you? Here it is again. Look up "argument" in the dictionary.

Pam: I thought you disagree with the idea that Bush is an idiot.

slayer -- You got this right. You've stated that he's an idiot enough times now, don't you think? Maybe it's time for an...(here comes that pesky word again)....argument!

(previously) slayer -- Brace yourself, but I disagree with your statements.

(then) Pam: Brace yourself, they were not statements.
Way to be evasive.

slayer -- Well, since your questions were being used as support for the claim "that Bush is an idiot", then you made a statement. Hence, I disagree with your statement.

Your questions were not simple inquiries into my TV watching history.
Hence the "Ummm" in the following.

Pam: Ummm
Did you see the last Press Conference?
Have you listened to any of his speeches?
Do you actually disagree? Or are you simply being confrontational?

slayer -- You intend these as support for a statement/claim. So, no, my dear, I'm not being evasive, it's just that clear responses elude you.

Pam: Is there actually still debate concerning whether or not Bush lied?
If so, then debate it.

slayer -- Well, since you called him a liar and I challenged this claim, it's up to you to give an argument. And I've already challenged the only premise you've managed to give. So, argue for that premise. I can walk you through all of this if you need.

good luck,

slayer

[Pamela Canaday]

Pam: I stated that Bush was an idiot. I don't believe I stated the other things. I also think he's a liar. (There, now I've stated that.) Argument: He lied during the State of The Union Speech in 2003.

slayer -- Thank you so much for finally including a premise to support your claim. Now you have an argument! And I challenge that he lied during the State of the Union Speech in 2003. And since you say no more about it, nor shall I. Now show he lied.

If you had seen/read the speech then you would know.
That's why I asked you those questions.
You see, it was actually in inquiry into your TV/Internet habits.

If you are not willing to have a straightforward discussion then it is really not worth my time.

Concerning "interesting"…
When I made that comment, I followed it up with questions that illustrated how I found it interesting.
I find it just as interesting that you don't answer questions.

But, enough with that nonsense…

If you want to make the rules then that's fine. I'll play by them. But you need to too.
Where's your argument for this:

slayer -- The Bush Administration had assessed the situation very well.

Compose your argument and I'll go get my quotes and stuff from the speeches.

[sonrisa]

Originally posted by slayer@Apr 28 2004, 05:03 AM
Hello TBV-ers,

This will be one of my final few posts, as I've discovered another forum, one where people actually give arguments for their positions! WOW.

looks like our village is losing its idiot....

don't let the door catch your butt on the way out

[slayer]

Pam,

I'm growing very tired of correctiong your reasoning. Maybe I should add a fourth head to this liberal hydra that goes by the name of Sonrisa-Hack-Asheera.

(previously) slayer: Your questions were not simple inquiries into my TV watching history.

(then) Pam: If you had seen/read the speech then you would know.
That's why I asked you those questions.
You see, it was actually in inquiry into your TV/Internet habits.

slayer -- So first you tell me you had a reason behind wanting to know whether I saw the programs, which is what I accuse you of when I say that they weren't simple inquiries into my TV watching history, and then you say it was an 'actual' inquiry into my TV habits.

Uhm, explain to me how you didn't concede the point intially, and then do a poor job of trying to talk your way out of the concession with your irrelevant remark that they were actual inquiries. No one disputed that they were ACTUAL inquiries, the dispute was about whether you merely wanted to know if I had seen the programs. Why is this so difficult for you?

Pam: If you are not willing to have a straightforward discussion then it is really not worth my time.

slayer -- I agree, and I feel the same concerning you. And since it's you who can't give an argument for her initial claims, and you who misunderstand and tries to misrepresent what's been said, then you're not worth my time.

Pam: Concerning "interesting"…
When I made that comment, I followed it up with questions that illustrated how I found it interesting.
I find it just as interesting that you don't answer questions.

slayer -- Well, no, those questions don't tell me how you found it interesting, but the part where you point out that I didn't dispute what you had claimed was what tells me how you found it interesting. And the reason why your questions didn't get answered, something which still puzzles you, no doubt, is that I explained what I objected to about your claim, namely that you gave no argument.

Pam: If you want to make the rules then that's fine. I'll play by them. But you need to too.
Where's your argument for this: (slayer -- The Bush Administration had assessed the situation very well.)

slayer -- Well, I would owe you an argument, if it wasn't for this prior claim of yours, which was given without argument: "but I hesitate to associate myself with all of the people who predicted that things would be harder then the Bush Administration implied because I don't consider myself to be either liberal or conservative." That's you implying that the Bush administration had stated, or implied, that the war would go easier than it has. This is a claim, one which you just state (as is your habit). So, I'm challenging that claim, by simply stating that the Bush administration did not underestimate things. And since you gave no argument, though your claim was first, I owe you no argument.

So, give an argument, and I'll challenge it with an argument.

I forget, didn't I deem you unworthy already?

slayer

[Pamela Canaday]

<_< We are not relating today, Slayer.

I sense a definite resistance. A lack of true and helpful communication.

I find you a very interesting case, Slayer, but this reluctance of yours is detrimental to the psycho-analytical process, and can only hinder the possibility of effective treatment. Do you understand?



PS: (Thanks Colin Higgens!)

[slayer]

Pam,

You know what, let's just drop this whole string of rebuttles. I'm convinced that you're very mistaken and you think the same of me, and you think I'm not cooperating in a way conducive to exploring my inner tensions, or something gay-ass like that. Fine, so be it.

I like how I'm a "case" though. Good thing connotations don't matter.

Anyway, enjoy your view of things, I'll do the same.

sincerely,

slayer

[Pamela Canaday]

It's a fun quote from a fun book ("Harold and Maude" by Colin Higgins)

I was bored with reading insults so I decided to play since nothing I said seemed to be of any consequence.
Don't take it too personally.
It wasn't intended as anything more then an expression of boredom/frustration with the productiveness of the conversation.