So....
-
No, the context of the speach did not involve the secret NSA program (used by Carter, Clinton). When you tap someone overseas, it does not require a court order. Even if one end of the call comes, or is received from withing the US. My mom told me once that "while we all don't speak the same language, everyone in the world undestands an asskicking"
I wasn't familiar with the speech. I just found it funny that by calling Bush a liar in that quote, he's essentially saying that wiretapping without a court order is legal since Bush stated the opposite (context aside). But I'm sure if you ask him whether wiretapping without a warrant is legal, he would say no.
-
Daniel R Ferguson wrote:
And that somehow means that American leftists are supporters of Osama Bin Laden?
As conspiracy theories go, it is far more rational to believe that the left, both in Europe as well as the US, conspired with Osama to bring about 9/11 than it is to believe that Bush used 9/11 in some sort of bizare conspiracy to secure Iraqi oil supplies or avenge his father, or do what ever the latest lefty theory is. "You get that which you tolerate"
I'm not sure about the reliability of the source -- it was first in my search, and there are many others -- but it seems credible: Bush planned Iraq 'regime change' before becoming President[^]. This also goes along with statements from administration insiders, Richard Clark among them. The model fits the data. On the other hand, you'd have to be on the pipe to even consider a link between the "lefties" and Bin Laden.
-
I'm not sure about the reliability of the source -- it was first in my search, and there are many others -- but it seems credible: Bush planned Iraq 'regime change' before becoming President[^]. This also goes along with statements from administration insiders, Richard Clark among them. The model fits the data. On the other hand, you'd have to be on the pipe to even consider a link between the "lefties" and Bin Laden.
Actually, Clinton drew up the plan for regime change. But more on you link. Look at this line : "The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC)." Now how does the reporter go from this to Bush planed "A SECRET blueprint for US global domination"? And I would not call Richard Clark an administration insider. My mom told me once that "while we all don't speak the same language, everyone in the world undestands an asskicking"
-
Actually, Clinton drew up the plan for regime change. But more on you link. Look at this line : "The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC)." Now how does the reporter go from this to Bush planed "A SECRET blueprint for US global domination"? And I would not call Richard Clark an administration insider. My mom told me once that "while we all don't speak the same language, everyone in the world undestands an asskicking"
I didn't claim that it was good reportage, or that the headline was accurate; just that there is more evidence for the war being planned before 9/11 than for Stan's "lefty" plot. You're right, Richard Clark is not an administration insider, he's the president of Merck. Richard Clark_e_, however, is the one who was a part of the United States National Security Council from 1992-2003, serving as: * Special Advisor 2001-2003 * National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-terrorism, 1998-2000 * Chair of the Counter-terrorism Security Group, 1992-2003 Condoleeza Rice dealt with him extensively. I think most people would consider him a former administration insider. You wouldn't, and that's fine. But I would consider him knowledgeable, trustworthy, and privy to inside information on the details of the administration's dealings with terrorism, which is the issue being discussed.
-
I didn't claim that it was good reportage, or that the headline was accurate; just that there is more evidence for the war being planned before 9/11 than for Stan's "lefty" plot. You're right, Richard Clark is not an administration insider, he's the president of Merck. Richard Clark_e_, however, is the one who was a part of the United States National Security Council from 1992-2003, serving as: * Special Advisor 2001-2003 * National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-terrorism, 1998-2000 * Chair of the Counter-terrorism Security Group, 1992-2003 Condoleeza Rice dealt with him extensively. I think most people would consider him a former administration insider. You wouldn't, and that's fine. But I would consider him knowledgeable, trustworthy, and privy to inside information on the details of the administration's dealings with terrorism, which is the issue being discussed.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Condoleeza Rice dealt with him extensively. I think most people would consider him a former administration insider. You wouldn't, and that's fine. But I would consider him knowledgeable, trustworthy, and privy to inside information on the details of the administration's dealings with terrorism, which is the issue being discussed.
When I said he was not an insider, I did not mean he did not hold a post. He was a leftover from the Clinton admin., and kept on until 2003. To say he was an "Insider" is a streach. Just because you work for the goverment does not make you an "Insider". I would call Cheney, or Rice "Insiders" but not every analyst that works for goverment. My mom told me once that "while we all don't speak the same language, everyone in the world undestands an asskicking"
-
I didn't claim that it was good reportage, or that the headline was accurate; just that there is more evidence for the war being planned before 9/11 than for Stan's "lefty" plot. You're right, Richard Clark is not an administration insider, he's the president of Merck. Richard Clark_e_, however, is the one who was a part of the United States National Security Council from 1992-2003, serving as: * Special Advisor 2001-2003 * National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-terrorism, 1998-2000 * Chair of the Counter-terrorism Security Group, 1992-2003 Condoleeza Rice dealt with him extensively. I think most people would consider him a former administration insider. You wouldn't, and that's fine. But I would consider him knowledgeable, trustworthy, and privy to inside information on the details of the administration's dealings with terrorism, which is the issue being discussed.
Oh, and I forgot. You said:
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
But I would consider him knowledgeable, trustworthy
I have a problem with trusting him. Here's why: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,604598,00.html Time mag points how Clarke contradicts himself. Also, if he were an insider why would Cheney say this: "Dick Cheney told Rush Limbaugh that Clarke “wasn't in the loop, frankly, on a lot of this stuff" And Rice said this: "Dick Clarke just does not know what he's talking about" My mom told me once that "while we all don't speak the same language, everyone in the world undestands an asskicking" -- modified at 11:52 Wednesday 1st March, 2006
-
I wasn't familiar with the speech. I just found it funny that by calling Bush a liar in that quote, he's essentially saying that wiretapping without a court order is legal since Bush stated the opposite (context aside). But I'm sure if you ask him whether wiretapping without a warrant is legal, he would say no.
Actually.... legality was never mentioned anyhere in that quote or my post. By saying that he lied when he said "wiretaps require court orders" would be to imply that there are wiretaps without court orders.
espeir wrote:
But I'm sure if you ask him whether wiretapping without a warrant is legal, he would say no.
What do they say assuming does? :rolleyes: -J
Think of a computer program. Somewhere, there is one key instruction, and everything else is just functions calling themselves, or brackets billowing out endlessly through an infinite address space. What happens when the brackets collapse? Where's the final 'end if'? Is any of this making sense? -Ford Prefect
-
Daniel R Ferguson wrote:
And that somehow means that American leftists are supporters of Osama Bin Laden?
As conspiracy theories go, it is far more rational to believe that the left, both in Europe as well as the US, conspired with Osama to bring about 9/11 than it is to believe that Bush used 9/11 in some sort of bizare conspiracy to secure Iraqi oil supplies or avenge his father, or do what ever the latest lefty theory is. "You get that which you tolerate"
They're both unlikely, but the leftists supporting Osama is far more unlikely because there's no motivation for them to do so, and even if they did have a motivation, how did they manage to coordinate their own activities when they don't even had a leader? On the other hand, it's not likely that Bush planned 9/11 with Osama so that he could avenge his father and get some oil. It wouldn't be the least bit surprising for him to take advantage of huge support after 9/11 though.
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ~Stephen Roberts
« eikonoklastes »
-
Actually.... legality was never mentioned anyhere in that quote or my post. By saying that he lied when he said "wiretaps require court orders" would be to imply that there are wiretaps without court orders.
espeir wrote:
But I'm sure if you ask him whether wiretapping without a warrant is legal, he would say no.
What do they say assuming does? :rolleyes: -J
Think of a computer program. Somewhere, there is one key instruction, and everything else is just functions calling themselves, or brackets billowing out endlessly through an infinite address space. What happens when the brackets collapse? Where's the final 'end if'? Is any of this making sense? -Ford Prefect
No, but the word "required" is mentioned. Obviously to anyone with any sense, that means required by law (as where else would such a requirement come?). So if in that quote Bush says that wiretapping requires a court order, and you claim that the statement is a lie, then you're saying that a court order is actually not required for wiretapping.
jasontg wrote:
What do they say assuming does?
jasontg wrote:
By saying that he lied when he said "wiretaps require court orders" would be to imply that there are wiretaps without court orders.
:laugh: Ironic...Since he never made that statement, that means you're making assumptions about his intentions.
-
espeir wrote:
Do they explicitely support him? I don't think so, but it is kind of odd, don't you think?
It's not really odd when you realize that nobody likes neocolonialism, whether you're whack-job terrorist or a democratic leftist. What is odd is that anyone does support neocolonialism.
espeir wrote:
Saddam would have to be nuts not to think of hiding it or getting rid of it before they were invaded.
I agree with that, but extending it to say that he did it for support from the left is stretching.
espeir wrote:
You're not entitled to physical proximty to the president.
But they are entitled to protest without being corralled into out-of-the-way places.
espeir wrote:
Here's a good example of leftist thought control
"comments that innate ability may explain why few women reach top science posts" I'm not a fan of political correctness, but someone in his position shouldn't be saying things like that. I don't think this is some coordinated suppression of his thoughts by the left though.
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ~Stephen Roberts
« eikonoklastes »
Daniel R Ferguson wrote:
It's not really odd when you realize that nobody likes neocolonialism, whether you're whack-job terrorist or a democratic leftist. What is odd is that anyone does support neocolonialism.
What are you talking about? First of all, why would a term like neocolonialism be required over colonialism. I'll call it colonialism because that's just stupid. But anyway, that implies creating colonies. America is not expanding it's real estate (which would be required if it were practicing colonialism. Iraq's government would have to be permanently under US control...which it is not. So this really makes no sense.
Daniel R Ferguson wrote:
I agree with that, but extending it to say that he did it for support from the left is stretching.
I don't think he specifically had the left in mind. But I believe it was done to discredit the US. It just so happens that the left latched onto that because they are basically anti-American to begin with.
Daniel R Ferguson wrote:
But they are entitled to protest without being corralled into out-of-the-way places.
No they aren't. They were complaining about not being able to be adjacent to the president. And what about abortion protestors?
Daniel R Ferguson wrote:
"comments that innate ability may explain why few women reach top science posts" I'm not a fan of political correctness, but someone in his position shouldn't be saying things like that. I don't think this is some coordinated suppression of his thoughts by the left though.
That's more than likely a correct statement. In the real world, women typically shy away from math and there certainly is no conspiracy to discourage them. If there were really freedom of speech in univiersities as the left likes to claim, then he should be able to say something like that. And he was actually pushed out of office after the board gave him a vote of no confidence after he made that statement. So yes, it was part of a coordinated suppression of his thoughts by the left.
-
They're both unlikely, but the leftists supporting Osama is far more unlikely because there's no motivation for them to do so, and even if they did have a motivation, how did they manage to coordinate their own activities when they don't even had a leader? On the other hand, it's not likely that Bush planned 9/11 with Osama so that he could avenge his father and get some oil. It wouldn't be the least bit surprising for him to take advantage of huge support after 9/11 though.
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ~Stephen Roberts
« eikonoklastes »
They didn't support him before 9/11, but they make no efforts to attack him or his ideology because they share a common enemy: Bush.
-
No, but the word "required" is mentioned. Obviously to anyone with any sense, that means required by law (as where else would such a requirement come?). So if in that quote Bush says that wiretapping requires a court order, and you claim that the statement is a lie, then you're saying that a court order is actually not required for wiretapping.
jasontg wrote:
What do they say assuming does?
jasontg wrote:
By saying that he lied when he said "wiretaps require court orders" would be to imply that there are wiretaps without court orders.
:laugh: Ironic...Since he never made that statement, that means you're making assumptions about his intentions.
espeir wrote:
...Since he never made that statement
So now you're accusing me of making stuff up? :wtf: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html[^] Straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak.
espeir wrote:
Obviously to anyone with any sense
:laugh: Be that as it may, I was not talking about or implying anything about the legality of any wiretaps. How about this.... -Now that we know that Bush did indeed say "wiretaps require court orders" -And you assert that "require" must mean "by law" -And it is generally agreed upon that there are wiretaps that have been conducted without court orders
espeir wrote:
(context aside)
.....where does that leave us? And no, I'm not trying to imply that wiretaps without court orders are illegal. -J
Think of a computer program. Somewhere, there is one key instruction, and everything else is just functions calling themselves, or brackets billowing out endlessly through an infinite address space. What happens when the brackets collapse? Where's the final 'end if'? Is any of this making sense? -Ford Prefect
-
espeir wrote:
...Since he never made that statement
So now you're accusing me of making stuff up? :wtf: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html[^] Straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak.
espeir wrote:
Obviously to anyone with any sense
:laugh: Be that as it may, I was not talking about or implying anything about the legality of any wiretaps. How about this.... -Now that we know that Bush did indeed say "wiretaps require court orders" -And you assert that "require" must mean "by law" -And it is generally agreed upon that there are wiretaps that have been conducted without court orders
espeir wrote:
(context aside)
.....where does that leave us? And no, I'm not trying to imply that wiretaps without court orders are illegal. -J
Think of a computer program. Somewhere, there is one key instruction, and everything else is just functions calling themselves, or brackets billowing out endlessly through an infinite address space. What happens when the brackets collapse? Where's the final 'end if'? Is any of this making sense? -Ford Prefect
jasontg wrote:
So now you're accusing me of making stuff up? http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html\[^\] Straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak.
Nevermind. I thought it was someone else that claimed Bush was lying by making that statement (it was actually you) and I was saying that you were making assumptions about how the poster (actually you) was implying a lie from that statement. Since you were the one making the post, it's not an assumption. However, by claiming that the statement was a lie, my initial statement therefore still stands because you simply posted the statement as supposed lie without explanation.
jasontg wrote:
How about this.... -Now that we know that Bush did indeed say "wiretaps require court orders" -And you assert that "require" must mean "by law" -And it is generally agreed upon that there are wiretaps that have been conducted without court orders
You already agreed with kgaddy and admitted that you took the quote out of context and that he was specifically speaking about wiretaps within the US, so I don't see your point here.
jasontg wrote:
.....where does that leave us?
With you still failing to provide an example of Bush lying?
-
They didn't support him before 9/11, but they make no efforts to attack him or his ideology because they share a common enemy: Bush.
espeir wrote:
They didn't support him before 9/11, but they make no efforts to attack him or his ideology because they share a common enemy: Bush.
- How can you prove that the left made no efforts to attack Osama? 2) Bush is an idiot who should not be President, but he's not an enemy. It's not a black and white thing.
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ~Stephen Roberts
« eikonoklastes »
-
jasontg wrote:
So now you're accusing me of making stuff up? http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html\[^\] Straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak.
Nevermind. I thought it was someone else that claimed Bush was lying by making that statement (it was actually you) and I was saying that you were making assumptions about how the poster (actually you) was implying a lie from that statement. Since you were the one making the post, it's not an assumption. However, by claiming that the statement was a lie, my initial statement therefore still stands because you simply posted the statement as supposed lie without explanation.
jasontg wrote:
How about this.... -Now that we know that Bush did indeed say "wiretaps require court orders" -And you assert that "require" must mean "by law" -And it is generally agreed upon that there are wiretaps that have been conducted without court orders
You already agreed with kgaddy and admitted that you took the quote out of context and that he was specifically speaking about wiretaps within the US, so I don't see your point here.
jasontg wrote:
.....where does that leave us?
With you still failing to provide an example of Bush lying?
:sigh: This so circular its ridiculous.
espeir wrote:
With you still failing to provide an example of Bush lying?
Yes.... and I conceded that yesterday. But since we have going back and forth about whether or not I was talking about the legality of wiretaps, I don't get your point. :) -J
Think of a computer program. Somewhere, there is one key instruction, and everything else is just functions calling themselves, or brackets billowing out endlessly through an infinite address space. What happens when the brackets collapse? Where's the final 'end if'? Is any of this making sense? -Ford Prefect
-
espeir wrote:
They didn't support him before 9/11, but they make no efforts to attack him or his ideology because they share a common enemy: Bush.
- How can you prove that the left made no efforts to attack Osama? 2) Bush is an idiot who should not be President, but he's not an enemy. It's not a black and white thing.
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ~Stephen Roberts
« eikonoklastes »
Daniel R Ferguson wrote:
How can you prove that the left made no efforts to attack Osama?
Why would I need to prove that? It's a statement of my observations. If you disagree, it's your responsibility to prove me wrong.
Daniel R Ferguson wrote:
Bush is an idiot who should not be President, but he's not an enemy. It's not a black and white thing.
So you're saying that we should not have Democracy in the US? I disagree that the left sees Bush as anything other than an enemy. Here's my proof: http://www.moveon.org/[^]. There isn't anything that Bush does that isn't met with irrational contempt and attack from the left. That goes beyond disagreement and becomes pure hatred.
-
:sigh: This so circular its ridiculous.
espeir wrote:
With you still failing to provide an example of Bush lying?
Yes.... and I conceded that yesterday. But since we have going back and forth about whether or not I was talking about the legality of wiretaps, I don't get your point. :) -J
Think of a computer program. Somewhere, there is one key instruction, and everything else is just functions calling themselves, or brackets billowing out endlessly through an infinite address space. What happens when the brackets collapse? Where's the final 'end if'? Is any of this making sense? -Ford Prefect
jasontg wrote:
This so circular its ridiculous.
Yup!
jasontg wrote:
Yes.... and I conceded that yesterday. But since we have going back and forth about whether or not I was talking about the legality of wiretaps, I don't get your point.
You asked where it left us. I admitted that what I said was nonsensical since you made the original post, so it was pointless. So that leaves us back at the beginning! With you claiming the liberal marching song "Bush Lied" without any examples.
-
jasontg wrote:
This so circular its ridiculous.
Yup!
jasontg wrote:
Yes.... and I conceded that yesterday. But since we have going back and forth about whether or not I was talking about the legality of wiretaps, I don't get your point.
You asked where it left us. I admitted that what I said was nonsensical since you made the original post, so it was pointless. So that leaves us back at the beginning! With you claiming the liberal marching song "Bush Lied" without any examples.
I never said Bush lied. :-D -J
Think of a computer program. Somewhere, there is one key instruction, and everything else is just functions calling themselves, or brackets billowing out endlessly through an infinite address space. What happens when the brackets collapse? Where's the final 'end if'? Is any of this making sense? -Ford Prefect
-
Daniel R Ferguson wrote:
And that somehow means that American leftists are supporters of Osama Bin Laden?
As conspiracy theories go, it is far more rational to believe that the left, both in Europe as well as the US, conspired with Osama to bring about 9/11 than it is to believe that Bush used 9/11 in some sort of bizare conspiracy to secure Iraqi oil supplies or avenge his father, or do what ever the latest lefty theory is. "You get that which you tolerate"
Stan, you really need to read up on the popular conspiracy theories out there. There seems to be a consensus on the conspiracy theory "scene" that there is no real left or right among the conspirers. It's just there for show, to give you the illusion of choice. As far as I can tell, most of the conspirers are ultra libertarians - depising both left and right (as per the mainstream definition of the aforementioned political ideologies)
-
I never said Bush lied. :-D -J
Think of a computer program. Somewhere, there is one key instruction, and everything else is just functions calling themselves, or brackets billowing out endlessly through an infinite address space. What happens when the brackets collapse? Where's the final 'end if'? Is any of this making sense? -Ford Prefect
I didn't say you "said" it. I said you "claimed" it! You cited an example (now proven incorrect) of Bush lying. You therefore claimed that the example was a lie and being that it was made by Bush, that is a claim that Bush lied. Though you did not use the words "Bush Lied" (I never claimed you did!), you certainly did make that claim.