I don’t think this board is devoted to the neutral fighting of ignorance. If you dropped all forums but CoSR, CoCC and GQ you could maybe make that claim.
Nor do I think the SDMB is balanced. With a few exceptions, every individual is on the same level playing field and conservatives are vastly outnumbered by centrists and liberals, so it follows that the discussions aren’t going to be balanced.
I do, however, think that the SDMB is fair. You don’t have to answer every single post or tangle with every shrill comment. You’re free to pick the comments that actually are on-topic, relevant, and are posted by people you think will hear you out. I don’t think many of the people interested in serious debate are going to think less of you for not playing 10-on-1 in the 9,382’rd “Look at this headline! OMG Bush SUXS!” BBQ Pit thread.
I’m sure it’s frustrating seeing all those comments go unchallenged and feeling outnumbered, but lets face it: If you’re still here, you’ve obviously got a masochistic streak.
If ceasing to be a Bush apologist means siding with people who have been very rude to you personally, I think the answer to that question is “an awful lot.”
It is also about credible scenarios – which are nothing more than reasonable inferences drawn from evidence.
Perhaps the sticking point is the word “proof”.
Evidence may exist in differing measures. If an accused burglar is caught in someone’s house, at night, holding a crowbar in one hand and a pillowcase full of silverware in the other, and he claims he didn’t do anything wrong, that claim is evidence.
Of course, it’s not likely to be strong evidence, or evidence that’s given great weight. It’s clearly self-serving, and it’s clearly contradicted by other evidence that appears stronger. But it is, nonetheless, evidence.
Proof is the quanta of evidence sufficient to form a conclusion in a given situation.
In court, in a criminal trial, the evidence must compel a conclusion “beyond a reasonable doubt.” In a civil matter, a lesser standard of proof is required. I might speak of a matter not being proved in the context of a criminal trial, knowing all the while that two floors up in the civil courts, the matter would be proved.
There is plenty of evidence that might permit the conclusion that Mr. Bush lied. There is evidence that he did not.
OK: In a display of good faith (in terms of "policing our own) I am going to now point out that I was actually asking a serious question and that your post seems to not add anything to the discussion.
I read the post in question three times and couldn’t figure out what the poster was trying to say. Hence, no comment.
But getting on to other things…
Shodan: There’s no doubt in my mind that Bush tried to tie Iraq to the events of 9/11/01 in his speech last night. But let’s be clear: “tie to” does not mean “was the cause of”. He’s trying to say it’s all part of the same business of “fighting terrorism”. And the sad truth is, that is now correct. From the evidence I’ve seen so far, any ties to Islamic Terrorism in the Saddam days are exteremly tenuous, at best. But since we invaded, that has all changed.
Maybe this was part of a Master Plan to fight the terrorists “over there” so we wouldn’t have to fight them here. I find that pretty far fetched, but there is an outside possibility of it being true. The simple fact, though, is that we made Iraq part of the War on Terror. Either on purpose or as an unintended consequence, we did it. Now we’re stuck with dealing with it.
Bush, however, wants us to believe that Iraq has been part of the WoT all along. Calling that “a stretch” would be very generous. It simply isn’t true. A much stronger case can be made, for example, that Pakistan is embroiled with Islamic Terrorists-- not actively, per se, but through acts of ommission in the lawless North-West Frontier Province bordering Afghanistan.
Quite true, it does not add anything, save for my sense of “humor” to the thread. However, not only in your goal reachable by searching, but also, my post doesn’t stop peole from posting the “right” answer.
Except that when people think back to this thread and others like it, they will not remember all of the moderates and even lefties asking reasonable questions and trying to engage in honest debate. Hell, I know that I can think of a hand full of Conservative posters that I consider to be assholes, but have to think a bit to find those that I do consider “worth talking to”. This has everything to do with what gets me steamed when I read it, and nothing to do with actual numbers.
While it may be true that this is a failing in perception of sorts, it remains a fact. My point (and I will admit to implementing this imperfectly, though I do try) is that it would be better to start from the position that even the folks that disagree with us politically are starting from essentially the same motivations as we are. That they are not stupid or evil, they have simply reached different conclusions than we have.
Also, your blog link won’t load and so I can really tell what point, if any, it is trying to prove.
In Brickerland, a liar’s own assurance that he isn’t lying *is * evidence that he isn’t lying. *Convincing * evidence, even, at least to the preconvinced.
To clarify for those of us playing at home: you are using the term “evidence” in the strict legal definition, as if this were a trial going before a judge and jury, rather than the way that the vast majority of the population would use it, right?
I think I might be using “proof” in a strict legal way. “Evidence,” I think, is clearly understood by the populace at large to mean infomration that tends to make the determination of a fact in question more or less probable.
It doesn’t skew left due to factual confirmation, it skews anti-bush because of factual confirmation.
Color me gobsmacked. All the evidence shows that Bush is lying, but Bush says he’s not lying, so that’s counter evidence. If you say so.
Evidence beyond him saying “I am not a crook!” ?
Let’s not get this derailed into legalese. Evidence in the sense of a detective putting together the story of what happened, of a scientist looking at the facts to come up with a hypothesis. Not whatever our adversarial system of law demands.
Yeah, to hell with justice, or the Republic, or truth! If someone’s rude to you, far better to support injustice. At least priorities are in order.
To be fair, Bricker is using “evidence” in its legal sense. Yes, if you are accusing someone of a crime, then that person’s denial is evidence. Whether it is credible evidence is up to the jury to decide after observing testimony.
However, I don’t think that this definition is applicable here. Saying someone is lying is not like accusing him of a crime. There is no testimony, no cross-examination, and no fact-finding by a disinterested jury.
We, as the public that employs the president are not obligated to take a courtroom-style view of proving facts. What remains is this: all the hard evidence that exists shows that Iraq was not an imminent threat to the United States and that the Bush administration either knew it or should have known it. On the other hand, we have members of the Bush administration who say “nuh-uh.”
That might be considered “evidence” in a court of law. But if that’s the view we’re going to take when holding public officials accountable, do we all have to stand around being unsure of ourselves until an impeachment trial takes place? In that case, shouldn’t we require that impeachment trials take place at regular intervals, say, every six months, so that we can hold our public officials to account?
No.
We start with a mountain of data showing that the story Bush told us is simply not true. Including but not limited to the fact that our own intel agencies were telling us that Bush’s claims were false.
Balanced against that all we have, or at least all you have presented, is Bush saying “Is too true! Is too!”
For the record, I do not oppose Bush because he is a liar. A lie from a politician is like a fart from a cow; it’s to be expected. I oppose Bush because of his administration’s tyranny.
We are free to use our judgement of the credibility of the person offering that evidence in order to form an opinion of the truthfullness of that evidence.
Just to echo a previous comment - this board really only leans left by American standards, which in general lean right according to much of the rest of the world.
Extreme positions, both far left and far right, seem to get jumped on with equal disdain from my perspective. I think the problem is that the moderate positions are viewed as being to the left by the Americans.
So… is this an American board by design, or an international one?
Everyone is bitter about how the other side is wrong in threads like terri, gay rights, and such, so when the fact of one side v. the other comes up, such as here, each side is bitter and annoyed.
That sounds like a nice thing to do. However, considering how business-friendly the current president is, and his supporters are, it seems intellectually dishonest.
[/QUOTE]
Also, your blog link won’t load and so I can really tell what point, if any, it is trying to prove.
[QUOTE]
I am not trying to prove any point, but to answer your question. I just tried it, and it works, for me, at least. It links to a discussion and elaboration of the conservative faq .
