THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

hobitbob wrote:

Quote:
I prefer a mediocrity

How American.

Hobitbob, you continue to demonstrate the traits of a propagandist.

I didn't write: I prefer a mediocrity.

I wrote: I prefer a mediocrity to a fantasizer.

But perhaps, you are logic challenged.

BASIC LOGIC 101:
You see, when one claims only that one prefers some X to some Y, one is not claiming one prefers some X to all other alternatives. It is quite logical to presume one prefers some Z to some X, unless one actually claims one prefers some X to all other alternatives.

That is really American!

Please help us find someone willing and able to run for president who is not a fantasizer and who is less mediocre than Mr. Mediocrity.

0 Replies

ican's quote, "It was withheld for enough time to allow Mr. Mediocrity to verify that unpleasant conclusion." WRONG, WRONG, WRONG! It was withheld from congress so they will approve it on the stated cost of $400 billion, and not the cost Foster came up with - over $500 billion. Bush would have had a much harder time passing this bill through congress. If you can't see that, you're not looking at this problem with open eyes.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

ican's quote, "It was withheld for enough time to allow Mr. Mediocrity to verify that unpleasant conclusion." WRONG, WRONG, WRONG! It was withheld from congress so they will approve it on the stated cost of $400 billion, and not the cost Foster came up with - over $500 billion. Bush would have had a much harder time passing this bill through congress. If you can't see that, you're not looking at this problem with open eyes.

I mostly agree.

But there you go again presuming to know the unknowable, Mr. Mediocrity's motives.

Foster's new estimate of $500 billion is still too low.

I bet that damnable bill would have passed regardless of its alleged cost, even a trillion dollars.

Why should Congress care, it ain't their money?

Just tax the rich more; that will take care of it! Who cares what effect that will have on job opportunities? Evil or Very Mad

0 Replies

Just released: "Former Bush aide criticizes Iraq policy
Ex-White House aide: Rumsfeld spoke of Iraq on 9/11/2001
By Corbett B. Daly, CBS Marketwatch
Last Update: 11:59 AM ET March 20, 2004

WASHINGTON (CBS.MW) -- Another former Bush administration official says top aides to the president, including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, wanted to go after Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein immediately after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 despite briefings from intelligence officials explaining that al-Qaida was responsible for the deadly strikes.

"They were talking about Iraq on 9/11. They were talking about it on 9/12," Richard Clarke, a counter-terrorism official at the White House until February of last year, said in an interview with the CBS News television program "60 Minutes," to be broadcast Sunday evening as part of the promotion for his upcoming book.

Clarke is the second former Bush aide to say that Bush was determined to oust the Iraqi leader and used the deadly attacks of 2001 as an excuse to remove the dictator from power.

In January, fired Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill said Bush was fixed on Iraq from the very first days of his administration in a book about his two years in Washington.

0 Replies

ican's quote, "Foster's new estimate of $500 billion is still too low." I couldn't verify this kind of information without knowing the methodology used for developing these estimates, although I would tend to agree with you gthat $500 billion is still too low. There are three very important variables that must be included in this kind of estimate; 1) demographic growth (growth in the users of the drug bill as more baby-boomers reach eligibility age), 2) increase in cost of drugs, and 3) cost of new drugs that will be developed.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

ican's quote, "Foster's new estimate of $500 billion is still too low." I couldn't verify this kind of information without knowing the methodology used for developing these estimates, although I would tend to agree with you gthat $500 billion is still too low. There are three very important variables that must be included in this kind of estimate; 1) demographic growth (growth in the users of the drug bill as more baby-boomers reach eligibility age), 2) increase in cost of drugs, and 3) cost of new drugs that will be developed.

I assume the following variant of Parkinson's Law (work expands to fill the time available) is valid:

Costs increase to consume the funds available.

Most of Congress presumes the available funds are limited only by the ability of the rich to pay.

We are already witness to the inability of the Federal Government (regardless of which administration is in power) to control Medicare and Medicaid fraud. How does it work? One technique is to convince prospective patients that they require drugs, surgery or other treatment the government will pay for, regardless of whether they are required or not. Another is for hospitals to charge for services not actually provided patients. The patients do not detect or complain about such as long as they don't have to pay for it (ignoring the probable impact on all our tax bills).

Solution? Cancel or phase-out these programs!

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Just released: "Former Bush aide criticizes Iraq policy ... .

Assuming this is true, what took Bush so long to launch the attack? Especially, why did he wait until temperatures in Iraq were beginning to rise rapidly?

Mr. Mediocrity?

0 Replies

Maybe, it was because they were seeking UN approval which they eventually decided not to, because they knew it would fail.

0 Replies

ican, How many programs do you think our government has cut or cut back on bills after they approved it? They had difficulty increasing the retirement age from 65 to 67 when social security was established, the life expectancy was 65, and it has increased to almost 80. Increasing eligibility age by two years while life expectancy increased by 15 is not rational, especially when our population is growing at much higher rates.

0 Replies

Whether you like it or not the invasion of Iraq was an act of blatant aggression. There has been a long running war between the forces of western cultural and economic imperialism and the reaction to that in the form of Islamofascism. I'm not justifying anything.

0 Replies

Without further comment:

http://www.psywar.org/psywar/images/thumbnails/2003IFIZD003801.jpg

http://www.psywar.org/psywar/images/thumbnails/2003IFIZD003802.jpg

Translation

http://www.psywar.org/psywar/images/thumbnails/2003IFIZD003801T.jpg

http://www.psywar.org/psywar/images/thumbnails/2003IFIZD003802T.jpg

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

ican, How many programs do you think our government has cut or cut back on bills after they approved it? They had difficulty increasing the retirement age from 65 to 67 when social security was established, the life expectancy was 65, and it has increased to almost 80. Increasing eligibility age by two years while life expectancy increased by 15 is not rational, especially when our population is growing at much higher rates.

I only know of one. There may be more, but probably only a few more.
Clinton reduced the unemployment insurance program causing people to remain unemployed for less time.

Yes, I'd recommend increasing the eligibility age to 100 in anticipation of even greater increases in longevity.

However, to be fair to everyone, I would reduce the pay out 2.6% per year to those of us under 100 (including me), currently receiving social security payments. That amounts to a little over a 10% reduction every 4 years, or a little more than a 75% reduction over 53 years. Also, dedicate a portion of each person's payroll tax to their purchase of their own federal and/or municipal bonds.

Yeah I know, I'm fantasizing too. Laughing

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

Whether you like it or not the invasion of Iraq was an act of blatant aggression. There has been a long running war between the forces of western cultural and economic imperialism and the reaction to that in the form of Islamofascism. I'm not justifying anything.

=================================
www.m-w.com
Main Entry: bla·tant
Pronunciation: 'blA-t&nt
Function: adjective
Etymology: perhaps from Latin blatire to chatter
1 : noisy especially in a vulgar or offensive manner : CLAMOROUS
2 : completely obvious, conspicuous, or obtrusive especially in a crass or offensive manner : BRAZEN
synonym see VOCIFEROUS
- bla·tant·ly adverb
=================================

I like it! Kill them before they kill us! Call it WWIII or if you are a believer in the New Testament, read its description in The Book of Revelation, and call it "Armageddon".

0 Replies

ican, I could probably handle "mediocrity" too, but not a lying one.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

ican, I could probably handle "mediocrity" too, but not a lying one.

Then do not vote for Kerry.
Kerry is a fantasizer, and fantasizers are mediocre, knowing perveyors of falsities.

Clinton on the other hand is a high quality, knowing perveyor of falsities.

Mediocrities are unknowing perveyors of falsities.

Alas, you realize, I'm sure, that we are implicitly debating which is least worse:
a mediocrity; or,
a fantasizer? Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Those are subjective terms that apply differently from one person to the next. I only worry about how I perceive things; not what most other people say and do. That's the reason why I'm the only atheist in my family; all my siblings and their children are christians, and they're mostly of the republican stripe, while I'm an independent.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Those are subjective terms that apply differently from one person to the next.

I agree!

cicerone imposter wrote:

I only worry about how I perceive things; not what most other people say and do. That's the reason why I'm the only atheist in my family; all my siblings and their children are christians, and they're mostly of the republican stripe, while I'm an independent.

Well, perhaps a little more Saturday afternoon digression would be entertaining to both of us.

Subjectively, I claim that it is self-evident that God and our observable and inferable universe (i.e., the Universe) are one and the same thing. The fundamental question is not whether God exists or not. Of course God exists, and of course the Universe exists. The fundamental question is what is the true nature of God, or if you prefer, what is the true nature of the Universe.

Some, including me, explicitly claim the Universe is principally a set of intelligent feedback control systems.
Some implicitly claim the Universe is principally a set of automatic feedback control systems.
Some implicitly claim the Universe is principally a set of random feedback control systems.

Which of these is the more valid one, is probably not completely knowable.

Likewise it is probably not completely knowable that God does or does not exist.

So all that brings me to the following question:

Are you a certain atheist, a tentative atheist, or an hypothetical atheist?

0 Replies

Just "atheist" without the adjectives is fine.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Just "atheist" without the adjectives is fine.

If you were a certain atheist, I'd ask what has convinced you that God certainly doesn't exist.

If you were a tentative atheist, I'd ask you what has led you to think God probably doesn't exist.

If you were an hypothetical atheist, I'd ask you why you find it more convenient to assume God does not exist than to assume that God does exist.

Since you are an unqualified atheist (i.e., an atheist sans adjective), I ask you to define atheist.

0 Replies

Those type that believes god does not exist.

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know