erynthered Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 I really don't know why I bothered, since you didn't manage to understand a single point I made and I should have guessed you wouldn't. Maybe if you go back and re-read several gazillion times, you might get it. Or not. 204923[/snapback] Thats why I've given up here. Its no use, so much for reason. Got snow? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berg Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 Thats why I've given up here. Its no use, so much for reason.Got snow? 204980[/snapback] Yeah, and Ice (I mean the frozen-H2O, not the ummm TSW poster). We also have really bad meterologists. But today was beautiful clear blue skies with a high temp around 40. With about 6 in of snow on the ground, it reminded me why we moved here. Howz yer weather? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 Yeah, and Ice (I mean the frozen-H2O, not the ummm TSW poster). We also have really bad meterologists. But today was beautiful clear blue skies with a high temp around 40. With about 6 in of snow on the ground, it reminded me why we moved here. Howz yer weather? 204990[/snapback] Damn Berg, you really want to know/ High of 80 today, cold fronts coming in they say, funny eh? I'll be in Vegas in Feb, if you close? PM me or, you know........... How's the little girl, sh*t, she's gotta be Eryn's age, 3? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berg Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 Damn Berg, you really want to know/ High of 80 today, cold fronts coming in they say, funny eh? I'll be in Vegas in Feb, if you close? PM me or, you know........... How's the little girl, sh*t, she's gotta be Eryn's age, 3? 204991[/snapback] She's 27 mos and doing well. Full blown toddler, but what can you do. And I'm really not looking forward to the impending lack of sleep when girl #2 shows up in about 5 weeks. So far though, no poop-in-the-tub episodes... And Vegas ain't that close, not that I could go anywhere right now even if I wanted to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 Don't worry, I have the insulting sarcasm deactivated, i.e. the IGNORE function. And it only has *1* person on it!!! Hmm, I wonder who THAT is???? Lemme give you a hint: 204385[/snapback] I'm not sure a better honor could be bestowed on me than that. Really. Put that in your diary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBorn1960 Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 A neighbor told me there's buried treasure in my backyard. I haven't found it yet, but I'm going to keep digging until I do. Just because I haven't found it doesn't mean it's not there. 203978[/snapback] Please don't forget about the Documented" WMD's.... you know the one that the UN actually put thier hands on, cataloged, and placed locks and seals on.... What happened to those???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted January 14, 2005 Author Share Posted January 14, 2005 I really don't know why I bothered, since you didn't manage to understand a single point I made and I should have guessed you wouldn't. Maybe if you go back and re-read several gazillion times, you might get it. Or not. 204923[/snapback] Sorry, I can't possibly understand your brilliant points, you are just too smart for me. If what you mean by "understand" is that I don't agree with you, then you are right, I don't "understand". For example, you pointed out that unless we can read minds we don't know what Cheney was thinking so it is unfair to call him a liar. I responded by saying, again, that I didn't know what was in his heart but I did know what he said and under what circumstances. You are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, I am not and I explained why. Does that sound like I didn't understand you or that we simply disagree? Further, you reiterated the same argument that has been made many times, that there were WMD's in 1991 and Iraq did not prove they all had been destroyed. I responded that I wasn't persuaded by the presence of such weapons 12 or 13 years ago long before years of inspections and the destruction of stockpiles by inspectors and coalition forces. Besides, even if I agreed that this raised sufficient suspicion for further action, do you really think that the lack of proof that all weapons ever known to be in Iraq were destroyed is sufficient basis for the VP to make the claim that there was "no doubt" that such weapons were there and being amassed against us in 1992? Again, I understand you prefectly well, I just disagree. People disagree here all the time. However, not everyone does so with a rudely dismissive attitude as you did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted January 14, 2005 Author Share Posted January 14, 2005 Implying, of course, that they are willing to release evidence that they have simply to win the political battle that didn't cost them the last election? Big picture. 204728[/snapback] Ahhhh....the secret intel canard once again. A circle of self justification, it is practiaclly a perpetual motion machine. Cheney wouldn't have said what he said unless we had some secret intel that we couldn't release supporting his claims that there was "no doubt" that there were WMD's being amassed against us in August of 2002. Since he did say what he said, there must be secret intel proving just that. Therefore, the fact that he made the claim proves the truth of that claim. Thus, saying is proving. If sufficiently motivated one can come up with many scenarios that would excuse Cheney. I am not really trying to persuade anyone on that. His supporters will find some reason, regardless of the utter lack of any evidence supporting that reason, to explain away what he said and the subsequent result of the search for WMD's. Maybe they are in Syria, maybe there was super secret intel, maybe they are buried in the desert, maybe they were transformed into secret decoder rings. The reality though is that despite all those flights of excuse and rationalizations, the plain fact is that our credibility has taken a beating on this. Believe me, I was hoping we would find those things and I repeatedly pled for more time for the searchers whenever this came up on the board. The ball game is over. We needed to find them to win some cred back on this issue and we didn't. Not only that, we called off the search so we aren't ever going to find them. We have to deal with this somehow and telling the world that maybe there was secret intel isn't going to get it done I'm afraid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 Ahhhh....the secret intel canard once again. A circle of self justification, it is practiaclly a perpetual motion machine. Cheney wouldn't have said what he said unless we had some secret intel that we couldn't release supporting his claims that there was "no doubt" that there were WMD's being amassed against us in August of 2002. Since he did say what he said, there must be secret intel proving just that. Therefore, the fact that he made the claim proves the truth of that claim. Thus, saying is proving. If sufficiently motivated one can come up with many scenarios that would excuse Cheney. I am not really trying to persuade anyone on that. His supporters will find some reason, regardless of the utter lack of any evidence supporting that reason, to explain away what he said and the subsequent result of the search for WMD's. Maybe they are in Syria, maybe there was super secret intel, maybe they are buried in the desert, maybe they were transformed into secret decoder rings. The reality though is that despite all those flights of excuse and rationalizations, the plain fact is that our credibility has taken a beating on this. I'm hardly a Cheney supporter... I think those who continue to play the WMD card over and over again are one day going to be horrified when the inevitable terrorist incident occurs and the source material is eventually traced back to Iraq. Of course, the media will plant just enough evidence to create doubt to the validity of the claim and the retards on your side of the aisle will jump around like lab monkeys at feeding time. Why do I surmise this? Because I understand how the war was fought. The emphasis was to get to Baghdad as quickly as possible - which means they didn't stop to go through sites on the WMD hunt (not that the units involved would have been equipped to do it properly anyway). By the time the true specialists in the area got on the ground, the looting well underway - certainly at least some of which was accomplished by those who knew what was where. That was a gigantic error in the prosecution of the war (in an obvious line of many - not all of which are the administration's fault). You can play your "super secret decoder ring" theory over and over again until hell freezes over. You're an attorney and I'm a former intell/ops guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 I think those who continue to play the WMD card over and over again are one day going to be horrified when the inevitable terrorist incident occurs and the source material is eventually traced back to Iraq. Of course, the media will plant just enough evidence to create doubt to the validity of the claim and the retards on your side of the aisle will jump around like lab monkeys at feeding time. 205890[/snapback] One of the best summaries of the left I've seen in years! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted January 15, 2005 Author Share Posted January 15, 2005 I'm hardly a Cheney supporter... I think those who continue to play the WMD card over and over again are one day going to be horrified when the inevitable terrorist incident occurs and the source material is eventually traced back to Iraq. Of course, the media will plant just enough evidence to create doubt to the validity of the claim and the retards on your side of the aisle will jump around like lab monkeys at feeding time. Why do I surmise this? Because I understand how the war was fought. The emphasis was to get to Baghdad as quickly as possible - which means they didn't stop to go through sites on the WMD hunt (not that the units involved would have been equipped to do it properly anyway). By the time the true specialists in the area got on the ground, the looting well underway - certainly at least some of which was accomplished by those who knew what was where. That was a gigantic error in the prosecution of the war (in an obvious line of many - not all of which are the administration's fault). You can play your "super secret decoder ring" theory over and over again until hell freezes over. You're an attorney and I'm a former intell/ops guy. 205890[/snapback] Former intel/ops guy or not, you haven't the slightest proof that the administration has secret intel that they haven't divulged as opposed to the tons of intel they have divulged or had leaked over the last 2 years that would prove the one thing they most want to prove, that Cheney was in fact right. You are simply speculating. If there are reasons why it is solid speculation, so be it. There are more things on heaven and earth than are dreamt of in my philosophy, I know that. I just think the reason they stopped looking is simple, there is nothing to find, not even evidence that it was there and is now gone. If terrorists do end up with these things and they use them what does that say about the way it was fought by this administration? Who should be held responsible for this "gigantic error" if not the administration running the show? As for the democratic reaction, what does it matter? The President got his way on this one, he got a war and all the money in the world to fight it and a second term to finish it. If these WMD's are found, and in the wrong hands no doubt, it won't be democrats to blame. The debate over whether this was an innocent miscalculation or worse or something else hasn't had anything to do with the conduct of the war and the efforts to find and secure those weapons. The failure to do that rests in the hands, ultimately, of the commander in chief. Lets hope the left is right on this, no pun intended, that there was never a there there to begin with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berg Posted January 15, 2005 Share Posted January 15, 2005 Sorry, I can't possibly understand your brilliant points, you are just too smart for me. If what you mean by "understand" is that I don't agree with you, then you are right, I don't "understand". For example, you pointed out that unless we can read minds we don't know what Cheney was thinking so it is unfair to call him a liar. I responded by saying, again, that I didn't know what was in his heart but I did know what he said and under what circumstances. You are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, I am not and I explained why. Does that sound like I didn't understand you or that we simply disagree? Further, you reiterated the same argument that has been made many times, that there were WMD's in 1991 and Iraq did not prove they all had been destroyed. I responded that I wasn't persuaded by the presence of such weapons 12 or 13 years ago long before years of inspections and the destruction of stockpiles by inspectors and coalition forces. Besides, even if I agreed that this raised sufficient suspicion for further action, do you really think that the lack of proof that all weapons ever known to be in Iraq were destroyed is sufficient basis for the VP to make the claim that there was "no doubt" that such weapons were there and being amassed against us in 1992? Again, I understand you prefectly well, I just disagree. People disagree here all the time. However, not everyone does so with a rudely dismissive attitude as you did. 205777[/snapback] Since you so egregiously mangled my position on both items for the second time, I'm unsure how you have any idea what we agree or disagree on. So, it seems to me you have no intention of actually comprehending my posts, proven again by this little stroll down partisan lane. But, if that's where you like to be you're entitled. Just quit pretending you're actually interested cordially "disagreeing", since you'd have to actually understand my point first. PS - Far from brilliant, I think my points were rather pedestrian, which makes your missing them so much more incredulous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted January 15, 2005 Author Share Posted January 15, 2005 Since you so egregiously mangled my position on both items for the second time, I'm unsure how you have any idea what we agree or disagree on. So, it seems to me you have no intention of actually comprehending my posts, proven again by this little stroll down partisan lane. But, if that's where you like to be you're entitled. Just quit pretending you're actually interested cordially "disagreeing", since you'd have to actually understand my point first. PS - Far from brilliant, I think my points were rather pedestrian, which makes your missing them so much more incredulous. 206211[/snapback] Mangled? Lets see if that is true. You said: "To "lie" requires intent. One is not a liar if one is incorrect in good faith. Many people were wrong in this situation, both domestically and abroad. To label them liars is self-serving, unless you actually can read minds" I paraphrased that position as: "For example, you pointed out that unless we can read minds we don't know what Cheney was thinking so it is unfair to call him a liar." Please show me the difference between the two that is so great that you feel justified in accusing me of having "mangled" your position? Rather than just make the accusation, why don't you prove it, if you can? You also said: "Just because something does not exist now, doesn't mean it never existed. In this case, the UN documented the existence of massive quantities of WMD after Gulf War I. Iraq was supposed to coordinate the disposal of those through the UN Inspection Team precisely for tracking purposes. They did not do that." I paraphrased your position as: "Further, you reiterated the same argument that has been made many times, that there were WMD's in 1991 and Iraq did not prove they all had been destroyed." Again, please show me the major difference between your stated position and my restatement of your view that you think justifies accusing me of having "mangled" your position? Rather than resorting to insults, you might try actually discussing the issue but hey, if you want to trade barbs, I'm game. I got in a fight once in 6th grade and from that point on, whenever that kid saw me he would turn tail and run, giving me the finger while he scampered away. Your insults remind me of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts