Dartagnan wrote:
Is this supposed to be funny? Or just obnoxious? It's hard to tell with you, Bernard.
I think I understand Bernard's humor. Its a bit brash, but yes it is his humor. He has expressed sympathy for blatham in the past, and so I think it is sincere.
Possum wrote:Joe Notion thinks that Congress is not directly involved and that the US is suffering under a dictatorship?
As y'all just were discussing strawmen, this would be classical case. Possum starts his post with a question, implying that Joe Nation had, at any point, said something like "I think the US is suffering under a dictatorship."
That has never been the case, but Possum goes on and posts page long copy-pastes to argue(?) against that.
Of course, if somebody would take him to task, saying "Well, show me where Joe said that" he could always state that he merely had asked a question.
It does little good for a productive discussion, though. Of course, by burying other posters in copy-pastes or accusing them of having made statements that never have been made, you might be able to
win a debate, as your opponent will probably, after a while, just get sick of it and leave the discussion.
If you are interested in gaining new perspectives on an issue and you are sufficiently open minded to accept presented facts, even if presented by someone who holds an opinion contrary to your own, participing in a debate might end up being a worthwhile endeavour.
(Thanks Okie and Blatham for raising the topic!)
old europe, I have seen examples on this forum like the one you cited. In that case, perhaps Bernard formed an opinion of Joe Nation's views by reading his posts, perhaps reworded, and makes that assertion. However, instead of Joe Nation being open and forthright and re-clarifying his position, he instead dares Bernard to find a quote where he said such a thing. The discussion then degenerates into a name calling session. I think sometimes instead of being coy about our views and daring the opposition to find the quote, we should always be willing to clarify our position again and again as needed. Many problems could be avoided in this way.
okie wrote:old europe, I have seen examples on this forum like the one you cited. In that case, perhaps Bernard formed an opinion of Joe Nation's views by reading his posts, perhaps reworded, and makes that assertion. However, instead of Joe Nation being open and forthright and re-clarifying his position, he instead dares Bernard to find a quote where he said such a thing. The discussion then degenerates into a name calling session. I think sometimes instead of being coy about our views and daring the opposition to find the quote, we should always be willing to clarify our position again and again as needed. Many problems could be avoided in this way.
Amen and amen. Those engaged in honest dialogue will ask for intent or for the member to clarify if a statement that seems untoward or confusing.. Those wanting to play the 'gotcha' game or discredit other members give no such benefit of the doubt and usually do not contribute to the thread at all, and those who expound and pontificate about what others think, especially critically, but rarely say plainly what they themselves think, are generally not constructive to the discussion.
It's like having that one member that seems to be appointed to every committee who distracts, derails, confuses, or complicates the discussion to the point that nothing productive is likely to happen.
Okie, but that is Bernard's modus operandi. He sets up the straw man and then sets out to knock it down. For instance, say we are having a discussion of Bush's performance, he will quickly bring in Clinton, Kerry, et al., who are not relevant to the discussion, to somehow defend Bush's performance.
okie wrote:old europe, I have seen examples on this forum like the one you cited. In that case, perhaps Bernard formed an opinion of Joe Nation's views by reading his posts, perhaps reworded, and makes that assertion. However, instead of Joe Nation being open and forthright and re-clarifying his position, he instead dares Bernard to find a quote where he said such a thing. The discussion then degenerates into a name calling session. I think sometimes instead of being coy about our views and daring the opposition to find the quote, we should always be willing to clarify our position again and again as needed. Many problems could be avoided in this way.
Okie, I would agree partly. Sometimes a posters reads too much into a statement by another poster, thinks that he already "knows" what the other guy's opinion is, and then argues against that instead of arguing against what the other one really said.
That can happen, and a quick clarification by the first poster will remove the doubt.
On the other hand, some posters seem to have the habit of arguing intentionally against something nobody has ever said. Other members don't even get the chance of clarifying, because the accusations come frequently in the form of a rant against something that just isn't there.
For example, I could easily start a post by saying: "So Okie thinks all Jews are Nazis? Okie must be completely mistaken!" and then go on and on and on arguing against that.
Now, do you think it should be up to you to provide evidence or show that you don't think that all Jews are Nazis? Or do you think it's up to the poster who made that assertion to show where you would ever have said something like that?
I guess you would vote for the second option.
I agree with you to a large extent. In your example, I would simply say,
"I do not think Jew's are Nazis and I am sure I have never come close to saying such a thing. If you can cite a statement where you got the impression I did, please do so, and I am sure it can be clarified, because that has never been my opinion."
This would be better than a retort like:
"There you go again with false accusations. I dare you to find where I said such a thing, I know you can't, as you are a habitual liar concerning my posts."
Which answer is more reasonable? I would say the first one of course. The second one would only be appropriate for the most blatant and unreasonable participant on this forum.
The problem we are talking about here, I have recently experienced with Parados and kuvasz concerning global warming. Their arguments consistently pointed toward the support of policies that I view as draconian, such as kyoto, but when Bernard and I pointed out that kyoto would be damaging to the economy in our opinion and the opinion of many people, they repeatedly dared anyone find where they advocated damaging the economy, and that they had never advocated any such thing. Of course they did not directly, but our argument simply pointed out our belief that the policies they support would damage the economy. An obvious distinction, but the argument was sidetracked from what it was really about, simply because they were not open and forthright about their opinions. In my opinion of course. They see it differently.
okie wrote:I agree with you to a large extent. In your example, I would simply say,
"I do not think Jew's are Nazis and I am sure I have never come close to saying such a thing. If you can cite a statement where you got the impression I did, please do so, and I am sure it can be clarified, because that has never been my opinion."
This would be better than a retort like:
"There you go again with false accusations. I dare you to find where I said such a thing, I know you can't, as you are a habitual liar concerning my posts."
Which answer is more reasonable? I would say the first one of course. The second one would only be appropriate for the most blatant and unreasonable participant on this forum.
I absolutely agree with you, Okie. Civil discussion is what makes participation worthwhile. Even though in the heat of an argument we might retire to a less courteous approach, showing respect for the other side is highly recommended.
Going back to Possum's post, I, personally, can't find any respect in statements like this one
Possum wrote:Since Joe Notion is massively ignorant [...] he will continue to show his ignorance!!
Furthermore, you will notice that Possum didn't give Joe a chance to answer and/or clarify his opinion. Instead he went on and immediately posted another rant against what he alleged to be Joe's position, starting with
Possum wrote:Joe Notion thinks that Congress is not directly involved and that the US is suffering under a dictatorship?
In my opinion, not giving your opponent the chance to answer on a forum like this one is the equivalent of shouting down your opponent in a real life debate - not a very reasonable tactic, of you'd ask me.
Now, I am very glad that this issue - civilty and courtesy in a discussion - is not something where people are divided along party lines or political affiliations. For example, Foxy has repeatedly admonished Possum to show more respect to fellow posters. Alas, to no avail.
It would be very desirable if we all, as an "online community", would be aware of the downsides that come with allowing posters of our own political color to be rude, insulting, and offending others just for the fun of it. Coming away from a discussion and having learned new things or gained new insights is enriching. Not doing so after having spent hours posting somewhere is a waste of time.
Advocate wrote:Okie, but that is Bernard's modus operandi. He sets up the straw man and then sets out to knock it down. For instance, say we are having a discussion of Bush's performance, he will quickly bring in Clinton, Kerry, et al., who are not relevant to the discussion, to somehow defend Bush's performance.
I don't have a problem with Bernard because we agree most of the time. I think the liberal frustration with Bernard results from Bernard's full speed ahead manner with tons of information. I do not know if he cut and pastes a little, some, or much of it, but the information is abundant and it is legitimate in my opinion. Some of it is repeated, and herein lies the frustration of liberals because they feel like they are buried in an avalanche of arguments they cannot begin to decipher and argue against.
As far as Clinto, Kerry, etc., I bring them into at times myself as reference points showing what has happened and what they stood for, compared to Bush. I think it is relevant in discussing terrorism, to bring in information about what Clinton did about the problem in the 90's. All kinds of issues, such as wiretapping, etc., liberals have a double standard when judging Clinton and Bush, and I think it is valid to point it out.
Joe Notion wrote:
At no time and under no circumstances does any one of the three branches of our government completely acquiesce to other two. Even during war.
We are Americans. We do not have a king. We do not have a Czar. We do not invest extraordinary powers to any branch, but especially not the Executive Branch.
I answered him with the following:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Notion wrote:
Congress has a particular and well-defined role in war making, please be assured that the various committees on Foreign Relations, the House Armed Services Committee and others peruse, debate and take action on every aspect of this and all other wars. No President can act without the oversight of the People's Representatives, thus shall it ever be, unless we turn this nation into some kind of dictatorship.
end of quote
DICTATORSHIP--BALONEY--AND THE LEFT WING WILL PROABABLY SAY THE MATERIAL BELOW IS A "STRAWMAN"
IT ANSWERS THE BALONEY ABOVE DIRECTLY-
Of course Congress has a particular and well defined role in war making--and the crap about No president can act without the foresight of the People's Representatives is just laughable and shows how ignorant Joe Notion really is---
Quote
Bob Woodward--
Bush at War--P. 351
quote
"On October 10th and 11th the House and the Senate OVERWHELMINGLY VOTED TO GRANT THE PRESIDENT F U L L A U T H O R I T Y TO ATTACK IRAQ UNILATERALLY> The vote in the House was 296 to 133 and in the Senate 77 to 23. The Congress gave Bush the FULL GO-AHEAD TO USE THE MILITARY AS HE DETERMINES TO BE NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE TO DEFEND AGAINST THE THREAT OF IRAQ"
END OF QUOTE
That almost sounds as if the House and the Senate gave Bush full authority to attack Iraq and to use the military as he detemined to be necessary and appropriate to defend against the threat of war!
Does the House of Representatives have the power of the purse strings?
Of course--They can, along with the Senate, VOTE NOT TO FUND THE WAR IN IRAQ.
It's so easy--All they have to do is to turn down the President's request for more funds for the war in Iraq.
I wonder why they have not done it yet?
Since Joe Notion is massively ignorant( Does he read about the many meetings the Congressional Committees have had in the last five years and the number of times they have gathered to discuss actions to be taken with regard to Iraq) he will continue to show his ignorance!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Notion thinks that Congress is not directly involved and that the US is suffering under a dictatorship?
Only a left winger ignorant of what really goes on in the Congress would say that-
quote--
Senate rejects Iraq withdrawal plans
By Vicki Allen | June 22, 2006
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Republican-led Senate on Thursday rejected Democratic plans to start a withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq .
The votes capped two weeks of bitter debate in Congress over the conflict that has caused 2,511 U.S. military deaths, as Republicans accused Democrats of a "cut and run" strategy and Democrats retorted that Republicans were blindly following Bush's open-ended commitment.
A nonbinding resolution broadly backed by Senate Democrats that urged Bush to start withdrawing troops this year and left it up to him to set the schedule to implement the pullout failed 60-39. Six Democrats and one Republican crossed party lines on the vote.
Another amendment to put into law a plan to start withdrawing combat forces immediately and complete the process by next July failed 86-13.
Those 13 Democrats who voted for the measure pushed by Sens. John Kerry of Massachusetts and Russell Feingold of Wisconsin then voted for the nonbinding resolution. It was cast as the Democratic consensus position that called for a plan to start withdrawing troops, but without a deadline that many senators feared would leave Iraq in a full-scale civil war.
After the Iraq votes were done, the Senate unanimously passed the underlying bill authorizing $517.7 billion in defense programs for next fiscal year starting in October, including $50 billion for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
At a Pentagon briefing, Army Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, spoke out against a deadline for troop withdrawal, saying it would limit his flexibility and "give the enemy a fixed timetable." Casey also said it would "send a terrible signal to a new government of national unity in Iraq that's trying to stand up and get its legs underneath it."
The Republican-led House of Representatives last week passed a resolution that wrapped the Iraq conflict into the war on terrorism and rejected a deadline for troop withdrawal after two days of debate that sometimes turned harshly personal.
In the Senate, Republicans and Democrats accused each other of exploiting the war for political gain.
After the votes, Democrats dismissed the defections in their ranks and claimed a political win, saying they were largely united behind a position supported by most Americans who want a policy to end the war.
"Eighty percent of us voted that way. It is a strong consensus statement by Democrats," said Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, a key sponsor of the withdrawal without a deadline measure.
Senate Republican leader Bill Frist of Tennessee said that although "Democrats proposed multiple and confusing strategies for withdrawal, it's clear that the Senate has rejected their plans for surrender and cut and run."
In debate geared toward November, Republicans depicted Iraq as central to the war on terrorism and branded Democrats as divided and weak on the issue.
"Withdrawal is not an option, surrender is not a solution," Frist said. "This senator does not want to be complicit in that decision that could reverse the success we have achieved since 9-11 in keeping terrorism off our shores."
end of quote
THE ABOVE 'STRAWMAN' WHICH ANSWERS DIRECTLY THE BALONEY ISSUING FROM JOE NOTION THAT OUR COUNTRY IS BECOMING A DICTATORSHIP SINCE CONGRESS IS ALLEGEDLY NOT PARTICIPATING IN DECISIONS---CLEARLY SHOWS---THAT THE US CONGRESS VOTED 60-39 A G A I N S T THE PRESIDENT WITHDRAWING TROOPS FROM IRAQ THIS YEAR>
************************************************************
I do hope Joe Notion will begin reading the newspapers- There is so much is apparently ignorant about!!!(
********************************************************
JOE NOTION IS TALKING ABOUT A CZAR!! JOE NOTION SAYS WE DO NOT HAVE A CZAR!!
If some of the ignorant posters on the left do not know what A Czar is, I will help them to review their sixth grade Social Studies classes!!!
BernardR
Seasoned Member
Joined: 02 May 2006
Posts: 2656
Posted: Mon Aug 21, 2006 11:37 am Post: 2220915 -
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Notion wrote:
Congress has a particular and well-defined role in war making, please be assured that the various committees on Foreign Relations, the House Armed Services Committee and others peruse, debate and take action on every aspect of this and all other wars. No President can act without the oversight of the People's Representatives, thus shall it ever be, unless we turn this nation into some kind of dictatorship.
end of quote
DICTATORSHIP--BALONEY--AND THE LEFT WING WILL PROABABLY SAY THE MATERIAL BELOW IS A "STRAWMAN"
IT ANSWERS THE BALONEY ABOVE DIRECTLY-
Of course Congress has a particular and well defined role in war making--and the crap about No president can act without the foresight of the People's Representatives is just laughable and shows how ignorant Joe Notion really is---
Quote
Bob Woodward--
Bush at War--P. 351
quote
"On October 10th and 11th the House and the Senate OVERWHELMINGLY VOTED TO GRANT THE PRESIDENT F U L L A U T H O R I T Y TO ATTACK IRAQ UNILATERALLY> The vote in the House was 296 to 133 and in the Senate 77 to 23. The Congress gave Bush the FULL GO-AHEAD TO USE THE MILITARY AS HE DETERMINES TO BE NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE TO DEFEND AGAINST THE THREAT OF IRAQ"
END OF QUOTE
That almost sounds as if the House and the Senate gave Bush full authority to attack Iraq and to use the military as he detemined to be necessary and appropriate to defend against the threat of war!
Does the House of Representatives have the power of the purse strings?
Of course--They can, along with the Senate, VOTE NOT TO FUND THE WAR IN IRAQ.
It's so easy--All they have to do is to turn down the President's request for more funds for the war in Iraq.
I wonder why they have not done it yet?
Since Joe Notion is massively ignorant( Does he read about the many meetings the Congressional Committees have had in the last five years and the number of times they have gathered to discuss actions to be taken with regard to Iraq) he will continue to show his ignorance!!
BernardR
Seasoned Member
Joined: 02 May 2006
Posts: 2656
Posted: Mon Aug 21, 2006 11:56 am Post: 2220960 -
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Notion thinks that Congress is not directly involved and that the US is suffering under a dictatorship?
Only a left winger ignorant of what really goes on in the Congress would say that-
quote--
Senate rejects Iraq withdrawal plans
By Vicki Allen | June 22, 2006
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Republican-led Senate on Thursday rejected Democratic plans to start a withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq .
The votes capped two weeks of bitter debate in Congress over the conflict that has caused 2,511 U.S. military deaths, as Republicans accused Democrats of a "cut and run" strategy and Democrats retorted that Republicans were blindly following Bush's open-ended commitment.
A nonbinding resolution broadly backed by Senate Democrats that urged Bush to start withdrawing troops this year and left it up to him to set the schedule to implement the pullout failed 60-39. Six Democrats and one Republican crossed party lines on the vote.
Another amendment to put into law a plan to start withdrawing combat forces immediately and complete the process by next July failed 86-13.
Those 13 Democrats who voted for the measure pushed by Sens. John Kerry of Massachusetts and Russell Feingold of Wisconsin then voted for the nonbinding resolution. It was cast as the Democratic consensus position that called for a plan to start withdrawing troops, but without a deadline that many senators feared would leave Iraq in a full-scale civil war.
After the Iraq votes were done, the Senate unanimously passed the underlying bill authorizing $517.7 billion in defense programs for next fiscal year starting in October, including $50 billion for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
At a Pentagon briefing, Army Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, spoke out against a deadline for troop withdrawal, saying it would limit his flexibility and "give the enemy a fixed timetable." Casey also said it would "send a terrible signal to a new government of national unity in Iraq that's trying to stand up and get its legs underneath it."
The Republican-led House of Representatives last week passed a resolution that wrapped the Iraq conflict into the war on terrorism and rejected a deadline for troop withdrawal after two days of debate that sometimes turned harshly personal.
In the Senate, Republicans and Democrats accused each other of exploiting the war for political gain.
After the votes, Democrats dismissed the defections in their ranks and claimed a political win, saying they were largely united behind a position supported by most Americans who want a policy to end the war.
"Eighty percent of us voted that way. It is a strong consensus statement by Democrats," said Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, a key sponsor of the withdrawal without a deadline measure.
Senate Republican leader Bill Frist of Tennessee said that although "Democrats proposed multiple and confusing strategies for withdrawal, it's clear that the Senate has rejected their plans for surrender and cut and run."
In debate geared toward November, Republicans depicted Iraq as central to the war on terrorism and branded Democrats as divided and weak on the issue.
"Withdrawal is not an option, surrender is not a solution," Frist said. "This senator does not want to be complicit in that decision that could reverse the success we have achieved since 9-11 in keeping terrorism off our shores."
end of quote
THE ABOVE 'STRAWMAN' WHICH ANSWERS DIRECTLY THE BALONEY ISSUING FROM JOE NOTION THAT OUR COUNTRY IS BECOMING A DICTATORSHIP SINCE CONGRESS IS ALLEGEDLY NOT PARTICIPATING IN DECISIONS---CLEARLY SHOWS---THAT THE US CONGRESS VOTED 60-39 A G A I N S T THE PRESIDENT WITHDRAWING TROOPS FROM IRAQ THIS YEAR>
************************************************************
I do hope Joe Notion will begin reading the newspapers- There is so much is apparently ignorant about!!!
BernardR
Seasoned Member
Joined: 02 May 2006
Posts: 2656
Posted: Mon Aug 21, 2006 11:37 am Post: 2220915 -
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Notion wrote:
Congress has a particular and well-defined role in war making, please be assured that the various committees on Foreign Relations, the House Armed Services Committee and others peruse, debate and take action on every aspect of this and all other wars. No President can act without the oversight of the People's Representatives, thus shall it ever be, unless we turn this nation into some kind of dictatorship.
end of quote
DICTATORSHIP--BALONEY--AND THE LEFT WING WILL PROABABLY SAY THE MATERIAL BELOW IS A "STRAWMAN"
IT ANSWERS THE BALONEY ABOVE DIRECTLY-
Of course Congress has a particular and well defined role in war making--and the crap about No president can act without the foresight of the People's Representatives is just laughable and shows how ignorant Joe Notion really is---
Quote
Bob Woodward--
Bush at War--P. 351
quote
"On October 10th and 11th the House and the Senate OVERWHELMINGLY VOTED TO GRANT THE PRESIDENT F U L L A U T H O R I T Y TO ATTACK IRAQ UNILATERALLY> The vote in the House was 296 to 133 and in the Senate 77 to 23. The Congress gave Bush the FULL GO-AHEAD TO USE THE MILITARY AS HE DETERMINES TO BE NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE TO DEFEND AGAINST THE THREAT OF IRAQ"
END OF QUOTE
That almost sounds as if the House and the Senate gave Bush full authority to attack Iraq and to use the military as he detemined to be necessary and appropriate to defend against the threat of war!
Does the House of Representatives have the power of the purse strings?
Of course--They can, along with the Senate, VOTE NOT TO FUND THE WAR IN IRAQ.
It's so easy--All they have to do is to turn down the President's request for more funds for the war in Iraq.
I wonder why they have not done it yet?
Since Joe Notion is massively ignorant( Does he read about the many meetings the Congressional Committees have had in the last five years and the number of times they have gathered to discuss actions to be taken with regard to Iraq) he will continue to show his ignorance!!
BernardR
Seasoned Member
Joined: 02 May 2006
Posts: 2656
Posted: Mon Aug 21, 2006 11:56 am Post: 2220960 -
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Notion thinks that Congress is not directly involved and that the US is suffering under a dictatorship?
Only a left winger ignorant of what really goes on in the Congress would say that-
quote--
Senate rejects Iraq withdrawal plans
By Vicki Allen | June 22, 2006
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Republican-led Senate on Thursday rejected Democratic plans to start a withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq .
The votes capped two weeks of bitter debate in Congress over the conflict that has caused 2,511 U.S. military deaths, as Republicans accused Democrats of a "cut and run" strategy and Democrats retorted that Republicans were blindly following Bush's open-ended commitment.
A nonbinding resolution broadly backed by Senate Democrats that urged Bush to start withdrawing troops this year and left it up to him to set the schedule to implement the pullout failed 60-39. Six Democrats and one Republican crossed party lines on the vote.
Another amendment to put into law a plan to start withdrawing combat forces immediately and complete the process by next July failed 86-13.
Those 13 Democrats who voted for the measure pushed by Sens. John Kerry of Massachusetts and Russell Feingold of Wisconsin then voted for the nonbinding resolution. It was cast as the Democratic consensus position that called for a plan to start withdrawing troops, but without a deadline that many senators feared would leave Iraq in a full-scale civil war.
After the Iraq votes were done, the Senate unanimously passed the underlying bill authorizing $517.7 billion in defense programs for next fiscal year starting in October, including $50 billion for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
At a Pentagon briefing, Army Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, spoke out against a deadline for troop withdrawal, saying it would limit his flexibility and "give the enemy a fixed timetable." Casey also said it would "send a terrible signal to a new government of national unity in Iraq that's trying to stand up and get its legs underneath it."
The Republican-led House of Representatives last week passed a resolution that wrapped the Iraq conflict into the war on terrorism and rejected a deadline for troop withdrawal after two days of debate that sometimes turned harshly personal.
In the Senate, Republicans and Democrats accused each other of exploiting the war for political gain.
After the votes, Democrats dismissed the defections in their ranks and claimed a political win, saying they were largely united behind a position supported by most Americans who want a policy to end the war.
"Eighty percent of us voted that way. It is a strong consensus statement by Democrats," said Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, a key sponsor of the withdrawal without a deadline measure.
Senate Republican leader Bill Frist of Tennessee said that although "Democrats proposed multiple and confusing strategies for withdrawal, it's clear that the Senate has rejected their plans for surrender and cut and run."
In debate geared toward November, Republicans depicted Iraq as central to the war on terrorism and branded Democrats as divided and weak on the issue.
"Withdrawal is not an option, surrender is not a solution," Frist said. "This senator does not want to be complicit in that decision that could reverse the success we have achieved since 9-11 in keeping terrorism off our shores."
end of quote
THE ABOVE 'STRAWMAN' WHICH ANSWERS DIRECTLY THE BALONEY ISSUING FROM JOE NOTION THAT OUR COUNTRY IS BECOMING A DICTATORSHIP SINCE CONGRESS IS ALLEGEDLY NOT PARTICIPATING IN DECISIONS---CLEARLY SHOWS---THAT THE US CONGRESS VOTED 60-39 A G A I N S T THE PRESIDENT WITHDRAWING TROOPS FROM IRAQ THIS YEAR>
************************************************************
I do hope Joe Notion will begin reading the newspapers- There is so much is apparently ignorant about!!!
v
BernardR
Seasoned Member
Joined: 02 May 2006
Posts: 2656
Posted: Mon Aug 21, 2006 11:37 am Post: 2220915 -
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Notion wrote:
Congress has a particular and well-defined role in war making, please be assured that the various committees on Foreign Relations, the House Armed Services Committee and others peruse, debate and take action on every aspect of this and all other wars. No President can act without the oversight of the People's Representatives, thus shall it ever be, unless we turn this nation into some kind of dictatorship.
end of quote
DICTATORSHIP--BALONEY--AND THE LEFT WING WILL PROABABLY SAY THE MATERIAL BELOW IS A "STRAWMAN"
IT ANSWERS THE BALONEY ABOVE DIRECTLY-
Of course Congress has a particular and well defined role in war making--and the crap about No president can act without the foresight of the People's Representatives is just laughable and shows how ignorant Joe Notion really is---
Quote
Bob Woodward--
Bush at War--P. 351
quote
"On October 10th and 11th the House and the Senate OVERWHELMINGLY VOTED TO GRANT THE PRESIDENT F U L L A U T H O R I T Y TO ATTACK IRAQ UNILATERALLY> The vote in the House was 296 to 133 and in the Senate 77 to 23. The Congress gave Bush the FULL GO-AHEAD TO USE THE MILITARY AS HE DETERMINES TO BE NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE TO DEFEND AGAINST THE THREAT OF IRAQ"
END OF QUOTE
That almost sounds as if the House and the Senate gave Bush full authority to attack Iraq and to use the military as he detemined to be necessary and appropriate to defend against the threat of war!
Does the House of Representatives have the power of the purse strings?
Of course--They can, along with the Senate, VOTE NOT TO FUND THE WAR IN IRAQ.
It's so easy--All they have to do is to turn down the President's request for more funds for the war in Iraq.
I wonder why they have not done it yet?
Since Joe Notion is massively ignorant( Does he read about the many meetings the Congressional Committees have had in the last five years and the number of times they have gathered to discuss actions to be taken with regard to Iraq) he will continue to show his ignorance!!
BernardR
Seasoned Member
Joined: 02 May 2006
Posts: 2656
Posted: Mon Aug 21, 2006 11:56 am Post: 2220960 -
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Notion thinks that Congress is not directly involved and that the US is suffering under a dictatorship?
Only a left winger ignorant of what really goes on in the Congress would say that-
quote--
Senate rejects Iraq withdrawal plans
By Vicki Allen | June 22, 2006
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Republican-led Senate on Thursday rejected Democratic plans to start a withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq .
The votes capped two weeks of bitter debate in Congress over the conflict that has caused 2,511 U.S. military deaths, as Republicans accused Democrats of a "cut and run" strategy and Democrats retorted that Republicans were blindly following Bush's open-ended commitment.
A nonbinding resolution broadly backed by Senate Democrats that urged Bush to start withdrawing troops this year and left it up to him to set the schedule to implement the pullout failed 60-39. Six Democrats and one Republican crossed party lines on the vote.
Another amendment to put into law a plan to start withdrawing combat forces immediately and complete the process by next July failed 86-13.
Those 13 Democrats who voted for the measure pushed by Sens. John Kerry of Massachusetts and Russell Feingold of Wisconsin then voted for the nonbinding resolution. It was cast as the Democratic consensus position that called for a plan to start withdrawing troops, but without a deadline that many senators feared would leave Iraq in a full-scale civil war.
After the Iraq votes were done, the Senate unanimously passed the underlying bill authorizing $517.7 billion in defense programs for next fiscal year starting in October, including $50 billion for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
At a Pentagon briefing, Army Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, spoke out against a deadline for troop withdrawal, saying it would limit his flexibility and "give the enemy a fixed timetable." Casey also said it would "send a terrible signal to a new government of national unity in Iraq that's trying to stand up and get its legs underneath it."
The Republican-led House of Representatives last week passed a resolution that wrapped the Iraq conflict into the war on terrorism and rejected a deadline for troop withdrawal after two days of debate that sometimes turned harshly personal.
In the Senate, Republicans and Democrats accused each other of exploiting the war for political gain.
After the votes, Democrats dismissed the defections in their ranks and claimed a political win, saying they were largely united behind a position supported by most Americans who want a policy to end the war.
"Eighty percent of us voted that way. It is a strong consensus statement by Democrats," said Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, a key sponsor of the withdrawal without a deadline measure.
Senate Republican leader Bill Frist of Tennessee said that although "Democrats proposed multiple and confusing strategies for withdrawal, it's clear that the Senate has rejected their plans for surrender and cut and run."
In debate geared toward November, Republicans depicted Iraq as central to the war on terrorism and branded Democrats as divided and weak on the issue.
"Withdrawal is not an option, surrender is not a solution," Frist said. "This senator does not want to be complicit in that decision that could reverse the success we have achieved since 9-11 in keeping terrorism off our shores."
end of quote
THE ABOVE 'STRAWMAN' WHICH ANSWERS DIRECTLY THE BALONEY ISSUING FROM JOE NOTION THAT OUR COUNTRY IS BECOMING A DICTATORSHIP SINCE CONGRESS IS ALLEGEDLY NOT PARTICIPATING IN DECISIONS---CLEARLY SHOWS---THAT THE US CONGRESS VOTED 60-39 A G A I N S T THE PRESIDENT WITHDRAWING TROOPS FROM IRAQ THIS YEAR>
************************************************************
I do hope Joe Notion will begin reading the newspapers- There is so much is apparently ignorant about!!!
BernardR
Seasoned Member
Joined: 02 May 2006
Posts: 2656
Posted: Mon Aug 21, 2006 11:37 am Post: 2220915 -
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Notion wrote:
Congress has a particular and well-defined role in war making, please be assured that the various committees on Foreign Relations, the House Armed Services Committee and others peruse, debate and take action on every aspect of this and all other wars. No President can act without the oversight of the People's Representatives, thus shall it ever be, unless we turn this nation into some kind of dictatorship.
end of quote
DICTATORSHIP--BALONEY--AND THE LEFT WING WILL PROABABLY SAY THE MATERIAL BELOW IS A "STRAWMAN"
IT ANSWERS THE BALONEY ABOVE DIRECTLY-
Of course Congress has a particular and well defined role in war making--and the crap about No president can act without the foresight of the People's Representatives is just laughable and shows how ignorant Joe Notion really is---
Quote
Bob Woodward--
Bush at War--P. 351
quote
"On October 10th and 11th the House and the Senate OVERWHELMINGLY VOTED TO GRANT THE PRESIDENT F U L L A U T H O R I T Y TO ATTACK IRAQ UNILATERALLY> The vote in the House was 296 to 133 and in the Senate 77 to 23. The Congress gave Bush the FULL GO-AHEAD TO USE THE MILITARY AS HE DETERMINES TO BE NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE TO DEFEND AGAINST THE THREAT OF IRAQ"
END OF QUOTE
That almost sounds as if the House and the Senate gave Bush full authority to attack Iraq and to use the military as he detemined to be necessary and appropriate to defend against the threat of war!
Does the House of Representatives have the power of the purse strings?
Of course--They can, along with the Senate, VOTE NOT TO FUND THE WAR IN IRAQ.
It's so easy--All they have to do is to turn down the President's request for more funds for the war in Iraq.
I wonder why they have not done it yet?
Since Joe Notion is massively ignorant( Does he read about the many meetings the Congressional Committees have had in the last five years and the number of times they have gathered to discuss actions to be taken with regard to Iraq) he will continue to show his ignorance!!
BernardR
Seasoned Member
Joined: 02 May 2006
Posts: 2656
Posted: Mon Aug 21, 2006 11:56 am Post: 2220960 -
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Notion thinks that Congress is not directly involved and that the US is suffering under a dictatorship?
Only a left winger ignorant of what really goes on in the Congress would say that-
quote--
Senate rejects Iraq withdrawal plans
By Vicki Allen | June 22, 2006
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Republican-led Senate on Thursday rejected Democratic plans to start a withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq .
The votes capped two weeks of bitter debate in Congress over the conflict that has caused 2,511 U.S. military deaths, as Republicans accused Democrats of a "cut and run" strategy and Democrats retorted that Republicans were blindly following Bush's open-ended commitment.
A nonbinding resolution broadly backed by Senate Democrats that urged Bush to start withdrawing troops this year and left it up to him to set the schedule to implement the pullout failed 60-39. Six Democrats and one Republican crossed party lines on the vote.
Another amendment to put into law a plan to start withdrawing combat forces immediately and complete the process by next July failed 86-13.
Those 13 Democrats who voted for the measure pushed by Sens. John Kerry of Massachusetts and Russell Feingold of Wisconsin then voted for the nonbinding resolution. It was cast as the Democratic consensus position that called for a plan to start withdrawing troops, but without a deadline that many senators feared would leave Iraq in a full-scale civil war.
After the Iraq votes were done, the Senate unanimously passed the underlying bill authorizing $517.7 billion in defense programs for next fiscal year starting in October, including $50 billion for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
At a Pentagon briefing, Army Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, spoke out against a deadline for troop withdrawal, saying it would limit his flexibility and "give the enemy a fixed timetable." Casey also said it would "send a terrible signal to a new government of national unity in Iraq that's trying to stand up and get its legs underneath it."
The Republican-led House of Representatives last week passed a resolution that wrapped the Iraq conflict into the war on terrorism and rejected a deadline for troop withdrawal after two days of debate that sometimes turned harshly personal.
In the Senate, Republicans and Democrats accused each other of exploiting the war for political gain.
After the votes, Democrats dismissed the defections in their ranks and claimed a political win, saying they were largely united behind a position supported by most Americans who want a policy to end the war.
"Eighty percent of us voted that way. It is a strong consensus statement by Democrats," said Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, a key sponsor of the withdrawal without a deadline measure.
Senate Republican leader Bill Frist of Tennessee said that although "Democrats proposed multiple and confusing strategies for withdrawal, it's clear that the Senate has rejected their plans for surrender and cut and run."
In debate geared toward November, Republicans depicted Iraq as central to the war on terrorism and branded Democrats as divided and weak on the issue.
"Withdrawal is not an option, surrender is not a solution," Frist said. "This senator does not want to be complicit in that decision that could reverse the success we have achieved since 9-11 in keeping terrorism off our shores."
end of quote
THE ABOVE 'STRAWMAN' WHICH ANSWERS DIRECTLY THE BALONEY ISSUING FROM JOE NOTION THAT OUR COUNTRY IS BECOMING A DICTATORSHIP SINCE CONGRESS IS ALLEGEDLY NOT PARTICIPATING IN DECISIONS---CLEARLY SHOWS---THAT THE US CONGRESS VOTED 60-39 A G A I N S T THE PRESIDENT WITHDRAWING TROOPS FROM IRAQ THIS YEAR>
************************************************************
I do hope Joe Notion will begin reading the newspapers- There is so much is apparently ignorant about!!!
BernardR
Seasoned Member
Joined: 02 May 2006
Posts: 2656
Posted: Mon Aug 21, 2006 11:37 am Post: 2220915 -
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Notion wrote:
Congress has a particular and well-defined role in war making, please be assured that the various committees on Foreign Relations, the House Armed Services Committee and others peruse, debate and take action on every aspect of this and all other wars. No President can act without the oversight of the People's Representatives, thus shall it ever be, unless we turn this nation into some kind of dictatorship.
end of quote
DICTATORSHIP--BALONEY--AND THE LEFT WING WILL PROABABLY SAY THE MATERIAL BELOW IS A "STRAWMAN"
IT ANSWERS THE BALONEY ABOVE DIRECTLY-
Of course Congress has a particular and well defined role in war making--and the crap about No president can act without the foresight of the People's Representatives is just laughable and shows how ignorant Joe Notion really is---
Quote
Bob Woodward--
Bush at War--P. 351
quote
"On October 10th and 11th the House and the Senate OVERWHELMINGLY VOTED TO GRANT THE PRESIDENT F U L L A U T H O R I T Y TO ATTACK IRAQ UNILATERALLY> The vote in the House was 296 to 133 and in the Senate 77 to 23. The Congress gave Bush the FULL GO-AHEAD TO USE THE MILITARY AS HE DETERMINES TO BE NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE TO DEFEND AGAINST THE THREAT OF IRAQ"
END OF QUOTE
That almost sounds as if the House and the Senate gave Bush full authority to attack Iraq and to use the military as he detemined to be necessary and appropriate to defend against the threat of war!
Does the House of Representatives have the power of the purse strings?
Of course--They can, along with the Senate, VOTE NOT TO FUND THE WAR IN IRAQ.
It's so easy--All they have to do is to turn down the President's request for more funds for the war in Iraq.
I wonder why they have not done it yet?
Since Joe Notion is massively ignorant( Does he read about the many meetings the Congressional Committees have had in the last five years and the number of times they have gathered to discuss actions to be taken with regard to Iraq) he will continue to show his ignorance!!
BernardR
Seasoned Member
Joined: 02 May 2006
Posts: 2656
Posted: Mon Aug 21, 2006 11:56 am Post: 2220960 -
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Notion thinks that Congress is not directly involved and that the US is suffering under a dictatorship?
Only a left winger ignorant of what really goes on in the Congress would say that-
quote--
Senate rejects Iraq withdrawal plans
By Vicki Allen | June 22, 2006
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Republican-led Senate on Thursday rejected Democratic plans to start a withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq .
The votes capped two weeks of bitter debate in Congress over the conflict that has caused 2,511 U.S. military deaths, as Republicans accused Democrats of a "cut and run" strategy and Democrats retorted that Republicans were blindly following Bush's open-ended commitment.
A nonbinding resolution broadly backed by Senate Democrats that urged Bush to start withdrawing troops this year and left it up to him to set the schedule to implement the pullout failed 60-39. Six Democrats and one Republican crossed party lines on the vote.
Another amendment to put into law a plan to start withdrawing combat forces immediately and complete the process by next July failed 86-13.
Those 13 Democrats who voted for the measure pushed by Sens. John Kerry of Massachusetts and Russell Feingold of Wisconsin then voted for the nonbinding resolution. It was cast as the Democratic consensus position that called for a plan to start withdrawing troops, but without a deadline that many senators feared would leave Iraq in a full-scale civil war.
After the Iraq votes were done, the Senate unanimously passed the underlying bill authorizing $517.7 billion in defense programs for next fiscal year starting in October, including $50 billion for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
At a Pentagon briefing, Army Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, spoke out against a deadline for troop withdrawal, saying it would limit his flexibility and "give the enemy a fixed timetable." Casey also said it would "send a terrible signal to a new government of national unity in Iraq that's trying to stand up and get its legs underneath it."
The Republican-led House of Representatives last week passed a resolution that wrapped the Iraq conflict into the war on terrorism and rejected a deadline for troop withdrawal after two days of debate that sometimes turned harshly personal.
In the Senate, Republicans and Democrats accused each other of exploiting the war for political gain.
After the votes, Democrats dismissed the defections in their ranks and claimed a political win, saying they were largely united behind a position supported by most Americans who want a policy to end the war.
"Eighty percent of us voted that way. It is a strong consensus statement by Democrats," said Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, a key sponsor of the withdrawal without a deadline measure.
Senate Republican leader Bill Frist of Tennessee said that although "Democrats proposed multiple and confusing strategies for withdrawal, it's clear that the Senate has rejected their plans for surrender and cut and run."
In debate geared toward November, Republicans depicted Iraq as central to the war on terrorism and branded Democrats as divided and weak on the issue.
"Withdrawal is not an option, surrender is not a solution," Frist said. "This senator does not want to be complicit in that decision that could reverse the success we have achieved since 9-11 in keeping terrorism off our shores."
end of quote
THE ABOVE 'STRAWMAN' WHICH ANSWERS DIRECTLY THE BALONEY ISSUING FROM JOE NOTION THAT OUR COUNTRY IS BECOMING A DICTATORSHIP SINCE CONGRESS IS ALLEGEDLY NOT PARTICIPATING IN DECISIONS---CLEARLY SHOWS---THAT THE US CONGRESS VOTED 60-39 A G A I N S T THE PRESIDENT WITHDRAWING TROOPS FROM IRAQ THIS YEAR>
************************************************************
I do hope Joe Notion will begin reading the newspapers- There is so much is apparently ignorant about!!!
old europe wrote:
Going back to Possum's post, I, personally, can't find any respect in statements like this one
Possum wrote:Since Joe Notion is massively ignorant [...] he will continue to show his ignorance!!
As someone that agrees politically most of the time with Bernard, I have to agree, hey Bernard, don't call Joe Nation "massively ignorant." I know you can cite the meaning of "ignorant" as not necessarily a bad thing, simply that someone is unaware of something, but nevertheless, it doesn't sound that great.
And to defend Bernard, he has never descended to some of the stuff indulged by certain others here, and also people need to not be overly touchy here. The word, "ignorant" is not anything close to the worst I've seen here.
okie wrote:The problem we are talking about here, I have recently experienced with Parados and kuvasz concerning global warming. Their arguments consistently pointed toward the support of policies that I view as draconian, such as kyoto, but when Bernard and I pointed out that kyoto would be damaging to the economy in our opinion and the opinion of many people, they repeatedly dared anyone find where they advocated damaging the economy, and that they had never advocated any such thing. Of course they did not directly, but our argument simply pointed out our belief that the policies they support would damage the economy. An obvious distinction, but the argument was sidetracked from what it was really about, simply because they were not open and forthright about their opinions. In my opinion of course. They see it differently.
Oops, I see you edited your post and got that in, so I wanted to reply to this one, too... I have been following that thread, because I'm quite interested in the topic in general, so let me say a few words.
I think the main point in that thread was that Parados and Kuvasz have been bringing up all kinds of things that were evidence for the existence of global warming, and that a significant part of that might be manmade.
The answer they got was, "Well, so you're advocating draconian measures!"
Obviously, there's a direct connection between global warming and the Kyoto protocol. Nevertheless, those are two somewhat different topics.
You can perfectly discuss the existance of global warming and how much of it might be manmade without talking about Kyoto. And you can have an excellent discussion whether or not Kyoto might make sense without questioning the existence of global warming.
And somebody might accept that global warming exists and that humans have a great deal to do with that, but still argue against implementing Kyoto, because he views it as a draconion measure. Instead, he might advocate investing billions of dollars into scientific research to build cars with a better mileage, to build emission-free coal power plants, to research alternative energy resources, to fund renewable energy...
That is, obviously, just an example. What I'm trying to say is that somebody can argue for A
while at the same time arguing against B.
If you imply that,
because somebody is arguing for A, he
must necessarily also argue for B, because everybody who argues for B also argues for A, is simply faulty logic.
I would recommend addressing the two topics seperately. It might turn out that both Kuvasz and Parados don't see Kyoto as a necessary step that must be taken. Maybe they do - then you can still discuss that seperately.
okie wrote:And to defend Bernard, he has never descended to some of the stuff indulged by certain others here, and also people need to not be overly touchy here. The word, "ignorant" is not anything close to the worst I've seen here.
It seems I'm just too slow in answering posts. Well, I'll blame the fact that English isn't my first language and sometimes I have to think a second when posting.....
What I take issue with is that Possum is intentionally trying to be insulting. I agree that, in the heat of an argument, the way people address each other might not be in rosy terms. I have no problem with that, be it from the left or from the right, as long as everybody eventually returns to civil debate. Some things I take issue with, though.
For example, Possum posted on another thread
Possum wrote:the Cowardly, double talking, double dealing French are useless as they were just before World War II.
Francis, a2k member from France, addressed the post and questioned the content in a very polite manner. He pointed some facts out (specifically the French course of action in the current conflict in Lebanon).
All he got back was some copy-paste from Possum, citing how France didn't engage Germany in a war early on, which Possum called "cowardly", and repetitions of insults that all the French are "cowardly, double talking, double dealing" and "useless".
I, personally, would distance myself from somebody who repeatedly retires to the position of insulting others in such a broad way. It's not a matter of left or right, either. There are some kooks on this forum who might be perceived to be on the "left", and I don't feel like I should be associated with them in any way.
Old Europe wrote
I would recommend addressing the two topics seperately. It might turn out that both Kuvasz and Parados don't see Kyoto as a necessary step that must be taken. Maybe they do - then you can still discuss that seperately.
end of quote
If you know anything about Global Warming and Kyoto, you are cordially invited to participate, otherwise your comments should be considered seperately( sic). You misspelled it twice. Once is a typo. Twice is ignorance. I suggest that if you cannot spell a simple word like that,you might have difficulty navigating in the deep waters of "global warming"
And, I must add, Old Europe, In that discussion, it is not kosher to lose your temper as you did a few days ago with your name calling. I must say, however, that your imprecations were inventive!!!
My "name calling" was a reference to
Monty Python's Holy Grail, which you were probably ignorant of.
Thanks for pointing out the misspelled word. As I said before, English is not my first language. If you are asserting that people whose first language isn't English are incapable of discussing a topic like global warming (or any other topic for that matter), I feel really sorry for you.
old europe wrote:
I would recommend addressing the two topics seperately. It might turn out that both Kuvasz and Parados don't see Kyoto as a necessary step that must be taken. Maybe they do - then you can still discuss that seperately.
Sure, the issue can be discussed separately, but the two topics still tie together. The problem, old europe, I've tried to pin them down as to what they do advocate, especially Kuvasz, but instead he plays coy and dares one to find where he advocates this or that. Who knows what he believes for sure as the debate continues? My impression is that Parados, and especially Kuvasz, are not open and sure of what they do advocate. You have to read between the lines. They are obviously on the side of global warming being man-caused, I think, and that kyoto or something like kyoto is warranted, I think, but from one post to the next, they seem reluctant to clarify what they really think or advocate.
I am open and clear about the issue. And I am happy to repeat it. I am skeptical that the observed warming is man-caused, and even if global warming does occur, I am not convinced it is bad - much less catastrophic, and even if it was, I see Kyoto as too little too late. In other words, Kyoto or something like it, is ill advised and totally unnecessary in terms of economic impact, plus it accomplishes little or nothing in fixing the perceived problem. I think this is close to Bernard's opinion, and there is plenty of evidence to back up that opinion.
But back to the ACLU, I am still waiting for blatham to present any evidence whatsoever to dispute my example of the ACLU treating various perceived cases unequally in regard to "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This was many pages back.
okie wrote:The problem, old europe, I've tried to pin them down as to what they do advocate, especially Kuvasz, but instead he plays coy and dares one to find where he advocates this or that. Who knows what he believes for sure as the debate continues? My impression is that Parados, and especially Kuvasz, are not open and sure of what they do advocate. You have to read between the lines.
I disagree. You don't "have to read between the lines". Reading between the lines, implying what others mean, drawing conclusions about their opinions and then arguing against that - all very nice strategies if you merely want to win a debate.
What you could do if you wanted to have a good discussion, instead, would be to ask them, again and again, what they
do see as appropriate measures. If not Kyoto, what else?
Maybe they can't even tell you. Take a random topic: HIV/AIDS in Africa, the tragedy, the millions infected, etc. Now ask me for a detailed plan, how I would propose to solve the problem. Thing is: I won't be able to give you one. I acknowledge it as a huge problem, a tragedy. I can say that there is this and that evidence showing what an enourmous it is.
Now, if you would tell me, "Hey, nope, it's not a tragedy, no problem at all," I would argue that, in my opinion, it is a huge problem. I might cite evidence, etc. That doesn't mean that I would know what would be
the solution to the problem.
But right on, let's no longer sidetrack this thread.
Apologies, everyone.
Old Europe wrote:
It seems I'm just too slow in answering posts. Well, I'll blame the fact that English isn't my first language and sometimes I have to think a second when posting.....
What I take issue with is that Possum is intentionally trying to be insulting. I agree that, in the heat of an argument, the way people address each other might not be in rosy terms. I have no problem with that, be it from the left or from the right, as long as everybody eventually returns to civil debate. Some things I take issue with, though.
end of quote
I can tell that English is not your first language, Old Europe-
Let us take the word --IGNORANT-
What does it mean?
****************************
ig·no·rant (gnr-nt) KEY
ADJECTIVE:
Lacking education or knowledge.
Showing or arising from a lack of education or knowledge: an ignorant mistake.
Unaware or uninformed.
******************************************
It is NOT insulting to say a person is IGNORANT. If someone tells me that I am ignorant of the best methods to make a cake from scratch, I will
readily agree.
Your problem.Old Europe is that you are IGNORANT about the meaning of IGNORANT!!!
Old Europe wrote:
What you could do if you wanted to have a good discussion, instead, would be to ask them, again and again, what they do see as appropriate measures. If not Kyoto, what else?
end of quote.
If Old Europe has read the entire thread on Global Warming, he would know they had been asked again and again and again and again and again and again, with no straight answer forthcoming.
Furthermore, when they give a half-hearted answer, they USUALLY do not give evidence in the form of Scientific Articles or documentation. Okie and I usually do give such evidence.
Try reading the thread again, Old Europe and if you really want to find out what is happening on that thread, keep a count of the number of questions that are asked, who is asking them and who is not answering!!!
