no dude, that shit does not indicate anything. you get into those schools automatically when you have a "legacy." you know, like the way you prolly think affirmative action works.
This is classic confirmatory bias. You have come to a conclusion and simply choose to ascribe anything which is inconsistent with that conclusion to bush's 'connections'.
The same could be said for many of your comments. Just like Bush, you avoid answering questions that might threaten your postition.
There is no question that if you can lie with a confident smile on your face instead of fidgeting and seeming nervous you will 1) Be a more successful politician and 2) Be able to fool more people into liking and trusting you.
Apparently politcal success doesn't depend on one's ability to lie undected. The president is not subtle about it, and he's the president.
no dude, that shit does not indicate anything. you get into those schools automatically when you have a "legacy." you know, like the way you prolly think affirmative action works.
This is classic confirmatory bias. You have come to a conclusion and simply choose to ascribe anything which is inconsistent with that conclusion to bush's 'connections'.
Would you care to share any alternative conclusions?? Keep in mind that factual imformation is usually more valid than bias gibberish.By the way,do you like music?
Would you care to share any alternative conclusions?? Keep in mind that factual imformation is usually more valid than bias gibberish.By the way,do you like music?
did you never consider that perhaps he got those qualifications on his own merit?
Would you care to share any alternative conclusions?? Keep in mind that factual imformation is usually more valid than bias gibberish.By the way,do you like music?
did you never consider that perhaps he got those qualifications on his own merit?
yeah right! And John Kerry EARNED his purple hearts. Pffft. You're living in a fantasy.
The same could be said for many of your comments. Just like Bush, you avoid answering questions that might threaten your postition.
battling dolo is like canada, liberals talk about it but they dont want to go there.
if youve got a question in mind that ive supposedly refused to answer then bring it.
The question I asked was "DO YOU COLLECT RECORDS?" and you haven't answered that. Others have asked you comparable questions. You have not answered. I've also noticed that you NEVER talk about music. You only pop your head up when there's these political debate. At least Sabadabada and Vitamin are dudes whom I respect because, even if i dislike their politics, we have commonalities and I can rap with them about music and other shit. And so I'll be a little more direct.
The same could be said for many of your comments. Just like Bush, you avoid answering questions that might threaten your postition.
battling dolo is like canada, liberals talk about it but they dont want to go there.
if youve got a question in mind that ive supposedly refused to answer then bring it.
I admit it, I was being somewhat rhetorical. But your hit-and-run devil's-advocate-style posts would imply that you're the one who's afraid to truly "bring it."
Answer this:
Why did Bush argue that diplomacy was useless when dealing with Saddam Hussein, when he seems willing to give Kim Jong-il all the time in the world?
Kim Jong-il is clearly the more dangerous of the two. And he clearly wants to use weapons of mass destruction (which we know he has). So what gives? What's our brave president's master plan?
Why did Bush argue that diplomacy was useless when dealing with Saddam Hussein, when he seems willing to give Kim Jong-il all the time in the world?
Kim Jong-il is clearly the more dangerous of the two. And he clearly wants to use weapons of mass destruction (which we know he has). So what gives? What's our brave president's master plan?
I really don't want to speak for sabadoodoo but, the quick answer is China, I don't think we want to piss them off, and also if we had a ground war with Korea the 2500 dead soldiers from Iraq would probably be a single day average in Korea
Not like this conversation is really going to go anywhere, but comparing Bush's policy towards Iraq and North Korea is not a good fit.
North Korean artillery can hit Seoul, and their missiles can hit Japan. Going to war with them would be a REAL war, not a push over followed by an insurgency like Iraq.
A better comparison would be between Iraq, Iran and Libya.
Iran's nuke situation we've talked about before, but not only that Iran has clear links with Islamic terrorists such as Hezbollah and Hamas, and has continued anti-American terrorism all the way up to 9/11, and afterwards.
Libya also had WMD and a much more advanced nuclear program than Iraq's. The U.S. talked about Iraq buying uranium from Niger and buying aluminum tubes for centrifuges, but both of these claims were continually disputed within the U.S. intelligence community. The CIA knew for a fact that Libya was receiving centrifuge technology from Pakistan all the way up to 2003.
As the British Downing Street memos point out: "The case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.???
As it turned out, Libya had been trying to get rid of sanctions and isolation since the end of the Clinton administration through secret talks with the CIA and 3rd parties like England. Bush thought that he could show the world that his tough foreign policy could work so he kept mum about Libya's on-going nuke program and possession of WMD, while the CIA brokered a deal where Libya gave up its weapons programs, renounced terrorism, and paid the families of the Lockerbee airplane bombing compensation. Bush claimed success, but it's pretty apparent that Libya wanted to patch things up way before 9/11. Of course, Khadaffi is still a dictator so Bush's policy about "spreading democracy" took a a day off.
Iran is still a problem however, and until recently the U.S. has basically said Iran needed to give up its nukes, but without the U.S. directly talking to them nor giving them anything in return.
And if you want to bring in the REAL center of Islamic terrorism, WMD and nukes in the world you'd have to talk about Pakistan, which is still working with Iran and North Korea on missiles, has political parties that openly talk about supporting the Taliban and Islamic terrorists in Kashmere, where parts of the intelligence service and military are pro-Al Qaeda, etc. Pakistan also happens to have an authoritarian military government that took power in a coup. Of couse, they got a free pass as well because they said they were against terrorism and Al Qaeda after 9/11.
Why did Bush argue that diplomacy was useless when dealing with Saddam Hussein, when he seems willing to give Kim Jong-il all the time in the world?
Kim Jong-il is clearly the more dangerous of the two. And he clearly wants to use weapons of mass destruction (which we know he has). So what gives? What's our brave president's master plan?
I really don't want to speak for sabadoodoo but, the quick answer is China, I don't think we want to piss them off, and also if we had a ground war with Korea the 2500 dead soldiers from Iraq would probably be a single day average in Korea
Thanks for posting a real answer. (I mean that.)
It does make me wonder, though, what with all the rhetoric about fighting tyranny and spreading democracy, why we're so gung-ho about appeasing China. Not that I want to see a war with them, but don't they flagrantly abuse their citizens too? They may not be as far from a democracy as possible, but they're pretty damn far. I'm not so naive to believe that oil resources are the only difference between Iraq and North Korea, but I think Bush's "We're American and can't be stopped in our quest to free the world from opression!" rhetoric (no, that's not direct quote, just my paraphrasing of how I intepreted his message) quickly disappeared when addressing the subject of North Korea. "Diplomacy takes time," he says. If he were actually concerned with diplomacy, he would have taken more time to be diplomatic with Saddam.
I know this is a complicated issue, one that certainly won't be resolved by a bunch of record-collecting dudes in an online forum, but it bears thinking about (even though a few members of this board would rather you didn't).
If 9/11 hadn't happened, China could have possibly been enemy #1 right now, but that obviously got sidetracked.
American foreign policy towards China has been two fold. On the one hand, there are some in the foreign policy establishment who feel like China might become a rival to the U.S. in the near future in both economic and military terms. That's seen as a threat to those who want America to remain the only super power, what's otherwise known as "mantaining its hegemony." Rumsfeld and some neocons at the beginning of the Bush administration were really pushing this view, and if you remmeber there was that whole U.S. spy plane incident that pushed it along. On the other hand, there's the fact that the U.S. and China are major trading partners. China has also begun investing a lot of money into America, some of which helps prop up the budget deficit. That side is pushing for more cooperation. The economic side tends to win out over the potential rival side. Because of the economic ties, the U.S. tends to be mute about China's internal politics.
i was thinking of following the sabadoodoo line and calling you stinkyface or saying "george w bush could totally beat your moms ass" but you know i am having a decent day and decided against it
It does make me wonder, though, what with all the rhetoric about fighting tyranny and spreading democracy, why we're so gung-ho about appeasing China.
$$$$$$$
do you know how many walmarts we would lose in that war, i don't even want to think about it
Not that I want to see a war with them, but don't they flagrantly abuse their citizens too? They may not be as far from a democracy as possible, but they're pretty damn far. I'm not so naive to believe that oil resources are the only difference between Iraq and North Korea, but I think Bush's "We're American and can't be stopped in our quest to free the world from opression!" rhetoric (no, that's not direct quote, just my paraphrasing of how I intepreted his message) quickly disappeared when addressing the subject of North Korea. "Diplomacy takes time," he says. If he were actually concerned with diplomacy, he would have taken more time to be diplomatic with Saddam.
I know this is a complicated issue, one that certainly won't be resolved by a bunch of record-collecting dudes in an online forum, but it bears thinking about (even though a few members of this board would rather you didn't).
i think that the policy with China is a wait and see kind of deal, when the youth of that country takes the reigns i think the abuse may slowly stop, the youth want to be more western than previous generations and this may help change in time, motown may say iam full of shit (and he could be right) but at least thats what i hope may happen, this is the same with iran, the youth are the answer to the problems there as well, i just hope time is on ours and their sides
comparing Bush's policy towards Iraq and North Korea is not a good fit.
North Korean artillery can hit Seoul, and their missiles can hit Japan. Going to war with them would be a REAL war, not a push over followed by an insurgency like Iraq.
That was sort of the point I was getting at (but wanted Dolo to address). In response to the original video to this thread, I think that Bush is having a hard time with this subject because he can't fall back on the same rhetoric he used with Iraq, as they are completely different situations.
I feel the two sides you addressed regarding China are just two sides of the same coin. Neither of them actually address human rights abuses or Communism. Whether it's their potential military superiority or economic leverage, it all comes down to money and power. That's what I'd like to see our goverment addressing.
Would you care to share any alternative conclusions?? Keep in mind that factual imformation is usually more valid than bias gibberish.By the way,do you like music?
did you never consider that perhaps he got those qualifications on his own merit?
yeah right! And John Kerry EARNED his purple hearts. Pffft. You're living in a fantasy.
Who said anything about John Kerry?? Are you for real? Does your knee jerk involuntarily while you sleep?
Would you care to share any alternative conclusions?? Keep in mind that factual imformation is usually more valid than bias gibberish.By the way,do you like music?
did you never consider that perhaps he got those qualifications on his own merit?
yeah right! And John Kerry EARNED his purple hearts. Pffft. You're living in a fantasy.
Who said anything about John Kerry?? Are you for real? Does your knee jerk involuntarily while you sleep?
serious. where would this guy be without GOP talking points? it's like "Merit!...right, I know this one....uh John KERRY, right? He didn't MERIT his medals of honor! I got it, right?!"
And if you want to bring in the REAL center of Islamic terrorism, WMD and nukes in the world you'd have to talk about Pakistan, which is still working with Iran and North Korea on missiles, has political parties that openly talk about supporting the Taliban and Islamic terrorists in Kashmere, where parts of the intelligence service and military are pro-Al Qaeda, etc. Pakistan also happens to have an authoritarian military government that took power in a coup. Of couse, they got a free pass as well because they said they were against terrorism and Al Qaeda after 9/11.
I'll agree with Motown here. The center of Islamic terrorism is our "friends" the Pakistanis and the Saudis.
Oh, and Bush the neocon cabal that developed foreign policy in the Bush2 administration is only talking about spreading Democracy in Islamic countries as a means to try to stop the growth of Islamism strut the military (they never served in) and extract natural resources for next to nothing.
Oh, and Bushthe neocon cabal greedy corporate piggies that developed foreign policy in the Bush2 administration is only talking about spreading Democracy in Islamic countries as a means to try to stop the growth of Islamism strut the military (they never served in) and extract natural resources for next to nothing. to loot the treasurey & suck every last dollar they can before they die or are caught (ie "raptured to paradise" (do they get fitty virgins ?)
Would you care to share any alternative conclusions?? Keep in mind that factual imformation is usually more valid than bias gibberish.By the way,do you like music?
did you never consider that perhaps he got those qualifications on his own merit?
yeah right! And John Kerry EARNED his purple hearts. Pffft. You're living in a fantasy.
This is so offensive I don't no what to say.
You think that the navy gives purple hearts to any one who asks?
Do you think that there are 10s, 100s, 1,000s of vetrans who did not earn their purple hearts?
Do you hate all vetrans, or only those who fought in the Viet Nam war.
Or do you only hate vetrans who are Democrats?
Or is it America you hate?
Or is it Democratic vetrans who want to properly armour our troops in Iraq that you hate?
Would you care to share any alternative conclusions?? Keep in mind that factual imformation is usually more valid than bias gibberish.By the way,do you like music?
did you never consider that perhaps he got those qualifications on his own merit?
yeah right! And John Kerry EARNED his purple hearts. Pffft. You're living in a fantasy.
This is so offensive I don't no what to say.
You think that the navy gives purple hearts to any one who asks?
Do you think that there are 10s, 100s, 1,000s of vetrans who did not earn their purple hearts?
Do you hate all vetrans, or only those who fought in the Viet Nam war.
Or do you only hate vetrans who are Democrats?
Or is it America you hate?
Or is it Democratic vetrans who want to properly armour our troops in Iraq that you hate?
Save your fake outrage because you know exactly what I mean. You were better off not knowing what to say ... before you said it.
Would you care to share any alternative conclusions?? Keep in mind that factual imformation is usually more valid than bias gibberish.By the way,do you like music?
did you never consider that perhaps he got those qualifications on his own merit?
yeah right! And John Kerry EARNED his purple hearts. Pffft. You're living in a fantasy.
Save your fake outrage because you know exactly what I mean.
I thought you meant that John Kerry did not earn his purlpe hearts.
Comments
The same could be said for many of your comments. Just like Bush, you avoid answering questions that might threaten your postition.
Apparently politcal success doesn't depend on one's ability to lie undected. The president is not subtle about it, and he's the president.
Would you care to share any alternative conclusions?? Keep in mind that factual imformation is usually more valid than bias gibberish.By the way,do you like music?
did you never consider that perhaps he got those qualifications on his own merit?
battling dolo is like canada, liberals talk about it but they dont want to go there.
if youve got a question in mind that ive supposedly refused to answer then bring it.
yeah right! And John Kerry EARNED his purple hearts. Pffft. You're living in a fantasy.
The question I asked was "DO YOU COLLECT RECORDS?" and you haven't answered that. Others have asked you comparable questions. You have not answered. I've also noticed that you NEVER talk about music. You only pop your head up when there's these political debate. At least Sabadabada and Vitamin are dudes whom I respect because, even if i dislike their politics, we have commonalities and I can rap with them about music and other shit. And so I'll be a little more direct.
What are you even doing here?[/b]
I admit it, I was being somewhat rhetorical. But your hit-and-run devil's-advocate-style posts would imply that you're the one who's afraid to truly "bring it."
Answer this:
Why did Bush argue that diplomacy was useless when dealing with Saddam Hussein, when he seems willing to give Kim Jong-il all the time in the world?
Kim Jong-il is clearly the more dangerous of the two. And he clearly wants to use weapons of mass destruction (which we know he has). So what gives? What's our brave president's master plan?
I really don't want to speak for sabadoodoo but, the quick answer is China, I don't think we want to piss them off, and also if we had a ground war with Korea the 2500 dead soldiers from Iraq would probably be a single day average in Korea
would you please sign up for the marines
North Korean artillery can hit Seoul, and their missiles can hit Japan. Going to war with them would be a REAL war, not a push over followed by an insurgency like Iraq.
A better comparison would be between Iraq, Iran and Libya.
Iran's nuke situation we've talked about before, but not only that Iran has clear links with Islamic terrorists such as Hezbollah and Hamas, and has continued anti-American terrorism all the way up to 9/11, and afterwards.
Libya also had WMD and a much more advanced nuclear program than Iraq's. The U.S. talked about Iraq buying uranium from Niger and buying aluminum tubes for centrifuges, but both of these claims were continually disputed within the U.S. intelligence community. The CIA knew for a fact that Libya was receiving centrifuge technology from Pakistan all the way up to 2003.
As the British Downing Street memos point out: "The case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.???
As it turned out, Libya had been trying to get rid of sanctions and isolation since the end of the Clinton administration through secret talks with the CIA and 3rd parties like England. Bush thought that he could show the world that his tough foreign policy could work so he kept mum about Libya's on-going nuke program and possession of WMD, while the CIA brokered a deal where Libya gave up its weapons programs, renounced terrorism, and paid the families of the Lockerbee airplane bombing compensation. Bush claimed success, but it's pretty apparent that Libya wanted to patch things up way before 9/11. Of course, Khadaffi is still a dictator so Bush's policy about "spreading democracy" took a a day off.
Iran is still a problem however, and until recently the U.S. has basically said Iran needed to give up its nukes, but without the U.S. directly talking to them nor giving them anything in return.
And if you want to bring in the REAL center of Islamic terrorism, WMD and nukes in the world you'd have to talk about Pakistan, which is still working with Iran and North Korea on missiles, has political parties that openly talk about supporting the Taliban and Islamic terrorists in Kashmere, where parts of the intelligence service and military are pro-Al Qaeda, etc. Pakistan also happens to have an authoritarian military government that took power in a coup. Of couse, they got a free pass as well because they said they were against terrorism and Al Qaeda after 9/11.
Thanks for posting a real answer. (I mean that.)
It does make me wonder, though, what with all the rhetoric about fighting tyranny and spreading democracy, why we're so gung-ho about appeasing China. Not that I want to see a war with them, but don't they flagrantly abuse their citizens too? They may not be as far from a democracy as possible, but they're pretty damn far. I'm not so naive to believe that oil resources are the only difference between Iraq and North Korea, but I think Bush's "We're American and can't be stopped in our quest to free the world from opression!" rhetoric (no, that's not direct quote, just my paraphrasing of how I intepreted his message) quickly disappeared when addressing the subject of North Korea. "Diplomacy takes time," he says. If he were actually concerned with diplomacy, he would have taken more time to be diplomatic with Saddam.
I know this is a complicated issue, one that certainly won't be resolved by a bunch of record-collecting dudes in an online forum, but it bears thinking about (even though a few members of this board would rather you didn't).
American foreign policy towards China has been two fold. On the one hand, there are some in the foreign policy establishment who feel like China might become a rival to the U.S. in the near future in both economic and military terms. That's seen as a threat to those who want America to remain the only super power, what's otherwise known as "mantaining its hegemony." Rumsfeld and some neocons at the beginning of the Bush administration were really pushing this view, and if you remmeber there was that whole U.S. spy plane incident that pushed it along. On the other hand, there's the fact that the U.S. and China are major trading partners. China has also begun investing a lot of money into America, some of which helps prop up the budget deficit. That side is pushing for more cooperation. The economic side tends to win out over the potential rival side. Because of the economic ties, the U.S. tends to be mute about China's internal politics.
i was thinking of following the sabadoodoo line and calling you stinkyface or saying "george w bush could totally beat your moms ass" but you know i am having a decent day and decided against it
$$$$$$$
do you know how many walmarts we would lose in that war, i don't even want to think about it
i think that the policy with China is a wait and see kind of deal, when the youth of that country takes the reigns i think the abuse may slowly stop, the youth want to be more western than previous generations and this may help change in time, motown may say iam full of shit (and he could be right) but at least thats what i hope may happen, this is the same with iran, the youth are the answer to the problems there as well, i just hope time is on ours and their sides
That was sort of the point I was getting at (but wanted Dolo to address). In response to the original video to this thread, I think that Bush is having a hard time with this subject because he can't fall back on the same rhetoric he used with Iraq, as they are completely different situations.
I feel the two sides you addressed regarding China are just two sides of the same coin. Neither of them actually address human rights abuses or Communism. Whether it's their potential military superiority or economic leverage, it all comes down to money and power. That's what I'd like to see our goverment addressing.
Who said anything about John Kerry?? Are you for real? Does your knee jerk involuntarily while you sleep?
there's no way this is acting. dude is for real. if this is acting dude is like beyond Brando level. oscar caliber for sure.
serious. where would this guy be without GOP talking points? it's like "Merit!...right, I know this one....uh John KERRY, right? He didn't MERIT his medals of honor! I got it, right?!"
I'll agree with Motown here. The center of Islamic terrorism is our "friends" the Pakistanis and the Saudis.
right on !
with friends like them ............
This is so offensive I don't no what to say.
You think that the navy gives purple hearts to any one who asks?
Do you think that there are 10s, 100s, 1,000s of vetrans who did not earn their purple hearts?
Do you hate all vetrans, or only those who fought in the Viet Nam war.
Or do you only hate vetrans who are Democrats?
Or is it America you hate?
Or is it Democratic vetrans who want to properly armour our troops in Iraq that you hate?
Save your fake outrage because you know exactly what I mean. You were better off not knowing what to say ... before you said it.