Boy, when the religious offer up statements like that, you’re all over them like white on rice. It happened, even though there’s no proof.
Why not apply the same exacting standards of skepticism to this theory as you do to the idea that Christ was the son of God and died for our sins?
When the proposition is blind partisanship, the truth of the matter has a subjective and an objective compenent, and the viewpoint of detacched, neutral parties is certainly relevant evidence in reaching a conclusion. If we’re determining what the first derivative of y=x^2 is, I agree a vote doesn’t prove the answer. If we’re determining levels of blind partisanship, a vote is relevant evidence.
I don’t agree YOU can say it truthfully.
No. Because I’m unaware of any Fox News transgression on the level of CBS’s. Point me towards a Fox News misstatement of fact, and I’ll be happy to condemn it.
I asked my Woodward and Bernstein question in an effort to determine what you define as “treason”. If they exposed classified information, does that constitute treason, or is there a balancing test to be done first, weighing the value of the dissemination against the public good done by the disclosure?
The foreign enemy they were aiding was North Vietnam, and their disclosure of Ellsberg’s follow-ups to the inital Pentagon Papers (a) disclosed classified information, and (b) aided the North Vietnamese.
Actually, you said that there was one Mormon Democrat. You really think you look any better trying to parse your way out of it?
How about if I said, “I think there is one non-gay child molestor. He is in a zoo somewhere”. Would you feel comfortable if I claimed that I never said all gays are child molestors?
What you said was:
This part is mostly true. I do share some responsibility for what Bush does. But I bear no responsibility at all for things he has not done, and for which there is no more evidence than hysterical accusations.
Because, you see, Gonzales did not write a memo authorizing torture, and your allegation that he did is quite false. So when you say “your team is responsible for authorizing torture”, you are not saying anything worthwhile.
You do it every time you accuse me of being a mindless Bush-bot - because i don’t take the hysterical tripe pitched on the SDMB as gospel, and that I voted for Bush.
But, you see, here is the problem. Your accusation that Bush was plotting to cancel the elections was wildly false, and one which a reasonable person could not hold. And it was shown to be completely false, when the elections went off on schedule, just as every rational person said they would. And your response is to make another completely unfounded accusation, based on the same amount of evidence as your earlier one was - that is to say, nothing but paranoia and irrational hatred of Bush.
What would you call it when a person has it irrefutably shown that their fantasies had no foundation in reality - and reacts by making up a new fantasy? How long will it be until you realize there is no one on the grassy knoll?
This isn’t good.
Regards,
Shodan
That’s why I’ve argued with our hot lefty temp that there is no point to a recount because there is no evidence to suggest that the Bush campaign committed any fraud. That’s why you’ll note I back away from any positive suggestion of fraud.
My only reason to suspect anything underhanded from the GOP is the same reason that one looks to the convicted felon in the office when a handbag goes missing–you can’t prove anything but there is precedent.
What’s yours, then? How do you think “The People’s Republic” here would vote on you? Care to go ahead with the vote you propose? How about a campaign where we compare each other’s factuality? Think you’d come out well on that?
Then you can fucking well cite where I did, or retract it, or let it be more evidence of your own by-now-habitual lies and slander.
december, 'zat you? Many, many threads here. Use Search.
You know fucking well what revealing the name of a CIA undercover agent constitutes.
Gawdamighty. :rolleyes: Jane Fonda even more so then, right? And John Kerry more than any of them? I’d say you know better, but by now I doubt it.
Ah, yes, the gay/pedophile thing gets dragged up again, right on time, just like Bricker calling me a “bigoted queer.” You could have gone tihe gay/Republican because there are about as many Gay Pubs as there are Mormon Democrats and it would have been a more apposite comparison, but you decided to go with the pedophile thing. And since you don’t understand literary hyperbole, I’ll keep it literal for you. Yes, there is more than one Mormon Democrat. Given that Utah went Red, there weren’t enough.
Since you choose to ignore the words on black and white, there’s not much point in arguing this.
I’ve already challenged you to produce any post where I called you “a mindless Bush-bot.” Put up or retract the allegation.
Read my earlier response. As far as I can tell, the election was honest and aboveboard. If evidence were produced to indicate the contrary, however, Iwouldn’t be astonished.
Bush lied to instigate a war that has killed US soldiers and Iraqi civilians unnecessarily.
Bush and the GOP are pushing legislation to codify anti-gay prejudice into law.
Bush’s tax-cuts have produced a record deficit that will cripple our economy.
Bush is planning to wreck Social Security with a privatization scheme that has already failed in the UK.
But I’m irrational. Fine.
I think I’d come out well ahead of you on a vote here on th eissue of blind partisanship, even given the general leftist leanings of this board.
OK - let’s get terms straight. You said, “I’ve said nothing in any way that would excuse torture, aggressive war, lying, self-delusion, unnecessary deaths, bigotry, or even growth of government debt at all, much less in the service of a party.”
To refute this statement, I need to show an instance where you’ve excused any of the things on that list.
In this post, you stridently defend Mr. Clinton against a perjury accusation. Putting aside the merits of the technical guilt on perjury, you’re unquestionaly acknowleding and excusing his lie.
I did. Couldn’t find one. Maybe you could point one out, or retract it. I used search to support my statement, above. I didn’t tell you to search for proof. I supplied it. You do the same.
Fine. You know fucking well what publishing Top Secret Pentagon war estimates constitutes. Treason. Right? Or not?
Sure, Jane Fonda. No, not John Kerry. Kerry did nothing treasonous. Fonda did. I’m trying to determine if you believe Woodward and Bernstein did. You won’t simply answer the question. Why?
Now wait just a moment. I said that in what was clearly tongue-in-cheek. I know you do NOT support Kerry’s policy with respect to same-sex marriage. I offered that example specifically to disprove the “you voted for the man, so you support all his policies” business you offered. Don’t take that out of context and claim that I actually seriously called you a bigoted queer. I never said that seriously, and I never would.
I apologize for misunderstanding you. My error.
No problem. I was worried there for a moment; that would have been a really rotten thing for me to have said, and I was terrified that you took it the wrong way…
Shodan, Bricker, et al, ARE the moderate middle, just not here on the PRSDMB.
If you doubt it, check out the recent election results.
Well there you have it. If that’s not definitive, I don’t know what possibly could be.
Evidence of your blindness.
And yet he was never charged with perjury, was he? That’s the same standard by which you dismiss Bush’s AWOL. :rolleyes:
The topic of the bias of Fox “News” and their filtered use of facts has been an extremely popular topic on this board. I think you know that.
(Re Novak’s outing of a CIA agent’s name) Glad to see you now understand there just might be a problem there, despite your automatic rush to his defense for no other apparent reason than your shared partisanship.
Cite? What charge was filed? Wishin’ don’t make it so.
Because you’re tr… er, trying to score a cheap point to help you get off the hook of the topic. Not going there. Every time you try this tu quoque crap (oh, all right, you admit your favored technique is a flawed tu quoque), you’re going to get called on it. Show that “they’re just as bad” and we can get somewhere. Or admit what the rest of us know, that you’re making shit up again to help you feel better.
Again you switch topics!
I offered the example of your defending a lie to rebut a specific accusation. You demanded it, in fact – demanded I present an example or retract my accusation! So I present it. Do you say, “Ah, OK, fair enough, I wasn’t thinking of that situation, but I agree you defended the point.”
No.
You dodge - you say, “Ah - he was never charged with perjury.” NOT THE POINT AT ALL. The point in this context is that he lied, charged or not, and you defended the lie. That’s what I pointed out, and that satisfies your demand. Why can’t you simply acknowledge that? I acknowledge points made against me all the time.
Great. But it’s hard to rebut “facts” when there’s no example. GIVE ME A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE OF A SPECIFIC LIE FOX TOLD. If it’s extremely popular, why in heaven’s name are you having so much difficulty coming up with one specific fact? My goodness - according to the impression you’re leaving, there are examples littering the board! GIVE ME ONE (1) SUCH LIE.
Oh, is that the standard now? OK, then, what charge has been filed against Novak? Eh? Wishing doesn’t make it so.
THE POINT OF THIS QUESTION IS NOT TO SAY THAT “THEY” ARE JUST AS BAD.
The point is to reach a common definition of the word “treason.” If you believe their acts were treasonous, then I am going to agree that Novak’s act was treasonous, because you’ll be using the word in a very strict, legalistic sense. Now, I’m the poster boy for Strict and Legalistic. If that’s the standard we’re going to use, I’m down with that. But I think it’s very unfair for you to ask me to accpet that standard only when it works to your advantage; if a left-leaning reporter does something similar, I want you to also agree that “treason” is the correct word.
You may not want to use “treason” in a Strict and Legalistic sense. That’s OK too. But again, I insist you apply the same standards across the board. If there’s going to be some kind of “public good” balancing test applied against the disclosure of classified information, then I insist that Novak get the beneft of that leeway.
This is NOT TU QUOQUE. We may agree that both acts were treasonous, we may agree that both acts were not, OR – we may seek to distinguish them them in some way.
yes, of course. Because Bush won by 1 percent, all the guys out on the screaming tighty-righty end of the spectrum are suddenly moderates. Oh, yeah, that makes sense.
Am I really on the screaming righty-tighty end?
I oppose the death penalty. I support tax credits for private sector investment in clean, renewable sources of energy, and improvements in ethanol credits for farmers. I believe in protecting the rights of workers, private and government alike, to collectively bargain for contracts and organize on a level playing field without interference. I favor a legal Patient’s Bill of Rights to put doctors in charge of making medical decisions with their patients as opposed to HMO paper-pushers. I support full inclusion of gay and lesbian families in the married life of our nation, with marriage defined at the state level, and reject the “Federal Marriage Amendment.”
Well, you’re pretty moderate to my eyes, Bricker.
That, of course, makes you a dangerous right-winger to many on this board.
BTW, how’s your goose-stepping coming along? I just can’t get comfortable in these high leather boots, and I think I’ll be drummed out of the Korps if I don’t improve. 
You’re never going to get it, are you? As soon as your getting-hypocrisy-pointed-out sensors detect something, it’s shields up, red alert!
There you go again with the “Well, you guys maybe did that once so you’re just as bad!” childishness.
You’re never going to get that, either. I have no intention of spoonfeeding you, bit by bit, a topic that has been discussed heavily here. If you want to participate on this board, do so.
Already pointed out. That’s *your * standard. Quit whining.
Come on now, and quit the tantrum. It’s another example of your reflexiveness in defending any Republican or conservative on the basis of their ideology and not their factuality or behavior.
If you don’t like what you see in the mirror, it’s not the mirror’s fault.
No, we were always moderates. It has just been made clear that our support of Bush is a, or the, mainstream position, and your notion that he is the anti-Christ is the extreme.
The trouble with characterizing anyone who supports Bush as an “extremist” is that we are the majority.
Regards,
Shodan
Where do you get this “non-Pubs think Bush is the anti-Christ” business? I loathe the man about as much as you loathed Clinton and for much the same reason: I find Dubya to be a spectacularly bad president.
By a few thousand votes in Ohio. It could just as easily gone the other way. I have yet to see any evidence that you share Bricker’s moderate views.