Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Bush ceding US ports to the enemy?
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 91 (291535)
03-02-2006 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by arachnophilia
03-02-2006 3:21 PM


Re: just ask kevin smith
he got several death threats regarding "dogma."
But was that because it was blasphemous, or because it was a shitty movie?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by arachnophilia, posted 03-02-2006 3:21 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 5677 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 77 of 91 (291744)
03-03-2006 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Silent H
03-02-2006 2:02 PM


Re: Video
It sure didn't feel like reality with a bunch of fanatic Xians promising death for watching a movie... but it happened.
Of course where I live WMDs were not found. What is reality to you?
Simple yes or no question. Are the following weapons of mass destruction?
” Found: 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium
” Found: 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons
” Found: Roadside bomb loaded with sarin gas
” Found: 1,000 radioactive materials--ideal for radioactive dirty bombs
” Found: 17 chemical warheads--some containing cyclosarin, a nerve agent five times more powerful than sarin

People don't kill people
Cartoons kill people

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Silent H, posted 03-02-2006 2:02 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Silent H, posted 03-03-2006 9:42 AM Tal has replied
 Message 79 by crashfrog, posted 03-03-2006 9:43 AM Tal has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 78 of 91 (291751)
03-03-2006 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Tal
03-03-2006 9:16 AM


Re: Video
Simple yes or no question. Are the following weapons of mass destruction?
Shit, that's easy: NO.
1) Those are materials which could be used in WMDs.
2) Those are materials which were known and under UN oversight, or (in a few cases) old discarded materials which were not known to Sadddam, or small weapons contructed by forces having nothing to do with Saddam after our invasion was complete using materials previously mentioned, and so could not possibly have been the WMDs that Bush and Co were referring to.
3) Bush himself has admitted that no WMDs were found and has moved on to blame intel failures, so his answer would be NO.
I forgot to mention that in my reality Bush has admitted that no WMDs were found and has moved on to blame intel failures. What's it like where you are?

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Tal, posted 03-03-2006 9:16 AM Tal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Tal, posted 03-03-2006 9:48 AM Silent H has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 79 of 91 (291752)
03-03-2006 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Tal
03-03-2006 9:16 AM


Re: Video
Are the following weapons of mass destruction?
Uranium for power plants? Sarin so degraded that the two GI's who got a faceful of it were back to their regular duties the next day?
No, I wouldn't say those are WMD's.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Tal, posted 03-03-2006 9:16 AM Tal has not replied

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 5677 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 80 of 91 (291754)
03-03-2006 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Silent H
03-03-2006 9:42 AM


Re: Video
Shit, that's easy: NO.
Wrong.
You and Crash simply are not intellectually honest.
Nattering nabobs of nonconsequentiality.
This message has been edited by Tal, 03-03-2006 09:53 AM

People don't kill people
Cartoons kill people

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Silent H, posted 03-03-2006 9:42 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Silent H, posted 03-03-2006 9:54 AM Tal has not replied
 Message 82 by crashfrog, posted 03-03-2006 12:49 PM Tal has not replied
 Message 83 by nator, posted 03-03-2006 1:00 PM Tal has not replied
 Message 85 by Silent H, posted 03-03-2006 3:45 PM Tal has not replied
 Message 88 by sidelined, posted 03-04-2006 2:49 AM Tal has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 81 of 91 (291758)
03-03-2006 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Tal
03-03-2006 9:48 AM


Re: Video
Wrong.
I got it! I got it! Bizarro world, right? Heheheh.
Explain how those materials were not what I said they were, and why you believe Bush is saying WMDs (the ones he was discussing for invasion) were found.

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Tal, posted 03-03-2006 9:48 AM Tal has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 82 of 91 (291816)
03-03-2006 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Tal
03-03-2006 9:48 AM


Re: Video
You and Crash simply are not intellectually honest.
Tal, there's absolutely nothing honest about you. You're a liar. Probably a disgrace to your uniform, if we can even believe that you wear one.
How much mass destruction did any of these things cause? How much more likely was it that they would fall into terrorist hands after the invasion than before?
Saddam was controlled. That's what the evidence says. He had re-admitted the inspectors but we invaded anyway. We've got memos all over the place laying out clearly the Administration's knowing plan to decieve the American people into supporting the war. And just like Democrats predicted, it's developed into civil war.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Tal, posted 03-03-2006 9:48 AM Tal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by AdminJar, posted 03-03-2006 1:16 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 83 of 91 (291819)
03-03-2006 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Tal
03-03-2006 9:48 AM


Re: Video
See, what you're supposed to do now, if you had any interest in debate, or in salvaging your position, is to rebut with more detailed information that supports your case.
You'd answer their direct questions.
But you didn't do any of those things. (You never do)
From where I'm standing, you just let them win.
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-03-2006 01:01 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Tal, posted 03-03-2006 9:48 AM Tal has not replied

  
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 91 (291827)
03-03-2006 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by crashfrog
03-03-2006 12:49 PM


Not called for Kermee
Tal, there's absolutely nothing honest about you. You're a liar. Probably a disgrace to your uniform, if we can even believe that you wear one.
That is totally outside the bounds of debate here at EvC and a personal attack on a poster. Your posting privileges have been suspended.

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
    New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
  • "Post of the Month" Forum
  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum
    See also Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting


  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 82 by crashfrog, posted 03-03-2006 12:49 PM crashfrog has not replied

      
    Silent H
    Member (Idle past 5820 days)
    Posts: 7405
    From: satellite of love
    Joined: 12-11-2002


    Message 85 of 91 (291872)
    03-03-2006 3:45 PM
    Reply to: Message 80 by Tal
    03-03-2006 9:48 AM


    Re: Video
    You and Crash simply are not intellectually honest. Nattering nabobs of nonconsequentiality.
    This was something you felt you had to edit in? Interesting. Does that last line come from somewhere? It seems out of character for you.

    holmes
    "What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 80 by Tal, posted 03-03-2006 9:48 AM Tal has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 86 by Dan Carroll, posted 03-03-2006 3:49 PM Silent H has not replied

      
    Dan Carroll
    Inactive Member


    Message 86 of 91 (291875)
    03-03-2006 3:49 PM
    Reply to: Message 85 by Silent H
    03-03-2006 3:45 PM


    Re: Video
    It's a paraphrase of "nattering nabobs of negativism", which is how Spiro Agnew referred to the press.
    Because when suggesting that accusations against the executive branch are unfounded, Agnew is apparently a... good choice for quoting?

    "We had survived to turn on the History Channel
    And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
    You're what happens when two substances collide
    And by all accounts you really should have died."
    -Andrew Bird

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 85 by Silent H, posted 03-03-2006 3:45 PM Silent H has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 87 by docpotato, posted 03-03-2006 4:31 PM Dan Carroll has not replied

      
    docpotato
    Member (Idle past 5048 days)
    Posts: 334
    From: Portland, OR
    Joined: 07-18-2003


    Message 87 of 91 (291886)
    03-03-2006 4:31 PM
    Reply to: Message 86 by Dan Carroll
    03-03-2006 3:49 PM


    Re: Video
    Because when suggesting that accusations against the executive branch are unfounded, Agnew is apparently a... good choice for quoting?
    I think Agnew's all they've got.
    (Thank you for yet another hearty laugh.)

    "In Heaven, everything is fine."
    The Lady in the Radiator
    Eraserhead
    One Movie a Day/Week/Whenever

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 86 by Dan Carroll, posted 03-03-2006 3:49 PM Dan Carroll has not replied

      
    sidelined
    Member (Idle past 5908 days)
    Posts: 3435
    From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
    Joined: 08-30-2003


    Message 88 of 91 (291974)
    03-04-2006 2:49 AM
    Reply to: Message 80 by Tal
    03-03-2006 9:48 AM


    Re: Video
    Tal
    Nattering nabobs of nonconsequentiality.
    And yet you took the time off your busy schedule to reply so kindly to them. Bravo soldier.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 80 by Tal, posted 03-03-2006 9:48 AM Tal has not replied

      
    Silent H
    Member (Idle past 5820 days)
    Posts: 7405
    From: satellite of love
    Joined: 12-11-2002


    Message 89 of 91 (294220)
    03-11-2006 6:01 AM


    Bush vs Congress: Does this help the nation?
    Eventually a large body of the Congress including Reps came together to question the ports deal which Bush supported. They were ready to pass legislation that would end its possibility and Bush threatened a veto. Ultimately the UAE decided to cede control to US owned companies.
    Intriguingly Bush's reaction to this has been to damn the decision of congress and as such the will of the american people. He has argued as if there was no valid reason for hesitation in allowing a foreign nation (its not just a foreign company as he likes to spin it) to control our ports, particularly one in a relatively unstable part of the world, and with less transparency and intel capabilities.
    Indeed, in trying to defend his own position, he is arguing as if it was just a paranoid race based decision, which will doom business relations between the US and MidEast companies. Isn't that exactly what a president should not be doing at this time? Shouldn't the president be trying to smooth over any issues this might cause instead of inflaming passions against the US, particularly by painting americans as anti-arab?
    I am firmly in support of MidEast companies doing business with the US, but even I saw there was a legitimate question here. It doesn't seem to help matters for a president to pretend there was none, and use his air time to perhaps create the prophecy he has set out. And somehow argue a position that we should let whomever run whatever they want within the US, even some of the most vital spots, or we are somehow being unfair. That is not a good president... uhm, I mean precedent.

    holmes
    "What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

    Replies to this message:
     Message 90 by Minnemooseus, posted 03-11-2006 10:41 AM Silent H has replied

      
    Minnemooseus
    Member
    Posts: 3941
    From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
    Joined: 11-11-2001
    Member Rating: 10.0


    Message 90 of 91 (294267)
    03-11-2006 10:41 AM
    Reply to: Message 89 by Silent H
    03-11-2006 6:01 AM


    Re: Bush vs Congress: Does this help the nation?
    I hesitate posting this, as it might cause a topic derailment.
    He has argued as if there was no valid reason for hesitation in allowing a foreign nation (its not just a foreign company as he likes to spin it) to control our ports, particularly one in a relatively unstable part of the world, and with less transparency and intel capabilities.
    My "bolds".
    The same President that "argued as if there was no valid reason for hesitation" in the situation, as he led the U.S. into the current Iraq war. If only Congress had then had the backbone to question that situation.
    Moose

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 89 by Silent H, posted 03-11-2006 6:01 AM Silent H has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 91 by Silent H, posted 03-11-2006 11:02 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024