Bush hits a new low
Having had some association with the intelligence community I am appalled by the President's pardon of Mr. Libby. When an an agent is outed not only is their life and the lives of their family placed in peril, but more certainly the lives of all their contacts in other countries, their associates, friends and family are threatened as well and often they do not have near the protection of those in the US. Mr. Libby's act was the equivalent of treason and very likely also damaged lines of information that were years in the making with the result being a serious blow to our national security.
When this was first reported, Mr. Bush said that he would pursue the person(s) responsible for the leak and seek the harshest of penalties. There can now be little doubt that this was disingenuious since the trail clearly leads back to the Vice President and no doubt to Bush himself. This administration sees itself as albove the law. Just as important is the fact that this misdeed was done to help to justify lies to support a stupid, costly, bloody, and totally ineffectual war that will in the end leave the middle east and Iraq in particular, in shambles for decades to come.
Paying attention? Mr. Libby was guilty of obstruction, not of outing Plame. Nobody was found guilty of outing Plame.
There can now be little doubt that this was disingenuious since the trail clearly leads back to the Vice President and no doubt to Bush himself.
Well perhaps they can hire an independent prosecutor to figure that out.
Oh yeah, they did.Not to throw gas on the fire but..... Libby was not PARDONED! His sentence was coummuted. Shall we post the list of CRIMINALS Clinton Pardoned again to make the point that all politicals are in cut from the same cloth?
OK, so why does the president - regardless of which side of the fence he's on - have this power.
If people aren't happy with the legal system and how these people get convicted, perhaps there's something wrong with it.
Maybe this power should not be there in the first place.
OK, so why does the president - regardless of which side of the fence he's on - have this power.
If people aren't happy with the legal system and how these people get convicted, perhaps there's something wrong with it.
Maybe this power should not be there in the first place.
You know I haven't thought about it much. I am not really sure where this power comes from. I am sure it is written somewhere. Lots of things are done around these parts because of some precedent. Neither of the parties which control our government would agree to give it up for fear that when they get back in power they would not have it available to them to abuse. So I don't forsee any significant changes in the near future.
Nor do I. However, if it's a democracy and that's what the people want, it shouldn't have anything to do with what the government wants.
Nor do I. However, if it's a democracy and that's what the people want, it shouldn't have anything to do with what the government wants.
Well technically its is not a "democracy". It is a Republic.
Note here:
http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html
Basically in a democracy, the majority rules. A republic is designed to protect the rights of the individual and the minority. That is the way it is suppose to work anyway. It ain't perfect.
As Ben Franklin stated:
'Just after the completion and signing of the Constitution, in reply to a woman's inquiry as to the type of government the Founders had created, Benjamin Franklin said, "A Republic, if you can keep it." '
DEMOCRACY:
A government of the masses.
Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct" expression.
Results in mobocracy.
Attitude toward property is communistic--negating property rights.
Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether is be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.
Results in demogogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.
REPUBLIC:
Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them.
Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences.
A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass.
Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy.
Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress.
Is the "standard form" of government throughout the world.
Yes I know that.
I think you know what I meant also.
Yes I know that.
I think you know what I meant also.
My point is that the majority of the people can't just up and take something away from Presidential power becasuse a majority of the people want it to be that way. The best they can hope for is to put someone in power who will not abuse the power, and so far for the last 30 years or so we have not been very good at it.:cool:
Do you not have referendums in your country?
Do you not have referendums in your country?
Not in the sense I think you are thinking. Congress would have to inact some law; the White House would challenge it; they would go back and forth for 10 years or so; the Supreme Court would settle it (narrowly); an new wrinkle would be found and the whole process would start anew IMHO. And the beat goes on...
Paying attention? Mr. Libby was guilty of obstruction, not of outing Plame. Nobody was found guilty of outing Plame.
Because someone was obstructing the investigation...
That was not the finding.
Richard ArmitageDo you not have referendums in your country?
Referendum is a California attitude not yet shared in most of the country. President can even issue a 'finding', keep it secret, and have it executed even if that finding is in violation of the Constitution. Why? If no one 'blows the whistle', then it is unknown and not unConstitutional. The American president has massive powers traditionally kept in check by more honest presidents.
At one point, even the US Supreme Court made provisions for a remote possibility - its occupation by the US Army under order of Pres Nixon. That president was only kept in check by a large number of courageous Americans who stood up for America rather than for political party loyalty.
The American president has massive powers traditionally kept in check by more honest presidents.
I don't buy it. American Presidents have been ratcheting up their power from day one. All the so-called great Presidents ignored the constitutional constraints on the office. That a Republican President has the temerity to abuse the office is upsetting Democrats, but notice that they have done nothing to control him. It is notable that we have crossed a threshold, we now have an extremely unpopular President who continues to do as he pleases and yet the Congress remains supine. Congressional Democrats need to stop whining and start doing.
What is it that Congress can do to sort this out? Serious question, my knowledge of the American political system is, at best, vague.
They can stop funding the war and/or impeach him. They can ratchet up the investigations into the war related lies. There must be something they can do about his signing statements, although that may require a Supreme Court case.
Realistically, congress can not do anything.
They could pass a bill to stop the funding of troops with a 50% vote then Bush can either sign it or reject it. Bush has said he will reject it so it goes back to congress and if congress passes it with a 2/3 vote, it will pass.
The problem is that congress doesn't have the 2/3 votes needed so it will go nowhere.
Kucinich has started a bill to impeach Cheney (I think), but it has no support with the Republicans or Democrats.
Realistically, congress can not do anything.
They could pass a bill to stop the funding of troops with a 50% vote then Bush can either sign it or reject it. Bush has said he will reject it so it goes back to congress and if congress passes it with a 2/3 vote, it will pass.
The problem is that congress doesn't have the 2/3 votes needed so it will go nowhere.
Kucinich has started a bill to impeach Cheney (I think), but it has no support with the Republicans or Democrats.
Which is why the so called Democratic Victory in '06 was nothing more than a show, and as evidenced by their own failures to get anything done of substance, they continue to be a lame duck Congress. Things will change only when they get a Democratic President in power. My only comment to that is, be careful what you wish for....
Realistically, congress can not do anything.
They could pass a bill to stop the funding of troops with a 50% vote then Bush can either sign it or reject it. Bush has said he will reject it so it goes back to congress and if congress passes it with a 2/3 vote, it will pass.
Congress [COLOR="Red"]will not [/COLOR]do anything.
You've got the funding thing just backwards. You don't write a bill to de-fund. You write a bill to fund. It is just a matter of will, something Beltway Democrats lack.
Of course the mainstream democrats won't do anything, but I am just pointing how they couldn't do anything if they wanted too.
Of course the mainstream democrats won't do anything, but I am just pointing how they couldn't do anything if they wanted too.
You're missing the point, they [COLOR="Red"]can[/COLOR], but choose not to. Congress holds the purse strings. If Bush vetos a funding bill because it excludes Iraq money, it does not magically fund his war. The default is no funding. Congress just lacks will/desire.
[B][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=5]Bush Commutes Pluto's Sentence[/SIZE][/FONT]
[/B]
[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]WASHINGTON, DC (UP News Service)-- In a move that supporters say shows sensitivity and compassion, President Bush today commuted the sentence of the planet Pluto, which was demoted to a "dwarf planet" by the International Astronomical Union in August of 2006. Under the President's new order, Pluto will once more be regarded as a full-fledged planet, though he left unchanged the part of the decision in which the astronomical object must share its name with a cartoon dog.
[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]"Pluto's crimes have been well-documented," said the President in a short statement from the Oval Office, citing in particular the once and future planet's crossing of Neptune's orbit every couple hundred years. "However, we feel that having to live in an eccentric orbit in the outer regions of the solar system is punishment enough. Also, removing Pluto totally screws up the memory thing we learned: My Very Elegant Mother Just Sat Upon Nine Porcupines. Heh. That's funny."
[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]Conservatives hailed the decision as a visionary act. Noted writer and blogger Jonah Goldberg interrupted his busy writing schedule to post about the decision, saying "I'm pretty sure this is the most brilliant thing Bush has done yet. Maybe some readers could help me out by sending in a few reasons why that's the case? Pretty please?"
[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]Democrats, on the other hand, were quick to say that the decision show's Bush's increasing disengagement from reality. [/SIZE][/FONT]
Dang! and I was thinking, "What did he do now?"
Fitzgerald is investigating a tangled executive-level conspiracy, of which Libby is the first conviction. Beyond Armitage, who admitted his role when asked, Rove and Libby coordinated this leak to the press, too, even if they couldn't seem to recall it. This investigation has uncovered as many questions as it has answered. Does it matter? I think so.
Can a president commute or pardon those felons that may be directly protecting him from a criminal charge via obstruction? If so, then the workings of the office of the president are at the pleasure of the president, above the rule of law? That's sounds like a constitutional question.
Can a president commute or pardon those felons that may be directly protecting him from a criminal charge via obstruction? If so, then the workings of the office of the president are at the pleasure of the president, above the rule of law? That's sounds like a constitutional question.
Do you believe the question will really be answered? I sort of doubt it. Except for the political grandstanding that will occur on the run up to the next Presidential election the motivation is suspect. I don't see anyone going to prison for anything because Bush will pardon them. As much as the radical liberal left would like to see it, Bush will not be impeached either, for what ever reason someone dreams up. This will become nothing more than a study of political history in the future.
You're missing the point, they [COLOR="Red"]can[/COLOR], but choose not to. Congress holds the purse strings. If Bush vetos a funding bill because it excludes Iraq money, it does not magically fund his war. The default is no funding. Congress just lacks will/desire.
What is also clear even in 2002 - Senators like Hagel of Nebraska and Biden of Delaware knew there was no justification Saddam's WMDs. Daschle, the Democratic Majority leader had even been an Air Force reconnaissance analyst, saw that pictures did not represent what was being claimed, and still support George Jr's lies. I cannot say enough about how bad Sen Tom Daschle was as Senator then and would only hope he read this.
Griff has accurately implied another reason for this problem. Democrats were wimps just as much as the extremist wing of the Republican Party was advocating destruction of America for their own glory.
BTW, the Republicans even lost the Power Point presentation that simply said they would advocate an Iraq war to attack Democrats. A Democratic staffer found that diskette in Lafayette Park. Daschle even knew the Republicans intent concerning Iraq - and went along with it anyway.
If Congress had balls, then the President would be restricted. But (thanks in part to gerrymandering which gives left and right wing extremists power at the expense of intelligent people) Congress is too full of extremists to risk their political life for the advancement of America. Even John McCain has moved massively to the dark side - is obviously and completely more worried about his political future than in the advancement of America. Congress has a serious shortage of wimps who still worry what the 25% brainwashed extremists want.
Griff is right on the money when he cited the problem in Congress
... they can, but choose not to. ... Congress just lacks will/desire.
Gerrymandering empowers wacko extremist politics rather than moderates - the home of intelligent people. Too many of us vote based upon a poltical agenda rather than do what politicians fear - "ask why".
As much as the radical liberal left would like to see it, Bush will not be impeached either,
As much as the informed moderates - the political independents - want it, Congress does not have the balls to do what this nation desperately needs - Cheney impeached. It was never about the radical left. It was about extremists with a political agenda verse moderates - where intelligence resides.
This is not George Jr's presidency. That has been obvious to the better informed for years. But a political agenda must deny the obvious. Even Secretary of Treasury Paul O'Neill's 2003 book made it obvious that George Jr did not make decisions - did not even read his own memos.
George Jr does not read his memos. Only today are most Americans beginning to acknowledge that reality.
Cheney is the source of government corruption. He was always that dictatorial extremist as even people in George Sr's administration knew or are now just beginning to realize.
Corruption was so intended in advance that Cheney routinely had all records destroyed. Even Google Earth cannot show the Naval Observatory - where Cheney lives. We might learn some truth such as whose car is parked in the driveway. Cheney's agenda is so maniacal that we cannot even be trusted to know that.
This presidential immigration reform bill is completely contrary to Cheney's wish. When George Jr makes some decision on his own, then Cheney lets the mental midget just hang. He did exact same thing when George Jr choose Harriet Miers rather than anyone from Cheney's list. Cheney keeps George Jr in line with those techniques. George Jr never accomplishes anything without Cheney's approval. Cheney tells George Jr what he will do. Cheney is where impeachment is desperately needed. He is not an honest man. But he is a smart manipulator. Rumsfeld was once his boss.
As much as the radical liberal left would like to see it, Bush will not be impeached either, for what ever reason someone dreams up.
Radical?
As of 7/5/07 American Research Group found....
45-46% of adults want to start the impeachment process against Bush.
50-54% of adults want to start the impeachment process against Cheney.
http://americanresearchgroup.com/
I was too young to really know the details and numbers with Clinton but why aren't these numbers known when I'm sure everyone knew about Clinton's?
The new meaning of "radical left" is "not a member if the DC cocktail circuit".
Radical?
As of 7/5/07 American Research Group found....
45-46% of adults want to start the impeachment process against Bush.
50-54% of adults want to start the impeachment process against Cheney.
http://americanresearchgroup.com/
I was too young to really know the details and numbers with Clinton but why aren't these numbers known when I'm sure everyone knew about Clinton's?
Point is, it ain't happing.
Cheney.......George Jr.......George Jr ............George Jr..............Cheney ........George Sr..........Cheney.......Cheney........Cheney.....Cheney.......George Jr .........Cheney......... George Jr........Cheney...........Cheney......George Jr....... George Jr......... Cheney.........Cheney........George Jr.............. Cheney.........Rumsfeld....... And a box of chocolates.
What did you just say, was that important?
Point is, it ain't happing.
No one thinks its just going to happen, I am just saying that more than just "radical" leftists want Bush and Cheney impeached. Unless you think that 50% of the US population (or at least the survey population) are radicals...
What did you just say, was that important?
Your last four posts have been the same thing, it is getting really old.
No one thinks its just going to happen, I am just saying that more than just "radical" leftists want Bush and Cheney impeached. Unless you think that 50% of the US population (or at least the survey population) are radicals...
There in lies the problem. Survey populations are not forms of accurate statistical information. I saw a great one the other day on a forum people were fawning over on another forum. It was done by a well known company for MSNBC. The topic was that the majority of Americans want to impeach Bush. And then it was quite obvious no one had drilled down to find the original data. Once I found it this was the sample size: 1000 people via a telephone survey on 2 days. So basically MSNBC went with a head line that claimed that the majority of Americans want Bush impeached. Well please tell me how you accurately extrapolate a sample size of people who have telephones, and were home on the two days of the telephone survey, and who did not hang up on the callers conducting the poll, to a population size of MILLIONS??? Can't do it. The math does not add up. Any idiot with a mediocre understanding of Stats 101 understands that that is a HUGE jump. And the beat goes on.... and more polls are conducted... and everyone gets excited because it supports what they want to believe.... and it is mostly BS.
Your last four posts have been the same thing, it is getting really old.
I will choose how to respond to that nut. You choose how you will respond. Stay out of it.
Pierce, this is exactly what I am talking about. (from your post)
Based on 1,100 completed telephone interviews among a random sample of adults nationwide July 3-5, 2007. The theoretical margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points, 95% of the time. Of the total sample, 933 interviews were completed among registered voters.
Please explain to me how 933 people know what the majority 302 million people are thinking....
How does a sample of 0.0003 percent of the population knows what the other 99.99997 percent are thinking?
And that would also be of people who 1) owned a phone, at home most likely 2) were home in the local area that was sampled on a 3 day period 3) who chose not to hang up on a telephone pollster. That is all they measured? from 933 people you get: 45-46% of adults want to start the impeachment process against Bush. And 50-54% of adults want to start the impeachment process against Cheney.? Give me a frigging break already. People are drinking the color of Koolaid that makes them happy and all warm inside because some dumb assed statistically very weak poll says what they want to believe. And the beat goes on....
That is why I said survey population but that is the only one that I have seen. Even though it obviously doesn't hold up to the proportion of the entire population of the United States, it still gives an idea assuming that they didn't just randomly get a lot of anti-Bushers.
You can not base this as fact but it can give an idea of what is happening and is it really that hard to believe since Bush's approval rating recently went down to 26% or something like that?
That is why I said survey population but that is the only one that I have seen. Even though it obviously doesn't hold up to the proportion of the entire population of the United States, it still gives an idea assuming that they didn't just randomly get a lot of anti-Bushers.
You can not base this as fact but it can give an idea of what is happening and is it really that hard to believe since Bush's approval rating recently went down to 26% or something like that?
Yea, he really is smoking Pelosi and Reid in Congress isn't he? :D
How does a sample of 0.0003 percent of the population knows what the other 99.99997 percent are thinking?
If he understood statistics, then TheMercenary could provide numbers - show us how that poll with a 3% margin of error, etc is wrong. TheMercenary automatically knows the numbers cannot be right only because he knows. That is his reasoning.
If TheMercenary really knew, then he would not be asking accusatory questions. Instead he would have told us why those poll numbers had greater error. He did not probably for the same reason found in so many of his posts. He did not know. He just knew that poll must be wrong because numbers contradict TheMercenary's political agenda. His ‘feelings’ are justification for his criticism – facts be damned.
When I was a manager at a "research" bank (which included political polling and corporate data) the client companies only allowed for pre-determined answer sets.
"Well is that a yes or no?"
"Would you rather, impeach Bush or spray yourself down with flesh removing acid?"
One or the other........
There's statistics for you.
The first day of my collegiate statistics class, the Prof said, "Welcome to Statistics 101. Also known as lying with numbers."
I am not saying whether the particular numbers in this thread are right or wrong, but I start to lose interest when sources are quoted stating that, "50% of Americans believe..." or "9 out of 10 doctors..." Don't like the first data set compiled by our research? No problem. We can start over again and again until we get the desired result.
I only really take one set of these things seriously, "30 Helens agree..."
Bla, bla, bla....TheMercenary ......TheMercenary.....TheMercenary ......bla, bal, bla, bla.... TheMercenary............Bla, bla, bla, bla..... bla, bla...
Did you have a point to make?
Did you have a point to make?
Why do you post so much and say nothing? And why do you repeat the same nothing so often?
I am not saying whether the particular numbers in this thread are right or wrong, but I start to lose interest when sources are quoted stating that, ....
the numbers.
The first thing extremists need your eyes to do - glaze over as soon as numbers are posted.
Many years back, an author played mind games with 'white boys' - and did it so well. Barak was amusing. Then he made one mistake. He finally posted numbers since he was playing those mind games with people easily deceived by numbers. Guess who joined the fray once a real fact existed? Using algebra, Barak had proven X 'something' was the same as Y 'others'. It was right there quoted from his book. But the 'white boys' eyes glazed over when he posted it.
I most enjoyed watching Barak play on guilt within 'white boys'. But Barak then committed original sin. His numbers were fiction. Entertainment ended because numbers from his book were lies. Even his editor could not do basic algebra?
The post was entitled "Hey Professor". Fallacy in his numbers was questioned in multiple posts that he never answered. Barak quietly stopped posting in The Cellar after the "Hey Professor" post. No more fun watching him 'bait white boys'. They were easily baited because, for example, they never demanded numbers. Had Barak not made the mistake of quoting numbers from his book, who knows; he might still be here today.
Numbers are either the irrefutable fact or numbers are how we identify liars. For both reasons, we always want numbers. Your eyes should get large once numbers appear since those are the useful posts.
'Number or no numbers' is also why one poster five years ago and so adamantly insisted that the Saddam WMD threat was not justified.
Let numbers glaze over your eyes - and Rush Limbaugh needs you for a disciple.
Numbers: military doctrine said America needed 600,000 troops deployed to "Mission Accomplished" before last year. We are now watching a slow defeat - Deja vue Nam - made so obvious even years ago by simple numbers. Did you see it coming back then - or did your eyes glaze over as retired generals and military analysts kept repeating those numbers - too few troops?
Notice how TheMercenary is quick to mock and deny - but never provided useful numbers in reply. Just another example of why numbers - in this case a lack of - should make your eyes large. If TheMercenary based doubt of polls in logic, then his criticism would have contained numbers. He posted no numbers in reply because his entire post was based in Rush Limbaugh rhetoric - a political agenda. TheMercenary could not dispute the numbers - so he disparaged them. Those missing numbers in his criticism should also make your eyes large. His 'missing numbers' says so much about TheMercenary's reasoning.
Bla... bla, bla, bla, bla......TheMercenary........TheMercenary........ Bla, bla, bla, bla..............TheMercenary .......... Bla, bla, bla............. TheMercenary.........Bla.
(yawn)
The first thing extremists need your eyes to do - glaze over as soon as numbers are posted.
Let me be clear. I do think that numbers are very important. But, without specific, qualifying statements as to how the numbers are determined, they are meaningless.
How many people were actually polled?
In what region? (results from NYC will typically be quite different from those in Birmingham, AL on political issues)
What were the questions asked?
Were they open-ended or were there answers from which the respondent was required to use?
The list could go on.
We have become such suckers for graphs, charts, and numbers that the majority will soak them up without question.
The first day of my collegiate statistics class, the Prof said, "Welcome to Statistics 101. Also known as lying with numbers."
I am not saying whether the particular numbers in this thread are right or wrong, but I start to lose interest when sources are quoted stating that, "50% of Americans believe..." or "9 out of 10 doctors..." Don't like the first data set compiled by our research? No problem. We can start over again and again until we get the desired result.
I only really take one set of these things seriously, "30 Helens agree..."
This is exactly what happens. I did this for a living and no I'm not proud.....and I myself, am also more inclined to believe the statistics from 'kids in the hall'. You don't even have to start over again by the way- you can lengthen or shorten the research period. Even down to the millisecond. Only 'targets' get to answer the questions that have predetermined answers. The respondent doesn't even know in most cases that they are being "qualified" in the first answer set. If you are not qualified your answers go unused and are not even submitted. They will tell you that that is the end of the poll and thank you for your time and go try to find a more "qualified" person. Did you know that in most cases, your answers do not exist if you don't make $100,000 or over a year? (qualifiers, questions, and answers are entirely dependent on the client company) Well I'll just say that there are many ways to manipulate these polls and it's a very detailed process, each poll is designed by the client company. The client company tells you what they need and you produce the results. Period.
The only halfway honest polling I have seen come from this is the company that wants to know your impression of them, and wants to see if the majority have caught onto their illegal activities and law-suits and in conjunction, what effect that has had on their image. Is our new environmentally friendly ad campaign working? Even then they still shoot for brand recognition. Example: "So- what is you impression of Coca Cola?" Coca Cola, Coca Cola. etc. etc.
Aaah- people can believe what they want. I give. One of my friends still does it. He has nicknamed himself "the wizard" for a reason.
Let me be clear. I do think that numbers are very important. But, without specific, qualifying statements as to how the numbers are determined, they are meaningless.
How many people were actually polled?
In what region? (results from NYC will typically be quite different from those in Birmingham, AL on political issues)
What were the questions asked?
Were they open-ended or were there answers from which the respondent was required to use?
The list could go on.
We have become such suckers for graphs, charts, and numbers that the majority will soak them up without question.
Exactly...:shock:
This is exactly what happens. I did this for a living and no I'm not proud.....and I myself, am also more inclined to believe the statistics from 'kids in the hall'. You don't even have to start over again by the way- you can lengthen or shorten the research period. Even down to the millisecond. Only 'targets' get to answer the questions that have predetermined answers. The respondent doesn't even know in most cases that they are being "qualified" in the first answer set. If you are not qualified your answers go unused and are not even submitted. They will tell you that that is the end of the poll and thank you for your time and go try to find a more "qualified" person. Did you know that in most cases, your answers do not exist if you don't make $100,000 or over a year? (qualifiers, questions, and answers are entirely dependent on the client company) Well I'll just say that there are many ways to manipulate these polls and it's a very detailed process, each poll is designed by the client company. The client company tells you what they need and you produce the results. Period.
The only halfway honest polling I have seen come from this is the company that wants to know your impression of them, and wants to see if the majority have caught onto their illegal activities and law-suits and in conjunction, what effect that has had on their image. Is our new environmentally friendly ad campaign working? Even then they still shoot for brand recognition. Example: "So- what is you impression of Coca Cola?" Coca Cola, Coca Cola. etc. etc.
Aaah- people can believe what they want. I give. One of my friends still does it. He has nicknamed himself "the wizard" for a reason.
Thank you for your honest insight. I have been saying this for years. The agenda driven people don't want to believe this.
Thank you for your honest insight. I have been saying this for years. The agenda driven people don't want to believe this.
I'm usually a horses a@#. But in this case, people are just going to have to take it from my horses mouth.
:D
Let me be clear. I do think that numbers are very important. But, without specific, qualifying statements as to how the numbers are determined, they are meaningless.
Quite right is the 'quality' of those numbers. Or why underlying facts (ie how questions are worded) is important. UT demonstrated this in a discussion of polls maybe a year ago.
However to dispute those numbers, then you should have other numbers. To 'know' those numbers means you have more credible numbers. And that is the point. Numbers are necessary to make judgements. The most dangerous 'judgements' are those made without and that disparage numbers.
How do extremists promote their propaganda? Notice that Rush does not provide numbers. He preaches to those whose eyes routinely glaze over when numbers must be analyzed. That is the point. Our resident extremists demonstrate the technique often. They use disparaging comments to prove righteousness - rather than post numbers. They avoid hard numbers since, in one case, numbers make it harder to then rewrite history.
Quite right is the 'quality' of those numbers. Or why underlying facts (ie how questions are worded) is important. UT demonstrated this in a discussion of polls maybe a year ago.
However to dispute those numbers, then you should have other numbers. To 'know' those numbers means you have more credible numbers. And that is the point. Numbers are necessary to make judgements. The most dangerous 'judgements' are those made without and that disparage numbers.
You missed the point, polls are weak forms of statistical measure and not worth the 1's and 0's used to pass them around on the web to bolster your repeated masinations.
You missed the point, polls are weak forms of statistical measure and not worth the 1's and 0's used to pass them around on the web to bolster your repeated masinations.
TheMercenary misses the point.
Psssttt - TheMercenary. It's not about you. Its about how extremists such as you promote Rush Limbaugh lies for a political agenda. TheMercenary must do everything possible to avoid that point. He knows those numbers are wrong because he has no numbers or facts to say otherwise. He automatically knows. It's called a political agenda.
Let's see. More scientists publicly announce today how White House extremists routinely changed science (and the numbers) for political purposes. How ironic. White House lawyers do same thing. Clearly it must be a mistake. White House lawyers would not change the numbers. Extremist lawyers would eliminate numbers that are politically incorrect.
Did TheMercenary post a single fact in reply? Of course not. That would be an honest post. Extremists know numbers can be subverted by naysaying.
"Numbers can lie. Therefore these numbers must be lies."
But again, what is it all about? The point is demontrated by TheMercenary – how he just knows is sufficient to be a fact.
Psssttt - TheMercenary. It’s not about those poll numbers. It's all about how you deny those numbers without a shred of fact. It's all about how you promote a political agenda.
Even integrity if that poll is irrelevant. TheMercenary automatically knows those numbers are wrong only because he knows. Those who think similar also ‘pervert science for politics’. Even 800 in Guantanamo must all be guilty only because they are in Guantanamo. Torture them. TheMercenary even approves of torture because he knows. More reasoning based in a political agenda that proves those poll numbers are wrong.
Numbers must be changed to be politically correct. It is called a political agenda.
TheMercenary ..... Bla, bla, bla.... TheMercenary....... TheMercenary........ Bla, bla, bla..... bla, bla, bla....... TheMercenary .................TheMercenary............ TheMercenary..................Bla..... bla, bla, bla..... TheMercenary....... Bla..... bla, bla, bla, bla..... bla.... bla, bla...... TheMercenary ........Bla, bla, bla....
Psssssssssssssst. tw, It still is not about me... :crazy:
I dunno: most of the President's critics are visibly basing their criticism on the President being a Republican, while the critics are not. This taints the critics -- I think irredeemably.
Could such critics redeem themselves? Only by winning the war better than this Republican Administration can. The Administration's critics are solely interested in losing the War on Terror, perhaps in hopes of winning the Oval Office.
In other words, redemption is improbable to the most extreme degree. Hah!
Winning the Oval Office and then losing the War will mean the Democrats will go extinct in the American population's backlash against them and their foolishness.
Speaking of foolishness, suppose they succeed in impeaching and convicting George W. Bush? Who do they get for a replacement then, per the Constitution? -- Vice President Cheney. Not quite, I shouldn't think, what they're after. Hah, again. What possible motivation could anyone have for voting for such an assortment of idiots?
Tw is unaware, I see, that the current number of Guantanamo inmates is down to about 375.
The Democrats say the war is already lost so I don't think it will hurt them that much.
Pierce - Great point - I agree! Its like a self fulfilling prophecy! The worse the war goes, the better the democrats look and the more elections they win. The only way they can win is if the republicans lose. Think of the situation where there is a "successful" outcome in Irag. That would be devastating to the democratic party. They want to lose this war so bad so that THEY can use it against their opponents during the elections, get elected into power and reap the benefits of that power. The mainstream media highlights EVERY negative and glosses over any positive outcome. The media's bias is clearly evident.
Polls and statistics are made for people who need to be told what to think - those who have no ability to think on their own. All they do is spout #'s and statistics and tell you what you should think because of them. They lack the ability to expand their own minds and think for themselves.
Given the behavior of the Democratic Party for the last fifteen straight years, I want them to lose and lose a lot.
They haven't got an FDR or a JFK any more.
Yep. Those democrats and their behaviour. They should take a close look at how the Republican party have been acting these past few years and take some lessons on decorum.
Dana - I tried to be very careful and not promote the extreme right either - I am for getting whatever need be done over there done so we can get the hell out. We cannot just walk away, that is obvious to all - I hope. Its just the motivation behind the democratic party seems to be simply to gain power at too great an expense to our country. Does anyoneone have any ideas other than simply "stay the course" or "leave tomorrow?"
Given the behavior of the Democratic Party for the last fifteen straight years, I want them to lose and lose a lot.
Rather amazing how extremists will routinely rewrite history they cannot defend. Let's see. Who tried to subvert the US government? Who attacked other sovereign nations unilaterally and lied about it? Who censored mail TO the troops? Whose adminstration covered up massacres? Whose administration performed illegal wiretapping? Which party attempted to subvert the other by intentionally violating the law? Who used government agencies to undermine and spy on honest American civilians? Who atttempted to subvert the national government of another sovereign nation (Australia)?
That was Nixon. Then we add international kidnapping, imprisonment without judicial review, unrestricted wire tapping, lies about enemies that did not exist, the protection of bin Laden, secret prisons, perverting science for self serving political gains, protecting the 40% high profits on prescription drugs, destruction of the Oslo Accords, destruction of American popularity all over the world, unilateral destruction of the anti-ballistic missile treaty, undermining of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, outright perversion of basic science even concerning global warming (lawyers rewrite the science), protection of top corporate management from prosecution (Enron, Global Crossing, Qwest, Tyco) until all but embarrassed when the states started prosecuting, replacing the Statue of Liberty as a symbol with pictures of Guantanamo, advocating the destructive of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, instability everywhere in the Middle East like never before seen in history, making even Castro popular again, suspension of Habeas Corpus, contempt for the American soldier, protection of the Steel manufacturers with illegal tariffs so that other and productive American industries would have to fire workers, torture in complete violation of Geneva conventions, first failure ever of international trade (Doha round of GATT), stifling at least four separate FBI investigations into what would be called September 11 by openly denying the threat even existed, making it legal to kidnap and hide from their nation anyone who is not American, killing half as many Iraqis in less than two years compared to what Saddam did in ten, threatening to restart the cold war, doing absolutely nothing to protect America all day on 11 September (not just the President but everyone every senior staff menber of George Jr's administration), President does not even read his own memos, undermining American relationships even with Canada and Mexico, silly Man to Mars program, never once asking GM what happened to all that money what was supposed to create a hybrid and new American jobs, .....
Just a small sample of what Urbane Guerrilla calls good. Urbane Guerrilla even approved of Nixon. Pres Cheney can be worse - and Urbane Guerrilla approves of that also. Urbane Guerrilla even calls himself a libertarian - but preaches fascism.
Is this a criticism of UG. No. Demonstrated is how extremists say one thing but really mean something completely different. No wonder Urbane Guerrilla even rewrites history to prove the Domino Theory. Notice the genocide that occurred in Vietnam in 1975 - according to UG.
Dana - I tried to be very careful and not promote the extreme right either - I am for getting whatever need be done over there done so we can get the hell out. We cannot just walk away, that is obvious to all - I hope. Its just the motivation behind the democratic party seems to be simply to gain power at too great an expense to our country. Does anyoneone have any ideas other than simply "stay the course" or "leave tomorrow?"
The Democrats do--it's called the timetable for troop withdrawal. I believe the latest date they want to set now is Fall 2008, which is not exactly "leave tomorrow."
Tw is unaware, I see, that the current number of Guantanamo inmates is down to about 375.
Which means something less than 450 who were held for years, lost even to their own families and the Red Cross, tortured, no judicial review ... and now are free because they were guilty of *nothing*? Urbane Guerrilla and the Nazi party would both call that acceptable? American gulags - and UG approved.
But again, UG demonstrates how dangerous the world is when extremists have power. Even lie about being Libertarians.
Oh. They also fear to answer a simple question - "when will we go after bin Laden?" Why bother. Leaving bin Laden free only justifies fascist fears.
A larger worry. Nothing in this post is an exaggeration. UG type extremists are so dangerous as to believe their own myths. Scary is that these are George Jr's strongest supporters.
Dana - I tried to be very careful and not promote the extreme right either - I am for getting whatever need be done over there done so we can get the hell out. We cannot just walk away, that is obvious to all - I hope. Its just the motivation behind the democratic party seems to be simply to gain power at too great an expense to our country. Does anyoneone have any ideas other than simply "stay the course" or "leave tomorrow?"
First, the reasons for leaving are very different for each person. Yes, leaving would be devastating for Iraq but that is not the question, we already know that. The question is, can we stop the civil war and genocide even if we stayed? Most Democrats will say no and most Republicans will say yes.
I have a very hard time believing that we can help Iraq at all unless we use martial law, and we missed our chance at that already. So, in my opinion, the best thing we can do is pull out and hope for the best, we are doing nothing except prolonging the killings and creating more hate by staying there.
I believe Joe Biden of the Democratic party and one other Republican (can't think of the name) have an idea for splitting up Iraq into 3 countries but I don't see any support for that from either side.
Seems the main people who are interested in finding whatever strategy is functional are the generals. The Administration at least tries to let the generals do the job, as it's done since the beginning of fighting (instead of ignoring) the War. The Democrat-controlled Congress is now launching try after try at preventing the generals from doing the job. This is known as DamnoCraps Behaving Badly, and it's appalling. A Democrat-controlled Congress fucked South Vietnam over -- and had to wait until Democrats controlled Congress to do that -- and now these sons of poodles want to fuck over another people?? Fools. UnDemocrats is what they truly are. Myopia cases -- if this creates a Democratic Presidency, it will be that President that actually loses the War, and do they know that? They aren't bright enough to accept and understand that PNAC is probably the best political idea going, and too weakwilled -- without faith that democracy is what humans will do, particularly if they can kill off the fascists -- to implement it.
The 3-states idea isn't favored because nobody thinks it would be stable. The three ministates would end up becoming puppets for neighboring states and a proxy-wars zone. We're trying to get it all over and done with rather than creating a permanent abscess in the body politic through a failure of imagination.
Scary? Only for the America-must-lose variety of extremist, as is currently on display right here in post # 63. Of course, his sort deserves to be kept afraid and frustrated and impotent. Or kept within the bounds of the DPRK.
I see you display a singular care all of a sudden for the tender feelings of the kind of sociopathic brutes who not only hate America but are unacceptable in their own countries because they were such Kacsinskis, such Malvos. God damn, you're such a slutboy for the fascists. You know why you smell so bad? It's because your shirt is brown, you Untermensch.
And you fear to answer a simple question I've posed you, moldy-mind, so I'll pose the question again and watch you run from it: Do you really want America to win?
You can't give me the answer I want to hear, because it's not how you feel. You can't give the answer according to how you feel because everyone else's patriotism will be outraged and they'll run you right out of the Cellar, ravening for your blood.
Urbane, my friend, I think you popped a vein.
Seems the main people who are interested in finding whatever strategy is functional are the generals.
You mean the fired ones? Seems to me any suggestion that we were going in with too few troops lead to public smack downs.
As we build Caesar at home and take the lid off religous and ethnic rivalries abroad, I ask, what service is this administration doing democracy? I'm no big democrat. I really think a republic better serves humanity, but if your administration's goal is world-wide democracy, what has it done toward that end?
Urbane, my friend, I think you popped a vein.
He's moving from denial to anger. Then we'll see bargaining, depression, and acceptance. It won't be pretty but eventually he'll call for a troop pullout, as he realizes our countrymen are dying to no good end.
Urbane, my friend, I think you popped a vein.
:biglaugha That rhymes! :biglaugha
Seems the main people who are interested in finding whatever strategy is functional are the generals. The Administration at least tries to let the generals do the job, as it's done since the beginning of fighting (instead of ignoring) the War. The Democrat-controlled Congress is now launching try after try at preventing the generals from doing the job.
Umm...read.
Respectfully, as your former commander on the ground, your administration did not listen to our best advice. In fact, a number of my fellow Generals were forced out of their jobs, because they did not tell you what you wanted to hear -- most notably General Eric Shinseki, whose foresight regarding troop levels was advice you rejected, at our troops' peril.
http://www.votevets.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=249&Itemid=16
This was a letter to President Bush on May 1, 2007 from retired USA Major General Paul D. Eaton.
Shinseki's Wikipedia entry confirms that the administration overrode Gen. Shinseki's advice for a greater number of troops. However it says that he retired as planned at the end of his four-year term, not that he was "forced out".
However it says that he retired as planned at the end of his four-year term, not that he was "forced out".
In April 2002, 14 months before Shinseki was due to retire, The Washington Post reported, quoting "Pentagon officials", that his replacement had already been selected. ... This reported departure from precedent somewhat undercut Shinseki's authority within the Army.
Shinseki was all but removed from office more than one year earlier because Shinseki was demanding what the Generals needed. George Jr administration was shorting the military at every turn - in complete contradiction to an obscenity laced post by Urbane Guerrilla.
Worse, neither Sec of Defense Rumsfeld nor Asst Sec of Defense Wolfovitz appeared at Shinseki's retirement party. As a result of doing harm to the military, Shinseki's farewell speech stated, first, that there was a difference between being a boss and a leader. Second, Shinseki noted how he started and ended his career the same way. He was wounded three times in Nam including loss of half a foot to a land mine. He was leaving as Chief of the Army the same unhappy way.
George Jr's administration so harmed the military that General Keane, selected to replace Shinseki, instead turned down the job for good reason - the civilian bosses. That knowledge is so understood in the military that Rumsfeld had to bypass all three and four star generals to find a replacement for Shinseki. Rumsfeld had to find a general in of retirement - Shoomaker. Why?
Urbane Guerrilla rewrote history to post this 'mother of all lies'
The Administration at least tries to let the generals do the job, as it's done since the beginning of fighting (instead of ignoring) the War. The Democrat-controlled Congress is now launching try after try at preventing the generals from doing the job.
Disrespect for the military did not stop there. George Jr could not find a general to command "Mission Accomplished". The most junior commander in country - having only limited experience as a division commander - Gen Sanchez - eventually became commander in Iraq. Those with better experience knew how much contempt the George Jr administration has for the military.
Let's look again at the numbers. Military doctrine said 600,000 troops were neeed to create the peace - after the fall of Baghdad. Scowcroft and other well respected military experts said we needed 500,000 in Iraq last summer. Shinseki only wanted a very conservative 300,000. Therefore Shinseki had to be compromised. George Jr only provided a paltry 130,000 and started reducing that numbers when the number of troops required should have been increasing.
Urbane Guerrilla rewrites history. He says George Jr never shorted the General of troops. We know Urbane Guerrilla is lying. Even his profanity increases when UG knows he is lying.
Is that the same Gen Sanchez that did the Abu Ghraib report?
DanaC, I never pop a vein in the course of rubbing tw's nose in his own nature. Think about it: would that be difficult?
Regard, too, his improbable exaggeration about "obscenity-laced" -- slut doesn't rise to the level of obscenity in anyone's book, not when we all can see what it is tw rolls over for.
He says George Jr never shorted the General of troops.
Did I? Show where.
Something else that's been rather lost in the dust raised by all the aiders and comforters of the enemy in time of war using troop levels as a stick to bash a Republican Administration with is that there aren't 500,000 deployable troops in the entire Army, and there haven't been for the entire Iraq campaign.
Well duh, that's why he shouldn't have started a war without sufficient resources, like the pentagon told him.
Is that the same Gen Sanchez that did the Abu Ghraib report?
Sanchez's first divisional command was 1st Armor Division for a short time (maybe two years). He was then promoted over everyone to become commander in Iraq (V Corp). Amazing how Rumsfeld could not find another General with experience necessary to command at the Corp level.
During Sanchez' tenure, Gen Miller brought torture from Guantanamo to two cell block in Abu Ghriad. Simultaneously, Sanchez was at war with Ambassador Paul Bremer who did almost as much as he could to create an Iraqi insurgency. Bremer and Sanchez would not even talk making solutions almost impossible and even resulting in today's situations. For example, the Marines were ordered into Fallujah to do what the Marines had no intention of doing. The Marines well understood the negative consequences of what would happen as a result of Fallujah. But they were talking to and represented in Washington by Sanchez who really never understood those negative consequences. Marines did exactly what they were told. The resulting disaster is now history.
Unity of command did not exist. Neither Sanchez nor Bremer ever made an effort to solve a massive management problem setup and directly attributed to George Jr's administration. A situation that Gen Jay Garner quickly identified as a prescription for failure, tried to tell Rumsfeld, and then realized the futility of saying anything.
Meanwhile, Gen Taguba was assigned to report on Abu Ghriad. For accurately making that report, Gen Taguba's military career was terminated by a revengeful George Jr administration. But others attribute blame for Abu Ghriad to Sanchez. It was initiated under Gen Sanchez' watch. There is no reason Sanchez 'did not know'. Abu Ghriad was a result of decisions and objectives defined by top commanders.
Two star general Sanchez was later replace by a four stars Gen Casey who brought massive experience. It was repeatedly obvious that Sanchez did not have sufficient experience to perform a job made only more complex by the micromanagement of Rumsfeld and by Washington politics 'blame game' who invented enemies like al Qaeda and Syria (rather than the insurgency, religious violence, a completely corrupt Iraqi government headed by weak leaders, and civil war) . Even worse, Gen Sanchez never had a strategic objective leaving division commanders such as Gen Odiero to only make the insurgency worse by inventing objectives as they operated. The long term objectives that would have focused divisional commanders to 'nation building' just never existed under Sanchez.
During this same time, some better and promising military leaders such as Gen Petreaus and Col McMasters were pigeonholed. While in those backwater assignments, both men took the opportunity to learn and define how an insurgency and civil war must be fought.
Back in Washington, George Jr decides to give the Freedom Medal to Amb Bremer and Gen Franks in Philadelphia. Top management (George Jr) had that little grasp of what he was creating in Iraq since the entire George Jr administration had no idea of basic military principles. Sec of State Powell was first isolated and then driven from power while extremists agendas advocated by Feith and Wolfovitz were implemented. Even Gen Myers - Chairman of the Joint Chiefs - was made Rumsfeld's puppy dog. Everyone in top management who might have helped Sanchez were even less knowledgeable.
A small snapshot of people and events that swirled around Gen Sanchez during his disastrous reign as commander of V Corp in Iraq.
Bush used to remind me of Wilson, but he is not just a psychopath, he's an idiot.
Or he has a dillusional agenda. Idiots and people with extreme or dillusional agendas seem to be mixed a lot. (see Hitler)
Hitler was an idiot, but I don't see Bush as the "Kill em' all" type.
"They" are too useful for him and he's just smart enough, or has advisers who are close enough, to know that he would be screwed if the tried any crap like that.
Plus, he's too happy for any Hitler, Mao, Stalin type-shit.
Think of a spoiled 5-yr-old with a buzz.
Hitler basically took over Europe in a year. Dillusional? Yes, but he was not an idiot. I hate him as much as the next guy but to call him stupid is just.....stupid. The end of the war he was very mentally unstable but besides that he almost had the Allies defeated if he didn't make a few mistakes.
Not going to get all into it now, but Hitler was an idiot. He could talk and could exploit people's weaknesses once he realized what they were insecure about. That was it.
Everyone has a talent and he was in a place where EVERYONE was feeling insecure and was out of work.
I cannot imagine a man with the mentality and brain of a twelve-year-old lasting as long as he did.
Did you read Mien Kamph? Remember, that was the best EDITORS could do with that that moron could write.
Think about his decisions.
Idiot.
Hitler took over a few offices and made some speeches... that is all he took over.
He did not know half of what was going on after it happened.
Stalin took over.
PH45: Shinseki was "forced out"
Wikipedia: Shinseki was "undermined somewhat by having a successor chosen early"
tw: Shinseki was "all but removed from office"
You can see why PH45 said that, he was just quoting someone who should have known.
Quoting the relevant Wiki entry and then brazenly spinning it in the very next sentence -- that takes some kind of balls. Not sure what kind.
Tetrahedral ones, perhaps. Those apices couldn't be comfortable, which might explain a certain... tension in a certain poster's tone.