Bush's speech...
POSTED BY: Khyron
UPDATED: Saturday, February 3, 2007 22:04
VIEWED: 12155
PAGE 7 of 11
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:First of all, it wasn't "the group" who asked a question, it was ME.
Under which (or any) of those three (name-calling, misinterpretations, and outright lies) do you think the quoted response would fall? I don't see it falling under any of those categories. Unless, of course you consider "atheistic, liberal, pro-abortion, anti-American" to be name-calling? Particularly, as there are many in this group who readily identify themselves as such.
Then, if the shoe doesn't fit, why do you insist on trying to cram it onto your foot?
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
And since I asked a topical question in a polite manner, I believe that I am owed a direct reply- which BTW I still haven't gotten- not splattering at a whole group.
Fair enough. But, I'm willing to bet 10 to 1 that you will say any source I quote is "biased".
It seems that whenever anyone quotes a "Christian" source, it's automatically biased because it's "Christian". As if non-Christian sources are totally objective.
A pro-life source would also be "biased", as if a "pro-abortion" source would not.
A source with a conservative bent is biased. Liberal sources are not. Etc. etc. etc.
Does anyone detect a pattern here?
My experience here shows me that very few (if any) seem to accept anything coming from a source which isn't lock, stock and barrel, walking the idiology of their own personal belief.
Just as an illustration to emphasize my point (not to reopen that can of worms) -- even when I used Smoot as a source in another thread (who isn't a Christian apologetist), he was summarily dismissed. But, as it's difficult to dismiss someone who just won a Nobel Prize in Physics as "ignorant", people tried a complete untruth -- namely, that he was speaking outside of the realm of his expertise -- as if a cosmologist saying that the cosmos are too fine-tuned to have come into existence by chance (apart from an intelligent designer) is someone speaking outside of his expertise.
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Secondly, you're making an awful lot of assumptions not only about me but about a whole group of people. There are MANY people who don't want the government in their business who are neither liberals nor atheists, and there is NOBODY in the group who would characterize themselves as "pro-abortion" or "anti-American".
I'm making no such assumptions. I'm not calling anyone anything which they haven't called themselves. I never said anyone was "anti-American" if they believe "such an such". You're putting words in my mouth.
Meanwhile, there have definitely been people in this forum who repeatedly spew venom about how "evil, backward, uncivilized and retarded" (insert the derogatory adjective of your choice) America is. I would certainly classify such people as "anti-American", and I think that they would tend to agree.
If you haven't identified yourself by any of these categories, then obviously this doesn't apply to you, and you are taking offense which wasn't directed at you.
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So, yes, it IS name-calling, just as it would be if I were to call you an inhumane fundamentalist weasel who doesn't have the courage of his convictions to even take responsibility for his tone.
Firstly, "fundamentalist" applies. So, no offense taken, and I do not consider that "name-calling" (see above bit -- re: self-classification).
As I've never categorized myself as a "Weasel", I imagine that would fall under the category of "name-calling", as would "inhumane".
I have never used such terms or types of terms either in a specific (directed at a single person) or non-specific (directed at a group) manner in this forum -- or anywhere in the 8 years I've been on the internet. There is no comparison, and you know it.
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Regarding "omniscient" -- how is that derogatory? (I never said I was abovNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
"there is NOBODY in the group who would characterize themselves as "pro-abortion" or "anti-American"
Yeah..okay!.......Citz comes to mind. As far as the US having a two party system(another jack-assed assertion by Citz), we do have more than two options. Sorry we don't have 25 different parties like Great ole England. Why have that many options and still vote 3 parties to 97% of the seats? I say cheers to the strawman... these asses need to eat.
Dunno, I like choices, choices are good -- like bananas.
Actually thought I slag the Lib-Dems off they do actually serve a couple of usefull purposes in the UK system.
First, in a 2 party system one party is in power and the other thinks it should be. Ergo there is a lot of positioning on issues and not really a whole lot of incentive for either side to tell painfull truths. The guys that run things now want everything to appear nice and shiny and the other lot prefer to point out the mistakes the ruling party are making rather than talk about what they would do. Having a 3rd party means that there is someone else in politics that can get media attention who isn't afraid to put forth policies because they know they will never be elected. This means things are actually debated rather than just a cold war.
Second in a two party system you have your party of choice and "the other lot." People tend to be stupidly loyal to parties even when the party doent return the love. In part this is because the voter can't face crossing the divide between their profered party and the other lot, this is especially true in close houses. If you are a Republican who likes the Bush tax cut but hates the war what can you do? Vote Democrat to stop the war and if they get in you kiss goodbye to the tax break. Vote Rep and they will claim the Pres has a "mandate" for the war you disagree with. That leaves you with abstention or a vote for a fringe party nobody pays attention to. A viable 3rd party gives you an alternative. You can vote for them safe in the knowledge that they have little chance of effecting massive change. Their increase in popularity will still register nationally however so it will get people talking and be seen as a shot across the bows for your first choice party. You are issuing a threat "I didn't vote for the other lot this time but you're on notice."
Lib-Dems do great stuff in local government.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I tend also to spew venom about how I should exersize more than I do, eat better, write this graphic novel I've been putting off, and remember to take my vitamins on a regular basis, not just when the mood strikes. Is this being 'anti-me'?
Originally posted by cartoon:
Meanwhile, there have definitely been people in this forum who repeatedly spew venom about how "evil, backward, uncivilized and retarded" (insert the derogatory adjective of your choice) America is. I would certainly classify such people as "anti-American", and I think that they would tend to agree.
(I actually never saw any say the words "evil, backward, uncivilized and retarded" in refrence to America...)
Loving your country means also seeing it's warts, and scheduling an appointment with the dermatologist as necessary.
Anti-complacentcy Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Who's yawning now? Chrisisall"
Can't speak for the rest, but I still am.........
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm just curious about what all the interesting people with the anti-Iraq/ anti-Afganistan belief would do just after a 9/11 scenario happened in your country. What would you do if you were a president of America and 9/11 happened?
If 9/11, happened, I President Mavourneen, President Hero, President Storymark, President Shinyed, President Finn Mac Cumhal would .... Any missed presidents are also welcome to also contribute their ideas about what to do about 9/11. I doubt that there are going to be any comments because people that oppose the Afganistan/ Iraq war don't have ideas about what a country should do about a 9/11 scenario.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Actually err, no it wasn't.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Actually, yes, it was a strawman.
Quote:That's almost good, call me a big stupid head and it'll be perfect ;)
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Then you are doing this thread and perhaps even this forum a disservice. Are you telling me that instead of reading the thread and contributing, you skim for the posters you disagree with to flamebait them?
I believe the term you're looking for is skim the thread, then if you see anything you disagree with reply. Don't worry, I'll remember this conversation for next time you only reply to what you disagree with, or you know 'flambait' Rue because you disagree with her and tend to think getting her riled up is best when you haven't got a rhetorical reply to her real 'scientifical' responce. It's how Cartoon operates as well, no wonder you two get on so well.
Quote:Of course you did.
I read the statement as whine all you like but at least know what you are whining about first.
Because it's not a statement that leads directly to the implication that anyone saying anything Cartoon doesn't agree with is actually just uninformed whining.
Quote:Of course it was, Cartoon's just one of those unpartisan kind of guys.
Cartoon's statement was pretty non partisan if you ask me, it was open to multiple interpretations.
Quote:Nope, because I gave clear reasons for my interpretations, where as all you've given is unbacked attempts at character assassination. Well done you
Sort of like how you took Cartoon's post and are now making up his argument and motivation for him?
Quote:Read what he wrote, rather than what you wanted to see, you'll get it.
Actually Cartoon was initially talking about an informed electorate. Perhaps if you had read the entire thread you would not take things out of context.
The fact is I did read his words in context, you don't have to read the entire thread to read it in context. I read every post leading up to Cartoons, but I missed some that preceeded it, get it?
Hey go on, you really capitalised on it there, "You didn't read the whole thread you big stupid head", well done you, really push the issue, it's an easy way to win, come on, I didn't read every single post on this thread, and you're not a hypocrite for not reading every post on this site...
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by mazaen:
I'm just curious about what all the interesting people with the anti-Iraq/ anti-Afganistan belief would do just after a 9/11 scenario happened in your country. What would you do if you were a president of America and 9/11 happened?
If 9/11, happened, I President Mavourneen, President Hero, President Storymark, President Shinyed, President Finn Mac Cumhal would .... Any missed presidents are also welcome to also contribute their ideas about what to do about 9/11. I doubt that there are going to be any comments because people that oppose the Afganistan/ Iraq war don't have ideas about what a country should do about a 9/11 scenario.
Well, not everyone is foolish enough to still believe that Iraw had anything to do with 9/11. I'm in awe that you'd actually admit to that.
I was all for the war in Afghanistan. I wished we'd finished it. Instead, we invaded Iraq for fabricated reasons, and the Taliban is regaining control, and the guyactually respinsible for 9/11 is still at large.
Instead of finishing a job that was justified, we're now loosing two wars. Great call.
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
WHEN you fools can evidence a thorough, working knowledge of the writings and speeches of our founding fathers, the constitution and american history, to any reasonable degree...
THEN you can try calling me unamerican.
You speak of things you know naught of.
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I agree with Storymark's response, mazaen. You make a serious mistake by coupling Iraq with Afghanistan.
The Taliban provided a safe harbor for al Qaeda. Our invasion of Afghanistan was justified, at least in my mind, as a response to 9/11. But then we took our eye off the ball, let bin Laden get away and shifted our focus to Iraq.
Iraq is not related to 9/11. We are in Iraq by choice, not in defense of our country. It was the invasion of a nation that did not pose a threat to our own homeland. The three part rationale that was used to sell this war was that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and a relationship with al Qaeday and he would provide al Qaeda with those weapons of mass destruction to attack in the United States. Now that was all a load of bullshit. The real reason for invading Iraq (and Iran and Syria, which were next on the list) can be found in the PNAC wonk documents. Although, at this point, I think it's safe to move them from the wonk category to the wank category.
The appropriate question to ask is, "Why do all those people who are against the Iraq War hate the idea of an American Empire in the Middle East?" Or, maybe a slightly different question, "Just because one man has a hard-on to kill the man who tried to kill his daddy, should he be allowed to mire an entire country in a crappy policy-wonk-inspired war."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Cartoon- I hate to beat a dead horse, but...
Quote:Because your post directly followed mine and was a response to it?
Under which (or any) of those three (name-calling, misinterpretations, and outright lies) do you think the quoted response would fall? I don't see it falling under any of those categories. Unless, of course you consider "atheistic, liberal, pro-abortion, anti-American" to be name-calling? Particularly, as there are many in this group who readily identify themselves as such.- Cartoon
First of all, it wasn't "the group" who asked a question, it was ME. -SignyM
Then, if the shoe doesn't fit, why do you insist on trying to cram it onto your foot?-Cartoon
Quote:I didn't reject your sources because they were "biased and/or Xtian. I rejected the New Zealand study because the group of abortion-obtaining females was selectively different that the comparison groups (a longitidinal study would have been better) and I rejected the argument of fetal pain because some neurologists claim that in order to feel "pain" thalamo-cortical connections need to be developed, and those connections are not in place at 20 weeks. I can think of several lines to refute my arguments and I tried to steer you into them. If you're detecting a apttern, it is the pattern of asking for evidence and reason.
And since I asked a topical question in a polite manner, I believe that I am owed a direct reply- which BTW I still haven't gotten- not splattering at a whole group. -SignyM
Fair enough. But, I'm willing to bet 10 to 1 that you will say any source I quote is "biased". It seems that whenever anyone quotes a "Christian" source, it's automatically biased because it's "Christian". As if non-Christian sources are totally objective. A pro-life source would also be "biased", as if a "pro-abortion" source would not. A source with a conservative bent is biased. Liberal sources are not. Does anyone detect a pattern here?
Quote:Really????? Please quote Rue, Chrisisall, Siri, Frem, or anyone else calling themselves "anti-american" or "pro-abortion."
Secondly, you're making an awful lot of assumptions not only about me but about a whole group of people. There are MANY people who don't want the government in their business who are neither liberals nor atheists, and there is NOBODY in the group who would characterize themselves as "pro-abortion" or "anti-American".-SignyM
I'm making no such assumptions. I'm not calling anyone anything which they haven't called themselves.
Quote:Ah, then you ARE making assumptions, not only about what you think people would argue ("...I'm willing to bet...") but also how they see themselves ("...I think that they...")
Meanwhile, there have definitely been people in this forum who repeatedly spew venom about how "evil, backward, uncivilized and retarded" (insert the derogatory adjective of your choice) America is. I would certainly classify such people as "anti-American", and I think that they would tend to agree.
Quote:So for example- I shouldn't defend a Jew because I'm not a Jew?
If you haven't identified yourself by any of these categories, then obviously this doesn't apply to you, and you are taking offense which wasn't directed at you.
Quote:As would "anti-American".
So, yes, it IS name-calling, just as it would be if I were to call you an inhumane fundamentalist weasel who doesn't have the courage of his convictions to even take responsibility for his tone.-SignyM
Firstly, "fundamentalist" applies. So, no offense taken, and I do not consider that "name-calling" (see above bit -- re: self-classification). As I've never categorized myself as a "Weasel", I imagine that would fall under the category of "name-calling", as would "inhumane"... Regarding "omniscient" -- how is that derogatory? (I never said I was above sarcasm or hyperbole -- see last paragraph, below.)
Quote:
Hyperbole -- showing how we rarely agree. Methinks you protest too much, and find offense where none is intended.[/qNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME