So....
-
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.
-
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.
DAMN! Serves me right for not reading the post twice. :laugh: -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 Shannon wrote:
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
I have a hard time believing that lefties, frequently disparaged as atheists and secular humanists, would conspire with a fundamentalist religious wacko like Osama. It is more believable that Christian fundamentalists would join with Osama to punish the Jews and atheists in New York.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
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
I have a hard time believing that lefties, frequently disparaged as atheists and secular humanists, would conspire with a fundamentalist religious wacko like Osama. It is more believable that Christian fundamentalists would join with Osama to punish the Jews and atheists in New York.
Christians tend to shy away from mass murder. That whole religion thing gets in the way. Atheists and Muslims on the other hand...
-
Daniel R Ferguson wrote:
someone in his position shouldn't be saying things like that
why not? he was provoking thought in an academic setting. is that only appropriate when it conforms to what the PC police want? Mike "We ain't stuck on stupid." badass Lt. General Russel Honore **"Remember - live bunnies are a great source of nourishment"**silly-assed cartoon A vegan is someone who never heard a carrot cry!
I've already said I don't agree with PC police, and also I'm a bit ambivalent about what he said too. I think that it would be fine to say among friends, but is questionable if he says it in his official position, unless he backs it up with evidence. Freedom of speech is great, but there still has to be some limits. I don't know exactly what the limits are, and perhaps they depend on each circumstance. I think we can all agree with the often-cited example of yelling Fire! in a theatre. It might be okay if there really is a fire. A Danish paper can print cartoon about Allah, but could they print an article saying Muslims are descended from apes? Could they print one saying that humans in general are - based on scientific evidence - descended from apes? If you read the linked article, Summers chose to resign because the faculty did not agree with his management style and because people were upset about his comments. It wasn't the comments alone and he wasn't forced out.
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 »
-
I've already said I don't agree with PC police, and also I'm a bit ambivalent about what he said too. I think that it would be fine to say among friends, but is questionable if he says it in his official position, unless he backs it up with evidence. Freedom of speech is great, but there still has to be some limits. I don't know exactly what the limits are, and perhaps they depend on each circumstance. I think we can all agree with the often-cited example of yelling Fire! in a theatre. It might be okay if there really is a fire. A Danish paper can print cartoon about Allah, but could they print an article saying Muslims are descended from apes? Could they print one saying that humans in general are - based on scientific evidence - descended from apes? If you read the linked article, Summers chose to resign because the faculty did not agree with his management style and because people were upset about his comments. It wasn't the comments alone and he wasn't forced out.
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:
Freedom of speech is great, but there still has to be some limits
There are limits and they are clearly defined and very limited. The problem is liberals approach restrictions on speech as basically anything that is opposed to their ideology as in this case. That is NOT free speech. Conservatives are content with true ideology-agnostic speech with restrictions based on local senses of decency (e.g. limitations on public cursing, etc...).
Daniel R Ferguson wrote:
f you read the linked article, Summers chose to resign because the faculty did not agree with his management style and because people were upset about his comments. It wasn't the comments alone and he wasn't forced out.
He was forced out. Nobody complained about his management style before he made those comments. They immediately started applying pressure (as this was the only way to oust him) to get him out. The odd thing is that the guy is a liberal. I don't agree with his ideology, but I don't think he should be punished for expressing his viewpoint on something so trivial. Because it didn't comply with the liberal hive mind, though, he was forced out.
-
I've already said I don't agree with PC police, and also I'm a bit ambivalent about what he said too. I think that it would be fine to say among friends, but is questionable if he says it in his official position, unless he backs it up with evidence. Freedom of speech is great, but there still has to be some limits. I don't know exactly what the limits are, and perhaps they depend on each circumstance. I think we can all agree with the often-cited example of yelling Fire! in a theatre. It might be okay if there really is a fire. A Danish paper can print cartoon about Allah, but could they print an article saying Muslims are descended from apes? Could they print one saying that humans in general are - based on scientific evidence - descended from apes? If you read the linked article, Summers chose to resign because the faculty did not agree with his management style and because people were upset about his comments. It wasn't the comments alone and he wasn't forced out.
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:
I think that it would be fine to say among friends, but is questionable if he says it in his official position, unless he backs it up with evidence.
I believe he was commenting on the evidence and provoking thought is an integral part of his official position. I listened to students as well as graduates of the school comment on the appropriate nature of his comments and of the arrogance of the tenured staff, the same staff that ran him out.
Daniel R Ferguson wrote:
Freedom of speech is great, but there still has to be some limits
oh?
Daniel R Ferguson wrote:
If you read the linked article, Summers chose to resign because the faculty did not agree with his management style
Roughly translated, the patients are now running the asylum. Mike "We ain't stuck on stupid." badass Lt. General Russel Honore **"Remember - live bunnies are a great source of nourishment"**silly-assed cartoon A vegan is someone who never heard a carrot cry!
-
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 »
Daniel R Ferguson wrote:
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?
Nonsense. Just listen to Osama and various leftist (such as Michael Moore) speak. Their essential anti-American points are virtually indistinquishable. As there is no longer a viable military threat from Communist forces against the US, the left has a powerful vested interest in encourageing violent terrorist operations against the US and other pro-capitalistic centers. Thats motive. When you also consider that the 9/11 terrorists had close ties to various European countries, there are also strong leftist elements in the middle east, it would have extremely easy for them to have conspired and collaborated on a mission that was to both groups mutual advantage. Thats opportunity. Finally, consider that the WTC was exactly the kind of target a committed leftist would have taken out, and that the attack occured 8 months into the administration of a conservative president after a contested election. Thats evidence. On the other hand, all the other side really has for evidence is that Bush has connections in the oil indsutry. That he acted on evidence that was supported by numerous organizations, and that he took out a tyrant who was in violation of numerous UN resolutions and also happened to be in control of large oil supplies. (Could it be that it was the leftist themselves feeding the WMD intelligence to Bush in order to encourage him to attack on a false pretext?) I believe it is entirely possible that the left had some kind of influence of the 9/11 attacks. I think the entire thing may well be an elaborate attempt by the left to advance their agenda. "You get that which you tolerate" -- modified at 17:11 Wednesday 1st March, 2006
-
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.
espeir wrote:
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.
I can reply by saying, "I am also stating my observations and it's your responsibility to prove me wrong," but when does that end? You made a statement that the left has made no effort to attack Osama without backing it up. I'm suggesting that you back it up.
espeir wrote:
So you're saying that we should not have Democracy in the US?
I think the US should have a democracy and I understand that Bush was elected, though the elections were not a clear victory. (edit: I'm referring to Florida in the 2000 election and the 'irregularities' in the 2004 election.)
espeir wrote:
there isn't anything that Bush does that isn't met with irrational contempt and attack from the left.
I don't generally agree with Republican presidents in general, but Bush is far, far worse and there's a lot of people who think that way both outside and inside the US.
espeir wrote:
That goes beyond disagreement and becomes pure hatred.
There are wacky extremists on both sides. Try to ignore them.
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 »
-- modified at 15:39 Wednesday 1st March, 2006
-
link[^] Why do liberals think it's patriotic to feed Osama Bin Laden with such precious lines like "Bush Lied", but they think it's criminal to protest abortion? Am I misinterpreting the constitution? Should "freedom of speech" and "the right of the people peaceably to assemble" actually be read as "freedom of liberal speech" and "the right of the people peaceably to assemble for liberal causes"?
(1) I can't see in the article linked where "liberals" [quote]think it's criminal to protest abortion[/quote] (trying to block a legal business on moral grounds might be considered Anti-American, though) (2)
espeir wrote:
Why do liberals think it's patriotic to feed Osama Bin Laden with such precious lines like "Bush Lied"
Because "Truth" is a USAmerican value, but "Bush" is not?
Some of us walk the memory lane, others plummet into a rabbit hole
Tree in C# || Fold With Us! || sighist -
espeir wrote:
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.
I can reply by saying, "I am also stating my observations and it's your responsibility to prove me wrong," but when does that end? You made a statement that the left has made no effort to attack Osama without backing it up. I'm suggesting that you back it up.
espeir wrote:
So you're saying that we should not have Democracy in the US?
I think the US should have a democracy and I understand that Bush was elected, though the elections were not a clear victory. (edit: I'm referring to Florida in the 2000 election and the 'irregularities' in the 2004 election.)
espeir wrote:
there isn't anything that Bush does that isn't met with irrational contempt and attack from the left.
I don't generally agree with Republican presidents in general, but Bush is far, far worse and there's a lot of people who think that way both outside and inside the US.
espeir wrote:
That goes beyond disagreement and becomes pure hatred.
There are wacky extremists on both sides. Try to ignore them.
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 »
-- modified at 15:39 Wednesday 1st March, 2006
Daniel R Ferguson wrote:
I can reply by saying, "I am also stating my observations and it's your responsibility to prove me wrong," but when does that end? You made a statement that the left has made no effort to attack Osama without backing it up. I'm suggesting that you back it up.
uhhh...It's a discussion. How do I prove that the Democrats have done nothing? Ummm...By...uhhh... That's why I told you that you have to prove that they have done something because, if they have, then it is provable while the opposite is not. Of course, the fact that you refused to offer any evidence says a lot.
Daniel R Ferguson wrote:
I think the US should have a democracy and I understand that Bush was elected, though the elections were not a clear victory. (edit: I'm referring to Florida in the 2000 election and the 'irregularities' in the 2004 election.)
The elections were a very clear victory both times. The 2000 election was very close, but every legal recount before and after the supreme court disallowed the Democrats' attempt at a travesty of justice clearly showed Bush a winner. As for 2004 voting irregularities, the only evidence occurred in Ohio and was on the Democrat side of the aisle. Because Republicans won so big, though, there wasn't much hullaballoo made about it.
Daniel R Ferguson wrote:
I don't generally agree with Republican presidents in general, but Bush is far, far worse and there's a lot of people who think that way both outside and inside the US.
It doesn't matter if you agree or not. He was voted in by his constituents. He is definately not perfect, but I and most Republicans know when to assign blame and praise. Democrats are nearly universally maligned in their irrational hatred for him. They treat him as an enemy and call him a terrorist and compare him to Hitler. That's just ridiculous, but I would expect no less out of the left. They tend to be of pretty low character.
Daniel R Ferguson wrote:
There are wacky extremists on both sides. Try to ignore them.
That is true...Except Republicans managed to suppress the extremist voice in their party decades ago so that they do not have power within the ideology. Democrats recently failed in that regard and they are now very polarized. I mean they voted Howard Dean as their chairman...what does that say?
-
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.
espeir wrote:
There isn't anything that Bush does that isn't met with irrational contempt and attack
There are few things Bush does that don't deserve rational contempt and attack.