Hence the inclusion of the word "for". Paging King Cheetah and B-Bob, I may have detected a point of infinite density sitting at a computer somewhere logged into CF.net. As astrophysicists I know that the confirmed existence of a singularity must be very exciting to you!
That is possibly the funniest thing I have ever read, you accuse me of being deliberately obtuse? You, Mr. "Just cause its titled that and all about that doesn't mean it means that, even though what it means is that." Mr. "Well jsut because it's been debunked as an urban legend doesn't mean its not completely untrue" Mr. "maybe wetback means something different in Michigan, I don't know?" accuse me of being deliberately obtuse? Unbelievable. Anyway, I'd like an anwer. Am I reading it too literally or reading too much into it. Not sure what you mean by this at all. However I am still in shock from reading the first part of your post.
Worst prez? - I guess it's time to bust out a classic... ------------------------------------------- GEORGE W. BUSH RESUME The White House, USA * ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS PRESIDENT: * I attacked and took over two countries. * I spent the U.S. surplus and bankrupted the Treasury. * I shattered the record for biggest annual deficit in history. * I set an economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12-month period. * I set all-time record for biggest drop in the history of the stock market. * I am the first president in decades to execute a federal prisoner. * I am the first president in US history to enter office with a criminal record. * In my first year in office I set the all-time record for most days on vacation by any president in US history. * After taking the entire month of August off for vacation, I presided over the worst security failure in US history. * I set the record for most campaign fund raising trips by any president in US history. * In my first two years in office over 2 million Americans lost their job. * I cut unemployment benefits for more out-of-work Americans than any other president in US history. * I set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12-month period. * I appointed more convicted criminals to administration positions than any president in US history. * I set the record for the fewest press conferences of any president since the advent of TV. * I signed more laws and executive orders amending the Constitution than any other president in US history. * I presided over the biggest energy crises in US history and refused to intervene when corruption was revealed. * I presided over the highest gasoline prices in US history and refused to use the national reserves as past presidents have. * I cut health care benefits for war veterans. * I set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously take to the streets to protest me (15 million people), shattering the record for protest against any person in the history of mankind. * I dissolved more international treaties than any president in US history. * I've made my presidency the most secretive and unaccountable of any in US history. * Members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in US history. (The 'poorest' multimillionaire, Condoleeza Rice, has a Chevron oil tanker named after her). * I am the first president in US history to have all 50 states of the Union simultaneously go bankrupt. * I presided over the biggest corporate stock market fraud in any market in any country in the history of the world. * I am the first president in US history to order a US attack and military occupation of a sovereign nation, and I did so against the will of the United Nations and the world community. * I have created the largest government department bureaucracy in the history of the United States. * I set the all-time record for biggest annual budget spending increases, more than any other president in US history. * I am the first president in US history to have the United Nations remove the US from the Human Rights Commission. * I am the first president in US history to have the United Nations remove the US from the Elections Monitoring Board. * I removed more checks and balances, and have the least amount of congressional oversight than any presidential administration in US history. * I rendered the entire United Nations irrelevant. * I withdrew from the World Court of Law. * I refused to allow inspectors access to US prisoners of war and by default no longer abide by the Geneva Conventions. * I am the first president in US history to refuse United Nations election inspectors access during the 2002 US elections. * I am the all-time US (and world) record holder for most corporate campaign donations. * The biggest lifetime contributor to my campaign, who is also one of my best friends, presided over one of the largest corporate bankruptcy frauds in world history (Kenneth Lay, former CEO of Enron Corporation). * I spent more money on polls and focus groups than any president in US history. * I am the first president to run and hide when the US came under attack (and then lied, saying the enemy had the code to Air Force 1) * I am the first US president to establish a secret shadow government. * I took the world's sympathy for the US after 911, and in less than a year made the US the most resented country in the world (possibly the biggest diplomatic failure in US and world history). * I am the first US president in history to have a majority of the people of Europe (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and stability. * I am the first US president in history to have the people of South Korea more threatened by the US than by their immediate neighbor, North Korea. * I changed US policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts. * I set the all-time record for number of administration appointees who violated US law by not selling their huge investments in corporations bidding for gov't contracts. * I have removed more freedoms and civil liberties for Americans than any other president in US history. In a little over two years I have created the most divided country in decades, possibly the most divided that the US has been since the civil war. * I entered office with the strongest economy in US history and in less than two years turned every single economic category heading straight down. * RECORDS AND REFERENCES: * I have at least one conviction for drunk driving in Maine (Texas driving record has been erased and is not available). * I was AWOL from the National Guard and deserted the military during a time of war. * I refuse to take a drug test or even answer any questions about drug use. * All records of my tenure as governor of Texas have been spirited away to my father¹s library, sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view. * All records of any SEC investigations into my insider trading or bankrupt companies are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view. * All minutes of meetings of any public corporation for which I served on the board are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view. * Any records or minutes from meetings I (or my VP) attended regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public review.
Originally posted by SamFisher That is possibly the funniest thing I have ever read, you accuse me of being deliberately obtuse? You, Mr. "Just cause its titled that and all about that doesn't mean it means that, even though what it means is that." <b>The title asks a question and the concluding question reiterates the question. I don't see how you summarize it as asserting anything in particular.</b> Mr. "Well jsut because it's been debunked as an urban legend doesn't mean its not completely untrue" <b>Urban myths are about exploding toilets not email circulars.</b> Anyway, I'd like an anwer. Am I reading it too literally or reading too much into it. <b>Here is what I said: "In a way, I wish you would take it literally. Instead you extrapolate it or reduce it as it suits your purpose of distortion." Have you read A Modest Proposal? Should you take it literally? Was he espousing baby-munching? I think you would have concluded that. I'm not saying that this is an intentional spoof. It is what it is. It is provocative. It proves nothing. Neither it nor I conclude the things that many in here have assigned it/me.</b>
Just go away. I hate this kind of judgemental action. Just go away. Don't read and don't post if you don't like the subject. This "take my ball and go home mentality" is inappropriate. I'm not here to please you nor you me-- needless to say.
Just to put it into perspective: Nixon single-handedly destroyed the innocence of an entire generation at the Watergate Hotel. Andrew Johnson, as President of the Senate before becoming President, showed up so drunk for work that he had to be forcibly escorted from the floor of the Senate and was instrumental in the creation of the Jim Crow laws, and other policies that maintained a state of pseudo-slavery in the South. You can read about Woodrow Wilson's negative qualities here. and Warren G Harding gambled away the White House china in a card game, and that was the high point of his term: Given all of this, assuming all of the worst critics of GWB are correct, he would at least be given a run for the title of "the worst". Finally, I find it funny how the same people who 5 years ago were so quick to describe Bill Clinton as the most evil and immoral person in the history of the world, suddenly argue that their delicate, genteel sensibilities are offended at the thought of criticizing a sitting president.
I am disappointed by the lot of you here who will not rise to the challenge of answering the questions posed. You all are fantastic with your connect-the-dot accusations but when asked pointedly to show where the piece says what your construction makes it out to say, you ignore the request. I guess you're too busy patting each other on the back to pay real attention.
This is hilariously funny. Giddyup, I'm going to ask you one more time. First, I'm going to assume you know what a syllogism is. Second, I'm going to ask you to construct a syllogism based on the initial post. I have done so numerous times, and in response you either accuse me of being too literal and not seeing the true meaning to saying "it is what it is' and accusing me of being obtuse for trying to discern that meaning, depending on your mood. Construct a syllogism for the initial post. BTW, why did you choose to emphasize the casualty figures? Why is the contrast important? Don't answer with "you tell me". I have told you, four or five times over, and you go nuts and tell me that my interpretation is incorrect. To alleviate this, construct a syllogism for the initial post.
The contrast is important because it points up a glaring discrepancy. Critics have railed on about the human cost of the Iraqi theatre in the war on terror... and that criticism doesn't stand up to analysis... which comes from <b>looking at</b> the numbers. Is that really so hard to grasp? I've said it a number of times, yet you keep asking me to re-state it. What major premise do you want me to use in cranking out this syllogism?
I'd still like to get your opinion on my post we mentioned. Thanks. Now, maybe I can get some sleep, although after reading the most recent post in the Democratic/Republican Conventions thread, that won't be any easier. Have a good one, and later.
Originally posted by Deckard: giddyup, what you don't seem to understand is that Europeans, reflected by their governments, don't hate the United States... they "hate" our government. <b>Government is almost never popular. The US, wrongly or rightly, assumes leadership in the world. Leaders are always criticized. What should we do? Back off and leave it to the French?!</b> There is a big difference. I spent over 6 months in 1971 traveling across Western Europe (and Yugoslavia a bit), during the Vietnam War. Believe me, I got to talk to a large cross-section of people. There was far more anger at the US then... sometimes very large demonstrations in several countries, because of the war, that the present climate couldn't come close to. And they didn't "hate" the United States, they "hated" it's government. The main difference was the attitude of their own governments, faced with the threat of the Soviet Union and having 350,000+ US troops on their soil or in the area, seemed far more friendly to this country. <b>Was the US wrong to comply and send troops over there? Is this the human version of biting the hand that feeds you?</b> The perception here is exasperated by the policies of the Bush Administration. Our President openly speaks with distain of our allies. His Defense Secretary scornfully refers to "Old Europe". Bush prepares for and invades Iraq with contempt for the majority of European governments who disagree with his actions. <b>I'm really not aware of President Bush speaking with open disdain of our European allies. I think Rumsfeld let a few slip (I loved the one about going to war without France is like going to war without your accordian-- or someting like that). Bush is acting in the interest of US security. Does Western Europe have that foremost in their mind. Weren't many of the criticsm proven to be on Saddam's payroll? How does that factor in to the mix?</b> And they can disagree... they don't face a Soviet Union and East Bloc armed to the teeth and needing our goodwill. They can think for themselves and now openly express it. 30 years ago, if they disagreed they kept it to themselves and talked behind the scenes with their concerns about Vietnam. And they had plenty of concerns. And none of us would want things to be as they were during the Cold War. Would we? Just so our allies would be forced to walk in lock-step with us? <b>This European emergence sounds like adolescents who rebel at their parents. Perhaps the US experience in leadership should be given some credit. We said we would go without them... and we did. I thought Bush was very gracious about the whole thing. He is not willing to dilute command over issues of US security.</b> Bush could have gone about this far differently. There was no crisis that required such urgent action regarding Iraq as was justified with the war with Afghanistan, which was widely supported. Bush brought the vast majority of world opinion, not just European opinion, in an amazingly short time, from open, deeply felt support and sympathy for the United States, to anger and fear of what they see as a reckless, out of control foreign policy. Not anger and fear at the American people, but of the government of George W. Bush. <b>Maybe, maybe not. I'm quite sure that Europeans are not united against this acton just as Americans are not united for or against it. How would you quantify "vast majority?"</b> Can't you see the difference? <b>I can see the difference. I'm just not sure that it is worth more than acknowledgement. I don't think the US should have a guiding principle that we have to please the Europeans. What have they ever done for us?</b>
Only for the environment - that only matters if you don't think the second coming isn't happening any time soon. http://www.rollingstone.com/features/nationalaffairs/featuregen.asp?pid=2154 Crimes Against Nature Bush is sabotaging the laws that have protected America's environment for more than thirty years By Robert F. Kennedy Jr. George W. Bush will go down in history as America's worst environmental president. In a ferocious three-year attack, the Bush administration has initiated more than 200 major rollbacks of America's environmental laws, weakening the protection of our country's air, water, public lands and wildlife. Cloaked in meticulously crafted language designed to deceive the public, the administration intends to eliminate the nation's most important environmental laws by the end of the year. Under the guidance of Republican pollster Frank Luntz, the Bush White House has actively hidden its anti-environmental program behind deceptive rhetoric, telegenic spokespeople, secrecy and the intimidation of scientists and bureaucrats. The Bush attack was not entirely unexpected. George W. Bush had the grimmest environmental record of any governor during his tenure in Texas. Texas became number one in air and water pollution and in the release of toxic chemicals. In his six years in Austin, he championed a short-term pollution-based prosperity, which enriched his political contributors and corporate cronies by lowering the quality of life for everyone else. Now President Bush is set to do the same to America. After three years, his policies are already bearing fruit, diminishing standards of living for millions of Americans. . . . Today, more than ever, it is critical for American citizens to understand the difference between the free-market capitalism that made our country great and the corporate cronyism that is now corrupting our political process, strangling democracy and devouring our national treasures. Corporate capitalists do not want free markets, they want dependable profits, and their surest route is to crush competition by controlling government. The rise of fascism across Europe in the 1930s offers many informative lessons on how corporate power can undermine a democracy. In Spain, Germany and Italy, industrialists allied themselves with right-wing leaders who used the provocation of terrorist attacks, continual wars, and invocations of patriotism and homeland security to tame the press, muzzle criticism by opponents and turn government over to corporate control. Those governments tapped industrial executives to run ministries and poured government money into corporate coffers with lucrative contracts to prosecute wars and build infrastructure. They encouraged friendly corporations to swallow media outlets, and they enriched the wealthiest classes, privatized the commons and pared down constitutional rights, creating short-term prosperity through pollution-based profits and constant wars. Benito Mussolini's inside view of this process led him to complain that "fascism should really be called 'corporatism.' " While the European democracies unraveled into fascism, America confronted the same devastating Depression by reaffirming its democracy. It enacted minimum-wage and Social Security laws to foster a middle class, passed income taxes and anti-trust legislation to limit the power of corporations and the wealthy, and commissioned parks, public lands and museums to create employment and safeguard the commons. The best way to judge the effectiveness of a democracy is to measure how it allocates the goods of the land: Does the government protect the commonwealth on behalf of all the community members, or does it allow wealth and political clout to steal the commons from the people? Today, George W. Bush and his court are treating our country as a grab bag for the robber barons, doling out the commons to large polluters. Last year, as the calamitous rollbacks multiplied, the corporate-owned TV networks devoted less than four percent of their news minutes to environmental stories. If they knew the truth, most Americans would share my fury that this president is allowing his corporate cronies to steal America from our children.
