BS: NON-Partisan political comments

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Aug 08 - 05:04 PM

Adopted from a post by GUEST,Volgadon


I don't disagree with _______'s cause, it's their methods and fanatic bigotry I have a problem with.

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jun 08 - 06:53 AM

from Ebbie:

"The arrogance of people who know they are right has always been scary. And dangerous. "



Too true, on BOTH ( all?) sides of the issues.

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Mar 08 - 08:41 AM

Eisenhower: "Too far to the left, and too far to the right of the middle of the road are the gutters."

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Mar 08 - 11:18 AM

"Cowardice asks the question: 'Is it safe?' Expediency asks the question: 'is it politic?' Vanity asks the question: 'Is it popular?' But conscience asks the question: 'Is it right'," saying, "there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but one must take it because one's conscience tells one what is right."

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Mar 08 - 07:13 AM

This is a quote I cannot resist having preserved:

"Nothing intrinsically impossible about that either - it just doesn't seem to square with the evidence. "

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: Stringsinger
Date: 29 Dec 07 - 05:51 PM

I try to maintain a dialogue by sticking to the facts of the disputed issue as closely as I can.   It is possible for facts to be analyzed, disputed or agreed upon without ego problems entering in and destroying the dialogue. What I try to do in introducing an idea that may not be accepted is to say "In my personal experience I have found.......". This may not always work if I am going to be attacked for my position regardless.

I think there has to be an element of trust between the people who are engaging in this kind of dialogue. I try to find some area of agreement without having to agree on everything.

I can agree that someone's personal experience might be different from my own. I can also keep a questioning mind about an issue that I might feel sure about. There is always a possibility that I could be wrong about something. I try to look for answers rather than try to win an argument. It's pointless to try to win because this is not convincing.

I think it's possible to get along without having to go along.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: autolycus
Date: 29 Dec 07 - 05:10 AM

This is particularly difficult when arguing with those for whom arguing with their views means you're attacking them. And if they had to agree, they'd crumble as a person. Or something.

Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: katlaughing
Date: 28 Dec 07 - 02:00 PM

Thought this might be an appropriate place to share the following:

THE false can never grow into truth by growing in power.
-- Rabindranath Tagore, "Stray Birds"

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: autolycus
Date: 28 Dec 07 - 12:37 PM

How do you know when you have understood the rationale of another position.

I've met people who think the fact that you continue to argue with them demonstrates you haven't understood.

iow, to understand means to agree.


   Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: Stringsinger
Date: 21 Dec 07 - 06:30 PM

Most people vote gray, Dick. They may not agree with all that the candidate purports.
Voting has become an excercise in relativity. Who is the least harmful? The perpetual disease of "lesser of two evils" reigns over the voting process.

The solution to this is Instant Runoff Voting because this is about the closest we are
going to get to a democratic election. Two choices are given, the person you really want and then the runner-up. Chances are that the one who receives the most votes will be elected,
not like now, where the leading candidates can steal elections.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 20 Dec 07 - 08:29 PM

While recognizing that the world isn't really black and white, how does one vote gray?

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Dec 07 - 05:14 PM

" The solution is understanding the rationale behind a point of view that you don't agree with.
This in no way makes it necessary for you to agree with it but what it does is shed light on
why people think and behave certain ways."


Hear, Hear!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: Stringsinger
Date: 20 Dec 07 - 04:07 PM

There is a notion that there is a "centrist" position in a political spectrum. I consider that
a myth. Because of upbringing, environmental attitudes, philosophy of the importance of
being a nurturer or an authoritarian (see George Lakoff on this), people develop ideas about governing very early. The problem is how to address the partisanship that grows out of radically different world views. A sense of justice sometimes leads to a kind of self-righteous anger which obscures the need for resolving differences in a peaceful and logical manner. Sometimes though, accomodation is not a good thing. Compromise weakens certain positions that are taken that may be unpopular but nonetheless good for society.
Women's rights, for example. Abolition. The repeal of child labor laws. The idea is that it's "good to get along and not go along."

I think the thread here is problematic in that partisanship is built in to the political system.
There is a position or a neutralizing or weakening of that position. Accomodation as for example in the aforementioned social movements is often harmful and regressive to those movements. The solution to polarized views is not anger or "my way or the highway". The solution is understanding the rationale behind a point of view that you don't agree with.
This in no way makes it necessary for you to agree with it but what it does is shed light on
why people think and behave certain ways. An exchange of honest ideas becomes apparent when the adversarial role of anger is lessened but adversarial debate is at the heart of the American experience. That's why we have lawyers and habeas corpus.

Also, the solution is dealing with the issues rather than the personalities. I think it's possible to extricate the anger and "line in the sand" approach and focus on the real issues. When this is done, I think we see more agreement on many so-called "polarizing" issues. For example, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". We can mostly agree on this goal without agreeing on how to get there.

We need also to see past the labels. Labeling presents a way of distorting issues by making certain assumptions as to how a person believes. For example, communism.
I think it becomes important to ask "what kind of communism are we talking about here?"
Even fascism has different patterns ie: Mussolini style as opposed to Hitler's Nazism.
We need to define our terms more precisely so that we can agree on what we are discussing. Name-calling is a power move to avoid the issue.

So I think partisanship is inevitable if you arrived at a passionate view of what you think of as being just and fair. There are those who refuse to take a stand on anything and this is
probably a kind of weak-kneed accomodation or a position that hasn't yet been thought out. Partisanship is not the problem. The problem is how we learn to deal with it. Anger and inflexibility doesn't serve. A willingness to see the other person's point-of-view and respect for that person even if you don't agree is a key.

There is a problem in dealing with these issues and that is one of "sociopathy". There are criminals in the world. For them, it's about power and not discovering truth. Here, society plays a role by identifying them, isolating them and shining a light on this behavior. I think that many nations of the world saw that with Hitler and Stalin and responded constructively.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: Sorcha
Date: 20 Dec 07 - 03:28 PM

Non Partisan political comment:
Bah Humbug.
A plague on both their houses.
Get thee behind me!

Well, I guess that was 3 comments,huh?

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Dec 07 - 02:41 PM

Not intended as political, but too true to let it fade away...

THANK YOU, Joe!






From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 20 Dec 07 - 02:34 PM

.....
But as for rash generalizations - They Drive Me Bonkers!!!
(and there are many such generalizations in this thread)

I think Mudcat needs a new slogan:
Think Grey.
Too many people see things only in black-and-white. In my experience, very few things in life are all right or all wrong. Most things, experiences, people, and groups have both good and bad aspects.

'nuff said.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Jul 07 - 09:17 AM

"From: John 'Giok' MacKenzie - PM
Date: 25 Jul 07 - 04:44 AM

The one thing that people with sincerely held beliefs can't stand, is other people with sincerely held beliefs. Well ones that contradict theirs anyway.
Accept other people's views, and get on with life, you will never get everybody to agree with you, live with it!
G. "

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Jun 07 - 12:23 PM

well, that is indeed a fine sentiment, Bruce. Does this mean we'll not be getting any more posts beginning with:

"...so you're saying that..."?

If it is your intention to hold to the claim of "...and you don't find me putting words in their mouths to try to slant the argument.", you will need to be VERY careful.

I totally agree that exploring & understanding should be the main goal, even as we seek to be sure OUR opinion is well represented....but humans being what they are, good intentions will slip....

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Jun 07 - 07:25 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: McGrath of Harlow - PM
Date: 23 Jun 07 - 04:59 PM

For once I find myself agreeing with bearded bruce in that last post of his. Discussions, however heated, should always involve responding to what people have actually said, and what is actually implied by that, not setting up Aunt Sallies we can easily knock down.

Our aim shouldn't be to "win an argument", but to explore and understand differences, and sometimes discover unexpected points where we actually agree.

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Jun 07 - 03:47 PM

From an article on the fighting in Gaza:

""Today everybody is with Hamas because Hamas won the battle. If Fatah had won the battle they'd be with Fatah. We are a hungry people, we are with whoever gives us a bag of flour and a food coupon," said Yousef, 30. "Me, I'm with God and a bag of flour.""

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 31 May 07 - 09:24 PM

Sorry for the editing, but names are not needed...

Lonesome EJ - PM
Date: 31 May 07 - 09:13 PM

... Now if you want to argue about something I actually said instead of setting up a strawman of what you think I believe, I'll deal with you the same way, and we can have an honest disagreement. Or you can stand on your soapbox and fume. If it's the soapbox, just leave me out of it, please.

I often disagree with ... and with ..., but I respect them, and you don't find me putting words in their mouths to try to slant the argument. That's what separates this forum from many of the slam-arenas on the net.

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 May 07 - 03:14 PM

From: Wesley S - PM
Date: 24 May 07 - 02:10 PM

Anyone who has an opinion - and shares it on the www - is bound to be able to find someone who will disagree with that opinion. Overall most of us think the Mudcat is worth it. But if you were hoping to find a place where everyone agreed with you all the time - then the Mudcat isn't it. And just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make them an "arsehole".

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 May 07 - 10:44 AM

???????????????????

Please let me know what that last came from.

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: Stringsinger
Date: 23 May 07 - 10:25 AM

BB since you changed the subject, the traditional moderate Democrat is a myth. There are Right-leaning Dems and Left-leaning ones. The idea of "centrist" is a ruse used by those who claim impartiality. When you scratch that surface, the impartiality is gone.

Christopher Hitchens has a definition of the term "bullshitter". This is someone who attempts to manipulate and control others by their ideology without giving credence to another point of view.

I think that in many instances there are no non-partisan comments that are political.
Politics is the art of persuasion and often bypasses critical thinking in its application.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: Dickey
Date: 22 May 07 - 02:13 PM

"we-won-so-kiss-our-asses" I think it is a more like we-think-you-cheated-so-we-will-kick-your-asses.

Like those old confederates that said "the south shall rise again"

People need to realize that nobody is right all the time and nobody is wrong all the time. They need to search for when someone is right and when they are wrong rather than label someone good or bad.

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 May 07 - 01:38 PM

"DonMeixner - PM
Date: 22 May 07 - 01:34 PM

It is fine with me if ... wants to have an opinion and state it. I have a personal philosophy of "Speak your Mind." This means words I get to hear words I want as well as words I don't. You just can't develop an intelligent opinion until you hear what the other guy has to say."

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 10:57 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- IF they agree with you
From: McGrath of Harlow - PM
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 06:18 PM

It's not a bad idea to make some effort to get at the actual facts in an incident before passing judgement on the basis of a snippet in the press.

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 10:02 AM

A search for truth has nothing to do with political leanings.


from Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 01:27 PM

maybe not overtly political, but sensible: Thank you, lox.

8-{E


"Subject: RE: BS: sissy crap...
From: GUEST,lox - PM
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 01:15 PM

I agree with just about nothing Tarheel says when he posts on matters political,

But I have no doubt in my mind whatsoever that he is a genuine person who believes that his approach to life and his understanding of the world is the best way forward for humans and in the best interests of humanity.

He posts with self assurance, tenacity and belief. He believes passionately in his point of view and states it, not to offend, but because he thinks he has something to say that matters and is relevant.

I respect him for these things and would rather see his perspecetive as a welcome challenge, to sharpen my wits and test my understanding, than slag him off because he posts something that he finds funny.

So you don't find it funny.


Big Mick


I respect you too. But I think you are wrong on this one. I think you are guilty of a different type of Machismo in this instance.

The criticism you make of Tarheel is mere recognition of his special brand of weakness and frailty. The way you slag it off, and the language you use are very much about "talking tough"

"little boy" etc

Perhaps we're all scared little boys (and girls) sometimes and it's nothing to be ashamed of - you make it sound like a reason to despise him -> cos you're tougher than that?

So what if he got it from someone else?

None of us are truly original.

So what if he finds it funny?

I think some of it is. "

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Feb 07 - 09:36 AM

From Bobert:

"It all depends on the wording, meathodology and the motives of the pollster/s... I don't trust any poll that is released by a party that has soemthing to gain from the results of the poll... This, of course, includes all politicans and political parties and many so-called objective organizations which have their own axes to grind... "

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 30 Dec 06 - 08:38 AM

Bot politicl, but too good to let it go...



From: kendall
Date: 30 Dec 06 - 08:33 AM

One should be always drunk. That is all: the whole question. In order not to feel the horrible burden of Time, which is breaking your shoulders and bearing you to earth, you must be drunk without cease. But, drunk on what? On wine, poetry, or whiskey, as you choose. But get drunk.
And if sometimes, on the steps of a palace, on the green grass of a moat, in the dull solitude of your chamber, you awake with your intoxication already lessened or gone, ask of the wind, the wave, the star, the clock, of everything that flies, sobs, rolls, sings, talks, what is the hour? and the wind, the wave, the star, the bird, the clock will answer, "It is the hour to get drunk!" Not to be the martyred slave of time, get drunk; get drunk unceasingly. Wine, poetry, or virtue, as you choose.
(Baudilaire)

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 01:34 PM

Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11
From: Bill D - PM
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 12:25 PM


People's minds can be set to sort data to please themselves, independent of reality.

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Oct 06 - 01:53 AM

From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Oct 06 - 06:44 PM

People like it when you say stuff they agree with, and they praise you for it. They dislike it when you don't say stuff they agree with, and they question your thinking, your intelligence, and your character. There's really not much more to it than that.

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Jun 06 - 01:58 PM

From LH

"Party politics divides people against each other in a very bad way. That's one reason why I really DON'T like political parties. And that goes for ALL of them. "

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 May 06 - 10:36 AM

From LH

as something on Mudcat they find deeply objectionable in the same way. Wow! That surprised me. That, I was not expecting at all. My goodness!

All I can do is shrug wearily and say..."C'est la vie!" No matter what anyone's personal style is, some people will hate it, some will love it, and others will be largely indifferent toward it or only slightly affected by it. That's the way it goes when you throw together many different personalities and they have to deal with one another in one venue or circumstance.

No matter how hard I...or anyone...has ever tried, they could not please everybody. I am certainly glad not to be a politician, and not to be famous either. It would be like being in hell, trying to meet all those expectations other people have of you.

The best anyone can hope for in this life is to be left alone by other people, in my opinion, and not to be judged by them. Who has ever been so lucky as that?

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 May 06 - 01:49 PM

Subject: RE: BS: End War on Terror criteria
From: Foolestroupe - PM
Date: 12 May 06 - 07:44 AM

Yeah, debating taught me that.

"Your emotions may have been what betrayed you when it came to arguing on the side you naturally favored."

Nope - you just get lazy tracing out the logic to defend what you 'know' when you are bigoted... ;-)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post - Top - Forum Home - Printer Friendly - Translate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: RE: BS: End War on Terror criteria
From: Little Hawk - PM
Date: 12 May 06 - 01:42 PM

Yeah, that makes sense.

I'm going to look up "bigot" and find out exactly what it means, according to the dictionary. Hang on...

Ah... "someone obstinately and intolerantly devoted to his own beliefs, creed or party" "someone who is narrow-minded or prejudiced".

Well, all I can say about that is that 99.999 % of all human beings who have ever lived were and are bigots. Including me and everyone else who has ever posted to a political thread on this forum. Teribus was right in his post awhile back then...I am a bigot, so is he, and so are the rest of us! ;-)

But I'll tell you what "bigot" means in normal usage as most people use it. It means only this: "someone who is obstinately and intolerantly devoted to beliefs that differ from MINE! (because MINE are the only valid beliefs)"

This is why I can laugh at myself as well as others. I know I'm prejudiced, just like other people are. I wish more people had enough self-awareness to do that. It would make human relations a lot more reasonable around here.

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 May 06 - 07:59 AM

Subject: RE: BS: End War on Terror criteria
From: Little Hawk - PM
Date: 12 May 06 - 12:25 AM

.....

The objective of a discussion shouldn't necessarily be to "win" or "lose", it should be to explore the subject thoroughly, discover some new things, and arrive at a deeper understanding. Any clearly conducted discussion or debate between people who are willing to honestly listen to one another ought usually to lead to greater mutual respect, and to discovery of common ground...but it doesn't if one or both are simply set on "winning".

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 May 06 - 07:58 AM

Subject: RE: BS: End War on Terror criteria
From: Foolestroupe - PM
Date: 11 May 06 - 10:45 PM

Little Hawk

If you sit on the fence, both sides throw rocks at you.

Subject: RE: BS: End War on Terror criteria
From: Little Hawk - PM
Date: 11 May 06 - 11:54 PM

Yes, they do...because most people would rather just automatically jump onto their familiar favorite side than think. It's too much work thinking. It's too much work seeing yourself in the other person, and admitting that he too may have a point that's worth considering. And that is precisely what poisons partisan politics in every election and turns the debate into nothing more than a useless battle of competing egos.

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 02:05 PM

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaawn, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 01:43 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the Mudcat Iconoclasts?
From: The Shambles - PM
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 12:15 PM

It is better for a party to be in opposition and explaining how they would make things better - than it is for them to be in power and having to find excuses for why things are not.

Prentice Worthrope-Manly

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: Arne
Date: 10 Apr 06 - 05:05 PM

BeardedBruce:

It does not matter how many times I point out that THE UN DECLARED, in the final report required by UNR1441, that Saddam HAD NOT COMPLIED.

You misspelled "allege". ;-)

You're right, it doesn't matter. Your assertions aren't worth a bucket of warm spit. What does matter is whether the UN "declared Saddam in non-compliance with 1441", and that they didn't do (much less authorise military invasion as the "serious consequences" that should ensue if Saddam was in fact declared to be in material non-compliance with UNSCR 1441 [which he wasn't]).

Slender reed to hang 2300+ dead U.S. soldiers, maybe a trillion is U.S. money, and an Iraq in total shambles and a far greater threat to U.S. security and interests than it was, on. You have no shame, Brucie, defending the indefencible here. If there is a god, your soul will burn in hell.

You will keep saying that , "IF" we just gave him enough time, he would have complied.

He was complying. No one (at least no sapient person) thought the inspections and verification could be done instantaneously. Even those that were taken in by the U.S. "garbage, garbage, and more ga...." -- ummm, sorry, they were calling it "intelligence -- and as you point out, that included quite a number of folks in Europe and elsewhere before the inspections began, decided after the inspections were turning up zilch that the most prudent course was to let them have more time to complete the process and then assess what the next course of action should be. This included El Baradei and Blix, of course, who, while initially given some resistance from Saddam, thought (correctly) that they could finish the job withough getting hundreds of thousands (including mostly civilians) killed.

IF I believed that you had any interest in the truth, the discussion might be worthwhile-

If you ever meet up with truth in your peregrinations, Brucie, you should try to strike up an acquaintance. I've provided links in my last long post proving you to be a liar or a moron.

As it is, you have never given me any of the "STATEMENTS" that support what you say happened-....

I just gave you a passel of links, dear Brucie. You totally ignored them.

... just comments that it looks like, someday, maybe, he might have given the UN some of what it required.

Ummm, what was "required", Brucie? In the grand scheme of things, not a damn thing! Saddam didn't have any WoMD. How's Saddam supposed to comply in 'turning over any WoMD' and "disclosing his secret weapons programs' when he doesn't have any. They gave a report (as required) that was pretty much accurate ... but the U.S. tossed it of as garbage (while the U.S. "intelligence" was the real "garbage") and wouldn't accept that answer. The U.S., on manufactured and shoddy evidence, presented a picture in front of the U.N. about all kinds of nefarious programs, none of which existed. That would be perjury in a court of law, Brucie. The U.N., rightly so, remained sceptical of the U.S. crapola and took a "wait and see" attitude. It is my opinion that the U.S., rather than letting themselves be shown to be fools or worse, quickly decided to attack knowing that it was all based on a lie. Only problem with this strategy was that they needed to find at least enough old WoMD still around to make for a superficially plausible case for starting hostilities ... and/or they needed to "free" Iraq so that people would forget about the WoMD rationale and say "well, it turned out for the best anyway, so let's just ignore the false pretenses. But neither of these things came to pass, and Dubya managed to make a complete SNAFU of it just like he's done with everything else in his miserable life. He deserves to be tried and convicted of crimes against humanity.

It is clear you can't read the text of UNR1441,
nor the report that it mandated.

Nonsense. I can read both. But Blix doesn't get to call in the Air Force. As I pointed out above, it is the prerogative of the U.N., in deliberation and decision by its member states, to decide what should happen if UNSCR 1441 was not being heeded (and based on how and how substantially it wasn't being heeded). Blix's reports of some non-compliance, resistance, or non-co-operation in some areas has to be taken as a whole, particularly when Blix's latest reports were indicating substantial improvement in compliance, and when Blix himself pleaded for more time to finish the job. If you think, like Dubya, that any hint of non-compliance (and failure to kiss Dubya's a$$ as well) is sufficient reason to go to war, then you, like Dubya, think that war is the first option and not the last despite Dubya once again recently spewing the outright lie than war ... and the deaths of thousands of U.S. soldiers ... is the last alternative. Just a FYI, Brucie: The American public ain't buying it any more, and there will be hell to pay for the maladministration here.

Say, you never answered my question: Seeeing as Israel is in non-compliance with many U.N. resolutions, is it perfectly OK for anyone to attack them any time they want?

Now, if you want to keep at spewing the same old 'talking points' PLEASE OPEN ANOTHER THREAD. I tried to, but was informed it might be insulting to you, so it was removed.

My, my, my, Brucie. Got caught wid' yer pants down, eh? LOL.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Apr 06 - 02:03 PM

and from Little Hawk:

"People with opinions are blockheads. They search out whatever shreds of information they can find to support their opinion. They discount or ignore what does not support it. They are almost impermeable to anything that doesn't support it. They have no patience for another point of view. They are NOT truly objective."

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Apr 06 - 12:57 PM

Arne,

I was trying to get back to the intent of THIS thread- and I think that the quote applies EQUALLY to both political parties. If you cannot see that, you are blinder than I had thought.

It does not matter how many times I point out that THE UN DECLARED, in the final report required by UNR1441, that Saddam HAD NOT COMPLIED. You will keep saying that , "IF" we just gave him enough time, he would have complied. BUT the resolution HAD a time limit for the report- and THAT report said that he had NOT complied. Any statement you make otherwise is "propaganda and lies".


IF I believed that you had any interest in the truth, the discussion might be worthwhile- As it is, you have never given me any of the "STATEMENTS" that support what you say happened- just comments that it looks like, someday, maybe, he might have given the UN some of what it required. It is clear you can't read the text of UNR1441,
nor the report that it mandated.

Now, if you want to keep at spewing the same old 'talking points' PLEASE OPEN ANOTHER THREAD. I tried to, but was informed it might be insulting to you, so it was removed.

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: Arne
Date: 09 Apr 06 - 12:37 PM

BeardedBruce:

"Political party loyalty is far more important that principles these days."

Think that refers to the Republicans. You've been working overtime (see above), but there has to be a point where you start to say "It's just not worth the enduring harm to my own integrity to spew the same old 'talking point' propaganda and lies...", eh? Did we reach that point, I hope?

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 09:27 AM

and from TIA,

"Political party loyalty is far more important that principles these days."

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: Arne
Date: 06 Apr 06 - 07:45 PM

BeardedBruce:

[Arne]: "Iraq complied with both these demands. In fact, as I've pointed out multiple times, Iraq's declaration was far more accurate ... and more timely ..."

Nope

Iraq announced their intention to comply before the deadline. See this:

Although Iraq was given until November 15 to accept the resolution, they agreed on November 13. Weapons inspectors, absent from Iraq since December 1998, returned later that month, led by Hans Blix of UNMOVIC and Mohamed ElBaradei of the IAEA.

As for the timely delivery of the declaration, put this in your pipe and smoke it. Better than that crack you're seemingly toking. Once again, turned over before the deadline (by a day).

See also this and this.

Now that you're shown to be a liar and/or an ignoramus, what have you to say, Brucie?

For the Iraqi timeliness and accuracy, we have the above links. What about the U.S.?:

The accuracy of the U.S. "intelligence"? ROFLMAO!!!!! That's a pretty sick joke by now (although Dubya seems to have thought it was a riot at the Gridiron Club). But here's what was said about it even before Dubya invaded:

So frustrated have the inspectors become that one source has referred to the U.S. intelligence they've been getting as "garbage after garbage after garbage." In fact, Phillips says the source used another cruder word.

The timeliness? Despite the UNSCR 1441 resolution provision requiring that any nation with relevant information turn such over to the UN inspectors, the U.S. stonewalled them as long as possible and only reluctantly turned over the "garbage after garbage after garbage". See here and here.

Your goose is cooked, Brucie. In fact, toast. Charred to a crisp.

[Arne]: "Why bother with the hijinks if the UN Security Council was behind him all the way?"

You have stated this: I never said the UN was behind him all the way. I said that they declared Saddam in non-compliance with 1441.

You've stated the latter (repeatedly). I've said that repeated assertion is hardly evidence, much less proof. The former is just my pithy way of characterising your claim that the U.N. found Saddam in contempt of UNSCR 1441 and thus had authorised "serious consequences" (i.e., militgary action) begin.

[Arne]: "Iraq did take this "final" chance and comply"

Nope, again.

*sheesh* See above.

Try showing me a statement where the UN declares that Saddam HAD complied.

Shifting the burden of proof, eh? No, I made no such assertion. It is your assertion that "they declared Saddam in non-compliance with 1441" that needs to be backed up with some kind of evidence. The "evidence" you have produced has been countered and completely rebutted by me (yet you ignore what I said and continue yapping your RNC "talking points" over and over like the good sock puppet you are).

And I say that for the googlth time. Maybe one of these days you will start to understand plain English and figure out what it means.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Apr 06 - 01:31 PM

" Iraq complied with both these demands. In fact, as I've pointed out multiple times, Iraq's declaration was far more accurate ... and more timely ... "

Nope

"Why bother with the hijinks if the UN Security Council was behind him all the way?"

You have stated this: I never said the UN was behind him all the way. I said that they declared Saddam in non-compliance with 1441.

"Iraq did take this "final" chance and comply"

Nope, again.
Try showing me a statement where the UN declares that Saddam HAD complied.

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: Arne
Date: 06 Apr 06 - 01:21 PM

BeardedBruce:

from one of the clickies I posted earlier:
"UNITED NATIONS

March 12, 2003

In a two-day debate, that began yesterday and concluded this afternoon, the Security Council heard from 51 Member States and two regional organizations on the crisis surrounding Iraq's disarmament. The request to hear non-Council members in open debate was made by the 116-member Non-Aligned Movement, as closed consultations continued on the draft resolution co-sponsored by the United Kingdom, United States, and Spain that would set a clear deadline for Iraq to comply with its obligations or face military action.

Today, several speakers, among them the representatives of Japan, Latvia, Georgia and the Dominican Republic, voiced support for the draft resolution. Japan's representative said that even though some progress had been observed recently, Iraqi cooperation was still insufficient and limited. The proposed draft resolution was truly a 'final effort' to place the consolidated pressure of the international community on Iraq, and to lead it to disarm voluntarily. If it was not adopted and the international community was divided, not only would that benefit Iraq, but it would also raise grave doubts about the authority and effectiveness of the United Nations. "

Yeah, what happened to the draft resolution, Brucie? Dubya promised he'd force an "up or down" vote on it regardless, and call the alleged bluff of those that might vote against it or veto it, but when it became apparent that, despite bribery and arm-twisting by the U.S., it was not even going to get a majority vote (that would require a veto if someone actually had that intention), Dubya reneged on his promise and shelved the resolution. So where's that leave you, Brucie? They didn't pass this resolution, much as the U.S. wanted it. But the wants of the maladministration don't count as to what the U.N. decides.

NOTE that this is AFTER the date by which Iraq was required to comply.

"The Council demanded that Iraq confirm, within seven days, its intention to comply fully with the resolution. It further decided that, within 30 days, Iraq, in order to begin to comply with its obligations, should provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA and the Council a complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, including chemical, biological and nuclear programmes it claims are for purposes not related to weapons production or material. Any false statement or omission in the declaration will be considered a further material breach of Iraq's obligations, and will be reported to the Council for assessment."

Bruce, Bruce, Bruce. Don't be so dense. Did you read what I wrote above? This is from the UNSCR 1441, and Iraq complied with both these demands. In fact, as I've pointed out multiple times, Iraq's declaration was far more accurate ... and more timely ... than the U.S. information provided the weapons inspectors and their little dog'n'pony show for the U.N.

from UNR 1441

"Holding Iraq in "material breach" of its obligations under previous resolutions, the Security Council this morning decided to afford it a "final opportunity to comply" with its disarmament obligations, while setting up an enhanced inspection regime for full and verified completion of the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991)."

Is there some problem with the word FINAL, that you do not understand what it means?

Nope. Iraq did take this "final" chance and comply. Not that it mattered. Every day brings new evidence that Dubya was determined to invade no matter what. "F*** Saddam, we're taking him out." Ring a bell there, Brucie? You're also ignoring my comment about Dubya trying to provoke a casus belli with the U-2 shenanigans ... so clearly Dubya wasn't all that confident about his "authorisation". Why bother with the hijinks if the UN Security Council was behind him all the way? To appease the RW foamers here in the States that don't believe in UN authority?

*sheesh* Give it a rest, Brucie. You've shot your wad and you sunk below the waves long ago.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Apr 06 - 08:46 AM

from UNR 1441

"Holding Iraq in "material breach" of its obligations under previous resolutions, the Security Council this morning decided to afford it a "final opportunity to comply" with its disarmament obligations, while setting up an enhanced inspection regime for full and verified completion of the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991)."


Is there some problem with the word FINAL, that you do not understand what it means?

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Apr 06 - 08:36 AM

from one of the clickies I posted earlier:
"UNITED NATIONS

March 12, 2003




In a two-day debate, that began yesterday and concluded this afternoon, the Security Council heard from 51 Member States and two regional organizations on the crisis surrounding Iraq's disarmament. The request to hear non-Council members in open debate was made by the 116-member Non-Aligned Movement, as closed consultations continued on the draft resolution co-sponsored by the United Kingdom, United States, and Spain that would set a clear deadline for Iraq to comply with its obligations or face military action.


Today, several speakers, among them the representatives of Japan, Latvia, Georgia and the Dominican Republic, voiced support for the draft resolution. Japan's representative said that even though some progress had been observed recently, Iraqi cooperation was still insufficient and limited. The proposed draft resolution was truly a 'final effort' to place the consolidated pressure of the international community on Iraq, and to lead it to disarm voluntarily. If it was not adopted and the international community was divided, not only would that benefit Iraq, but it would also raise grave doubts about the authority and effectiveness of the United Nations. "

NOTE that this is AFTER the date by which Iraq was required to comply.

"The Council demanded that Iraq confirm, within seven days, its intention to comply fully with the resolution. It further decided that, within 30 days, Iraq, in order to begin to comply with its obligations, should provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA and the Council a complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, including chemical, biological and nuclear programmes it claims are for purposes not related to weapons production or material. Any false statement or omission in the declaration will be considered a further material breach of Iraq's obligations, and will be reported to the Council for assessment."

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: Arne
Date: 06 Apr 06 - 08:05 AM

BeardedBruce:

You have been given my response, yet keep insisting on the lie that Saddam HAD complied with UNR1441-...

Oh, nonsense. I keep seeing you say that Saddam didn't comply with UNSCR 1441, but you have yet to post any link or reference to where the UN says such.

Then your further task -- should you decide to accept, Mr. Phelps -- is to show where the UN then deemed it justified, based on the level of such alleged non-compliance, to initiate an armed invasion, much less authorised anyone to do such. While you're at it, why don't you post the pictures of all the "Blue Helmets" going in to Iraq, in March 2003, OK?

... If the UN is not a valid source for you, I guess there can be no discussion.

If pig had wings, we'd all need cast-iron umbrellas.... Do feel free to show where the UN said such a thing (a suggestion I believe I made before, but which for some reason you ignored).

OBTW, I responded to your (not the UN's) repeated assertions above at quite some length and in detail. I guess I'm just not seeing why you think that simply reasserting your conclusion for the Nth time without any supporting references or backup constitutes some kind of "argument" ... unless you're of the Monty Python school of argument.... Perhaps you'd like to take the time to respond to what I said, eh?

Cheers,