Newsweek.Follow

Not sad, tired. And possibly a bit queasy.

Of course not.


No. Why? Trying to reason with you is a waste of time. Using you for comedic relief, however, has boundless rewards.

Nah. I'd rather not.

Doesn't it get old? I empathize.

Really. Now you're just flirting with me. Stop it!

Sigh. And in typical fashion, the guy who supports his arguments with logic and facts gets bashed while the guy who's argument consists of "It's this way because some article I read said it was" is apparently the shining beacon of knowledge...


And we wonder why the country's in such a mess.

Economy is doing fine. Education could use some work though...

You should find some Religious Right conservatives to help you carry that big ole cross around.

"Because you apparently prefer a very simple "I'm right and you're a dork" kind of argument. That's great. But to call that "rationalizing", while the guy who actually looks at facts and numbers when arguing is a "verbal catastrophe" only shows just to what degree you prefer to base your political ideology on ignorance rather then enlightened knowledge." --gbaji (in reference to Nobby mnetioning the Black Snake and Mr. Uni-cle)

Hey hey hey. Whoa there. While I freely admit I bash people wantonly and with abandon, I can say with a clear conscience I don't use the "I'm right and you're a dork" argument. Even if I were so inclined to go that route, I'd be a whole helluva lot more eloquent. And, quite frankly, arguing sublties and political semantics on a board that attracts FFXI-playing teenagers is, by-and-large, an exercise in futility. Therefore, I generally avoid discussions where you die a lingering death in a Death-By-A-Thousand-Cuts from parsing know-nothings intent on disecting your post word by word, rather than seeing the context and scope of your whole premise. For the most part, it's a lose-lose situation.

Totem

It just doesn't cross your self-absorbed mind that maybe people don't go along with your argument because you're WRONG.

And of all the people here, YOU are the one with the greatest bias. Everyone here but you sees that.

In the previous thread (from which the quote in the OP comes), I already linked an interview in which Cheny's first, direct, and very simple answer to the question "Does the administration believe that Iraq was involved in 9/11", was "NO.".

How much clearer can you get? What you've got is a White House providing clear and direct answers and a media that gets its bread and butter by generating suspicions and conspiracies and theorizing about possible things that might be happening that people might want to worry about.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

as usual gbaji, like the majority of us, you see what you want to see and ignore the things that do not support your ideology.

i notice you completly skipped over the declarations by Cheney that Iraq was infact training Al-Queda terrorist during the build up for the war.

his more recent "no" was a political response to a question because polls show people are no longer buying "yes", and there is currently too much information out that out right lies wont fly any more.

welcome to american politics, where the truth sways in the wind of the polls. the truth is whatever a politician can get the masses to believe at any given time, reguardless if that changes from day to day.

the worst part is us. we let them split us down the middle and then stand back while we do their dirty work for them. supporting lies, condeming each other if we dont agree with the party line, tossing morals out the window (torture) if it flies in the face of the party position.

like a bunch of ignorant sheep.

this addministraition led us down a path that we wouldnt have gone down ourselves. a path unsupportable by facts. unjustifiable by law. and we follwed them just like we would follow a false prophet ireguardless of all the FACTS screaming at us to take another path. why? because we are followers looking for someone to follow. just like the people of the middle east. all following our false prophets (binlaudin, omar, bush, blair) into a dark path.

there was a time when americans were leaders. when we blazed a new path of our own into the world.

now we are fat sheep for the slaughter for whoever has enough money to lead us to the slaughterhouse.

the left is playing you. the right is playing you. gbaji is a pawn. he is owned by the ideology of the team he choose. so are the majority of the rest of us. just like a monday night football game.

here are the facts,
iraq was never a threat to this country.
iraq is now more of a threat to this country because of our actions.
bin-laudin is still alive.
the taliban is still a formidable force in afganistan AFTER we "destroyed" them.
oil companies are making obscene profits.
this addministraition gave oil companies the largest tax break ever given ot any organization in the history of this country at a time when oil companies were making record profits.

the innocent people we are killing are on our hands. the profits the oil barons are making are comming out of our pockets. and the people who attacked us are still alive because WE let this government make iraq a higher priority.

played. feeling stupid enough yet to stand up and demand accountability? talking to you gbaji. the other half of the sheep are ready.

Gbaji answers with plenty of sarcasm and ridicule. It's a rare post of his where he doesn't give the "You DO know that this is REALLY the case, right?" line. He's just not very witty about it so it comes across as condescending more than anything else.If anything, he types too much. Gbaji has complained before about how no one else gets bits of their posts picked on like he does. I think the reason why is simple -- almost everyone else can stayon track and answer a post with a minimal amount of padding. Gbaji finds it necessary to write a book where a page would suffice. When you add a ton of filler into your posts to try and look smart, it makes it much easier to find all the flawed nuances.

And I certainly hope you're not saying that you don't see bias in Gbaji's posts

He said that Iraq "allowed" Al-qaeda training camps in the country. Huge difference...



"more recent"? Excuse me? It was the *first* response to the question. A year later, after opinion polls had shifted and numerous news agencies had dug up "evidence" that they were connected in a more substantial way, he made an incredibly cautious statement to the effect that there was evidence to suggest a stronger link, but that he was not saying that there was one.

Do I need to re-link the transcript that I already linked? It's right there...

The question he was asked was something like "A year ago, when we asked this question you said NO. Has your answer changed?". How on earth you manage to transform that into "he changed his answer to no after yes didn't work anymore" is totally beyond me...



Are these really "facts"? Or just things you want to believe? Let's see:

iraq was never a threat to this country.

How do you determine this? Congress said Iraq was (back in 1998 btw). So did Bill Clinton. So did Hilary Clinton. So did Congress in 2002. So did Bush.

I'm thinking that in the face of massive conclusion to the contrary made by people on both sides of the political fence, with vastly greater understandings of global politics, not to mention greater access to intelligence data, maybe the weight of your opinion as to what exactly is "fact" is in question here? At the very least, I think we need a bit more support for you fact then just you calling it a fact. Or is that unreasonable?

iraq is now more of a threat to this country because of our actions.

How do you figure that? Regardless of to what degree Iraq had reconstituted it's WMD programs, I think it's safe to say that *today* they really really aren't building any and aren't going to be any time soon. I'd also argue strongly that they're not likely to invade anyone in the near future either...

What exact definition of "threat" are you using here?

bin-laudin is still alive.

He was alive before we invaded Iraq too. Not sure what your point is. The two are not really connected.

the taliban is still a formidable force in afganistan AFTER we "destroyed" them.

That really depends on your definition of "formidable". Are the holding out in some southern parts of the country? Yup. Are they supporting and harboring terrorists in a manner which allows them to conduct attacks around the globe without reprisal? I'd say no. They're stuggling to survive and keep a toehold on a small portion of the country.

oil companies are making obscene profits.

Sigh. Again. What's your criteria for "obscene" profits? The profit margin for the average oil company is far less then the average bank. Oil companies have always made lots of money. They're big companies. They ship vast amounts of oil around the world. What do you think is a "reasonable" amount of profit for them to make for that?

this addministraition gave oil companies the largest tax break ever given ot any organization in the history of this country at a time when oil companies were making record profits.

The tax breaks were pretty much applicable to all large businesses, not just oil companies. You're really barking up the wrong tree, since I happen to believe that larger profits for large companies benefits the middle and working class and the economy as a whole in the long run.

So um... I don't have a problem with those tax breaks. In this case, your "fact" is true, but isn't really a problem. It's kinda like complaining that the sky is blue. Yes. It is. But why is that a problem?

the innocent people we are killing are on our hands. the profits the oil barons are making are comming out of our pockets. and the people who attacked us are still alive because WE let this government make iraq a higher priority.

Yes. Because we're only killing innocents in Iraq and Afghanistan. That's right! Our military is specially trained to do nothing but spot groups of women and children and shoot them on sight... You kill me. You really do.

This government made a decision to approach the problem with global terror as a preventive issue rather then a punative one. The steadfast insistence that we go after the "people who attacked us" to the exclusion of everything else is the first clue that you truely don't understand the difference in approach.

I'll try to explain. If we just go after Al-qaeda, and we just go after those who were involved in 9/11, then all we're doing is punishing people after they attack us. That does nothing to prevent the next attack. If we instead try to figure out where the next most likely and damaging attack could come from and take action to prevent it, then we can actually protect the nation from terrorist attacks. Maybe that's a bit too obvious for some people.

What part of "we're not just going to wait for the terrorists to attack before taking action" did you not get? If all we do is go after those who've already attacked us, aren't we just "waiting for them to attack before doing something"? I think so...