The frightening legacy of George W Bush

[just maybe]

So those born elsewhere that are US citizens are still classified as foreigners. Strange concept.

Now you are also assuming why people have taken US citizenship.

Seems you keep changing the boundaries when it suits from your original statement "the 1st attack on mainland US soil since the 19th century."

So we now have to assume its a foreign attack, doesnt have to be state sanctioned but must include foreigners. Then when these people arent foreigners but US citizens, we must also assume that their only reason for citizenship is for the sole purpsoe of an attack. Geez theres a lot to read into one little statement.

Actually, most people had no problem understanding what I meant, you are the only one who tried to pick at it and looked like a fool in the process.

And when 15 of the 19 attackers are Saudi citizens, it is undeniably a foreign attack.

Time to give up, skip. Your attempts have been feeble. You've lost. Deal with it. Stop making up things like 'attacks are used in the domestic sense as well' and 'foreign attacks must be state-sanctioned' and 'terrorists who got US citizenship and then launched an attack are really domestic criminals'.

Very poor.

 

[skipper kelly]

Nice sidestep, but nothing you posted addresses the post it quoted.

 

[just maybe]

Nice sidestep, but nothing you posted addresses the post it quoted.

Yes it did.

Time for you to give up, you're not fooling anyone with your vendetta against me. Even rJ didn't bother to support you.

You're all alone in your...erm...'opinion'.

Now, speaking of addressing what's posted: how about you address the thread? Ooops, that one escape you did it?

Seems you're not going to, so leave now.

 

[- PC -]

I dont understand what you mean PC.

Edited for clarity.

Originally Posted by skipper kelly
What foreign country sanctioned 911?

According to Bush and co it must have been Afghanistan and Iraq... America , surely, wouldnt attack innocent nations would they?

 

[skipper kelly]

Yes it did.

Time for you to give up, you're not fooling anyone with your vendetta against me. Even rJ didn't bother to support you.

You're all alone in your...erm...'opinion'.

Now, speaking of addressing what's posted: how about you address the thread? Ooops, that one escape you did it?

Seems you're not going to, so leave now.

Whats wrong mate?

Im starting with the 1st point you made which is clearly incorrect.

You stated this. Point 1.

"the 1st attack on mainland US soil since the 19th century."

This statement is clearly incorrect. But you then sidestep the issue and say I must assume that you meant foreign attack. You then use your own opinion of what foreign attack means, and disregard what others believe foreign attack means. Then even using your definition you disregard US citizens that are involved making assumptions for those peoples reason of citizenship. So please clarify what is to be assumed in your OP.

Then we can move onto 'attack'. What size attach must it be? What must the minimum body count be?

Maybe you should be more clear in what you write.
"the 1st attack on mainland US soil since the 19th century." is a mere opnion and speculation.

What you should have written is quite simple.

"Bush was president on September 11, 2001."


Then we could argue whether the attack had anything to do with Bush being president.

 

[skipper kelly]

Edited for clarity.

Im still not clear what you mean. Are you implying that the US govt was involved in 911. If so then you must disagree that it was a foreign attack.

 

[Frodo]

The other day I was thinking over the legacy Bush will leave behind after one of the worst Presidential tenures of all time. In no particular order:

- the first attack on mainland US soil since the 19th century
- the deterioriation of relations with China
- the alienation of numerous countries with rhetoric such as 'axis of evil'
- the denial of 'global warming' as a phenomenon and a refusal to face it as a policy issue
- horrifically slow responses to Hurricane Katrina and to a lesser extent, Rita, turning parts of the Deep South into Third World scenes
- the deepening instability of the US economy
- the invasion of two sovereign countries (Iraq and Afghanistan)
- overseeing Iraq descend into chaos, brutally exposing US lack of a post-Saddam plan
- the increasing crisis of the worst health system in the First World
- the refusal to work with others to reduce pollution and emissions
- the demotion of human rights as a practical priority (cf: Abu Ghraib, Guantanomo Bay etc)
- the unveiling and actual use of the repugnant 'pre-emption' doctrine
- the chance to load the Supreme Court for two generations in deeply conservative, Republican favour
- the disturbingly increased fusion of church and state in politics
- the weakening of the UN as a multilateral organisation
- the push for the National Missile Defence doctrine
- the double standards on nuclear proliferation
- the unqualified support of Israel
- the double standards on human rights and 'terrorism'
- the fragmentation of world trade through bilateral focus
- deliberately giving the finger to world free trade with the astonishingly protectionist US Farm Bill

I'm sure there's plenty more, that's just off the top of my head...but that is genuinely scary.

Are you joining Al Queada?

 

[- PC -]

Im still not clear what you mean. Are you implying that the US govt was involved in 911. If so then you must disagree that it was a foreign attack.

Huh? How the hell did you get that? I was being sarcastic in saying Iraq and Afghanistan because they were the 2 countries America attacked in relation to 11/9

 

[skipper kelly]

Huh? How the hell did you get that? I was being sarcastic in saying Iraq and Afghanistan because they were the 2 countries America attacked in relation to 11/9

as I said PC I was unclear as to what you meant. I thought you were a conspiracy theorist and it was a sarcastic response to that. My apologies to you.

 

[just maybe]

Whats wrong mate?

Im starting with the 1st point you made which is clearly incorrect.

Wrong.

You stated this. Point 1.

"the 1st attack on mainland US soil since the 19th century."

This statement is clearly incorrect. But you then sidestep the issue and say I must assume that you meant foreign attack. You then use your own opinion of what foreign attack means, and disregard what others believe foreign attack means. Then even using your definition you disregard US citizens that are involved making assumptions for those peoples reason of citizenship. So please clarify what is to be assumed in your OP.

Not clearly incorrect. I didn't need you to assume it meant foreign attack. Attack used in that sense is understood to mean external - because an internal attack is called a CRIME. Funny about that.

Then we can move onto 'attack'. What size attach must it be? What must the minimum body count be?

Irrelevant.

Maybe you should be more clear in what you write.
"the 1st attack on mainland US soil since the 19th century." is a mere opnion and speculation.

Not at all. It's only opinion because you don't want to be wrong, despite thousands of sources describing it as such. But of course they're wrong and you're right.

What you should have written is quite simple.

"Bush was president on September 11, 2001."


Then we could argue whether the attack had anything to do with Bush being president.

And if you weren't being a pedantic, difficult troll, then we could make the discussion. You were well aware of what it meant, as was everyone else, but instead you chose to attack the way I put it, despite countless other commentators doing exactly the same.

This is evidence that you have no interest in contributing to the topic at hand and simply trying to have a go at me.

 

[- PC -]

as I said PC I was unclear as to what you meant. I thought you were a conspiracy theorist and it was a sarcastic response to that. My apologies to you.

Well I am a conspiracy nut .. and while I do think there may have been American citizens behind this I have no proof apart from coincidental occurences and the absence of a few things I would have expected to be there.

 

[skipper kelly]

Not clearly incorrect. I didn't need you to assume it meant foreign attack. Attack used in that sense is understood to mean external - because an internal attack is called a CRIME. Funny about that.

an eternal attack is also a crime. Funny about that.

Irrelevant.

Now you have really lost me.

Lets use your logic.

a. An internal attack is not an attack but a crime.
a.1.Internal means US citizens.
b. An external attack is an attack.
b.1.External means not US citizens.
c.The size of an attack is irrelevant.

Lets for the sake of the argument assume that at least 1 death must take place for it to be called an attack.

If a death is caused by a foreigner, is it an attack or a crime?

Not at all. It's only opinion because you don't want to be wrong, despite thousands of sources describing it as such. But of course they're wrong and you're right.

Right or wrong is of no concern to me. That seems to be your domain.

And if you weren't being a pedantic, difficult troll, then we could make the discussion. You were well aware of what it meant, as was everyone else, but instead you chose to attack the way I put it, despite countless other commentators doing exactly the same.

This is evidence that you have no interest in contributing to the topic at hand and simply trying to have a go at me

Incorrect. I am very much interested in discussion.

But you set the tone with comments like this

I never said it was 100% accurate. Don't misquote me. I said it was not a lie. And it isn't. It is a twisting of the facts to paint a certain picture.

Now you cant have it both ways. It is either word perfect or not.

 

[skipper kelly]

Well I am a conspiracy nut .. and while I do think there may have been American citizens behind this I have no proof apart from coincidental occurences and the absence of a few things I would have expected to be there.

Thought you were. Nothing wrong with a good conspiracy nut. Usually makes for good reading. Im sure you can now partly understand my comment to you.

 

[skipper kelly]

What about the WTC bombing in 1993. Is that classified as an external attack. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed looks fairly 'external' to me.

 

[section8]

Okay then.

Global temperatures have always fluctuated, yes. This is a graph of global temperature change and atmospheric CO2 levels over the last 450,000 years.

Note that the largest change has occurred between 20,000 to 8,000 years ago, with a 12 degree change prior to a stable period with some minor cooling in the last 10,000 years. Note that it was a change of approximately 1 degree per 1,000 years.

And, because you cannot see it that well on the first graph, heres the graph of atmospheric CO2, which is at the highest level in the last 450,000 years.

You'll note we've put over a third more CO2 into the atmosphere in the last 200 years.

Now, here is a graph of the temperature change in the last 80 years.

Since the 1920's the temperature has risen from an average of 13.8 degrees to 14.6, or even from 13.9 to 14.6 degrees since 1980. Thats a rise of 0.8 degrees in 80 years and there is no sign of any downward trend in the graph.

So after a global temperature rise of one degree celcius per 1,000 years, we are now experiencing a global temperature rise of one degree celcius per 100 years at exactly the same time the global atmospheric CO2 has increased by a third. If this doesn't constitute a "consistent, widespread basis at a rate which significantly exceeds any past increments" then I have a bridge I would like to sell you. Going cheap.

Correlation does not imply causation. Could there be competing alternative explanations for the 1C increment?

What proportion of the CO2 increase can be attributed to man. Are there any other possible explanations for the increase?

 

[Monkster]

What about the WTC bombing in 1993. Is that classified as an external attack. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed looks fairly 'external' to me.

Damn you I was just about to post that

BTW JM, just because Timothy McVeigh was a US citizen doesnt make it any less of an "attack"

at·tack Audio pronunciation of "attack" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-tk)
v. at·tacked, at·tack·ing, at·tacks
v. tr.

1. To set upon with violent force.

 

[dan warna]

Correlation does not imply causation. Could there be competing alternative explanations for the 1C increment?

What proportion of the CO2 increase can be attributed to man. Are there any other possible explanations for the increase?

LMFAO

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

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

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.

 

[just maybe]

an eternal attack is also a crime. Funny about that.

It's not a domestic crime.

Now you have really lost me.

Lets use your logic.

a. An internal attack is not an attack but a crime.
a.1.Internal means US citizens.
b. An external attack is an attack.
b.1.External means not US citizens.
c.The size of an attack is irrelevant.

Lets for the sake of the argument assume that at least 1 death must take place for it to be called an attack.

If a death is caused by a foreigner, is it an attack or a crime?

The size of the attack is not irrelevant, but it is here, because 3000 people died so it's clear it was a large scale attack.

And I never said external means 'not US citizens'.

Right or wrong is of no concern to me. That seems to be your domain.

Incorrect. Thousands more commentators other than me have ascribed it exactly as I have. According to you, they're wrong. Very arrogant.

Incorrect. I am very much interested in discussion.

But you set the tone with comments like this

Now you cant have it both ways. It is either word perfect or not.

Perhaps if you'd bothered to read the thread instead of zeroing in on me, you'd have noticed that the quote you foolishly attacked me on just there was in reference to something Murray said, not to my original list.

Once again, if you weren't being a pedantic, difficult troll, then we could make the discussion. You were well aware of what it meant, as was everyone else, but instead you chose to attack the way I put it, despite countless other commentators doing exactly the same.

This is evidence that you have no interest in contributing to the topic at hand and simply trying to have a go at me.

 

[moistie]

Correlation does not imply causation. Could there be competing alternative explanations for the 1C increment?

But according to your earlier argument, there is not 100% agreement upon the cause so you won't accept any information I provide anyway.

What proportion of the CO2 increase can be attributed to man. Are there any other possible explanations for the increase?

Please provide me with what you believe to be this "natural" cause of a third rise in levels of CO2 in the Earths atmosphere. The fact that since the Industrial Revolution occurred we've been burning coal and fossil fuels that has released CO2 into the atmosphere at a rate greater than any time in the last 450,000 years isn't good enough for you?

No? It must be a natural cause then.

 

[just maybe]

Correlation does not imply causation. Could there be competing alternative explanations for the 1C increment?

What proportion of the CO2 increase can be attributed to man. Are there any other possible explanations for the increase?

The most sensislbe and logical explanation, based on the data provided, is that it is man-made.

It is up to you to provide an equally logical, competing explanation that can show us another possible explanation that is able to discount all the coal and fossil fuels we have burnt this century and well, this other possible explanation must be pretty amazing, because it has had such a sudden, immediate impact in the 20th century yet hasn't in any of the previous 45,000 centuries or whatever?

So what are these alternative explanations? Because it sounds pretty far-fetched that something natural 'magically' manifested itself into global warming and it wasn't caused by humans. Occam's Razor says the simplest explanation is often the right one...and I think humans causing global warming is a simple explanation. Where's your simpler one?

 

[Monkster]

I'm upset JM won't respond to my post about Tim McVeigh attacking the US mainland

 

[skipper kelly]

And I never said external means 'not US citizens'.

You never said foreign attack either, but you tell me I must assume that. Now you are telling me that your supposed external attack as opposed to internal doesnt have to be carried out by non US citizens. So external can also mean internal and US citizens can carry out external attacks and non US citizens can carry out internal crimes. All of course depending on what best suits your argument at the time. And of course all this is to be assumed from your lil ole statement "the first attack on mainland US soil since the 19th century"

Lets look at examples.

WTC 1993 by your reckoning is a domestic crime.
WTC 2001 by your reckoning is an external attack.

It is quite clear that you are making it up on the run.

Now it is clearly established that your 1st statement is incorrect, can we move onto the next point, which is yes the WTC 2001 was and still is frightening, and yes it did occur under the watch of the Bush Presidency. Great. Well done. Lets state the bleeding obvious. Can you tell me what cause the Bush presidency had in the events preceeding 911. Can you tell me what policy's the Bush presidency had that led to 911. Can you tell me when the 911 attacks were planned. Were there threats of this attack prior to the Bush presidency? Was the attack and subsequent murder of 3000 people a direct result of the Bush presidency?

 

[skipper kelly]

I'm upset JM won't respond to my post about Tim McVeigh attacking the US mainland

Dont worry, he will only call you a troll if you dispute anything he says.

 

[rick James]

I just love the way he even admits he worded it a certain way to give a certian impression.

Well done jm, you've badly worded a lot of opinon to try and give a false impression and won't hold yourself accountable for it.

You could bloody well work for Bush, hell you could BE him.

 

[just maybe]

I just love the way he even admits he worded it a certain way to give a certian impression.

Well done jm, you've badly worded a lot of opinon to try and give a false impression and won't hold yourself accountable for it.

You could bloody well work for Bush, hell you could BE him.

Michael Moore did not lie, and the source Monkster (NOT you) posted even admits Moore could actually be RIGHT.

Oops, should check your sources before quoting them