Frasier Online
home About The Show Episode Guide Merchandise Forum Reviews Gallery Contact

Is America The Greatest Nation In The History Of The Planet?

A forum for any Off Topic Games / Polls / Quizzes. All registered members are able to start their own polls in this forum

Is America the greatest nation in the history of the planet?

Yes
15
29%
No
37
71%
 
Total votes : 52

Postby Mr Blue Sky » Sun Dec 02, 2007 10:33 am

Stratman wrote:
Beer Necessity wrote:
Moon-Crane wrote:Not really a country thought of as being at the forefront of innovation, though. Sporting prowess, yes, but not the powerhouse of political influence and science/tech innovation that the US/UK is seen as on a world scale? The influence of US/UK policy is quite amazing as a global impact when you think about it - hence the growing 'tensions' around the world, i suppose.

I'd probably think of Australia more along the lines of Canada - seen more in the shadows of the US and UK? (of course, making them less hated too)

The US, UK, Australia, Canada, and probably SA, would make a better union in the world, in terms of trade agreements and mutual help, etc - rather than the UK trying to fit with mainland Europe or the US with the Central/Southern American countries?


Yes, I agree with that. Just to be clear, I wasn't tooting Australia's horn as being amongst the most influential civilisations in history, I just thought Strat might...


My delusion of grandeur can only go so far.

:D


Very wise, considering JT's killer Antipodean put-down on the other thread! :lol:
"You don't turn the other cheek, you slice it."
User avatar
Mr Blue Sky
 
Posts: 21732
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 1:00 am

Postby Stratman » Sun Dec 02, 2007 10:43 am

Killer antipodean remarks??? Ooh! Ah, that's it. I'm going to report this to me member of parliament. [yells out window] Hey, Gus! I got something to
report to you.
User avatar
Stratman
 
Posts: 11077
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 1:00 am
Location: Australia

Postby Stratman » Sun Dec 02, 2007 10:55 am

User avatar
Stratman
 
Posts: 11077
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 1:00 am
Location: Australia

Postby Mr Blue Sky » Sun Dec 02, 2007 11:09 am

Stratman wrote:One Reason America May Be The Greatest Nation On Earth

Beautiful stuff, that.


I get 'could not find the video file' when I click that link, which is a shame as I can guess from the comments below how it plays out... :lol:
"You don't turn the other cheek, you slice it."
User avatar
Mr Blue Sky
 
Posts: 21732
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 1:00 am

Postby Mr Blue Sky » Sun Dec 02, 2007 11:10 am

Stratman wrote:Killer antipodean remarks??? Ooh! Ah, that's it. I'm going to report this to me member of parliament. [yells out window] Hey, Gus! I got something to
report to you.


"I'm gonna take this all the way to the Prime Minister! Hey, Andy..."

:lol:
"You don't turn the other cheek, you slice it."
User avatar
Mr Blue Sky
 
Posts: 21732
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 1:00 am

Postby Moon-Crane » Sun Dec 02, 2007 11:30 am

Stratman wrote:Killer antipodean remarks??? Ooh! Ah, that's it. I'm going to report this to me member of parliament. [yells out window] Hey, Gus! I got something to
report to you.


:lol:

good stuff.
''Fire in the hole, Bitch!'' Jesse Pinkman - Breaking Bad

My Top TV
User avatar
Moon-Crane
 
Posts: 20753
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 12:19 pm
Location: Bucks, UK

Postby Moon-Crane » Sun Dec 02, 2007 11:35 am

Stratman wrote:One Reason America May Be The Greatest Nation On Earth

Beautiful stuff, that.


That was pretty cool. Good find.
''Fire in the hole, Bitch!'' Jesse Pinkman - Breaking Bad

My Top TV
User avatar
Moon-Crane
 
Posts: 20753
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 12:19 pm
Location: Bucks, UK

Postby Stratman » Sun Dec 02, 2007 11:41 am

Beer Necessity wrote:
Stratman wrote:Killer antipodean remarks??? Ooh! Ah, that's it. I'm going to report this to me member of parliament. [yells out window] Hey, Gus! I got something to
report to you.


"I'm gonna take this all the way to the Prime Minister! Hey, Andy..."

:lol:


The Simpsons, that's why America is the greatest nation on earth. :D
User avatar
Stratman
 
Posts: 11077
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 1:00 am
Location: Australia

Postby JT the Rightwing American » Sun Dec 02, 2007 8:42 pm

Beer Necessity wrote:
JT the Rightwing American wrote:
Moon-Crane wrote:
I'm likely going to incur the wrath of Cat, but I can't imagine anything worse than Hillary Clinton getting in to power - and that includes the worry i have for someone like Rudy Giuliani finding his way in there.


I haven't heard from Cat since she referenced the balls I had for talking about Hillary's habit of lying in light of Bush's 'lies'. I challenged her on examples of Bush's 'lies', mentioning the WMD's issue. Haven't heard back on it yet.


You don't think the Bush administration had an agenda for war in the MidEast prior to 9/11?


Of course he did. But what does that have to do with 'lying'?
JT the Rightwing American
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 1:44 pm

Postby JT the Rightwing American » Sun Dec 02, 2007 8:55 pm

Stratman wrote:One Reason America May Be The Greatest Nation On Earth

Beautiful stuff, that.


Great. A positive observation when a negative one could easily have been found. And just let me be REAL clear on my post to Ash: It was MERELY in response to Ash's post. And as such was written with a limited intent.
JT the Rightwing American
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 1:44 pm

Postby JT the Rightwing American » Sun Dec 02, 2007 9:19 pm

Beer Necessity wrote:
I'm not a big fan of HC as a person, I think she's quite a phoney (there's a surprise for a politician!) but at least she has more liberal policies than her Republican opponents.


Liberal? She's a prototypical Western European welfare state liberal. In case I haven't been clear: that would be dysfunctional.

Beer Necessity wrote:It looks like Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama will take the Democrat candidacy, which will be quite exciting as it will be a 'first' either way if and when they ascend to the Presidency.


Libs here in the states are all about their symbolism over substance - 'firsts' in their terms, meaning those perceived as victims in their liberal view - blacks, women, gays, etc. Except when that demographic 'victim' group rep is conservative. Then they aren't a victim. In that case they are an 'uncle Tom', a 'sell-out', or can be found in the dictionary between 'repulsive' and 'reptile' (Republican). Obama as a first is O.K. But not Condoleeza Rice. Hillary as a first is O.K. But not Elizabeth Dole. Funny how that works. To be a 'real' victim, you can't be conservative.

Beer Necessity wrote:I'm certain one of them will get in, as judging by the last mid-terms there's a real feeling towards kicking the Republicans out in '08.


Don't be too certain. Although much (less than 50%) of the American populace is lib-wacked, and much of it is just plain stupid (despite my arguments defending us - just need to put it into global perspective), Libs in general and Hillary in particular REALLY bring out the sensible base. Libs for the most part do want American failure, and they are being exposed. Iraq may not be the plus issue libs are counting on in '08. Plus, Hillary in the white house would be catastrophic to the country. Think G.W Bush and B. Clinton were attacked politically? Just wait 'till Hillary gets in there. She will be undermined at every turn by the full force of Conservative machinery. Above board and below. They all do it. Libs just have the main stream media on their side so therefor are more effective at it.
JT the Rightwing American
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 1:44 pm

Postby JT the Rightwing American » Sun Dec 02, 2007 9:34 pm

Beer Necessity wrote:
Wow, Hans really did get under your skin didn't he!


I didn't like his tendency to get ad hominem when he sensed getting out debated. He claimed being 'underwhelmed' by me when clearly it showed the opposite and insecurity.

As for the Egypt vs. America debate etc. I don't think any cultural achievements come out of a vacuum - including that of Egypt. And I don't think enough historical weight is being given the significance of the European renaissance.
JT the Rightwing American
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 1:44 pm

Postby Mr Blue Sky » Mon Dec 03, 2007 9:39 am

JT the Rightwing American wrote:
Beer Necessity wrote:
Wow, Hans really did get under your skin didn't he!


I didn't like his tendency to get ad hominem when he sensed getting out debated. He claimed being 'underwhelmed' by me when clearly it showed the opposite and insecurity.


Fair enough, although as ad hominem go, his weren't too harsh I don't think. He merely made his points in a forceful way, taking the opportunity to intellectually deride his opponents in the process. Many people do that, yourself included! :wink:

As for the Egypt vs. America debate etc. I don't think any cultural achievements come out of a vacuum - including that of Egypt. And I don't think enough historical weight is being given the significance of the European renaissance.


I think plenty has been said about Europe's influence, especially with regards to the creation of today's major superpower. Personally I believe the achievements of ancient Egypt and the Romans don't get the credit they deserve as their innovations seem archaic now.
"You don't turn the other cheek, you slice it."
User avatar
Mr Blue Sky
 
Posts: 21732
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 1:00 am

Postby Mr Blue Sky » Mon Dec 03, 2007 9:46 am

JT the Rightwing American wrote:
Beer Necessity wrote:
JT the Rightwing American wrote:
Moon-Crane wrote:
I'm likely going to incur the wrath of Cat, but I can't imagine anything worse than Hillary Clinton getting in to power - and that includes the worry i have for someone like Rudy Giuliani finding his way in there.


I haven't heard from Cat since she referenced the balls I had for talking about Hillary's habit of lying in light of Bush's 'lies'. I challenged her on examples of Bush's 'lies', mentioning the WMD's issue. Haven't heard back on it yet.


You don't think the Bush administration had an agenda for war in the MidEast prior to 9/11?


Of course he did. But what does that have to do with 'lying'?


Sorry, I keep forgetting that the fact that there weren't any WMDs in Iraq fails to persuade you that the intelligence was faked to fit an agenda.
"You don't turn the other cheek, you slice it."
User avatar
Mr Blue Sky
 
Posts: 21732
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 1:00 am

Postby Mr Blue Sky » Mon Dec 03, 2007 9:53 am

JT the Rightwing American wrote:Liberal? She's a prototypical Western European welfare state liberal. In case I haven't been clear: that would be dysfunctional.


Sounds like my kind of lady! :wink:

Libs here in the states are all about their symbolism over substance - 'firsts' in their terms, meaning those perceived as victims in their liberal view - blacks, women, gays, etc. Except when that demographic 'victim' group rep is conservative. Then they aren't a victim. In that case they are an 'uncle Tom', a 'sell-out', or can be found in the dictionary between 'repulsive' and 'reptile' (Republican). Obama as a first is O.K. But not Condoleeza Rice. Hillary as a first is O.K. But not Elizabeth Dole. Funny how that works. To be a 'real' victim, you can't be conservative.


Yep, white wealthy straight people just can't get a fair shake in the US...

Don't be too certain. Although much (less than 50%) of the American populace is lib-wacked, and much of it is just plain stupid (despite my arguments defending us - just need to put it into global perspective), Libs in general and Hillary in particular REALLY bring out the sensible base. Libs for the most part do want American failure, and they are being exposed. Iraq may not be the plus issue libs are counting on in '08. Plus, Hillary in the white house would be catastrophic to the country. Think G.W Bush and B. Clinton were attacked politically? Just wait 'till Hillary gets in there. She will be undermined at every turn by the full force of Conservative machinery. Above board and below. They all do it. Libs just have the main stream media on their side so therefor are more effective at it.


That would be your perceived media bias. I don't think HC would be catastrophic at all, a good healthy dose of liberalism is just what the US needs right now after 8 years of Bush. I know she'll be attacked more vehemently than any previous President, but if anyone can take it, she can. People said the same thing about Thatcher over here in the 70s, which seems kind of ironic now as history shows she's one of the strongest leaders this country has ever had. To a fault, some may argue.
"You don't turn the other cheek, you slice it."
User avatar
Mr Blue Sky
 
Posts: 21732
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 1:00 am

Postby Moon-Crane » Mon Dec 03, 2007 10:51 am

The main problem i have with HC is that she hides under a liberal facade - much like Tony Bliar (sic), running as part of the 'left' and allegedly working for 'the people' and against those 'nasty right wingers'. If you look for any profound differences between the reigns of Reagan, Bush, Clinton then Bush Jr, there's very little difference in the approach to distribution of wealth, taxation, corporate laws, etc. The only real difference that i can see is that the right openly went to war whereas the others 'tactically' bombed the hell out of other countries.

Just be up front about your agenda.

HC would be no different. But then i wonder who could be if the people of the country really wanted any change? If they do, it'll never come from any people 'put forward' as candidates. Who's looking for any radical change in a system that generally works for Joe Average anyway?
''Fire in the hole, Bitch!'' Jesse Pinkman - Breaking Bad

My Top TV
User avatar
Moon-Crane
 
Posts: 20753
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 12:19 pm
Location: Bucks, UK

Postby Mr Blue Sky » Mon Dec 03, 2007 11:31 am

Moon-Crane wrote:The main problem i have with HC is that she hides under a liberal facade - much like Tony Bliar (sic), running as part of the 'left' and allegedly working for 'the people' and against those 'nasty right wingers'. If you look for any profound differences between the reigns of Reagan, Bush, Clinton then Bush Jr, there's very little difference in the approach to distribution of wealth, taxation, corporate laws, etc. The only real difference that i can see is that the right openly went to war whereas the others 'tactically' bombed the hell out of other countries.

Just be up front about your agenda.

HC would be no different. But then i wonder who could be if the people of the country really wanted any change? If they do, it'll never come from any people 'put forward' as candidates. Who's looking for any radical change in a system that generally works for Joe Average anyway?


Well exactly, but every new leader does make minor differences, so that's what you're voting for. Personally I'd prefer someone with liberal tendancies in the White House, and that's the option HC provides.

And I have to say, the 'tactical strikes' caused much less damage and misery than all out war. I can't help thinking if Clinton had still been President post 9/11 the US response would have been much more measured.
"You don't turn the other cheek, you slice it."
User avatar
Mr Blue Sky
 
Posts: 21732
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 1:00 am

Postby Moon-Crane » Mon Dec 03, 2007 11:39 am

Beer Necessity wrote:Well exactly, but every new leader does make minor differences, so that's what you're voting for. Personally I'd prefer someone with liberal tendancies in the White House, and that's the option HC provides.

And I have to say, the 'tactical strikes' caused much less damage and misery than all out war. I can't help thinking if Clinton had still been President post 9/11 the US response would have been much more measured.


I suppose i'd agree that i'd prefer a president with a more liberal outlook, but 'd probably prefer Obama over HC - she seriously worries me for some reason (sort of in a way that Blair's wife worried me much more than himself). I'll either figure out why further down the road, or she'll get in and i'll see exactly why :lol:
''Fire in the hole, Bitch!'' Jesse Pinkman - Breaking Bad

My Top TV
User avatar
Moon-Crane
 
Posts: 20753
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 12:19 pm
Location: Bucks, UK

Postby Mr Blue Sky » Mon Dec 03, 2007 11:52 am

Moon-Crane wrote:
Beer Necessity wrote:Well exactly, but every new leader does make minor differences, so that's what you're voting for. Personally I'd prefer someone with liberal tendancies in the White House, and that's the option HC provides.

And I have to say, the 'tactical strikes' caused much less damage and misery than all out war. I can't help thinking if Clinton had still been President post 9/11 the US response would have been much more measured.


I suppose i'd agree that i'd prefer a president with a more liberal outlook, but 'd probably prefer Obama over HC - she seriously worries me for some reason (sort of in a way that Blair's wife worried me much more than himself). I'll either figure out why further down the road, or she'll get in and i'll see exactly why :lol:


Yeah, I like Obama. As I said earlier, HC comes across as a phoney but that doesn’t mean she won't implement decent liberal policies.

The only problem I have with Obama is that I keep being reminded of that Shirley Schmidt quote about white people preferring to take black politicians like they take their coffee - with a little cream. He certainly appeals to the white demographic but I've heard some pretty disparaging comments about him from black people. We'll see how things pan out this year. I wonder if an HC/Obama Democratic 'dream ticket' is on the cards?
"You don't turn the other cheek, you slice it."
User avatar
Mr Blue Sky
 
Posts: 21732
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 1:00 am

Postby JT the Rightwing American » Wed Dec 05, 2007 10:39 am

Beer Necessity wrote:
Sorry, I keep forgetting that the fact that there weren't any WMDs in Iraq fails to persuade you that the intelligence was faked to fit an agenda.


My goodness, BN. How can one conclude that failing to find evidence of current WMD's in Iraq means that intelligence was faked to fit an agenda?

Current knowledge conclusively shows that the CIA and other major intelligence agencies generally believed that they probably still had them. Even the Clintons believed so. Some evidence shows that even Saddam himself thought so!

Again, in what way was Bush lying? Libs constantly claiming this should only be embarrassed by themselves. Bush did not 'fake' intelligence to fit an agenda. Is this what libs mean by 'Bush lied'? So Bush duped not only the CIA, the Clinton's predating G.W Bush, and the rest of the world? Of course Bush wanted regime change in Iraq, as did Clinton - as evidenced by the policy shift in 1998 to one of regime change in Iraq.

Now, let me indulge in a bit of devil's advocate to try to nuance the lib's argument to a degree one would think they themselves should, but to this day not witnessed. So much for the liberal's self-professed sophistication and nuance. I think in the wake of 9/11 the Bush administration realized like all other reasonable people that we were in a new geopolitical and security paradigm. This realization, in their view, made the 1998 policy of Iraqi regime change much more urgent. So urgent in fact that force would be necessary - and very soon. The president needed to prepare the country and world for this action. The president is a politician - as all political leaders are. Political leaders must use the tools available to them to lead and persuade, including rhetoric. And rhetoric, of course, is inherently sophist to a degree. Skilled political leaders emphasize and de-emphasize certain things to effectively communicate their agenda. They all do it. They all have done it. I believe that the Bush administration probably put the relevant facts on a 'chalk board', then prioritized them according to the impact they would have on influencing opinion in favor of their agenda. They wrote down 'Has had WMD's and used them', 'Has an ax to grind against the U.S and West', 'is brutal against his own people', 'probably still has WMD's', and went on through a list. Included in that list was maybe the single most significant reason for the agenda - that being the belief that a democratic foothold in the middle east - in a muslim country - would provide a catalyst for change against the prevailing dictatorships, theocracies and radical fundamentalism. But they thought that reason - essentially another 'domino theory - was too abstract for the people. Especially after Vietnam. The U.S populace would have difficulty swallowing it, and the Liberal mainstream media certainly would. So, I believe, the Bush administration erred by trying to nuance their efforts to prepare the country (and world) for their action. I think Paul Wolfowitz essentially said as much in an interview. So, in my opinion, they were guilty of ineffective communication. Misleading in a sense maybe. Guilty of political calculation and rhetoric. Emphasized what they thought to be fact. De-emphasized what they thought to be fact. Weighted facts and circumstances to their ends as all politicians do - even in the face of monumental things like war. All this is not lying. Certainly not lying as libs have argued. And none of this shows that 'Bush faked intelligence to fit an agenda'.
Now, if a lib were to argue that my explanation proved that Bush 'lied' or 'faked intelligence to fit an agenda', then I would argue that they were probably being more deceptive than Bush was.
JT the Rightwing American
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 1:44 pm

Postby JT the Rightwing American » Wed Dec 05, 2007 10:45 am

Beer Necessity wrote:
Libs here in the states are all about their symbolism over substance - 'firsts' in their terms, meaning those perceived as victims in their liberal view - blacks, women, gays, etc. Except when that demographic 'victim' group rep is conservative. Then they aren't a victim. In that case they are an 'uncle Tom', a 'sell-out', or can be found in the dictionary between 'repulsive' and 'reptile' (Republican). Obama as a first is O.K. But not Condoleeza Rice. Hillary as a first is O.K. But not Elizabeth Dole. Funny how that works. To be a 'real' victim, you can't be conservative.


Yep, white wealthy straight people just can't get a fair shake in the US...


Now, that is not what I said at all, is it?
JT the Rightwing American
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 1:44 pm

Postby JT the Rightwing American » Wed Dec 05, 2007 10:56 am

Beer Necessity wrote:
Fair enough, although as ad hominem go, his weren't too harsh I don't think. He merely made his points in a forceful way, taking the opportunity to intellectually deride his opponents in the process. Many people do that, yourself included! :wink:


No, it was more like flailing out in desperation. I don't mind making a point in a forceful way. Something like 'believing, as you do, that America had charitable intentions during WWII is in gross disregard of the following facts....' would be intellectually deriding. But stomping ones foot and shouting 'answer my questions!!!! I think I am under matched in this debate' is nothing but desperation and loss of control (especially when I did address his fricken points). If he truly felt superior, he would not have reacted so emotionally. Why did I get under HIS skin?
JT the Rightwing American
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 1:44 pm

Postby Moon-Crane » Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:22 am

JT the Rightwing American wrote:
Beer Necessity wrote:
Sorry, I keep forgetting that the fact that there weren't any WMDs in Iraq fails to persuade you that the intelligence was faked to fit an agenda.


My goodness, BN. How can one conclude that failing to find evidence of current WMD's in Iraq means that intelligence was faked to fit an agenda?

Current knowledge conclusively shows that the CIA and other major intelligence agencies generally believed that they probably still had them. Even the Clintons believed so. Some evidence shows that even Saddam himself thought so!

Again, in what way was Bush lying? Libs constantly claiming this should only be embarrassed by themselves. Bush did not 'fake' intelligence to fit an agenda. Is this what libs mean by 'Bush lied'? So Bush duped not only the CIA, the Clinton's predating G.W Bush, and the rest of the world? Of course Bush wanted regime change in Iraq, as did Clinton - as evidenced by the policy shift in 1998 to one of regime change in Iraq.

Now, let me indulge in a bit of devil's advocate to try to nuance the lib's argument to a degree one would think they themselves should, but to this day not witnessed. So much for the liberal's self-professed sophistication and nuance. I think in the wake of 9/11 the Bush administration realized like all other reasonable people that we were in a new geopolitical and security paradigm. This realization, in their view, made the 1998 policy of Iraqi regime change much more urgent. So urgent in fact that force would be necessary - and very soon. The president needed to prepare the country and world for this action. The president is a politician - as all political leaders are. Political leaders must use the tools available to them to lead and persuade, including rhetoric. And rhetoric, of course, is inherently sophist to a degree. Skilled political leaders emphasize and de-emphasize certain things to effectively communicate their agenda. They all do it. They all have done it. I believe that the Bush administration probably put the relevant facts on a 'chalk board', then prioritized them according to the impact they would have on influencing opinion in favor of their agenda. They wrote down 'Has had WMD's and used them', 'Has an ax to grind against the U.S and West', 'is brutal against his own people', 'probably still has WMD's', and went on through a list. Included in that list was maybe the single most significant reason for the agenda - that being the belief that a democratic foothold in the middle east - in a muslim country - would provide a catalyst for change against the prevailing dictatorships, theocracies and radical fundamentalism. But they thought that reason - essentially another 'domino theory - was too abstract for the people. Especially after Vietnam. The U.S populace would have difficulty swallowing it, and the Liberal mainstream media certainly would. So, I believe, the Bush administration erred by trying to nuance their efforts to prepare the country (and world) for their action. I think Paul Wolfowitz essentially said as much in an interview. So, in my opinion, they were guilty of ineffective communication. Misleading in a sense maybe. Guilty of political calculation and rhetoric. Emphasized what they thought to be fact. De-emphasized what they thought to be fact. Weighted facts and circumstances to their ends as all politicians do - even in the face of monumental things like war. All this is not lying. Certainly not lying as libs have argued. And none of this shows that 'Bush faked intelligence to fit an agenda'.
Now, if a lib were to argue that my explanation proved that Bush 'lied' or 'faked intelligence to fit an agenda', then I would argue that they were probably being more deceptive than Bush was.


I'd actually tend to agree with that. Bush doesn't go out and get the information for himself - all the think tanks, organisations and agencies file their reports to his office. Whoever was in power would have had the same info given to them - it would likely even be be edited down into 'manageable chunks of info' by his own shadow staff.

I have a few problems with GWB, but not really over this - i'd 'blame', if we're going to call it that, his advisers. It's not such a great soundbite or headline to break down the details though ;)

Headlines, opinion and spin are more important on the 'news' than research and presentation of facts. Why be surprised if politicians employ the same tactics to 'win over' voters? People do the similar slanting of things in their lives every day. Why expect the powers that be to do it differently just becasue it's on a larger scale. If Hillary Clinton does win power, lets see how 'facts' are represented by her team. I think she's already been proved a liar over certain things, maybe considered less important? Take that to a grander scale?

I need to lie down. i've been tending to side, in principal at least, with too many of JT's responses... does not compute ;)
''Fire in the hole, Bitch!'' Jesse Pinkman - Breaking Bad

My Top TV
User avatar
Moon-Crane
 
Posts: 20753
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 12:19 pm
Location: Bucks, UK

Postby Moon-Crane » Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:22 am

JT the Rightwing American wrote:
Beer Necessity wrote:
Fair enough, although as ad hominem go, his weren't too harsh I don't think. He merely made his points in a forceful way, taking the opportunity to intellectually deride his opponents in the process. Many people do that, yourself included! :wink:


No, it was more like flailing out in desperation. I don't mind making a point in a forceful way. Something like 'believing, as you do, that America had charitable intentions during WWII is in gross disregard of the following facts....' would be intellectually deriding. But stomping ones foot and shouting 'answer my questions!!!! I think I am under matched in this debate' is nothing but desperation and loss of control (especially when I did address his fricken points). If he truly felt superior, he would not have reacted so emotionally. Why did I get under HIS skin?


Sounds like there's been some fun here in the past :)
''Fire in the hole, Bitch!'' Jesse Pinkman - Breaking Bad

My Top TV
User avatar
Moon-Crane
 
Posts: 20753
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 12:19 pm
Location: Bucks, UK

Postby Mr Blue Sky » Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:38 am

JT the Rightwing American wrote:
Beer Necessity wrote:
Sorry, I keep forgetting that the fact that there weren't any WMDs in Iraq fails to persuade you that the intelligence was faked to fit an agenda.


My goodness, BN. How can one conclude that failing to find evidence of current WMD's in Iraq means that intelligence was faked to fit an agenda?


You're right. 'Faked' is an emotive term and one I shouldn't have used in this debate. Your statement that the Bush administration presented the intelligence they had in a way that fitted their agenda, which could possibly be construed as 'misleading', is much more on the mark and in line with what I think. I listened to the whole case for war being presented in front of a chalkboard and by the end of it I was convinced invasion was the only way to stop Saddam from attacking the west, or certainly it's immediate neighbours. On closer inspection the 'evidence' was purely circumstantial (I remember the fact that Iraq had ordered high-precision machinery that could possibly be used in missile production was produced as 'evidence', failing to draw attention to the fact that such machinery could also be used for many other purposes).

You can see how some of us of a more liberal bent felt a bit raw after supporting the war went against our base instincts anyhow? I certainly felt as though Tony Blair and his cronies hadn't been entirely honest with the British public, and indeed there is plenty of evidence to support that view in the Hutton report.
"You don't turn the other cheek, you slice it."
User avatar
Mr Blue Sky
 
Posts: 21732
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 1:00 am

PreviousNext

Return to Off Topic Games / Polls / Quizzes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


© Site contents are copyright Stuart Lee 1999 - 2020. This is a Frasier fan site and is not affiliated in any way with the program, Grub St Productions, Paramount or NBC.