Proof Bush Fixed the Facts...

Joe Nation wrote:

Quote:

You know what chaps my ass? I thought someone in this administration would have the balls to admit they were wrong. You know, come on tv and make an apology to the nation, say "We thought the weapons were there and they are not. We are going to find better ways of knowing the facts before taking pre-emptive action again. We regret anything we said that might have been misleading and look forward to the present opportunity to bring democracy to Iraq. This Weapons of Mass Destruction Intelligence fiasco is a perfect example of how imperfect democracy is, but that we always try to do things better. Thank you and Good Night."

Joe(fugging weasels never mutter a word of sorrow)Nation

<<standing and clapping loudly for above statement>>

0 Replies

So the doctor says, can't be too careful, that one little lump on your testicle might be nothing but we are going to lop it off and just to be sure we'll take the other one too. Now, lay back Mr. Brandon and bite down on this towel......

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

So the doctor says, can't be too careful, that one little lump on your testicle might be nothing but we are going to lop it off and just to be sure we'll take the other one too. Now, lay back Mr. Brandon and bite down on this towel......

But the evil doctor says, nah, it's probably nothing .... lets watch it for another year or so and see what develops.

0 Replies

It ought to be apparent by now just how feeble Brandon's analogies were.

Say Brandon, i notice you have no comment on my having pointed out to you that your remark suggesting i was slow to understand does constitute a personal remark. Are you still acquainting yourself with the blackness of the kettle, or do you have a comment?

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

So the doctor says, can't be too careful, that one little lump on your testicle might be nothing but we are going to lop it off and just to be sure we'll take the other one too. Now, lay back Mr. Brandon and bite down on this towel......

That is a misrepresentation of what I said, and I have to believe you know it. I hope that misrepresenting what your opponent says is not your preferred method of arguing. What I actually did post was an analogy to a general class of situations in which there is some chance that you may have a disease, it can only be determined by exploratory surgery which can also fix it if it finds it, and in which the exploratory surgery also has negative consequences. I said that to analyze this type of problem, the following logic should apply:

1. What are the chances before the exploratory surgery that the diseases is present?
2. What are the consequences if the disease is present?
3. What are the consequences of the test surgery itself?

In this situation, sometimes the surgery would be warranted and sometimes it wouldn't be, but one would have to consider all three factors and balance them against each other. It is certainly not valid to say that the investigation was unwarranted simply because the disease wasn't found.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

It ought to be apparent by now just how feeble Brandon's analogies were.

Say Brandon, i notice you have no comment on my having pointed out to you that your remark suggesting i was slow to understand does constitute a personal remark. Are you still acquainting yourself with the blackness of the kettle, or do you have a comment?

Oh, Setanta, read what I wrote. I never said personal remarks are disallowed. I said that negative adjectives alone don't add up to a meaningful response.

0 Replies

The analogy still fails. The Iraqi government was not a consenting "patient" in the diagnosis or the procedure. The invasion is not analogous to a test, it is not analogous to exploratory surgery--it is analogous to vivisection. There was no attempt to "cure" the Iraqi government, the intention from the outset was to destroy it.

Feeble analogy, and disgusting in light of the deaths of so many thousands.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

The analogy still fails. The Iraqi government was not a consenting "patient" in the diagnosis or the procedure. The invasion is not analogous to a test, it is not analogous to exploratory surgery--it is analogous to vivisection. There was no attempt to "cure" the Iraqi government, the intention from the outset was to destroy it.

Feeble analogy, and disgusting in light of the deaths of so many thousands.

And bush wouldn't make a good surgeon, he has butter fingers (remember he dropped the dog on its head)

0 Replies

There was a truly hilarious video of his attempt to ride one of those two-wheel, electric exercise machines . . . and, of course, there was the nearly lethal pretzel . . .

0 Replies

How many times is your doctor allowed to do exploratory surgery that results in no disease being found before an inquiry is activated? And if he was assigned to remove a cancerous tumor, named perhaps Ossomatitis, and failed to show even an effort to do so, wouldn't he be fired?

and this:

Quote:

3. What are the consequences of the test surgery itself?

I think that maybe this administration ought to have considered the answer to that question with far greater consideration, or maybe with some consideration.

Joe(There is a cancer on the Presidency....)Nation

0 Replies

Try not to lose sight of the fact that the cancer is gone (and sitting in some prison cell somewhere, awaiting trial), and the patient is convalescing .... road might be bumpy at first, but the patient will eventually fully recover.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Try not to lose sight of the fact that the cancer is gone (and sitting in some prison cell somewhere, awaiting trial), and the patient is convalescing .... road might be bumpy at first, but the patient will eventually fully recover.

Ok so they may eventually fully recover, but will they forgive ?

This is what they have to say, from an Islamic source:

So does Islam teach Muslims to forgive or to revenge then?
Islam doesn't teach Muslims to revenge from anyone. What happened in the US was not a revenge. It was a declaration of war. Even though it is clearly stated in the Noble Quran to forgive and forget if the enemy inclines toward peace, and Islam also prohibits the killing of women, children, elderly, soldiers not carrying weapons, enemy animals, and destroying crops, but to the Suicide attackers, the US never inclined toward peace.

Yes, Islam does command the Muslims to repel evil with good and to forgive and forget, but Islam also on the other hand, prohibits the Muslims from being hypocrites!

In other words, to the Islamic fundamentalists, making peace with the US today is totally a hypocritical, because the US (1) Is imposing corrupted governments on the Muslim and almost the entire third world nations; (2) The US is continuing its aggression on Iraq and had caused the death of 1.5 million Iraqi civilians from the Sanctions only. This is what CNN sources say!

So how is the US inclining toward peace then? And since the US is the super power and is ABUSING many Muslim countries, then to the Islamic fundamentalists, why should any REAL MUSLIM make peace with the US? Wouldn't that be hypocrisy?

Yes, Islam commands the Muslims to make peace and to spread peace, but as I said, Islam also prohibits the Muslims from being hypocrites, and it commands them to fight the aggressors in the name of GOD Almighty.

If you, for instance, come and slap me on the face, then Islam, like Christianity, commands me to forgive you. Please visit the first 2 links listed at the beginning of the article above for more details. But if I find you, for instance, hitting and hurting people every single day, then Islam commands me to fight you and stop you.

This is how the Islamic Fundamentalists view the US and Israel today. The US and Israel are continuos aggressors to the Muslims.

The Muslim fundamentalists never really started any war!

Anyway, it is important to know that the Muslim fundamentalists never really started any war with the US. The US had always started the trouble! Take Osama Bin Laden for instance, if you read up on his history and the reasons why he declared the war on the US, then you would see that he did it because of the US excessive aggression on the Iraqi people.

As I said above, the US had caused the death of 1.5 million Iraqi lives from the Sanctions alone. Again, this is what CNN sources say!

Please visit the above 3 links to see the quotes and their references for my claims in this article.

The point is:

There is a difference between being a peaceful person, and a coward hypocrite in Islam. Standing up for your people and for what's right is not taking revenge from anyone! It simply means that you are doing the right thing.

I know well that this not only exists in Islam, but also in Christianity. That is why some Christian fundamentalists blew up abortion clinics and killed several doctors who performed abortion operations in the US. They called themselves "The Army of GOD". To them, the government was corrupt and the people were corrupt as well. So to save innocent lives, they had to send the message across. They had to be heard. And unfortunately, it had to be done through some actions.

source

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Oh, Setanta, read what I wrote. I never said personal remarks are disallowed. I said that negative adjectives alone don't add up to a meaningful response.

So then, if i had chosen to characterize as just another witless offering from Brandon, you would have been OK with that--providing, of course, that i had shown where i considered it to be witless?

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Try not to lose sight of the fact that the cancer is gone (and sitting in some prison cell somewhere, awaiting trial), and the patient is convalescing .... road might be bumpy at first, but the patient will eventually fully recover.

The cancer is not gone. He is making headlines in his underwear. Has even been called a model prisoner.

The patient had a few other organs removed during the operation, but will recover and lead a normal life sometime in the future. Further surgery may be required, but this will be covered under the billions of dollars that are budgeted for just such an occurance.

0 Replies

Meanwhile, Republicans need to wake up and listen. This is one of "their" guys wanting to impeach Bush!

http://www.vdare.com/roberts/050516_reputation.htm

0 Replies

squinney wrote:

Meanwhile, Republicans need to wake up and listen. This is one of "their" guys wanting to impeach Bush!

http://www.vdare.com/roberts/050516_reputation.htm

"This memo is the mother of all smoking guns" Smile

the rope is getting tighter.

0 Replies

As long as Bush's coconspirators reign over congress there will be no impeachment. Should they lose that numerical advantage in the next election. Bush may find himself no only impeached but tried for treason.

0 Replies

<peeks in ... looks around for "the usuals" still no comments from the previous links, wonder why Shocked

...... leaves>

0 Replies

tommrr wrote:

Not2Know,
1 big problem (among the many problems) with your theory. The abscense of the earpiece. I deal with them on a daily basis, and there are NONE available that are not somewhat visible. And, I won't even go into the whole that is not the size or the shape of a receiver under the jacket.

when this came up after the debates, i wound up concluding that maybe it was, maybe it wasn't.

it's a smidge smaller (or is that just perception?) than the garden variety letronics, but i did come across a really slim shure that i'd never seen before.
not so much in this picture, but in another similar one, there did look to be the possibility of the corkscrew on the ifb earpiece right behind the ear. ?? the guy hunches over so much, it wouldn't be all that noticable to joe public...

but one thing that makes me think that, at least the technology is present that could make a much smaller transceiver and fully wireless earpiece is the huge amount of geek toys that are available to government that isn't in the public domain. of course i can't proove that they exist, but considering what we use everyday, it would be silly to think that they don't.

0 Replies

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

tommrr wrote:
Not2Know,
1 big problem (among the many problems) with your theory. The abscense of the earpiece. I deal with them on a daily basis, and there are NONE available that are not somewhat visible. And, I won't even go into the whole that is not the size or the shape of a receiver under the jacket.

when this came up after the debates, i wound up concluding that maybe it was, maybe it wasn't.

it's a smidge smaller (or is that just perception?) than the garden variety letronics, but i did come across a really slim shure that i'd never seen before.
not so much in this picture, but in another similar one, there did look to be the possibility of the corkscrew on the ifb earpiece right behind the ear. ?? the guy hunches over so much, it wouldn't be all that noticable to joe public...

but one thing that makes me think that, at least the technology is present that could make a much smaller transceiver and fully wireless earpiece is the huge amount of geek toys that are available to government that isn't in the public domain. of course i can't proove that they exist, but considering what we use everyday, it would be silly to think that they don't.

Not to argue with your logic here, as there is always better and more up to date stuff available to the govt., but my obvious thought would be this. If they are using the state of the art stuff, why would they use a receiver (belt pack) that is larger and more noticalbe than what is available to the general public. And on that same note, why the hell put it in the middle of the back? Why not put it on the belt in back where it is less noticalbe due the cut of the jacket?
I am aware of the small, slim easy to conceal models, as in the past I have had the duties/pleasure of putting them in some interesting places.

0 Replies

Proof Bush Fixed the Facts...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know