|
Author
|
Topic: My HS remembers 9-11
|
javalin
Orangutan Spouse
Member # 3505
Member Rated:
|
posted 09-13-2003 12:09 AM
Well this is my first post after lurking for about 2 1/2 years and due to all the complaining of lame posts, I decided I'd give it a shot.
Well yesterday was 9-11 as you all know and my school decided to have a memorial type thing (I guess so they could say "we honored 9-11" or something. So, we're in there for an hour and they show us the fire fighters and "we wont forget" stuff.It was all well done, but then here comes Sgt. Hombre (to protect his name), our shcool recruiter. He then talks for the next 50 minutes about how joining the service is the best decision we could ever make. In between his short patriotic speeches we watch little 5 minute segment glorifying the army. And im sitting there thinking about how this sick bastard is capitalizing on 3000 lost lives so he can make his recruitment quota. It just makes me want to throw up. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
From: FL | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cloud9x
Estelle Getty
Member # 2805
Member Rated:
|
posted 09-13-2003 12:22 AM
canada doesn't care
- - - - -
[22:51] Y2Jesus: shut up japanese peopre
From: Kanadia eh? | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rolken
Vulcan
Member # 7
Member Rated:
|
posted 09-13-2003 12:53 AM
2 1/2 years of lurking? Doesn't reading others' conversations ever get old?
From: Provo, UT | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kiseiju
Farting Nudist
Member # 2421
Member Rated:
|
posted 09-13-2003 01:08 AM
No, no it does not.
That's a shame. Too many people believe we have to throw are full support behind the military and president because of the tragedy that occurred. Instead they should take a look at why so many countries fear and hate us and think about how we can change that in the future.
Anyway, a friend asked me today how I could be so unpatriotic in regard to my views of President Bush. My reply: the most patriotic thing I could possibly do would be voting for someone with a better grasp of what is good for our country and people; something that I feel president Bush cannot handle.
- - - - -
The strong take away from the weak, while the smart take away from the strong...
From: PA | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Charmeleon42
Date Rapist
Member # 1066
Member Rated:
|
posted 09-13-2003 02:02 AM
Anyway, a friend asked me today how I could be so unpatriotic in regard to my views of President Bush. My reply: the most patriotic thing I could possibly do would be voting for someone with a better grasp of what is good for our country and people; something that I feel president Bush cannot handle.
It's unpatriotic because liberals would rather see Bush fail to bolster their own egos, rather than see our president succeed.
This is shown by liberal bitching at every little damn thing the man does.
From: Mountain Dew Land | Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
ceoalex316
Time for the flaming leprosy party
Member # 338
|
posted 09-13-2003 02:15 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Charmeleon42:
This is shown by liberal bitching at every little damn thing the man does.
I missed something important.
So your saying that Bush isn't bad, the liberals are just giving him a hard time? Are you saying the fucking healthy forest imitative will make forest healthier?!! Just because you call it a healthy forest initiative doesn't mean it will make fucking forests fucking healthier!! Got it?
From: NYC | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Charmeleon42
Date Rapist
Member # 1066
Member Rated:
|
posted 09-13-2003 02:30 AM
So your saying that Bush isn't bad, the liberals are just giving him a hard time?
Example: The 16 words. Liberals bitch and whine how Bush is such a liar over it like it's some big giant thing. Fact of the matter was that it was accidentally left into the speech by whoever ran the teleprompter, and guess what - those 16 words was not the core of his argument; far from it.
But you wouldn't hear that from a lib!
Just because you call it a healthy forest initiative doesn't mean it will make fucking forests fucking healthier!! Got it?
*Goes off and reads up about this totally random topic that has nothing to do with anything*
I can see why people would be opposed, however, I can understand the reasoning behind this. It's not making it "Healthier" directly, but it could lower the chances of those obsenely devastating forest fires. I don't think it's that bad of an idea... theoretically, the trees would probably be transplanted, not destroyed when pulled up out of the ground, so it would in the end run make the forests larger. How do I figure? Right now for every tree that you lumber, you have to plant so many in it's wake. Planting trees back in the same spot would be counter-productive, so it's logical that they would be moved elsewhere.
But! Liberals don't take the time to think about it. This plan involves removing trees - WHOA!! omgBushwtf! I don't even need to think about logical reasoning here, he crossed the line by moving trees around!
See what I mean? Every little thing.
From: Mountain Dew Land | Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. K
Racist
Member # 2
Member Rated:
|
posted 09-13-2003 05:21 AM
Char42: It's unpatriotic because liberals would rather see Bush fail to bolster their own egos, rather than see our president succeed.
Despite the fact that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, you've almost made some valid points here. For one thing, if a president does something wrong, then it is a very good thing if it fails. Otherwise, there will be incentive to keep on doing wrong things.
Also, this has nothing to do with liberal or conservative. Both sides do the same krap.
This is shown by liberal bitching at every little damn thing the man does.
A liberal, of course, is going to disagree with the policies of a conservative. The far right did the same thing when the conservative Bill Clinton was in office.
Example: The 16 words. Liberals bitch and whine how Bush is such a liar over it like it's some big giant thing.
Al Gore never said he invented the Internet. Republicans tried to impeach Clinton for lying about getting a BJ.
Bush is deceptive about something substantive and you're upset that people care?
Fact of the matter was that it was accidentally left into the speech by whoever ran the teleprompter...
Where did you pick up that load of horseshit? And even if it were true, does it not concern you that a president would just read any old krap put in front of his eyes? What if someone slipped in "also we declare war on Canada"?
...and guess what - those 16 words was not the core of his argument; far from it.
Do you have any knowledge of current events?
See what I mean? Every little thing.
If I had the Green Lantern powers, people like you would be in the sun right now.
Do you know that you are absurdly biased to the exclusion of all relevant facts, or do you think that you are thinking clearly?
OH YEAH: As for the actual post, you should have asked what Iraq has to do with 9/11. I guess they didn't say it out loud, though.
The whole "we didn't start this war" line with regards to Iraq is incredibly ballsy, but I suppose you can get away with it when the masses are no more observant than Char42.
[ 09-13-2003, 04:56 PM: Message edited by: Mr. K ]
From: Cinnabar Island | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
White Cat
Nobody knows why I'm an admin.
Member # 42
Member Rated:
|
posted 09-13-2003 06:49 AM
If you speak out against Bush's policies because your careful analysis of the facts leads you to believe that he's doing the wrong thing in that situation, you are a patriot.
If you speak out against Bush's policies because you hate his guts and believe that he can do absolutely nothing right no matter what, you are not a patriot.
(The above assumes that you're an American. If not, everything is backwards and hamburgers eat people.)
Letterman: Al Gore never said he invented the Internet.
Right, he said that he "created" it. Big difference. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
What if someone slipped "also we declare war on Canada"?
Bring it on! We can... Oh wait, we'd lose miserably. Please don't hurt us, Mr. B.
From: Calgary | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wintermute
My custom title sucks.
Member # 5
Member Rated:
|
posted 09-13-2003 09:34 AM
kis: the most patriotic thing I could possibly do would be voting for someone
I sure hope not.
butthole surfer: It's unpatriotic because liberals would rather see Bush fail to bolster their own egos, rather than see our president succeed. This is shown by liberal bitching at every little damn thing the man does.
First of all this was a totally inappropriate reply to Kiseiju. He (?) only said that he wouldn't vote for Bush, that Bush doesn't have a good grasp of what's good for the country/people, and that people shouldn't throw their full support behind the military/president just because of a tragedy that occurred. Now look at your reply. You should have not quoted him, and replaced "because" with "that." Your post would then have been merely ignorant, instead of ignorant and unfair.
Secondly it's obviously a bogus categorical statement. Some liberals are like that, yes. Some people are like that, on both sides.
Letterman: Al Gore never said he invented the Internet.
wc: Right, he said that he "created" it. Big difference.
Yeah, there is.
From: Winnipeg, Manitoba | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
javalin
Orangutan Spouse
Member # 3505
Member Rated:
|
posted 09-13-2003 10:52 AM
Why have i lurked for so long? Because I fear you guys heh. Also, the discussions i used to read here were always pretty enlightening.
And had I asked what Iraq had to do with 9-11 I probably would have been shot on the spot. Fact is about half the the country beleives Iraq WAS involved with 9-11.
From: FL | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Charmeleon42
Date Rapist
Member # 1066
Member Rated:
|
posted 09-13-2003 11:19 AM
If you speak out against Bush's policies because you hate his guts and believe that he can do absolutely nothing right no matter what, you are not a patriot.
Which is what I see from nearly every liberal I meet irl. I argue with them about it and promptly shut them down with facts, because they usually have no clue on what they're talking about. A lot of them just like jumping on the "We hate Bush" bandwagon.
Your post would then have been merely ignorant, instead of ignorant and unfair.
You're trying to tell me that if Bush pulled a Nixon later this afternoon, liberals wouldn't be practically dancing in the streets with nothing but "I told you so" on their minds, happy that they were on the right side after all?
I think that if that happened, you would see lib ego fill the nation with more shit than it already does... which is why I say they do it for such.
Do you know that you are absurdly biased to the exclusion of all relevant facts, or do you think that you are thinking clearly?
Do enlighten me on what facts I'm missing about the tree thing. Perhaps I am because I never heard anything about that Act before last night, and I only looked at a couple pages outlining what it planned to do.
Maybe I don't know all of what liberals have to say about it, since I just looked at what it does. Although it's not hard to imagine what they would say.
Where did you pick up that load of horseshit? And even if it were true, does it not concern you that a president would just read any old krap put in front of his eyes?
Well, it was obviously left into the speech by some sort of mistake, because I remember reading some news thing about them knowing about it beforehand, and it got in because of that guy who tried to resign or whatever. Either way, it wound up on the teleprompter, and Bush couldn't just stop in the middle of his address, and wait for the speech to scroll up to the next sentence after that, now could he.
For one thing, if a president does something wrong, then it is a very good thing if it fails.
Well... take WMD's. I hope that eventually he finds them, so Bush can get something unquestionably right. I'd like to see him find a good part of the justification for the war, because it would make the country look better.
The liberals would prefer him to never find them, that way they would be right and put on a smug face. That's a good example of what I meant by that sentence.
PS. One thing that Libs/Dems are notorious for (in my book at least) is that they are masters of the non sequitur / ad hominem. ceoalex123456789's post is a good example of the former, the Yahoo message boards are a good example of the latter. Also, yesterday in AP Civics we were given a sheet with this article, and an opposing article to discuss on monday. It's supposed to be about the Patriot Act, but the lib decides to go off on a tangent, and open with a bunch of the major things they find wrong with Bush. That's great and all, but it's really a digression (why cant you stay on topic, libs?), and if you read the rest of it, the purpose of it is to instill a general distrust of other governmental actions so that the author says "Hey, while you're at it, distrust this too!" Meh.
[ 09-13-2003, 12:54 PM: Message edited by: Charmeleon42 ]
From: Mountain Dew Land | Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
ceoalex316
Time for the flaming leprosy party
Member # 338
|
posted 09-13-2003 01:00 PM
I think Char is confused about what a liberal is. Liberal is term used to describe peoples political views, which are opposite of conservatives (like bush). A liberal is not just anyone who hates Bush.
Conservatives (like Hillary Clinton) also hate Bush. They’ll dance the streets along with the liberals that hate Bush whenever Bush royally fucks up.
- - - - -
Maximum Penetration Industries.
From: NYC | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wintermute
My custom title sucks.
Member # 5
Member Rated:
|
posted 09-13-2003 02:11 PM
Which is what I see from nearly every liberal I meet irl.
I dunno how old you are, so this question isn't even rhetorical: did you talk to many joe conservatives while Clinton was in office? I'm not trying to convince you that many liberals don't act the way you're describing. Of course they do. But for fuck's sake if you want anyone else in this thread to think you aren't being a hopeless retard, acknowledge that it's not a liberal thing. Not exclusively or even predominantly.
I'd be prepared to entertain a position of, "yeah, many liberals act that way, and many conservatives too. but on balance I think liberals do it somewhat more." But I'd challenge you to provide some evidence other than "it seems that way to me."
The other thing you need to acknowledge is that many people at either end of the liberal/conservative axis might grudgingly tolerate a highly competent leader from the other end. Some of the liberals on the "we hate Bush" bandwagon aren't there because they get their panties in a bunch over anything non-liberal. They're there because they genuinely think Bush is a boob, even among Republicans.
me: Your post would then have been merely ignorant, instead of ignorant and unfair.
you: You're trying to tell me that if Bush pulled a Nixon later this afternoon, liberals wouldn't be practically dancing in the streets with nothing but "I told you so" on their minds, happy that they were on the right side after all?
Sure, some liberals would do that. And do you have ANY. FUCKING. IDEA. how big a conservative street party would have erupted if Clinton had pulled a Nixon?
I hope that eventually he finds them, so Bush can get something unquestionably right. I'd like to see him find a good part of the justification for the war, because it would make the country look better.
Yeah, that would be great! Then conservatives could dance in the streets with "I told you so" on their minds, happy that they were on the right side after all!
The liberals would prefer him to never find them, that way they would be right and put on a smug face.
Kind of like your face, if Bush finds his WMDs? Try to grasp what a hypocrite you're being.
From: Winnipeg, Manitoba | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. K
Racist
Member # 2
Member Rated:
|
posted 09-13-2003 05:51 PM
First of all, your posts are so relentlessly stupid that I'm beginning to consider the possibility that you are fucking with us.
Are you fucking with us?
hamsterbwain: Do enlighten me on what facts I'm missing about the tree thing.
I'm not talking about the tree thing. You said that the claim that Saddam had or was very close to having nukes was not central to his argument to go to war, and I'm saying you are clueless.
The thing that pushed most people over the edge was the notion that Saddam had some sort of WMDs which he may or may not use against the US (and, interestingly enough, didn't even use against us when we were trying to kill him), but might very likely give to some terrorists who would have no problem using them against us.
Since there's no evidence linking Iraq to 9/11 (javalin, you should have played dumb and asked how many of the 9/11 terrorists were Iraqi), Bush had to present a reason why Iraq needed to be attacked as part of a "War on Terror".
Part of his plan was to get a trusted moderate like Colin Powell to back up claims that Saddam had very dangerous stuff and it might give it to people even worse than himself.
If you can get Merkins thinking that we need to invade Iraq to fight terrorism, they'll go along with it. Note that the Bush administration keeps referring to all the attacks on US soldiers as "terrorism" now. While the definition may be technically correct, given that we invaded their country and toppled their government and US soldiers are the target of the attacks, that's not quite the same thing as blowing up a buncha civilians in NYC.
A more accurate description of what's going on is "guerilla warfare", but Rumsfeld won't call it that, because then it sounds like a ragtag group of scrappy underdogs fighting overwhelming military force to win the hockey championship of the world, starring Tom Hanks.
Maybe I don't know all of what liberals have to say about it, since I just looked at what it does.
I second the notion that you don't know what a "liberal" is. Politics is not all us-vs.-them.
Well, it was obviously left into the speech by some sort of mistake, because I remember reading some news thing about them knowing about it beforehand...
Hmmm. So, it's "obviously" a mistake? It's impossible that they left it in knowingly? It's not as if they didn't have motivation. Also, you do know that it was the State of the Union address, correct? The most closely scrutinized speech a sitting president can give, made even more important because this president doesn't like to talk to the people very much?
All that aside, where is your evidence that it's a mistake? Sure, they say it's a mistake now, but this is after we blew the hell out of Iraq. They already got what they wanted, no need to lie about it now. Are you merely assuming that there was no deception, simply because that is what you want to believe? Are you truly making any effort to view things objectively?
Either way, it wound up on the teleprompter, and Bush couldn't just stop in the middle of his address, and wait for the speech to scroll up to the next sentence after that, now could he.
If he knew it was deceptive at the time, after he said it out loud, he could have acknowledged the error and moved on. You're saying he'd purposely deceive the Merkin people and the world, in fact, start a friggin' war just to save face? Oh my.
Well... take WMD's. I hope that eventually he finds them, so Bush can get something unquestionably right.
THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU HAVE WRITTEN.
NO, SERIOUSLY, THINK ABOUT THE ABOVE STATEMENT.
Not that thing you usually do when you think you are thinking, please TRY TO ACTUALLY PROCESS THE WORDS YOU HAVE WRITTEN ABOVE AND COME TO A CONCLUSION ABOUT THEM WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE POINTS YOU ARE TRYING TO MAKE.
OK, have you done it?
Yeah, I don't think that worked.
TRY AGAIN.
DO NOT BE DISTRACTED BY YOUR ITCHING BUTT.
THINK.
Think until it hurts.
You can do it! Go, Char, go!
[ 09-13-2003, 07:32 PM: Message edited by: Mr. K ]
From: Cinnabar Island | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tenshi no Myu
Farting Nudist
Member # 1120
Member Rated:
|
posted 09-13-2003 05:59 PM
Republicans didn't want to impeach CLinton because he just 'lied about getting a BJ'
They wanted to impeach him because he was under oath, in court, at the time when he decided to lie.
And their reasoning is if a president feels its worth violating a *court oath* just to cover up a BJ, then what else does this guy think is okay?
>_>
But frankly, the entire policitical beaurocracy of this country is so convoluted, selfish, and partisan that it makes me sick to pay attention to *any* side's arguments, as they're all equally spun to suit whatever agenda they're trying to push.
[ 09-13-2003, 06:03 PM: Message edited by: Tenshi no Myu ]
- - - - -
It hung on with Focus Band!
From: Seattle Below | Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ikuse
Farting Nudist
Member # 3037
Member Rated:
|
posted 09-13-2003 06:18 PM
I like how K spells "American" like a European.
From: In my pants. | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wintermute
My custom title sucks.
Member # 5
Member Rated:
|
posted 09-13-2003 06:20 PM
I'm beginning to consider the possibility that you are fucking with us.
It crossed my mind that it was some kinda RPing to keep in theme with Nazi month.
But as near as I can tell this is how Char always argues.
From: Winnipeg, Manitoba | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ikuse
Farting Nudist
Member # 3037
Member Rated:
|
posted 09-13-2003 06:23 PM
Yeah and he's convinced that Buriza is better than Windforce. Just because it "can do more damage". Unfortunately not even the most knowledgeable about Diablo2 is able to explain this to him for the same reason.
From: In my pants. | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. K
Racist
Member # 2
Member Rated:
|
posted 09-13-2003 07:55 PM
Tenshi: Republicans didn't want to impeach CLinton because he just 'lied about getting a BJ'
They wanted to impeach him because he was under oath, in court, at the time when he decided to lie.
I don't agree with the motivation, because I really don't buy that Republicans were so upset that he lied under oath about something that is no one's fucking business, but I do agree that that is certainly a very good point. Regardless of the lunacy that got him to the point of answering that question under oath, he should have not lied.
It would have been better for Clinton to say "that is none of your fucking business", but instead he chose to weasel his way out of it, which is his way. I'm no fan of Clinton, either.
And, really, when you get right down to it, he didn't actually lie. There is a certain logic to "oral sex is not sex", which would allow you take the position that Clinton was true to the letter of what he said. As funny as it sounds, there is an actual rationale for dissecting the meaning of the word "is" within a particular context.
But, yes, in the larger picture, he was very clearly being deceptive, and that is the point.
To be fair, the 16 words aren't really a lie either: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
OK, you can argue about the definition of "learned", but at some point in the past which can reasonably be defined as "recently", the British government did receive information to that effect. The problem is that by the time of the State of the Union (and, in fact, pretty quickly after the Brits got the info in the first place), everyone knew it was bogus.
The 16 words can be construed as being technically correct, but to say those words in that context is certainly to be deceptive when you know better.
If you steal someone's Pepsi and they ask "Hey, did you take my Coke?" and you say you didn't because technically you didn't actually steal a Coca Cola, then you are being truthful, but not exactly what you'd commonly call honest. Also you have shitty taste in soda.
The reason the Al Gore thing is so outrageously stupid is that he never intended for anyone to believe that he invented the Internet. Clinton obviously wanted people to believe that he didn't screw around with Lewinsky at all, and chose his words with the intent to deceive.
Same with the 16 words.
But frankly, the entire policitical beaurocracy of this country is so convoluted, selfish, and partisan that it makes me sick to pay attention to *any* side's arguments, as they're all equally spun to suit whatever agenda they're trying to push.
I more or less agree. It's just funny that someone as obviously partisan as Char42 is bitching about "liberals" for doing the same thing he does.
The thing he seems to be missing is that both sides are playing the game. Bush was deceptive when he said the 16 words, but then Democratic groups were also deceptive when they ran ads contesting the line that left off the first six words.
"...Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." is a direct quote, and Bush did know (or at least had no excuse for not knowing) that was untrue...which is most likely why the sentence was framed the way it was.
From: Cinnabar Island | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
gruco
I am Ian Garvey's lovechild.
Member # 1645
Member Rated:
|
posted 09-13-2003 09:45 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. K:
Politics is not all us-vs.-them.
Oh isn't it?
Glad to see that the new slanty face rule is working out.
From: Clock Town | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Charmeleon42
Date Rapist
Member # 1066
Member Rated:
|
posted 09-13-2003 10:21 PM
Kind of like your face, if Bush finds his WMDs? Try to grasp what a hypocrite you're being.
I see your point :(
You said that the claim that Saddam had or was very close to having nukes was not central to his argument to go to war.
The central point was that we knew he had WMD's before Bush even was half-elected in (Like Clinton or Bush Sr's time I dunno, but a while back), and that Saddam basically put both empty hands forward and said "What WMD's?"
Are you merely assuming that there was no deception, simply because that is what you want to believe? Are you truly making any effort to view things objectively?
I suppose it is possible. There is motive there in the same way there is motive for me to steal stuff from a store - I can get things by doing it. It's possible that the White House is in reality, kind of like this. But maybe it just was a mistake, a gross error of communication. I mean hey, whats-his-face tried to resign in shame because of it. Maybe it was planned that way to be an example - Bush did reject his resignation, maybe it was just an act to buy credibility. But:
- I think it being a mistake is more plausible than a conspiracy theory.
- It would make the gov't look better if it was a mistake and not some cover-up, so I tend to be optimistic as say it very well could be.
THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU HAVE WRITTEN.
It might be something... about him being "unquestionably right", maybe.
Something about me being hypocritical or something, obviously, like Toby said...
Is it the "I hope"? I do hope though. If we find WMD's, the country would look better because we right about them. If we don't then we look like fuckers, and that's bad. I don't wanna be a fucker, so I'm waiting optimistically for him to find them.
Liberals would rather that he didn't find them, and prefer that the US look like shit because of it - kind of like how pro-life people prefer that people who accidentally get pregnant live a horrible life to pay for their mistake; they want the US to have it's just desserts.
It's not too hypocritical, because theres something more to be gained from finding them than a smug and an "I told you so"...
Maybe it's some sort of grammer thing X_X
bitching about "liberals" for doing the same thing he does.
I guess it is true, but at least I'm being optimistic while they are stuck in peso-potamia. I like to think that being optimism is condsidered better than pessimism, you know, how like good is better than bad.
Yeah and he's convinced that Buriza is better than Windforce.
It doesn't matter if a Windforce is better because I'll never get my hands on one ever. Might as well be happy with what I got. Not that I've played in forever and ever.
From: Mountain Dew Land | Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
gruco
I am Ian Garvey's lovechild.
Member # 1645
Member Rated:
|
posted 09-13-2003 11:15 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Charmeleon42:
It's not too hypocritical, because theres something more to be gained from finding them than a smug and an "I told you so"...
I'll take issue with the claim that "I told you so" and the US losing an assload of international credibility (not that it hasn't already) is all that comes out the not finding wmds. At the very least, it would give many Americans a much needed lesson in the value of due dilligence, create a more important standard for political awareness of the general populace, and hold public figures to a greater level accoutability. Maybe the difference won't be all that huge, but I'd say those are all good things.
[ 09-13-2003, 11:17 PM: Message edited by: gruco ]
From: Clock Town | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
White Cat
Nobody knows why I'm an admin.
Member # 42
Member Rated:
|
posted 09-14-2003 03:17 AM
Mute: Yeah, there is [a big difference between "invent" and "create"].
I've seen that page before, and found their argument about the issue to be quite unconvincing:
quote:
...to believe that Gore seriously thought he could take credit for the "invention" of the Internet ? in the sense offered by the media ? is just silly. (To those who say the words "create" and "invent" mean the same thing: If they mean the same thing, then why have the media overwhelmingly and consistently cited Gore as having claimed he "invented" the Internet when he never used that word? The answer is that the words don't mean the same thing, but by substituting one word for the other, commentators can make Gore's claim sound [more] ridiculous.)
This is fallacious reasoning; he/she's trying guess at the motives of "the media" and then use those guesses as proof of whether or not "create" means the same thing as "invent"! I suggest a better way:
create:
1 : to bring into existence (God created the heaven and the earth -- Gen 1:1 (Authorized Version))
2 a : to invest with a new form, office, or rank (was created a lieutenant) b : to produce or bring about by a course of action or behavior (her arrival created a terrible fuss) (create new jobs)
3 : CAUSE, OCCASION (famine creates high food prices)
4 a : to produce through imaginative skill (create a painting) b : DESIGN (creates dresses)
intransitive senses : to make or bring into existence something new
invent:
1 archaic : FIND, DISCOVER
2 : to devise by thinking : FABRICATE
3 : to produce (as something useful) for the first time through the use of the imagination or of ingenious thinking and experiment
As you can see, the definitions are pretty much identical. To my mind, "create" actually sounds like the stronger claim, since it can imply that the person in question made the object poof into existence from nothing (like the Biblical quote above), as opposed "invent" (tinkering with gadgets in a workshop to build something new out of existing parts).
To apply Occam's Razor to the situation, I'd like to suggest that the predominance of "invent" over "create" when quoting Gore on this issue is simply because "invented the Internet" is alliteration, and is thus more pleasing to the ear.
Sure, some liberals would do that. And do you have ANY. FUCKING. IDEA. how big a conservative street party would have erupted if Clinton had pulled a Nixon?
Well, he pretty much did. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
K: The reason the Al Gore thing is so outrageously stupid is that he never intended for anyone to believe that he invented the Internet.
Well, I don't think I've ever seen the Gore/Internet thing used by his enemies as anything but a "Ha ha, look what that idiot said" attack (like Bush's enemies do with his Quayle-like misstatements), as opposed to pretending that he actually meant what he said.
- - - - -
"Anybody gone into Whole Foods lately and see what they charge for arugula?"
-- Barack Obama, campaigning in Iowa
From: Calgary | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wintermute
My custom title sucks.
Member # 5
Member Rated:
|
posted 09-14-2003 02:13 PM
wc: As you can see, the definitions are pretty much identical.
I see that create #4a and invent #3 are pretty much identical. That the others differ is nothing other than a way of saying that the words are not substitutable for each other.
The M-W definitions even provide examples showing you can't replace "create" with "invent" willy-nilly. Famine does not invent high food prices. Her arrival did not invent a terrible fuss. Picasso did not invent painting, nor did he invent Guernica. An interesting one: through legislation a leader may create jobs, but can do so without inventing those jobs. I think it sounds right to say that I invented the job of Chief Complimenter, but not that I invented a new street cleaner job.
I think it's pretty clear that the Gore issue grew around the schism between create #1 and invent #2. Granted, even if he meant create #1 he was (wildly?) overstating things, but it's not the absurd statement that substituting invent #2 produces.
As for why so many people have made exactly that substitution, the alliteration idea is interesting. Another explanation is that many people who have repeated the misquote never knew it was "create" in the first place. Those people aren't substituting anything, and presumably haven't compared the alliterative properties of the two expressions. I think the "invented" version got repeated so much because it sounds so absurd. And I don't think you need to guess at the motives of someone who says, "hey, did you hear what that idiot/liar Gore said...?"
char: I see your point
Oh. Ok.
From: Winnipeg, Manitoba | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
cfalcon
OLDNBLD
Member # 19
Member Rated:
|
posted 09-14-2003 05:38 PM
iberals would rather that he didn't find them, and prefer that the US look like shit because of it - kind of like how pro-life people prefer that people who accidentally get pregnant live a horrible life to pay for their mistake; they want the US to have it's just desserts.
Ok, I agree with this statement. I notice that the strong left seems to have the same kind of unbelievable outlook that the strong right does- they hope for a *bad* result, because the bad result would strengthen their point of view.
I do notice that Char42s "liberals" (the people he has a complaint against, not the summation of liberals) hope that either (1) Saddam didn't have WMD when Bush talked about them (he said he had destroyed them previously) or (2) We don't find them if he did have them.
(2) is sick.
For their part, the opposite side wants to either (1) Find WMDs (in some cases, they want to see them USED ON OUR TROOPS so that they can say "see what a dangerous man Saddam was?) to prove Bush right or (2) Find evidence that the WMDs were destroyed right as the troops were piling in- in other words, justify the invasion's WMD claim.
There is no doubt that Saddam had bio/chemical weapons in the past: in some cases we know where he got them, how he used them, and where he kept them. The question is- before Bush invaded, Saddam said "We had these weapons, but we destroyed them."
Was he telling the truth?
The *most likely* course of action is:
(1) Yea, sure. He knew using bio/chemical weapons would villify him and the Arab world, and he knew not using them would make Bush's foot go further into his stomach (it made the trip to his mouth long, long ago). This is a reasonable explanation, and if it turns out to be true the Republican party line in twenty years will be that this was the intended effect of Bush's thunderous pronouncements: that the whole point was to sacrifice political face in order to have a safer world.
(2) He sold the weapons / gifted them to another Arab country. Likely? Well, possible. Look for this to be a good excuse (true on not) if we need to annex some more mideast land. I think this is a pretty likely scenario, though.
(3) He sold / gifted the weapons to some terrorist group. Likely? Hell no. In the past, it's possible that he slipped something to some terrorist group, but given the scrutiny he was under, it seems unlikely that this would be the correct course of action- especially given that this could occur through an intermediary, or could have happened a long time ago. I'm not saying this in an unlikely event for the alternate future: there was evidence that Saddam did have *some* dealings with terrorists (IIRC, but nothing linking him to 9/11).
(4) The weapons are underground in Iraq somewhere as we type. Likely? I think so- but I don't think all of them. If I was Saddam, I would know that I was going to lose. I would do something sane with most of my "forbidden" weapons, but I would take others and secret them with loyal American hating groups- groups with strict orders to keep their heads down, not mess with troops, not run around with RPCs. These people would be easy to find for him. This would not entail a great deal of effort, either, wouldn't need a big conspiracy- all they would need is a couple cellars that are hard to find or something. What to do with them? I dunno, lots of possibilities. See what government happens. Act like the Palestinian militants do. Try to smuggle them to Israel / America / England / whatever. Who knows? Whatever happens, I bet they'd use them in a way that doesn't link them straight to Saddam. They are eating up the fact that Bush looks like an idiot for saying that, as well they should.
But I'd keep some, if I were him.
I think this is the big reason why everyone thinks we'll find these "weapons of mass destruction"- because he had them in the past, could he bring himself to get rid of them utterly?
I used to be of the "Al Gore said WHAT?" but then someone pointed me to a webpage with actual truth on it.
Funny how that truth works.
From: 39°45' N, 104°52' W | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
cfalcon
OLDNBLD
Member # 19
Member Rated:
|
posted 09-14-2003 05:43 PM
A more accurate description of what's going on is "guerilla warfare", but Rumsfeld won't call it that, because then it sounds like a ragtag group of scrappy underdogs fighting overwhelming military force to win the hockey championship of the world, starring Tom Hanks.
An interesting note: at work, I was discussing the Iraqis attacking the troops. I said "terrorist attacks" and then I paused. "I guess it's more like guerilla attacks, actually."
I also dislike this dishonesty. Terrorism is bombing planes, gassing subway users, etc. Attacking an occupying army? I wouldn't call it that. If Americans can't understand that the words don't change just because the good guys are the aggressors, that is sad beyond belief.
Dennis Miller had a good quote. Something like "Our troops are being attacked by suicide bombers. Sometimes they get through, and sometimes they stop them. Which is pretty incredible if you think about it: this guys whole goal in life is to kill himself, and you beat him to it."
From: 39°45' N, 104°52' W | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark_Herakurosu
Farting Nudist
Member # 1677
Member Rated:
|
posted 09-14-2003 09:56 PM
Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
javalin
Orangutan Spouse
Member # 3505
Member Rated:
|
posted 09-17-2003 04:18 PM
My HS is so fun.
Today was "See You At the Flag" day. Basicly, they all go to the flag BEFORE school starts and begin praying towards the flag and singing those christian songs you hear on those late night 1-800 commercials selling "Songs of Worship" or something.
Man I just wish I was brave enough to lay out my rug and go muslim on they ass.
From: FL | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. K
Racist
Member # 2
Member Rated:
|
posted 09-18-2003 04:39 AM
At least the president has said this out loud now.
Important quotes:
quote:
"We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with Sept. 11," Bush said.
quote:
The result has been that seven in 10 Americans think Saddam was behind the Sept. 11, 2001, suicide hijackings that killed approximately 3,000 people, a Washington Post poll released earlier this month found.
From: Cinnabar Island | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic