State of the Union

I suppose we define support differently.

The "support" given by the other allies was likely the minimum they could manage withouth excessive US punishment and the maximum they could stomach given the lack of evidence.
That kind of support was/is simply to provide the US with marketing material for this war (as long as they didn't have to send their sons to fight).

These countries were/are not convinced of the presence of WMDs by Colin Powell and the attempt (rightly) broke his reputation.
This was my original point.

Edit: Assertions made in this post are purely opinion and should not be accepted as facts.

 

here malorn

http://monkeyfist.com/articles/835

 

Amen... I can't understand why the called clinton "slick willy" the most he seeme to avoid was facing the fact that he was sleeping with interns...
Nothing stick to our current president! Damn he is mister Teflon if anyone! sure Clinton slept around... Bush has had all the scandals listed above + his V.P's right hand is now facing very serious charges and possible jail time... yet we CANNOT complain about him...

 

It makes a big difference in whether and for what you get investigated if the opposition party controls the Senate.

And you aint braking the law (even if it is written that way) if you claim you are not and the balancing branches of government look the other way.

 

You know what's funny about all this?



Bush gets elected President - FACT

He stole the election, it wasn't fair

Only two NATO countries did not support the United States - FACT

the US intimidated them into support, the leaders of all these countries are shallow and do not represent the will of the people.


This can go on and on. I have yet to see one unbiased poster on PC who might be able to argue without bias. So far, laughingman holds the title...


:lol:

 

Singular facts only get you so far... you need more than just one event happening and the details of it. You need context... you need to string together multiple facts and some sense to be made of the sea of stand-alone facts... that's the very essence of analysis.

The election for example... Given the context of the 2000 election, you can't just say that "Bush gets elected President - FACT" and that's the end of it. You need to tie it to some other facts like that there were signs of serious voter fraud, and continue to be... and that crucial Supreme Court decision that ended it all.

You need all of those facts and context. To filter all of that out like the context doesn't matter is misleading.

The idea that Bush's first election was not fair is a reasonable opinion if you consider the proper context... and there continues to be an issue with voter fraud.

The same goes for the other issue... you need context, not just fact. You're blasting Kiloran for attempting to bring in some context, saying that he's lying... but facts aren't the end all.

Facts aren't the end all... they're only the ingredients.

 

Yes, no kidding.

Unfortunately, too many people here are passing off their judgments AS FACTS. Again, I stated I had no problems with arguing why this or that is believed to be whatever, wherever, based on XXXXXX. Good, fine and dandy, but DON'T PASS YOUR BELIEFS OR CONCLUSIONS AS FACTS OR MAKE THE IMPLICATION OF FACT.

Is that too much to ask for?

 

It's FAR worse to mislead and misrepresent FACTS based on personal opinion or belief.

I asked one simple question, and I got two non-factual answers. (Well, one, tripp just added his caveat, so to speak).

 

Actually, facts are things we can all agree on, i.e.:
Bush has been sworn into the office of president of the US twice - FACT
At least two NATO countries did not "support" the US. - FACT

The assertions you stated as FACT are debatable based on assumptions about the definition and interpretations of the words selected for the assertion.
Language is imperfect and words carry unstated baggage and context.
I am quite sure you are quite correct in your assertions using your definitions and contexts.
I think we don't all agree on those definitions and contexts, however.

A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
A: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!

from:Monty Python - The Argument Sketch :lol:

 

Sorry, I do not agree at all. You're simply saying you don't agree with those FACTS, thus YOU don't consider them FACTS because of xxxxxxxx.

Wrong. We don't base argumental common denominators on planet Kiloran.

 

Whatever.
I've already posted more than I intended on this thread.

 

Me, I'm waiting for FactCheck.org regarding the facts in BOTH the President's speech and the Democratic Response.

(Annenberg School of Government run website)

 

Wait.

What's THEIR definition of "fact"?

:lol:

 

This is very important. The president said a few days ago with respect to the 1978 FISA law... "it's an 'old' law... it doesn't apply anymore."

If all it takes for the President to change a law is he feels it is necessary for him to have the power, then I feel very uncomfortable...

Congress needs to get off their nice person and actually do some oversight.

 

"I hope that your comments are in jest. Every time I hear such comments comparing Bush to Hitler, everything you say and stand for is meaninglessto me as well as the majority of Americans. "

Dead serious. Like our 2000 dead servicemen. Like the tens of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans that are dead. Like every life wasted and maimed by a dishonestly begun and misdirected war.

Read my post. I am comparing the tactics (lying to the public, unconstitutional behavior, prisoners tortured and held without charges, domestic spying), and I am dead serious in comparing those tactics.

The terrorists have won the war, we are only fighting battles. We have lost our freedoms and our Constitutional government, and we did it to ourselves.

The fact that many, if not most, Americans fell for his lies doesn't make them the truth. If people tune me out after hearing my comparison, they only prove their intolerance for the truth.

I used to ridicule casual and poorly thought out comparisons to Hitler. But if I look at the tactics, including the well-known Goering quote I cite below, I realize that Rove and his cronies have adopted the PR and population control tactics of the Nazis. And our populace, so numb to dishonest government since the Nixon days, lets it happen.

It is this latter phenomena that troubles me the most: we are letting it happen. Are you proud that your President spies on you? That you could be arrested and jailed but not charged with any crime? Do you endorse taking an Iraqi's wife hostage to capture the husband? Would you tolerate this at home? Do you thoughtlessly accept the lie that Saddam had ANYthing to do with 9-11, or that he had WMDs ("minutes from a mushroom cloud")? You actually accept and are proud of these lies and manipulations?

I cannot condone the practices of my government. I consider them traitors to American Constitutional government. People have a cow over a blow job but they let this happen without demanding impeachment?

I am so ashamed of my Government.

--------------------
During the war crimes trials at Nuremberg, psychologist Gustave Gilbert visited Nazi Reichsmarshall Hermann Goering in his prison cell:
"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? ... That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a parliament or a communist dictatorship ... That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

 

The existence of WMDs in Iraq was presented as a “FACTâ€.

Suddenly the “FACT†turned out to be “NON-FACTâ€

But apparently one “NON- FACT†comes from infallible POTUS then one has to accept a “NON-FACT†as a “FACTâ€

I assume then perhaps a “FACT†on Monday becomes a “NON- FACT†on Thursday or a “FACT†from 2003 becomes a “NON- FACT†in 2006

Very intriguing analogy

We have a very interesting FACTOLOGISTS on this board

 

According to wikipedia, the NATO nations that opposed the war were
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b...ns_Iraq_war.png

Belgium, Canada, France, Luxembourg, Norway, Greece, Germany, Czech Republic

NATO nations that initially sent troops
US, UK, Spain, Poland, Netherlands

Nato nations that initially sent troops, but then withdrew them at a later date:
Spain, Netherlands

NATO nations that supported the war, may have sent troops, may have not:
aw heck, just read the dang article, I'm not typing anymore.

Just in case this make the argument go smoother for either side of this debate.

Peace,
Cosmo

 

Yeah, and you're the Queen!

 

To answer your preformed opinionated question:

Annenberg School of Government, University of Pennsylyvania. Non Partisan, simply looks at the statements made during majar political events for factual accuaracy, irregardless of party. Will site references too. Got its start during the Presidential debates I believe.