hammegk said:
In your world of the magic "I", the facts don't matter, so I'm not surprised you can't digest the fact that 'W' is a total, dead-flat, horrid, complete failure as a president, except perhaps as a president who set us on the road to a business-led totalitarian state ala Shanek and 1984...
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
Sundog said:
Now repeat after me... The Plural of Anecdote is not 'data'.
As for Libya, did you actually read what I had said? Libya has been threatening to pull out of the Arab league for years. They've also made comments about how they want to be closer to the US. Lets wait and see what actually happens in the next year to see what their true intentions are, m'kay?
Sundog said:
Fair enough... But then, would you rather have a 'stable' situation with brutal oppression, or an 'unstable' one which could, in theory, lead to freedom and democracy?
HarryKeogh said:
Gotta agree with that one, Harry. It's been, oh, about 3000 years since there was "peace in the middle east", hasn't it?
And I think, if we survive the massive wave of terrorism that is to come from disgruntled Iraqi's joining AlQ, that we'll put people on Titan and other Jovian sattelites before we have peace in the middle east...
ssibal
Unregistered
S
Cleopatra said:
No.
Well, I don't have much to add to what everyone else has said in response to this, however, I would like to add my fears in regards to the Patriot Act and an extension of this act, appropriately labeled Patriot Act II.
The huge worry for me is that all these mediums in which to collect information exists for Homeland Security, but there are no provisons in place to "watch the watchers." No oversight committee exists, and it is scary what can happen if this does not exist. At the site linked above, they state that Ashcroft already authorized 170 FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) searches, where only 47 had been authorized in the previous 20 years.
There are also areas where information is gathered on all of our activities, digital and non-digital alike. Information on who we send e-mails to and when, where we go and what we do (from surveillance cameras and EZ Pass ID cards), instant access to credit reports, the ability for the government to compel 3rd parties to release information about us (via subpoena), et cetera is alarming in my book. Also, I believe that they can take away citizenship as soon as they implicate you in support of "terrorism," which although not frightening on the surface, it has dire implications if a broad definition is used, as headscratcher points out. Thus, once they get you under a broad definition of "support" you lose all other rights under the US legal system. Absolutely frightening.
hammegk said:
What a load of tripe. I digest facts quite nicely; 2 years after 9/11 & a few months into Iraq has not written The End quite yet nor have I seen many "facts", lefty PC'lib babbling to the contrary.
Go spike a tree, or hug one ...
Pretty typical of you, to misrepresent your opponent's position. Me? Spike a tree, or hug one? Are you trying to imply I'm some kind of tree-hugging environmentalist now? Where did you dig up that bit of total excrement?
The End is not written. I fully agree. Of course, I didn't say it WAS written, either. Example number 2 of your misreprentations of my position.
However, the performance of this administration (yes, in some difficult times, but I can't relate this to either the depression or WW2 here) leaves a lot lacking, and you really can't argue that if you look at the outcome of the administration's efforts.
It's clear that unless we get our spit together pronto in Iraq, we're going to have created a new, huge training ground for some very seriously nasty terrorists, for instance.
NK is still at large.
The economy still ◊◊◊◊◊.
We have people bashing on newsroom doors, and trying to intimidate photographers, without warrants/etc, into handing over films and photographs. We have government agencies interfering in state politics.
There are a LOT of new problems since 9/11, and we can all see them. Why you choose not to acknowledge the general decay of civil rights and freedoms in the USA is beyond me, but it's hard not to miss the handwriting on the wall when the "Office of Homeland Security" goes after the members of a particular politcal party in order to influence a state government redistricting vote. That's flat-out treason, it's using the executive branch against the legally behaving public.
Then there's Haliburton and the oil wells. Why is Ken Lay still getting a free ride?
The list goes on and on, and because I can see the bluntly, trivially obvious, you accuse me of being a tree hugger.
Do you know Shanek by any chance?
Just a stab in the dark. Did it actually miss the mark?jj said:
We can agree to disagree on how bad the situations actually are due to Bush admin mis-handling.
And I'd rather have the US military play anti-terrorist in say Iraq, (or maybe Washington State) rather than in NYC or DC.
And this is a Bush admin failure, you say?
Yup, but it could be much worse, for me, and I suspect for you too (and for most of the posters here for that matter). Mtgs at 6%; who woulda guessed?
And this is new to you? Sounds more like the same old-same old to me. I worry more about the juduciary and rewriting law.
And if you had facts rather than anecdotal propaganda to back those allegations, something might be done. We seem to be crawling with legal talent here in the US.
Halliburton & free ride? jj, do you actually know anything about the oil business? Ken Lay is a mystery to me too; the usual friends in high places I'd assume.
Bluntly, your gripes are just that, and trivial to boot.
Nope. Libertarian anarchists make me laugh as much as anything. Lefty pc'libs just p*ss me off.
BTW, perhaps you could quote yourself again. Third times a charm, right?
bignickel
Mad Mod Poet God
Not that I want to interupt Hammegk and JJ's debate, but I wanted to get back to the point in my earlier post.
I finally found the article on the 7/10 Americans poll.
Washington Post Poll:
Saddam Hussein and the Sept. 11 Attacks
Saturday, September 6, 2003
The latest Washington Post poll is based on telephone interviews with 1,003 randomly selected adults nationwide, and was conducted Aug. 7-11, 2003. The margin of sampling error for overall results is plus or minus 3 percentage points. Sampling error is only one of many potential sources of error in this or any other public opinion poll. Interviewing was conducted by TNS Intersearch of Horsham, Pa.
*= less than 0.5 percent
How likely is it that Saddam Hussein (INSERT ITEM) ? Would you say that it is very likely, somewhat likely, not very likely, or not at all likely?
LIKELY: NET, Very, Somewhat / NOT LIKELY: NET, Not Very, At all / NO OPIN.
a. was personally involved in
the September 11 terrorist
attacks 69 32 37 28 15 12 3
b. has provided assistance to
Osama bin Laden and his
terrorist network 82 51 31 14 8 6 4
c. was trying to develop weapons
of mass destruction 84 62 22 14 9 5 3
d. had already developed weapons
of mass destruction 78 51 27 19 12 7 3
a. was personally involved in the September 11 terrorist attacks
--------Likely------- -------Not Likely------ No
NET Very Somewhat NET Not very At all opin.
8/11/03 69 32 37 28 15 12 3
2/6/03* 72 34 38 25 16 9 3
10/24/02 71 34 37 25 16 9 4
9/13/01# 78 34 44 12 9 3 9
* 2/6/03 and previous - Time/CNN. "…personally involved in the terrorist attacks
(on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon) on September 11th (2001) -- very likely,
somewhat likely…"
# "How likely is it that Saddam Hussein is personally involved in Tuesday's terrorist
attacks..."
b,c,d. No trend.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/vault/stories/data082303.htm
(And yes, you need to have cookies on to get there)
"How likely is it that Saddam Hussein was personally involved the September 11 terrorist attacks?"
69% of the over 1000 Americans polled said 'Very likely'.
Sorry, but this looks like an slam-dunk to me here. Very un-ambiguous in it's wording, very clear on what's it's asking.
Face it: we American rationalists are on an island in a sea of idiots. And that sea of idiots elects our successive government administrations. And this nation has the keys to the largest nuclear arsenel on the planet.
"Do the math" indeed. Except I'm afraid to.
Dang. I hate to start a weekend this cynical.
Everybody party!
I finally found the article on the 7/10 Americans poll.
Washington Post Poll:
Saddam Hussein and the Sept. 11 Attacks
Saturday, September 6, 2003
The latest Washington Post poll is based on telephone interviews with 1,003 randomly selected adults nationwide, and was conducted Aug. 7-11, 2003. The margin of sampling error for overall results is plus or minus 3 percentage points. Sampling error is only one of many potential sources of error in this or any other public opinion poll. Interviewing was conducted by TNS Intersearch of Horsham, Pa.
*= less than 0.5 percent
How likely is it that Saddam Hussein (INSERT ITEM) ? Would you say that it is very likely, somewhat likely, not very likely, or not at all likely?
LIKELY: NET, Very, Somewhat / NOT LIKELY: NET, Not Very, At all / NO OPIN.
a. was personally involved in
the September 11 terrorist
attacks 69 32 37 28 15 12 3
b. has provided assistance to
Osama bin Laden and his
terrorist network 82 51 31 14 8 6 4
c. was trying to develop weapons
of mass destruction 84 62 22 14 9 5 3
d. had already developed weapons
of mass destruction 78 51 27 19 12 7 3
a. was personally involved in the September 11 terrorist attacks
--------Likely------- -------Not Likely------ No
NET Very Somewhat NET Not very At all opin.
8/11/03 69 32 37 28 15 12 3
2/6/03* 72 34 38 25 16 9 3
10/24/02 71 34 37 25 16 9 4
9/13/01# 78 34 44 12 9 3 9
* 2/6/03 and previous - Time/CNN. "…personally involved in the terrorist attacks
(on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon) on September 11th (2001) -- very likely,
somewhat likely…"
# "How likely is it that Saddam Hussein is personally involved in Tuesday's terrorist
attacks..."
b,c,d. No trend.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/vault/stories/data082303.htm
(And yes, you need to have cookies on to get there)
"How likely is it that Saddam Hussein was personally involved the September 11 terrorist attacks?"
69% of the over 1000 Americans polled said 'Very likely'.
Sorry, but this looks like an slam-dunk to me here. Very un-ambiguous in it's wording, very clear on what's it's asking.
Face it: we American rationalists are on an island in a sea of idiots. And that sea of idiots elects our successive government administrations. And this nation has the keys to the largest nuclear arsenel on the planet.
"Do the math" indeed. Except I'm afraid to.
Dang. I hate to start a weekend this cynical.
Everybody party!