Lol. But you're proving my point with every post you make.
Keep on with the witty personal attacks. Cause it makes your position that much stronger! Honest! ;)
Edited, Thu Jan 5 22:17:24 2006 by gbaji
BAMFollow
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Gbaji am I knowingly commiting the same vice? Obviously yes. When was the last time you ever got a serious response from me? Probably a couple months. Why? Is it because you are sad miserable piece of smegma not worth my time. Actually it is.
You are a ****. An apologist. An equivocator. A failed chance at an abortion. You are a f[/b]ucking joke. You know all the facts but you never quite get it. In some ways even Proof/Varus are less of a joke than you. At least they are just playing the part. You are the real deal piece of sh[b]it.
You are a ****. An apologist. An equivocator. A failed chance at an abortion. You are a f[/b]ucking joke. You know all the facts but you never quite get it. In some ways even Proof/Varus are less of a joke than you. At least they are just playing the part. You are the real deal piece of sh[b]it.
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
Clearly, I *am* worth your time... ;)
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
No you are worth my derision.
EfE* - You piece of dog sh[b][/b]it.
*Edited for Emphasis
Edited, Thu Jan 5 22:57:14 2006 by bodhisattva
EfE* - You piece of dog sh[b][/b]it.
*Edited for Emphasis
Edited, Thu Jan 5 22:57:14 2006 by bodhisattva
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
and your postcount
Do what now?
WarMaverick wrote:
And what it boils down to is:
Why is it whenever you boil down a subject it ruins the essence.
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
Letterman represents the "Left" now? Who knew?
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
I assumed he represented people who were too busy trying to be amusing/ed that they just don't give a damn.
Now I feel deserted.
Now I feel deserted.
Jophiel wrote:
Letterman represents the "Left" now? Who knew?
He doesn't "represent" the left Joph. But he is expressing a talking point of the left:
Letterman wrote:
Yeah, so why are we there in the first place? I agree to you, with you that we have to support the troops. They are there, they are the best and the brightest of this country. [audience applause] There's no doubt about that. And I also agree that now we're in it it's going to take a long, long time. People who expect it's going to be solved and wrapped up in a couple of years, unrealistic, it's not going to happen. However, however, that does not eliminate the legitimate speculation and concern and questioning of "Why the Hell are we there to begin with?"
Given that this (and everything that followed) is pretty much the standard argument from the Left (strong on rhetoric, weak on fact), then yeah, he's making the Liberal argument in this case. Doesn't mean he represents the Left. Don't think anyone said that. But he is using the Left's argument here, so it's legitimate to talk about it in that context, right?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Oh. And just because this issue has come up several times.
If not these talking heads Joph then who exactly *does* "represent" the Left? And does it really make that much difference? It's not like Senator Kennedy's statements varry significantly from those of Letterman on this issue, or those of Ms Garafalo for that matter. At what point does it become wrong to point out that someone's argument is "the argument of the Left", when it is either the only argument we hear from Liberals on the subject, or it happens to exactly match the positions of their elected officials?
I'm just curious, because this question seems to come up often. See. I can point to something Rush says and argue that it's not the policy or agenda of "the Right", because I can also point to 5 other Conservatives radio hosts who disagree with Rush on that issue, and a host of Republican political statements that *also* disagree with him on that issue. But when we come to Liberal positions, it's rarely that differentiated. On some issues? Sure. But on many issues (like the war in Iraq for example) virtually 100% of all Liberal talking heads are in lockstep with eachother and also with the bulk of any statements made by Dem politicians on those subjects. At that point, is it really incorrect, when Letterman is parroting what every single Liberal talking head and politician has said, to say that his statements are those of "the Left"?
I don't think so. If you can show me a significant number of Liberal groups or politicians that don't agree with Letterman's position here, then I'll grant you this point. But I'm betting you'd have a heck of a time finding even *one*.
If not these talking heads Joph then who exactly *does* "represent" the Left? And does it really make that much difference? It's not like Senator Kennedy's statements varry significantly from those of Letterman on this issue, or those of Ms Garafalo for that matter. At what point does it become wrong to point out that someone's argument is "the argument of the Left", when it is either the only argument we hear from Liberals on the subject, or it happens to exactly match the positions of their elected officials?
I'm just curious, because this question seems to come up often. See. I can point to something Rush says and argue that it's not the policy or agenda of "the Right", because I can also point to 5 other Conservatives radio hosts who disagree with Rush on that issue, and a host of Republican political statements that *also* disagree with him on that issue. But when we come to Liberal positions, it's rarely that differentiated. On some issues? Sure. But on many issues (like the war in Iraq for example) virtually 100% of all Liberal talking heads are in lockstep with eachother and also with the bulk of any statements made by Dem politicians on those subjects. At that point, is it really incorrect, when Letterman is parroting what every single Liberal talking head and politician has said, to say that his statements are those of "the Left"?
I don't think so. If you can show me a significant number of Liberal groups or politicians that don't agree with Letterman's position here, then I'll grant you this point. But I'm betting you'd have a heck of a time finding even *one*.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
Given that this (and everything that followed) is pretty much the standard argument from the Left (strong on rhetoric, weak on fact), then yeah, he's making the Liberal argument in this case. Doesn't mean he represents the Left. Don't think anyone said that. But he is using the Left's argument here, so it's legitimate to talk about it in that context, right?
On the opposite end of the spectrum we have the conservative argument; RAWR THREAT TO AMERICA. RAWR SAVRIOR OF THE IRAQI PEOPLE. RAWR WHO NEEDS WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. RAWR PUS[/b]SY DEMS RAWR.
fenderputy the Shady wrote:
On the opposite end of the spectrum we have the conservative argument; RAWR THREAT TO AMERICA. RAWR SAVRIOR OF THE IRAQI PEOPLE. RAWR WHO NEEDS WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. RAWR PUS[/b]SY DEMS RAWR.
Lol. Thanks, once again, for proving my point.
Intellectual content of your argument? Zero.
Intended humor content of your argument? 100%
Let me show you the Republican Argument for war
Those are facts. That is logic. How about you respond to that instead of pretending they don't exist and making funny animal sounds?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Quote:
The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--
(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.
(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.
What does giving the president authorization to use force if diplomatic measure thru the UN fail have to do with our war? Seems to me he went to war before allowing the Security Council to do much ...
Baelnic
baelnic the Braindead wrote:
What does giving the president authorization to use force if diplomatic measure thru the UN fail have to do with our war? Seems to me he went to war before allowing the Security Council to do much ...
Well. We did give the Security Council 11 years... How much more time do we give them? After 11 years, Iraq was still in material breach of a dozen or so UN resolutions.
That part is specifically referring to UN resolution 1441, which gave Iraq basically "one more chance" to comply with the previous UN resolutions. With a report to follow after a few months of final inspections to see if Iraq looked like it was actually going to comply.
And. In that report, it's pretty clear that they didn't...
We gave the UN plenty of time to enforce its own resolutions. It failed pretty miserably at it. Are you saying we should have given them another decade to try to get it to work?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
*cough* And you're also not reading the next sections of the resolution. The resolution grants the president that power (a Diplomatic solution) *and* war powers in the following cases:
What this means is that if *either* of the following two conditions exist:
- diplomatic means alone will not adequately protect the national security of the US against the continuing threat posed by Iraq
or
- diplomatic means alone are not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant UN resolutions regarding Iraq.
So. Even if you don't agree that Iraq was a "continuing threat" to the US (which is a bit dicey since the same resolution declares Iraq to be a continuing threat to the US), the Blix report to the UN is pretty much a slam dunk. He gives no confidence that diplomatic means will enforce compliance with UN resolutions in Iraq. In fact, he states the exact opposite:
That's a pretty strong statement that the UN process has not and is not working. That certainly qualifies the second condition listed above.
The second part of those conditions is also already confirmed, since the same resolution *also* declares Iraq to be a state that harbors terrorists, it's also a "gimme" in the law.
Basically, Congress wrote the resolution, and defined conditions for the president to declare war within that resolution, but also included statements of fact in the same resolution that already legally met the defined conditions.
Specfic are these two paragraphs:
Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;
and
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;
Those two determinations automatically mean that the conditions required for the President to use the military against Iraq are met. Go back and read the conditions. Compare them to those two "whereas" statements. They match perfectly. Bush didn't even have to wait for Blix's report if he didn't want to (since it was only an "either" choice, and the other one was already legally defined as met). So Bush not only met the requirements, but exceeded them.
That's what the war is based on. Those statements of fact. If you want to debate those facts, feel free. But don't just ramble on about how the Bush administration "led us to war on a lie". He led us to war on the basis of this document. If there's a "lie", then find it in this document. If not, then can we accept that the counterargument is rhetoric instead of fact?
I think we can...
Quote:
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and
(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
What this means is that if *either* of the following two conditions exist:
- diplomatic means alone will not adequately protect the national security of the US against the continuing threat posed by Iraq
or
- diplomatic means alone are not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant UN resolutions regarding Iraq.
So. Even if you don't agree that Iraq was a "continuing threat" to the US (which is a bit dicey since the same resolution declares Iraq to be a continuing threat to the US), the Blix report to the UN is pretty much a slam dunk. He gives no confidence that diplomatic means will enforce compliance with UN resolutions in Iraq. In fact, he states the exact opposite:
Blix wrote:
Unlike South Africa, which decided on its own to eliminate its nuclear weapons and welcomed the inspection as a means of creating confidence in its disarmament, Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace.
That's a pretty strong statement that the UN process has not and is not working. That certainly qualifies the second condition listed above.
The second part of those conditions is also already confirmed, since the same resolution *also* declares Iraq to be a state that harbors terrorists, it's also a "gimme" in the law.
Basically, Congress wrote the resolution, and defined conditions for the president to declare war within that resolution, but also included statements of fact in the same resolution that already legally met the defined conditions.
Specfic are these two paragraphs:
Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;
and
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;
Those two determinations automatically mean that the conditions required for the President to use the military against Iraq are met. Go back and read the conditions. Compare them to those two "whereas" statements. They match perfectly. Bush didn't even have to wait for Blix's report if he didn't want to (since it was only an "either" choice, and the other one was already legally defined as met). So Bush not only met the requirements, but exceeded them.
That's what the war is based on. Those statements of fact. If you want to debate those facts, feel free. But don't just ramble on about how the Bush administration "led us to war on a lie". He led us to war on the basis of this document. If there's a "lie", then find it in this document. If not, then can we accept that the counterargument is rhetoric instead of fact?
I think we can...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
If not these talking heads Joph then who exactly *does* "represent" the Left?
Quote:
I'm just curious, because this question seems to come up often. See. I can point to something Rush says and argue that it's not the policy or agenda of "the Right", because I can also point to 5 other Conservatives radio hosts who disagree with Rush on that issue, and a host of Republican political statements that *also* disagree with him on that issue.
"Betcha can't!"
I'll tell you what though, if you can ever find me a time when the vice president of the United States makes a special phone call to Garafalo's show to try to convince her to support the president's Supreme Court nominee, I invite you to rub it in my face. I asked you once if you wanted to compare listenership of Limbaugh and Garafalo before the next time you started saying they had the same influence. Sadly, you never took me up on it. But now's your chance.
Quote:
Given that this (and everything that followed) is pretty much the standard argument from the Left (strong on rhetoric, weak on fact), then yeah, he's making the Liberal argument in this case.
Or were you denying that "Why are we fighting a war?" is a legitimate question and concern? Honestly, I'm just trying to figure out which part of that statement made your knickers get knotted and start crying about evil liberals. I guess you're just flustered that everyone doesn't smile and nod and might actually have concerns? Is it only liberals who think that it's legitimate to question the reasons voice concerns when we take military action in another nation?
I couldn't tell you how Letterman votes. I guess, since he's one of those fancy television-type New York/Hollywood people, we should assume he's a liberal. But, from his show, he seems more interested in making jokes than pressing a political agenda. I suppose, if you're looking to make a point though, you could suddenly claim he's a "liberal talking head"
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
1) That's the first time I've seen Letterman ever remotely hint at his political tendencies.
2) You don't have to be liberal to disagree with Bill O'Reilly.
Why, one would think you could find at least five conservative radio hosts who disagree with him!
So why does it make Letterman a liberal talking head?
So why does it make Letterman a liberal talking head?
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
trickybeck wrote:
1) That's the first time I've seen Letterman ever remotely hint at his political tendencies.
2) You don't have to be liberal to disagree with Bill O'Reilly.
2) You don't have to be liberal to disagree with Bill O'Reilly.
Gosh, if only the last few administrations hadn't all succumbed to this "with us or against us" bunker mentatlity, maybe there'd be room for disagreement and accountability.
Nah, just a daydream.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Quote:
All good enough games (except EnB and FFXI) and I can safely say that while personal preference may vary World of Warcraft is the most solidly put together and enjoyable MMO of the lot.
If you like a key mashing, cartoon graphic(d)? game full of 7year old children with ADD who lot on everything that drops regardless of personal use. Then I suppose yeah its quite solid =/
EonsdarkCaitsith wrote:
Quote:
All good enough games (except EnB and FFXI) and I can safely say that while personal preference may vary World of Warcraft is the most solidly put together and enjoyable MMO of the lot.
If you like a key mashing, cartoon graphic(d)? game full of 7year old children with ADD who lot on everything that drops regardless of personal use. Then I suppose yeah its quite solid =/
What is up with FFXIers lashing out at WoW.
It is like a parent trying to defend their ugly baby when a cute baby enters the room. "Sure if you like a symmetrical face, a sunny disposition and 20 toes and fingers go for it!".
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
Quote:
What is up with FFXIers lashing out at WoW.
Did I once defend FFXI? I dont think so. Nor did I Mention it in my post.
I have played WoW and FFXI and even EQ2 *shudders* and although I found WoW somewhat "enjoyable". However I found WoW too universal in the fact that any young child (which makes up most likely 75% of the WoW population. If you include the players that act like children) can pick it up and mash keys thoughtlessly and accomplish something. No skill, planning, preperation needed. Its brainless key mashing with no real rewarding features. Everyone lots on everything even if they dont need it, and try to get through a griffon ride or go on a massive raid without your PC freezing or lagging and tell me that WoW is soo great. Step foot in Ironforge without warping all over the place and then come back and tell me how great WoW is.
Edited, Mon Jan 9 13:23:58 2006 by EonsdarkCaitsith
Recent Visitors: 175
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (175)
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC