mysteryman wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:mysteryman wrote:xingu wrote:Baloney.
Osama told us why he attacked us; our occupation of Saudi Arabia and our support of Israel. Osama is smart enough to know that neither he nor the Muslims can destroy America. Stupid Americans may think that's what they think but Muslim terrorist are smarter than stupid uninformed Americans who believe the BS the Bush administration puts out.
They want to hurt us and that's what they did on 9/11. What the hell do you think they're going to destroy us with, suicide bombers?
How are we "occupying" Saudi Arabia?
We had quite a few military bases there. It's a valid complaint.
Cycloptichorn
From what I can find,we only had two bases in Saudi Arabia.
How is that "occupying" SA?
Like to get picky, don't you. Troops stationed in Saudi Arabia. How's that?
That is an abomination for conservative Muslims like Osama bin Laden. That's one of the reasons he attacked us and wants to destroy the Saudi government. It has nothing to do with democracy being as how Saudi Arabia is, perhaps, the least democratic country in the Middle East.
Dolt just doesn't get it.
mysteryman wrote:Quote:Because Bush will just wait until the end of his term, and pardon Libby.
I doubt it.
I dont think Bush will pardon him,because I think LIbby will win his appeal.
But either way,I dont think Bush will pardon him,if he was going to he would have already,IMHO.
With all due respect, I must ask you, are you out of your mind?
From another thread:
Roxxxanne wrote:mysteryman wrote:Quote:Because Bush will just wait until the end of his term, and pardon Libby.
I doubt it.
I dont think Bush will pardon him,because I think LIbby will win his appeal.
But either way,I dont think Bush will pardon him,if he was going to he would have already,IMHO.
With all due respect, I must ask you, are you out of your mind?
Just about covers it.
xingu wrote:Dolt just doesn't get it.
You are the one that equated "troops stationed" with "occupying",not me.
So,answer my question.
mysteryman wrote:xingu wrote:Dolt just doesn't get it.
You are the one that equated "troops stationed" with "occupying",not me.
So,answer my question.
The question is to stupid to bother with. I would have to talk down to a 5 year old level for you to understand. Your not worth the trouble and you wouldn't understand.
Because Osama is interested in the Islamic world. We are infidels and have no right being in their land corrupting their way of life. He knows he can't conquer or destroy us. But he can make us pay for coming into their world, a place we have no business being.
That article you presented is just another piece of right wing clap trap pissing and moaning about how liberals are destroying America.
Let me get this straight; Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell agree that 9/11 was caused by the liberal left. They pissed off God and he withdrew his protection. Dinesh D'Souza says the liberal left is responsible because it made Muslims hate us so much they attacked us. It had nothing to do with our foreign policy what so ever. It was all homosexuals and dirty movies.
Why, if we were all good true Christians that had torn down the wall between church and state, allowed our laws to be based on the Bible, as Osama would want their laws based on the Koran, 9/11 would never have happened.
You believe that ican?
Dinesh D'Souza [is] the Rishwain Research Scholar at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. He is the author of several best selling books, including Illiberal Education, The Virtue of Prosperity, and What's So Great About America. He lives in Rancho Santa Fe, California.
www.dineshdsouza.com
I don't mind talking with five year olds, because they're smarter and ask smarter questions.
Smarter than you?
First of all, I provided excerpts from D'Souza's book, not excerpts from an "article."
WOW! You know it's getting stupid when the old Soros Gang argument comes out.
...
I do not accept the rules imposed by others. If I did, I would not be alive today. I am a law-abiding citizen, but I recognize that there are regimes that need to be opposed rather than accepted. And in periods of regime change, the normal rules don't apply. One needs to adjust one's behavior to the changing circumstances.
Tividar [George Soros's father] saved his family by splitting them up, providing them with forged papers and false identities as Christians, and bribing Gentile families to take them in. George Soros took the name Sandor Kiss, and posed as the godson of a man named Baumbach, an official of Hungary's fascist regime. Baumbach was assigned to deliver deportation notices to Jews and confiscate Jewish property. [Baumbach] brought young Soros with him on his rounds.
My goal is to become the conscience of the world
Usually it takes a crisis to prompt a meaningful change in direction.
Ousting Bush from the White House is the central focus of my life. It's a matter of life and death.
My greatest fear is that the Bush Doctrine will succeed--that Bush will crush the terrorists, tame the rogue states of the axis of evil, and usher in a golden age of American supremacy. American supremacy is flawed and bound to fail in the long run.
What I am afraid of is that the pursuit of American supremacy may be successful for a while because the United States in fact employs a dominant position in the world today.
These are not normal times.
The principles of the Declaration of Independence are not self-evident truths but arrangements necessitated by our inherently imperfect understanding.
In April 2005 the Soros funded Campus Progress web site posted this headline: "An Invitation to Help Design the Constitution in 2020" (This was an invitation to a Yale law School Conference on "The Constitution of 2020: a progressive vision of what the Constitution ought to be.")
On December 9, 2004, Eli Pariser, who headed Soros's group Moveon PAC, boasted to his members, "Now the Democratic Party is our party. We bought it, we own it."
Here's Dinesh D'Souza on the Colbert Report
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/01/17/colbert-nails-dinesh-dsouza/
Quote:Quote:Publishers Weekly's review, "roots the blame for the 9/11 attacks in the left wing's 'aggressive global campaign to undermine the traditional patriarchal family'." (emphasis mine) D'Souza's logical (and factual) inconsistencies are too numerous to list so have at it in comments.
Quote:he paints Abu Ghraib poster-girl Lynndie England as the personification of liberal sexual depravity, without acknowledging that the U.S. Army sent her to Iraq, not the left. Charging that liberals aid terrorists while sympathizing with the terrorists' culturally conservative worldview, D'Souza's critique of American cultural excess trips over its own inconsistencies. (Jan. 16)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
I do not accept the rules imposed by others. If I did, I would not be alive today. I am a law-abiding citizen, but I recognize that there are regimes that need to be opposed rather than accepted. And in periods of regime change, the normal rules don't apply. One needs to adjust one's behavior to the changing circumstances.
Tividar [George Soros's father] saved his family by splitting them up, providing them with forged papers and false identities as Christians, and bribing Gentile families to take them in. George Soros took the name Sandor Kiss, and posed as the godson of a man named Baumbach, an official of Hungary's fascist regime. Baumbach was assigned to deliver deportation notices to Jews and confiscate Jewish property. [Baumbach] brought young Soros with him on his rounds.
My goal is to become the conscience of the world
Usually it takes a crisis to prompt a meaningful change in direction.
Ousting Bush from the White House is the central focus of my life. It's a matter of life and death.
My greatest fear is that the Bush Doctrine will succeed--that Bush will crush the terrorists, tame the rogue states of the axis of evil, and usher in a golden age of American supremacy. American supremacy is flawed and bound to fail in the long run.
What I am afraid of is that the pursuit of American supremacy may be successful for a while because the United States in fact employs a dominant position in the world today.
These are not normal times.
The principles of the Declaration of Independence are not self-evident truths but arrangements necessitated by our inherently imperfect understanding.
Foundationalism is any theory in epistemology (typically, theories of justification, but also of knowledge) that holds that beliefs are justified (known, etc.) based on what are called basic beliefs (also commonly called foundational beliefs). Basic beliefs are beliefs that give justificatory support to other beliefs, and more derivative beliefs are based on those more basic beliefs. The basic beliefs are said to be self-justifying or self-evident, that is, they are justified, although not justified by other beliefs. Typically and historically, foundationalists have held either that basic beliefs are justified by mental events or states, such as experiences, that do not constitute beliefs (these are called nondoxastic mental states), or that they simply are not the type of thing that can be (or needs to be) justified.
Anti-foundationalism is a term applied to any philosophy which rejects a foundationalist approach, i.e. an anti-foundationalist is one who does not believe that there is some fundamental belief or principle which is the basic ground or foundation of inquiry and knowledge. Anti-foundationalists use logical or historical/genealogical attacks on foundational concepts (see especially Nietzsche and Foucault), often coupled with alternative methods for justifying and forwarding intellectual inquiry, such as the pragmatic subordination of knowledge to practical action or Otto Neurath's boat metaphor, according to which human knowledge is like a ship at sea which can never be dismantled and rebuilt, but rather must be repaired by workmen who, in order to replace any one plank, have to stand on planks which themselves may later have to be replaced.
In April 2005 the Soros funded Campus Progress web site posted this headline: "An Invitation to Help Design the Constitution in 2020" (This was an invitation to a Yale law School Conference on "The Constitution of 2020: a progressive vision of what the Constitution ought to be.")
Progressives need to set a constitutional agenda for the 21st Century. In the early 1980s a coalition of conservative groups produced a white paper known as "The Constitution in 2000," which has importantly shaped the Constitution under which we now live. To reclaim the Constitution for progressive values, we must now begin to articulate constitutional ideals capable of inspiring the next generation of judges, lawyers, scholars, policymakers and activists. In this spirit, we now invite you to a conference at the Yale Law School on "The Constitution in 2020." The Conference will be held April 8 - 10, 2005.
On December 9, 2004, Eli Pariser, who headed Soros's group Moveon PAC, boasted to his members, "Now the Democratic Party is our party. We bought it, we own it."
TUNCELI, Turkey, July 5 (Reuters) - Turkish soldiers killed five Kurdish guerrillas, including two women, in clashes in eastern Turkey, military sources said on Thursday.
Two female rebels from the separatist Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) were killed by soldiers near a village in mountainous Tunceli province on Wednesday evening as they tried to plant a roadside bomb, the sources said.
They said security forces had killed at least three more militants after engaging a group of some 15 PKK fighters in Tunceli countryside early on Thursday. Fighting was continuing in the region.
Turkey's powerful armed forces have urged the government to allow an incursion into neighbouring, mainly Kurdish, northern Iraq to crush up to 4,000 PKK militants who use that region as a base to attack security and civilian targets inside Turkey.
The PKK launched an armed separatist struggle in 1984. More than 30,000 people have been killed in the conflict.
Fighting subsided after the group's leader Abdullah Ocalan was capture and jailed in 1999, but the conflict has escalated in the last couple of years.
GEORGE SOROS in his 1995 book, page 145, [i]Soros on Soros[/i], wrote:I do not accept the rules imposed by others. If I did, I would not be alive today. I am a law-abiding citizen, but I recognize that there are regimes that need to be opposed rather than accepted. And in periods of regime change, the normal rules don't apply. One needs to adjust one's behavior to the changing circumstances.
Nothing wrong here. I agree 100% with him.
Do you believe anarchy is a better form of government? I don't. A person who believes he has the right to obey only those laws he personally thinks are valid, is dangerous to our welfare.
Bruck, in The World According to Soros, page 58, wrote:Tividar [George Soros's father] saved his family by splitting them up, providing them with forged papers and false identities as Christians, and bribing Gentile families to take them in. George Soros took the name Sandor Kiss, and posed as the godson of a man named Baumbach, an official of Hungary's fascist regime. Baumbach was assigned to deliver deportation notices to Jews and confiscate Jewish property. [Baumbach] brought young Soros with him on his rounds.
You have a problem with this?
Yes, I have a problem with this. George Soros justifies his support of the murder of many of his fellow Jews because it saved his own life. Disgusting! Soros justifies this support with "I would not be alive today [if I hadn't supported those murders]". I think it better if such a person were not alive today.
Michael Kaufman in his biography of George Soros, page 293, [i]Soros [/i], wrote:My goal is to become the conscience of the world
If that's his ambition than good for him. Better him than Bush.
That statement by George Soros equates George Soros with the tyrannical "Big Brother" character in George Orwell's book NINETEEN EIGHTY-FOUR. In other words he seeks to impose his beliefs on the rest of us.
George Bush is not seeking to be the conscience of the world. He merely seeks to secure our freedom. The fact that Bush is not competent at that does not make hiim a tyrant.
GEORGE SOROS in his 2000 book, page 337, [i]Open Society[/i], wrote:Usually it takes a crisis to prompt a meaningful change in direction.
A statement of fact. You have a problem with that?
Yes, I have a problem with that when the crisis is produced by a person seeking "to become the conscience of the world."
GEORGE SOROS in the Washington Post, page A03 of November 11, 2003, wrote:Ousting Bush from the White House is the central focus of my life. It's a matter of life and death.
It's a pity he didn't succeed.
If he had succeeded, he would have replaced Bush with someone (i.e., John Kerry) who is not only more incompetent than Bush, but also is a blatant fraud and more manipulatable by George Soros than is Bush.
GEORGE SOROS in the 2003 edition of his book, page 15, [i]The Alchemy of Finance[/i], wrote:My greatest fear is that the Bush Doctrine will succeed--that Bush will crush the terrorists, tame the rogue states of the axis of evil, and usher in a golden age of American supremacy. American supremacy is flawed and bound to fail in the long run.
What I am afraid of is that the pursuit of American supremacy may be successful for a while because the United States in fact employs a dominant position in the world today.
Can't find this quote anywhere on the internet so I suspect it may not be true.
Go to the library and read: GEORGE SOROS in the 2003 edition of his book, page 15, The Alchemy of Finance. The internet is not a complete source.
However I can understand the problem of our arrogance. The more we succeed the more we try to dominate the world. Eventually it will all collaspe in on us and that can be a disaster. No one has been able to hold supreme power and no one will. The arrogance of our governement, esp. the conservatives, is not making us any friends.
The arrogance of our government, Democrat as well as Republican, in usurping powers not delegated by our Constituion is an outrage. I agree that the more anyone tries to dominate the world--including but not limited to George Soros--the more the human race is headed for disaster.
By the way, who do you consider a conservative? I consider a conservative to be one who seeks to conserve the security of our absolute rights. Others who seek to conserve the security of their own rights at the expense of those rights of others are not conservatives. They're merely would be or actual tyrants regardless of how they label themselves. Also when they do such, they sacrifice the security of their own absolute rights.
GEORGE SOROS on June 10, 2004 to the Associated Press, wrote:
These are not normal times.
Agree
Hooray! We agree on something!
GEORGE SOROS in his 2004 book, page 159, [i]The Bubble of American Supremacy[/i], wrote:The principles of the Declaration of Independence are not self-evident truths but arrangements necessitated by our inherently imperfect understanding.
There are two schools of thought on this; Foundationalism and Anti-foundationalism. They are two philosophical ideas. You have a problem with this?
Quote:Foundationalism is any theory in epistemology (typically, theories of justification, but also of knowledge) that holds that beliefs are justified (known, etc.) based on what are called basic beliefs (also commonly called foundational beliefs). Basic beliefs are beliefs that give justificatory support to other beliefs, and more derivative beliefs are based on those more basic beliefs. The basic beliefs are said to be self-justifying or self-evident, that is, they are justified, although not justified by other beliefs. Typically and historically, foundationalists have held either that basic beliefs are justified by mental events or states, such as experiences, that do not constitute beliefs (these are called nondoxastic mental states), or that they simply are not the type of thing that can be (or needs to be) justified.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundationalism
Quote:Anti-foundationalism is a term applied to any philosophy which rejects a foundationalist approach, i.e. an anti-foundationalist is one who does not believe that there is some fundamental belief or principle which is the basic ground or foundation of inquiry and knowledge. Anti-foundationalists use logical or historical/genealogical attacks on foundational concepts (see especially Nietzsche and Foucault), often coupled with alternative methods for justifying and forwarding intellectual inquiry, such as the pragmatic subordination of knowledge to practical action or Otto Neurath's boat metaphor, according to which human knowledge is like a ship at sea which can never be dismantled and rebuilt, but rather must be repaired by workmen who, in order to replace any one plank, have to stand on planks which themselves may later have to be replaced.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-foundationalism
Yes, I have a problem with this. There are lots of schools of thought on this. For example, review the history of tyrants in the 20th century. Our rights are absolute. The security of those rights are not absolute, but are relative to the efforts of civilized humans working to secure those rights. Those who believe and behave otherwise have always been a threat to the survival of civilization as well as themselves.
Quote:In April 2005 the Soros funded Campus Progress web site posted this headline: "An Invitation to Help Design the Constitution in 2020" (This was an invitation to a Yale law School Conference on "The Constitution of 2020: a progressive vision of what the Constitution ought to be.")
This was a reaction the the consevatives who wanted to change the constitution and make it fit their ideology. I guess you agree with conservatives changing the Constitution but not the progressives. No double standard here, right?
This last statement by you is pure malarkey.
Real conservatives do not seek to change the Constitution except by lawful constitutional amendments. There have been 27 such adopted amendments so far. Most have made our governance better, a few have made our governance worse. One such was repealed by a subsequent amendment. One new amendment I recommend is that federal court decisions be based solely on USA law and never on foreign law. The so-called living constitution is a corruption of our actual constitution.
Quote:Progressives need to set a constitutional agenda for the 21st Century. In the early 1980s a coalition of conservative groups produced a white paper known as "The Constitution in 2000," which has importantly shaped the Constitution under which we now live. To reclaim the Constitution for progressive values, we must now begin to articulate constitutional ideals capable of inspiring the next generation of judges, lawyers, scholars, policymakers and activists. In this spirit, we now invite you to a conference at the Yale Law School on "The Constitution in 2020." The Conference will be held April 8 - 10, 2005.
http://www.campusprogress.org/tools/136/an-invitation-to-help-design-the-constitution-in-2020
This is a clear indictment of George Soros: "To reclaim the Constitution for progressive values, we must now begin to articulate constitutional ideals capable of inspiring the next generation of judges, lawyers, scholars, policymakers and activists." I think so-called progressive values are regressive values. Among other regressive things, holders of such values seek to promote wealth discrimination. That is, they seek to redistribute wealth; that is, they seek to steal from those who have more wealth and give it to those who have less wealth; that is, they seek control of other people's lives and property; that is, they seek to be the conscience or supporters of the conscience of the world; that is, they seek to be dictators or supporters of dictators. Advocates of such are at best misguided and at worst evil.
"Thou shall not steal."
Sam Hananel in his associated Press article, December 10, 2004, wrote:On December 9, 2004, Eli Pariser, who headed Soros's group Moveon PAC, boasted to his members, "Now the Democratic Party is our party. We bought it, we own it."
No one has bought the Democrat Party. I suspect the religious right has a lot more influence over the Republicans than Soros over the Democrats. Besides I rather see someone like Soros have more influence than the religious nutcases on the right.
The Soros gang claims it has bought the Democratic Party. I believe them and not you.
How do you measure those influences? I measure them according to the amount of money each donates to the promotion of their parties and what the parties do as a result. The Soros gang's money contributions in excess of the limits set by current campaign finance law to the elections of Democrats far exceeds those money contributions by the so-called religious right. Also, the behavior of the Democrats greatly and increasingly conforms to that which is advocated by the Soros gang. While the behavior of the Republicans much less and decreasingly conforms to that which is advocated by the religious right.
If the Soros $influenced$ news media succeeds in persuading more than 50% of Americans to oppose Bush's plan, it will boost our enemy's effort and it will defeat America in Iraq regardless of whether Bush's "surge strategy" can work or not!
Actually Bush's plan is the one that gave immense help to Al Qaeda. If you had watched the video I gave as a source you would have heard it straight from the horses mouth, or an Al Qaeda's mouth. Al Qaeda loves Bush.
That's more Soros gang malarkey. Actually, al-Qaeda has consistently advocated the election of the Soros gang's supported candidates.
Most of your quotes you supplied is nothing but a lot of nonsence.
Most of the quotes I supplied are quotes of what George Soros said or wrote. Yes, we agree that it is nonsense, but nonetheless dangerous nonsense.
I think so-called progressive values are regressive values.
Thursday, July 05, 2007
Iraqi government hanging on by a thread
by AJ in DC · 7/05/2007 02:21:00 PM ET
Over at DemocracyArsenal, Ilan Goldenberg rightly points out that the Iraqi government is faltering, to say the least. There is basically a rotating boycott of parliament, with Sadrists and Sunnis taking turns at being aggrieved. Currently, the major Sunni party is boycotting both parliament and the cabinet because a member of the party was arrested for his alleged role in a 2005 assassination attempt. Never a good sign.
Ilan notes that a recent cabinet meeting drew only 24 of the 37 ministers, but the Post article he cites did not really explain that fully. The article reports that "several" Sadrist ministers boycotted the meeting, but to the best of my understanding, those ministers have resigned, leaving the positions unfilled. Maliki put forth a list of replacements, which did not get approval from parliament, and he has not yet proposed other candidates. Six other ministers were from the boycotting Sunni group, which strongly opposes the oil law that administration officials (and news reports) keep claiming is just about to pass.
Now Maliki is talking about restructuring the entire government, but it is not clear where his support will come from. Sadrists are chronically unhappy with him, Sunnis are boycotting, the Kurds are wary of the new oil law and support the federalist leanings of the Shia SIIC party (formerly SCIRI) more than Maliki's Dawa group, and the U.S. has already toppled one prime minister (Jaafari) for failing to meet expectations.
This idea that we need to train forces to support the central government is based on a complete fallacy. There is no functioning central government; the "national unity government" hailed by war supporters in early 2006, which never really existed in the first place, is a demonstrated failure. The only think keeping Maliki in power is the complete lack of alternative candidates who could unite enough parliament members to form a ruling coalition, and in the meantime, no progress occurs.
