#51
|
|||
|
|||
I was misled
Bret Wade wrote:
I agree as well. I'll contribute the following which is the full text of a speech by former Vice President Al Gore to the American Constitution Society at Georgetown University on June 24. http://alternet.org/election04/19047/ I saw a wonderful tape of Gore giving a speech advocating the overthrown of Saddam, juxtaposed with his recent rants. Maybe someone should make a "documentary" about it. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/809168.stm (too lazy to actually find speech, but this references it or something similar). Bill "hypocrisy abounds" S. |
Ads |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
I was misled
|
#54
|
|||
|
|||
I was misled
(JP) wrote:
Mark Hickey wrote in message . .. (JP) wrote: My guess is that if Putin did tell Bush something, the *whole* story is actually embarassing so Bush can't use it- maybe something like, Putin told Bush that Iraq was making plans to attack the US with terrorists if we invaded Iraq. Heh... I can always count on you to brew up new and increasingly fanciful conspiracy theories... I would like to hear *your* theory about why the Bush administration hasn't said a single word about Putin's claim. Really. I find the whole thing pretty puzzling. And, as I said, I did read about someone in the Executive Branch dismissing it. So what is your theory? Why do you think the administration didn't mention Putin's claim? Didn't they cover that on ihategeorgebush.com??? ;-) So you're saying the St. Pete Times and the SF Chronical maintain the "daily.misleader.org" website. LOL. No. I'm saying that the article that came up on their site references articles in the St. Petersburg Times and San Francisco Chronicles that completely support their article. You have absolutely no basis to discredit anything on daily.misleader.org, so you just pull accusations out of the air and refuse to address the fact that there are solid references in the story, so solid that they are essentially irrefuatable. Show me one reference other than a third hand suggestion that "gee this order must have come from the White House". Heh. This is old, old, old news - it came out three years ago and was rightfully dismissed as a non-issue. But this IS the political silly season I guess. Thing is, you get the whole story - both sides. For some reason, that approach seems to be total anathema to many liberals. I suppose it's easier to go through life not hearing anything that contradicts your preconceived notions - but personally I would hate to appear that naive when discussing the issues in public. How ironic then that you seem so naive, if not ignorant, when discussing these issues in public. I can't recall you ever being able to quote a single fact or present any kind of logical analysis on anything not bicycle related. The things I quote probably don't line up with your "news sources". You do the math. You've never been able to contradict the facts I quote, just complain about 'em. Let's just examine the post I'm responding to: 1. You make derogatory comments about daily.misleader.org implying that it is an untrustworthy source. This argument is in its essence nothing more than name calling. You cite no evidence to contradict any part of any story on the site. You cite no evidence to contradict the sources for any of those stories. You refuse to address the fact that the story I cited is based on articles from two major newspapers and instead try to confuse the issue by setting up a strawman claim to knockdown despite it having no connection whatever to my actual comments. Not a single fact or logical conclusion, though, in your entire response. OK, so show me a direct link from that flight to the White House. I dare you. Not a third hand supposition by a guy who works for the Tampa Airport... 2. No evidence that Drudge presents both sides of the story. No evidence that he is reliable. No evidence that Drudge backs up his reports with references. Heh heh heh... have you even SEEN the the Drudge website? I thought not... you couldn't doubt the balanced nature if you had. It references from both ends of the spectrum and everywhere in between. You're right, though, I'm not interested in both sides of the story. Reality only has one side, with different perspectives, and unfortunately, your perspective requires mostly closing your eyes so you can ignore the reality of the Bush administration's huge negative accomplishments: failure to defend against 9/11; exploding national deficits; a mostly jobless economic recovery with falling real wages; over 800 of our troops dead in Iraq for a lie. These are the facts. There is no other side to it, only excuses. Ignoring of course the things you don't want to confront - the recession that was handed to Bush upon taking office, the ongoing terrorist war against the US, the death of thousands of Americans to teorrists, the vast amount of intelligence about the danger posed by Saddam Hussein. Oh and you might wanna check up on that "jobless recovery" claim... there have been 1.4 million jobs since August and the economy is growing at a blistering 4.5% rate. Just the facts, Jack... Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
I was misled
Keith Willoughby wrote:
Fred wrote: a mostly jobless economic recovery with falling real wages; Simply not true. This is propaganda, not fact. If you'd like to cite some credible source for this information, I'll cite some that will show this is misinformation. http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/mov...es/000995.html | Real wage and salary income per capita has, so far, fallen by 3.5% | over the Bush administration. Granted, Brad is only a Professor of Economics at Berkeley. Hmmmm, ya think maybe the recession Bush was handed and the 9/11 attack mighta had a little to do with that (not really sure the drop was that large, but I'm too lazy to look it up right now)? And BTW, did you know that the per capita income grew at 3.3% in the last 12 months? And that's in an era with almost no inflation to offset it. Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
I was misled
"Pat" wrote:
it is just as misleading to suggest that one should get ALL of his "facts" and news from Drudge as it is from any other source. We should all be reading everything we can so that tunnel vision doesn't ensue. For example, you might want to add this site to your reading: www.factcheck.org Just a quick perusal - I like it... seems to be concerned about exposing the blatant fabrications (on both sides). I'm saving a bookmark to that one! Thanks! Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
I was misled
Steve-o wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 15:19:51 -0700, Mark Hickey wrote: However, he would wait for the UN to take action (which as we now know would NEVER happen since they were on Saddam's payroll) (You were speaking of conspiracy theories?) Not really, just the huge amount of corruption and graft that's been uncovered in the ongoing oil for food investigation. The "leaks" of information, and hints from the official investigators make it clear that we're going to find out highly placed UN officials are involved. or you have a president who will do what needs to be done, regardless of the political posturing of France and Germany. Interesting choice of words. It has yet to be demonstrated that invading Iraq is what needed to be done. There is no evidence before or since invasion that Iraq was responsible or even connected to what happened on 9/11. Justification for US actions has degenerated to the specious "Nip EVIL In The Bud By Any Means Necessary" argument. Ummmm, there was never a connection made by the White House between 9/11 and Iraq, even if it's "common knowledge". Funny thing though, no one's been able to dredge up a single comment by Bush that supports their contention that he tried to make it. P.S. There is evidence by the bucketload that Saudi money and power was behind 9/11, yet the occupant of the white house believed what needed to be done was to secretly evacuate rich and powerful Saudis from our country. I guess we should have announced to the world that we were going to fly out members of the (large, BTW) Saudi royal family??! Like it or not, they're about the closest thing we have to allies in the region, and it would have been a huge mistake to forcibly detain them - heck, the ACLU woulda gone nuts over that option! ;-) P.P.S. I like bikes. Me too - they don't use oil - or at least not very much - which helps make the world a simpler place in lots of important ways. Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
I was misled
Mark Hickey writes:
Thing is, you get the whole story - both sides. For some reason, that approach seems to be total anathema to many liberals. I suppose it's easier to go through life not hearing anything that contradicts your preconceived notions - but personally I would hate to appear that naive when discussing the issues in public. Wait a minute! You are describing GWB who does not listen to any advisor who conflicts with his perception of what is going on. Not true. That's how he got us into the war and can't and won't get out even though the rest of civilized nations urge that course. Funny, he's doing precisely what he said he'd do all along. He never said it would be quick or easy. What would be quick or easy? Why is our military in Iraq? What is the purpose of this disaster to that country's, national, financial, and human losses? I can see it takes time but what is this time doing for any of the problems of the USA or Iraq? This is the main thread of the current administration, to not accept information that goes against their vision... Iraqis will welcome us with open arms, etc. The rank and file Iraqis (and Afghanis) are very glad that we took out their despotic leadership. And it's no surprise they'd like us to leave as soon as things are "stable" (that's a relative term in the middle east). I'm sure the folks in Japan and Germany felt the same way, though it took much, much, much longer to get them sorted out. Ohhh, lend me your rose colored glasses. From whom did you hear that the rank and file (sounds military to me) people of either country is glad for our military intervention. Afghanistan is practically back where it was before our adventure there except that different folks are in charge. Opium market is in full swing and only a couple of principal cities are even slightly under civilian control. Let's not even talk about Iraq, where we have unleashed terror attacks from all sides on people who used to go about their daily lives in a far more secure and peaceful land, albeit under a dictator who spent time going after opponents rather than the entire population that is being terrorized now. Jobst Brandt |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
I was misled
Steve-o wrote:
On 25 Jun 2004 22:53:35 -0700, (James Annan) wrote: Here in mild-mannered conservative Japan... but they should at least be aware that this really is how the rest of the world views him (and by extension, those who elect him). Or since he wasn't actually elected, "those who erect him." Is that a Japanese pronunciation joke, or one about Monica? Oops, wrong president... sorry. ;-) Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
I was misled
What manner of off-point rubbish is this? Has Mike Vandeman stolen your
identity? wrote in message ... http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1310344&l=42227 Jobst Brandt |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|