The frightening legacy of George W Bush

[just maybe]

Ok cool, but you could have just admitted it was your opinion (for now at least) too a while back and saved us both the trouble.

It's NOT an opinion. It's a possibility.

Anyway, the only ones I think you've really missed hte mark on are the attack on US soil one, and the global warming one.

The US soil one could be more stringently defined to satisfy the pedants, but as I have evidenced, most people understand exactly what I am saying.

With global warming it's easy for us to accept it, but it makes a MASSIVE difference if the president acknowledges it without 100% factual evidence.

As I said earlier, the best thing to do with global warming is invest a lot mroe money into alternative resources, even though they have their own drawbacks. It's impossible to have a mandate to FORCE people to use less oil, but then, that wasn't your point now anyway was it?

But it is far more irresponsible to completely deny it than to admit it is a problem and most likely IS caused by humans - there is nothing wrong with that statement. By denying it and pretending it has no effect (ie like claiming it had nothing to do with Katrina and Rita), it is completely irresponsible on behalf of the Bush Administration.

By admitting the likelihood and actually trying to do something about it, you are making an effort. Denying it is just an excuse to do nothing.

 

[Monkster]

Er...nothing was said about 'terrorist'.

Ok so foreign attacks are much worse than domestic terrorist ones? ok cool gotcha

You might as well write to all journals and newspapers and speech writers and tell them how wrong they are for not using dictionary perfect English

But they aren't wrong as I have shown all of them have used the word attack to describe something that was "set upon with violent force." you're the only one who isn't.

 

[Monkster]

The US soil one could be more stringently defined to satisfy the pedants, but as I have evidenced, most people understand exactly what I am saying.

The OK City terrorist attack has nothing to do with paying "undue attention to book learning and formal rules."

It WAS an attack (I'd call using a weapon of mass destruction, which is what Timothy McVeigh was convicted of (murder using a weapon of mass destruction) violent force wouldn't you?) and it WAS on the US mainland (did you OK City was in Alaska or something?)

 

[just maybe]

The OK City terrorist attack has nothing to do with paying "undue attention to book learning and formal rules."

It WAS an attack (I'd call using a weapon of mass destruction, which is what Timothy McVeigh was convicted of (murder using a weapon of mass destruction) violent force wouldn't you?) and it WAS on the US mainland (did you OK City was in Alaska or something?)

So explain why thousands of other commentators have said exactly what I did?

You still haven't, so I expect you to send all those emails, telling them they are wrong.

 

[Monkster]

So explain why thousands of other commentators have said exactly what I did?

You still haven't, so I expect you to send all those emails, telling them they are wrong.

What "thousands of other commentators"? Please provide some cites for this as I have done if you wish me to take your arguement seriously and not believe you're just making it up as you go along.

 

[just maybe]

What "thousands of other commentators"? Please provide some cites for this as I have done if you wish me to take your arguement seriously and not believe you're just making it up as you go along.

Once again...perhaps you should reread the thread...

 

[Monkster]

Once again...perhaps you should reread the thread...

Ok I have had a look through the thread

this one: http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/September_11,_2001_attacks

refers to it as "the first highly lethal attack by a foreign force on the U.S. mainland since the War of 1812"

So that takes that off the list of people calling it the first attack.

Ok this one: http://www.lifeway.com/lwc/article_main_page/0,1703,A%3D154973%26M%3D50011,00.html

says "the deadliest terrorist attack in U.S. history." can't deny that one but doesn't make it the first since 19th century.

"the first attack on the U.S. mainland since the British invasion during the War of 1812."

If i can find Livingstones e-mail address I'll remind him of OK, I'll let you know if he responds to me.

I'll also remind the author of this one: http://www.jhcrawford.com/op-ed/wtc.html

of OK, although I'm sure since he wrote it 4 years ago he might be a little upset that I'm bringing the point up now.


Your quote from this page: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Protected/Articles/000/000/002/723icbol.asp

" It was the first attack on US soil since the British burned the White House in 1814"

Is actually talking about the Pearl Harbour bombing as you can see....

"ON DECEMBER 7, 1941, the American fleet at Pearl Harbor was attacked by the Japanese Empire. U.S. losses were 19 ships sunk, 265 airplanes struck, and 2,403 dead. It was the first attack on U.S. soil since the British burned the White House in 1814"

You may have wanted to use this quote instead

"It was the first attack by a foreign power on the American mainland since the British burned the White House in 1814"

but that clearly says foreign power, so let's take this site off your references shall we?

Lastly we have: http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/September-11,-2001-Terrorist-Attack

From which the entire quote is:

"The attacks were the most lethal attack ever by a foreign force on the U.S., and the first upon the mainland since the War of 1812."

Now are they saying it was the first attack since 1812? Or the first by a foreign force? I'm going with the latter since it seems to imply that.

So there we have it out of all your references TWO of them said it was the first attack on the US mainland, all the others said they were the first attack by foreigners, hardly "thousands of commentators"

I also found this posted by you on page 12

"Oklahoma City bombing was not an attack, it was a domestic crime. If you are going to be that stupid as to claim Oklahoma City as an attack in the proper sense, all crime must be considered an attack on mainland US soil."

So Cnn and the Chicago Tribune are stupid as well? since they quite clearly stated they were terrorist ATTACKS.

I look forward to your reply

 

[just maybe]

Ok I have had a look through the thread

this one: http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/September_11,_2001_attacks

refers to it as "the first highly lethal attack by a foreign force on the U.S. mainland since the War of 1812"

So that takes that off the list of people calling it the first attack.

No it doesn't.

Your quote from this page: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Protected/Articles/000/000/002/723icbol.asp

" It was the first attack on US soil since the British burned the White House in 1814"

Is actually talking about the Pearl Harbour bombing as you can see....

"ON DECEMBER 7, 1941, the American fleet at Pearl Harbor was attacked by the Japanese Empire. U.S. losses were 19 ships sunk, 265 airplanes struck, and 2,403 dead. It was the first attack on U.S. soil since the British burned the White House in 1814"

You may have wanted to use this quote instead

"It was the first attack by a foreign power on the American mainland since the British burned the White House in 1814"

but that clearly says foreign power, so let's take this site off your references shall we?

You might want to e-mail and tell him Pearl Harbour wasn't US soil at the time...

Lastly we have: http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/September-11,-2001-Terrorist-Attack

From which the entire quote is:

"The attacks were the most lethal attack ever by a foreign force on the U.S., and the first upon the mainland since the War of 1812."

Now are they saying it was the first attack since 1812? Or the first by a foreign force? I'm going with the latter since it seems to imply that.

That's funny, you're happy to imply something into his statement and not to mine? Double standards, eh?

So there we have it out of all your references TWO of them said it was the first attack on the US mainland, all the others said they were the first attack by foreigners, hardly "thousands of commentators"

Go look up the phrase in Google and you'll find page after page. Not too hard.

I also found this posted by you on page 12

"Oklahoma City bombing was not an attack, it was a domestic crime. If you are going to be that stupid as to claim Oklahoma City as an attack in the proper sense, all crime must be considered an attack on mainland US soil."

So Cnn and the Chicago Tribune are stupid as well? since they quite clearly stated they were terrorist ATTACKS.

I look forward to your reply

OK, I'll admit that perhaps my choice of words could have been more specific and explicit.

But the reality is, everyone understood what I was saying except pedants like you and skipper kelly who knew EXACTLY what I meant but were determined to try and cause trouble by hauling me up on it anyway. And what was the point of that? Seems very much like trolling behaviour - taking the thread completely off-topic to satisfy a clarification issue is pathetic and unnecessary.

I look forward to your reply, justifying you and skip's effort to ruin this thread by trying to bring down a point you understood exactly. I'd love to hear your explanation of why it was necessary.

 

[section8]

LMFAO

the evidence is put in front of you and you still can't see.

What if I were to display a graph displaying the concomitant increase in greenpeace members over the past 50 years? Could I use that as explanation for global warming? It seems that anything goes once you devise a theory

no doubt you still believe the world was created by God 6,431 years ago

Ahhh...I see. Anyone that dissents is classed as a Right Wing Christian Death Beast. As an atheist, I couldn't care who or what created it. Sorry, I'm not promoting any agenda for you to attack. Well actually, I do have an agenda. I hate scaremongers that dress-up opinion, without sufficient empirical validation, as fact.

as for cause

the measureable output from coal power stations, the use of CFCs have been measured in the rate of destruction of 03 (known as ozone), the measureable output from vehicles, the measureable rate of sulfur compounds released from manufacturing which does not have chemical shielding before being released in tot he atmosphere, and suprisingly the measureable mass release of gas from domesticated cattle.

The output from man modifications to the environment have been measured and catalogued.

And, the theory has expanded to include compounds created by man other than CO2 as being responsible for GW? Got to cover all your bases I guess.

Would you be so kind as to quote sources for the above?

 

[moistie]

What if I were to display a graph displaying the concomitant increase in greenpeace members over the past 50 years? Could I use that as explanation for global warming?

If you're full of s**t, yes. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has been scientifically proven to trap radiant heat from the surface of the earth and cause heating.

Would you care to provide evidence of:
1 Where the CO2 that has appeared since the Industrial Revolution is coming from if it was not caused by man.
2 Proof that CO2 does not trap heat in the atmosphere so you can happily blame it on "the Greenies".
3 Evidence of what is causing global temperatures to rise at a rate ten times faster than the historical average.

Well actually, I do have an agenda. I hate scaremongers that dress-up opinion, without sufficient empirical validation, as fact.

So a rise in global temperature of nearly one degree celcius in one tenth the time it normally occurs while global CO2 levels massively increase due to human input isn't enough proof? Why don't we just sit on our hands then and wait until temperatures rise further so you can get your empirical data you need to satisfy yourself?

Do you have any idea of what effect a rise in global temperatures of one degree in the space of a century will have upon global ecosystems?

And, the theory has expanded to include compounds created by man other than CO2 as being responsible for GW? Got to cover all your bases I guess.

Considering Ozone, CFC's, methane and other pollution we spew into the atmosphere does have Greenhouse properties, then yes. CO2 is not the cause of global warming, its one of many.

Would you be so kind as to quote sources for the above?

Would you be so kind as to provide evidence as to why you're so convinced global warming is not a threat?

 

[skipper kelly]

Yes it is a crime, not an attack, for everyday purposes. Otherwise you might as well call any violent crime an 'attack'.

There is a difference between dictionary definitions and the way people use language every day.

Pedants like you, unfortunately, seem to have problems understanding the social uses of language.

Once again making it up on the run. Using definitions when its suits, disregarding definitions when it suits. Using quotes off the net when it suits, disregarding quotes off the net when it suits.

So are you saying that the WTC1993 was not an attack?

 

[skipper kelly]

No, it's just quite clear you are running against the grain and unable to support in any way except going against common understanding.

What is this common understanding you speak? Is that when I have to assume things that arent written? Is it when I have to assume that internal means external and external means internal and an attack is only an attack when it is a foreign attack but those foreign attacks can be internal or external depending on your argument.

I think the incompetence of the Bush Administration in the lead-up to the attacks has been clearly established.

And whether or not he caused it, it still counts as the legacy of his presidency. If it had occurred during Clinton's presidency, it would be part of Clinton's legacy. But it didn't.

And there is no shred of doubt that the Bush Administration has a far worse reputation in the Middle East than the Clinton Administration.

Nice question avoiding. Please answer the questions.

 

[skipper kelly]

Er...nothing was said about 'terrorist'.

I'm simply asking if you're willing to email the thousands of commentators who described it in the exact same way I did, and tell them they're all wrong and you're right.

And even more fundamentally, are you making the remarkable assumption that all people are too stupid to figure out the terms of reference with the statement myself and other commentators made? If you break it down to the most specific definition, you of course can be considered correct by dictionary terms. But in reality, that's not how people understand things and you are simply being pedantic in demanding so. You might as well write to all journals and newspapers and speech writers and tell them how wrong they are for not using dictionary perfect English, that's how pedantic your statement is.

No. Your statement is wrong, an erroneous statment made for the purposes of grandstanding rather than the truth.

 

[skipper kelly]

Already answered, might want to actually read before trying to be smart.

See what I mean Monkster. As soon as you dispute anything look at the response you get.

 

[Monkster]

No it doesn't.

Yes it does because it clearly states it as a FOREIGN attack, your "legacy" claimed it as the first attack YOU ARE WRONG.

You might want to e-mail and tell him Pearl Harbour wasn't US soil at the time...

July 7, 1898 Hawaii is annexed to the United State
1900 Hawaii becomes a United States Territory

http://www.hawaiian-roots.com/timeline.htm

again YOU ARE WRONG it was US soil it just wasn't a state.

That's funny, you're happy to imply something into his statement and not to mine? Double standards, eh?

Why would I get the implication that you meant a foreign attack on the US mainland when you clearly said an attack on US soil, oh btw just so you know legally the attacks during the late 90s on US embassies also counts as an attack on US soil.

Go look up the phrase in Google and you'll find page after page. Not too hard.

I don't have to do your research for you, that's your job.

taking the thread completely off-topic to satisfy a clarification issue is pathetic and unnecessary.

Off-topic? who are you trying to kid here? the topic WAS an attack on US soil during Bush's presidency.

I look forward to your reply, justifying you and skip's effort to ruin this thread by trying to bring down a point you understood exactly. I'd love to hear your explanation of why it was necessary.

Because you are nothing but a blind Bush basher who has no opinions of his own but is merely reciting it practically verbatim (see I can use big words as well) from every other Bush basher, and because I don't think Bush is any worse than any other US President, let's not forget that the USA were targets of terrorist attacks during Clintons term in office.

 

[Monkster]

See what I mean Monkster. As soon as you dispute anything look at the response you get.

That's because he is (and I quote myself here)

nothing but a blind Bush basher who has no opinions of his own but is merely reciting it practically verbatim (see I can use big words as well) from every other Bush basher.

 

[skipper kelly]

well said. Although it really is like talking to a wall

 

[section8]

If you're full of s**t, yes. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has been scientifically proven to trap radiant heat from the surface of the earth and cause heating.

Would you care to provide evidence of:
1 Where the CO2 that has appeared since the Industrial Revolution is coming from if it was not caused by man.
2 Proof that CO2 does not trap heat in the atmosphere so you can happily blame it on "the Greenies".
3 Evidence of what is causing global temperatures to rise at a rate ten times faster than the historical average.

So a rise in global temperature of nearly one degree celcius in one tenth the time it normally occurs while global CO2 levels massively increase due to human input isn't enough proof? Why don't we just sit on our hands then and wait until temperatures rise further so you can get your empirical data you need to satisfy yourself?

Do you have any idea of what effect a rise in global temperatures of one degree century in the space of a century will have upon global ecosystems?

Considering Ozone, CFC's, methane and other pollution we spew into the atmosphere does have Greenhouse properties, then yes. CO2 is not the cause of global warming, its one of many.

Would you be so kind as to provide evidence as to why you're so convinced global warming is not a threat?

"To determine the effects produced from greenhouse gases, scientists look for changes such as warmer weather, warmer ocean temperatures, and a cooler stratosphere. The ability to predict these effects presents many difficulties because the Earth's temperature fluctuates for a variety of reasons. Instruments and techniques used to measure changes have not always been consistent. Although it is difficult to determine how much of the warming effect is man-made, it is fairly certain that humans have contributed to the growth of atmospheric CO2. The increase in CFCs is entirely man-made. The cause of the increase in methane is less well understood.

There is evidence that average surface air temperature has increased worldwide by nearly 1 degree F (0.5 C) since 1850. Given the increase of about 25 percent in atmospheric CO2 between the early 1800s and the present, it might be concluded that the greenhouse effect is producing a global warming.

However, there has been little increase in the last 50 years, which raises questions about whether we really have experienced the effect of increasing CO2. The pattern of changing global temperatures suggests that there may be other factors influencing climate. There is also the possibility that the sensitivity to greenhouse gases is less than what most climate models indicate. Scientists feel an increase of 1degree F ( 0.5 degrees C) in 140 years is not necessarily outside the range of natural climate variability."

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/service/gallery/fact_sheets/earthsci/green.htm

 

[just maybe]

Because you are nothing but a blind Bush basher who has no opinions of his own but is merely reciting it practically verbatim (see I can use big words as well) from every other Bush basher, and because I don't think Bush is any worse than any other US President, let's not forget that the USA were targets of terrorist attacks during Clintons term in office.

That takes away any credibility you had whatsoever.

 

[just maybe]

well said. Although it really is like talking to a wall

No, it's just your statements are wrong, pedantic, unnecessary statements made for the purposes of grandstanding rather than the truth.

 

[just maybe]

What is this common understanding you speak? Is that when I have to assume things that arent written?

Er, yes, people do it every day.

Is it when I have to assume that internal means external and external means internal and an attack is only an attack when it is a foreign attack but those foreign attacks can be internal or external depending on your argument.

Now you're just making things up. Sad.

Nice question avoiding. Please answer the questions.

Answered already. Just because you don't like the answer or it's not 'controversial' enough for you, doesn't invalidate it.

Sick of trolling yet?

 

[Murray]

Someone said this to me once
"I cannot recall anyone changing their opinion on a subject on the basis that they simply lost an argument"

 

[rick James]

Someone said this to me once
"I cannot recall anyone changing their opinion on a subject on the basis that they simply lost an argument"

That person is wrong. I've done it heaps of times.

 

[Monkster]

That takes away any credibility you had whatsoever.

Since you didn't respond to anything else I said, thank you for admitting defeat I do hope next time you decide to talk about someones legacy you check your facts first

 

[Monkster]

Someone said this to me once
"I cannot recall anyone changing their opinion on a subject on the basis that they simply lost an argument"

Changing your opinion is different to admitting you were wrong which is all I'm trying to get just_maybe to do.