Topic: Bush's War???

[Bob Wessner]

I guess I will put in my two cents on the Y2K issue. I was in IT management at the time and certainly there were some issues. However, they were blown out of proportion and MANY a consulting outfit made big bucks as a result. They sold upper management on the idea that everything was going to go belly up at midnight. Now the flip side of that is management is faced with doing due diligence. Had they failed to do it, they were facing serious problems, both personally and corporately. Tough call.

[DammitDan]

Ed, let me point out the flaw in your logic.

First you say this:

You are right.  We've all been lied to.  By both the democrats and the republicans.  As I have repeatedly said, the two party system is no good, and it serves only to divide.  Party lines are counterproductive.

Then you immediately thereafter say this:

Do you feel that it is counterproductive to point out that the democrats supported the Iraq war just as much as the republicans in the late '90s?  It certainly seems pretty relevant to me, and that was the whole point of this thread.

Does anyone else see the irony here?

[edbikerii]

Perhaps I wasn't clear, Eldar.  I didn't say that Bill Clinton or the democrats caused Y2K.  It is just a simple, non-partisan, fact that banks and trading institutions had to comply with the Fed's y2k certification requirements as an intelligent precautionary measure against what might have been a huge economic disaster.

Y2K certification had a huge positive impact on the economy before 1/1/2000, and a huge negative impact after 1/1/2000.  I contend that neither Clinton's nor Bush's policies had anything to do with those specific changes.  Clearly, based on KK's chart, the turning point in unemployment was January of 2000, and I believe that the changes in IT employment played a major part in those numbers.  Bush's policies were obviously not in effect yet, since Bill Clinton was still the President.

So y2k was caused by dems? It is BC's fault that nothing actually happened except in very remote cases? Really clinton had nothing to do with that and could not control that.
The tanking of the economy was in direct relation to bush's policies.

A 2 party system is bad, there should be more or none.

[edbikerii]

Yes, Dan.  That's exactly my position.  There is no irony or logical flaw in it.  The democrats are just as responsible for the war in Iraq as the republicans are.  If you have any doubts about that, then refer back to the video that I posted for definitive proof.

Ed, let me point out the flaw in your logic.

First you say this:

You are right.  We've all been lied to.  By both the democrats and the republicans.  As I have repeatedly said, the two party system is no good, and it serves only to divide.  Party lines are counterproductive.

Then you immediately thereafter say this:

Do you feel that it is counterproductive to point out that the democrats supported the Iraq war just as much as the republicans in the late '90s?  It certainly seems pretty relevant to me, and that was the whole point of this thread.

Does anyone else see the irony here?

[upperlake04]

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
  In reading the document, you could easily infer some sinister motive of advancing American principles globally for no other reason than to dominate the world.  Or, you could bear in mind that traditional American principles involve Democracy, Equality, Human Rights, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of the Press, and all of the other things specified in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.

  Good discussion boys and one I am enjoying    The "advancing American principles globally" part is interesting, and I could be reading into this, but there seems to be a smug self-importance in that attitude.  From an observer outside the US, the curious special status that Manifest Destiny seems to allow your country in respect foreign policy is somewhat confusing. I'm not sure the "traditional values" component of the US New World Order agenda is a legitimate reason for it, after all, how can the US 'export' these concepts when none of them were invented in America, and most were developed and implemented by Europeans long ago.  Not to get anybody going, but give credit where credit is due.     By the way, I like you guys

[eldar]

I like you to lake! I am close enough almost live in canada. Things get bad enough, I may move there!

Ed, FACT Clinton got our economy moving in a good way. Fact: Bush has killed our economy. You need proof, The canadian dollar is worth MORE than the US dollar. I cannot remember the last time that happened. At this rate, the peso is going to be worth more in a couple of years.

[upperlake04]

 There's lots of room here Eldar, and you probably already have a good parka.  Things must be getting bad there when our Third World dollar is worth more the your mighty Yankee dollar. 

[eldar]

You have no idea.

[tortelvis]

Despite what many people believe the media is not liberal biased...it is conservatively biased. 

Read robert kennedy books.  The media is actually controlled by conservatives.  The short of the method they use is repitition.  They pick a few things to say each day and say them over and over on every outlet they have at there disposal...Radio jocks in particular but news channels, the internet, and written word publications also play a role.  They say these particular things over and over until the rest of the news outlets begin spouting the same talking points.

To be perfectly honest I do not see how anyone could call themselves republican or democrat.  How can you follow a party line closely enough to affiliate yourself with that party. 

Example:  I believe that if two guys or two girls want to get married and they can find someone willing to marry them then who the hell cares.  I also believe that gun control should consist of mandatory gun safety courses for every man woman and child in this country as well as a tax credit on your first hand gun purchase.   

Face it people you are all being lied to...the republicans are liars...the democrats are liars...Turn off your TV pick up your phone and call your representatives and tell them how you feel.

That being said I am not out to make enemies here.  There is nothing I like more than being proven wrong. 

+1 Who was it who said " A lie, repeated often enough, becomes the truth"?

[TwoTired]

+1 Who was it who said " A lie, repeated often enough, becomes the truth"?

“A lie told often enough becomes truth”
Vladimir Lenin.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
Joseph Goebbels.

A lie, repeated often enough, will end up as truth. Dr Paul Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's Minister of Propaganda (1933-1945), invented the Big Lie theory; he exploited the German radio, press, cinema, and theatre to launch propaganda against the Jews and other groups...

[DammitDan]

Yes, Dan.  That's exactly my position.  There is no irony or logical flaw in it.  The democrats are just as responsible for the war in Iraq as the republicans are.  If you have any doubts about that, then refer back to the video that I posted for definitive proof.

Ed, let me point out the flaw in your logic.

First you say this:

You are right.  We've all been lied to.  By both the democrats and the republicans.  As I have repeatedly said, the two party system is no good, and it serves only to divide.  Party lines are counterproductive.

Then you immediately thereafter say this:

Do you feel that it is counterproductive to point out that the democrats supported the Iraq war just as much as the republicans in the late '90s?  It certainly seems pretty relevant to me, and that was the whole point of this thread.

Does anyone else see the irony here?

I think you missed my point, Ed.

First you say that party lines are counterproductive and the two party system is bad, then you immediately turn around and say, "The Democrats this and Liberals that blah blah blah don't blame the Republicans."  If you truly believed what you said, then you should stop trying to place blame on a party and start placing blame on the system.

It seems to me that you're secretly in love with the system that you say you hate, so you continue to bring Liberals vs. Conservatives up in everything you argue, even when you say Liberals vs. Conservatives is "counterproductive".

[ekim98]

The two party system can work, but we need manditory term limits, the ability to remove any public offical at voter discreation for (lying,dui,sex,what ever) and public vote on ALL bills before they go into effect. Cut there pay, make them use the same heath care we use and no retirement. They get caught doing anything illegal or scandlist(spelling) their out. They think their gods then make them meet very high standards.

 I know this will never work, just like all our ranting about what's going on and whose to blame won't change or solve anything. We the people are the ones to blame, for we allow it to happen and continue. That's about .03 worth of ranting.

[edbikerii]

Apparently, there's some disagreement on that issue too!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lie

+1 Who was it who said " A lie, repeated often enough, becomes the truth"?

“A lie told often enough becomes truth”
Vladimir Lenin.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
Joseph Goebbels.

A lie, repeated often enough, will end up as truth. Dr Paul Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's Minister of Propaganda (1933-1945), invented the Big Lie theory; he exploited the German radio, press, cinema, and theatre to launch propaganda against the Jews and other groups...

[ofreen]

The two party system can work...(snip)

The "two party system" is just another manifestation of the two-valued, either/or type thinking that is everywhere.  Right/wrong, black/white, on/off, yes/no, zero/one, etc.  Two-valued thinking does not work in the real world because it does not have any correlation to the real world.  Those that persist in trying to force their two-valued thinking on the world will experience only frustration.  Because their two-valued world view is false to facts, any solutions they come up with will generally be inadequate at best, and most of the time achieve nothing, and probably counterproductive to what they were trying to accomplish.

[ekim98]

The two party system can work...(snip)

The "two party system" is just another manifestation of the two-valued, either/or type thinking that is everywhere.  Right/wrong, black/white, on/off, yes/no, zero/one, etc.  Two-valued thinking does not work in the real world because it does not have any correlation to the real world.  Those that persist in trying to force their two-valued thinking on the world will experience only frustration.  Because their two-valued world view is false to facts, any solutions they come up with will generally be inadequate at best, and most of the time achieve nothing, and probably counterproductive to what they were trying to accomplish.

 It's far from perfect and I'll be the first to admit that , but what would be the altrenative?
A king, dictatorship,monarch. Our system is so gray anymore that it's a two party system in name only. I don't think the two party system is wrong/broken, we the people have let it run so far amok and most people don't have the back bone anymore to say enough so it just fumbles along and we get pushed out of the way. 

[ofreen]

 It's far from perfect and I'll be the first to admit that , but what would be the altrenative?

No parties or a whole bunch of parties.

[ekim98]

 I guess I don't quite get your point. We have all kinds of other parties and they get nowhere, but how do we get to no parties. (Parties are what make government get together and act like there working - sorry had to say that!)  It's obvious that most people need a name or something to follow or they won't do anything, and it's bad enough now when they are given choices. Labels will be applied, and a party by any other name/label would still be a party. If you don't call them a democrat/republican there views/ideas will becaome the name. What changes?

[ofreen]

I guess I don't quite get your point.

I have lots of points, including the one on top of my head, but the main one is that it is unrealistic to expect one party or the other or both to have all the answers to whatever the issues are.  This expectation is at the core of the difficulty we find ourselves in now.  One reason of course, is that at the present time, the "two-party" system is a sham.  But even if there were two partes with two different idealogies to choose from (that they actually followed), it still would be very unrealistic to expect one or the other to have the "correct" way of dealing the problems we face.  It is the "two-party" system that has fostered the 'sound-bite' level of political discourse we are subjected to.  The situation won't change for the better until and unless we (collectively) change the way we evaluate.  Thinking "democrat or republican", or "liberal or conservative" or "big government or no government" won't get it done because the world is more complicated than that.

[ekim98]

I wasn't trying to debate it or argue about it, you just kind of left it hanging there and I figure you had more to say. I usually stay out of these kind of topics any more because it's a no win situation.

I'm out of this one now to.

[ofreen]

I wasn't trying to debate it or argue about it, you just kind of left it hanging there and I figure you had more to say. I usually stay out of these kind of topics any more because it's a no win situation.

I'm out of this one now to.

You are right, there is no winning or losing (another two-valued concept) in this type of discussion.  It is mostly just a way to pass the time and stimulate thinking and see what others are thinking.  I hope you didn't take anything I wrote as a criticism of your posts, since they were interesting and I agreed with much of what you wrote.

[edbikerii]

OK then Dan, let me re-state the problem using more politically correct semantics so as not to offend anyone:


Please watch this video, and decide for yourself if you've been lied to:
www.bercasio.com/movies/dems-wmd-before-iraq.wmv

Have a nice day.



How's that, Dan?  Does that make you feel better?

Yes, Dan.  That's exactly my position.  There is no irony or logical flaw in it.  The democrats are just as responsible for the war in Iraq as the republicans are.  If you have any doubts about that, then refer back to the video that I posted for definitive proof.

Ed, let me point out the flaw in your logic.

First you say this:

You are right.  We've all been lied to.  By both the democrats and the republicans.  As I have repeatedly said, the two party system is no good, and it serves only to divide.  Party lines are counterproductive.

Then you immediately thereafter say this:

Do you feel that it is counterproductive to point out that the democrats supported the Iraq war just as much as the republicans in the late '90s?  It certainly seems pretty relevant to me, and that was the whole point of this thread.

Does anyone else see the irony here?

I think you missed my point, Ed.

First you say that party lines are counterproductive and the two party system is bad, then you immediately turn around and say, "The Democrats this and Liberals that blah blah blah don't blame the Republicans."  If you truly believed what you said, then you should stop trying to place blame on a party and start placing blame on the system.

It seems to me that you're secretly in love with the system that you say you hate, so you continue to bring Liberals vs. Conservatives up in everything you argue, even when you say Liberals vs. Conservatives is "counterproductive".

[DammitDan]

Heh.

Talking to brick walls is just so much fun. 

[edbikerii]

Brick walls don't ask you to look at the facts and think for yourself:

www.bercasio.com/movies/dems-wmd-before-iraq.wmv

Heh.

Talking to brick walls is just so much fun. 

[ofreen]

One thing I realized a long time ago is it is highly unlikely you'll be successful insulting somebody into agreeing with you.

[76 cb550]

I am entirely prepared to change my point of view.  Give me the facts and let me decide.  The facts I've seen so far in my life say that GW and his buddies lied to get us into a war...various reasons for that war but I won't rant. 

Look up where the intelligence came from that we used to prove that WMD's were in Iraq.  It was almost completely based on ONE GUY.  An expatriated (i think that is the word) Iraqi.  I think his codename was fastball or curve ball or something ironic like that.  Lots of our own intelligence organizations said that he was not trustworthy.  GW and his buddies knew no one trusted this guy but they still used his info.  I read about this a while back so my details may be fuzzy.  If anyone has a more recent or accurate description I'd appreciate you sharing it. 

I'd just like to say that I would much rather debate this kind of thing on a MC forum than on a forum dedicated to it.  You get a lot more coolheaded thinkers and a lot fewer screaming meanies.  Thanks for keeping this civil guys.


Suggested reading
1. Body of secrets (James Bamford)  In fact anything by James Bamford (he writes about NSA alot)
2. Crimes against nature (Robert F. Kennedy Jr.) Go to the bookstore open this book to any page and read it.