Page 20 of 24 FirstFirst ... 1015161718192021222324 LastLast
Results 381 to 400 of 474
  1.    #381  
    Originally posted by jhappel
    Posted by KRamsauer:
    Email me the $5.00 I could use it at the bar today while watching football.
    Fortunately we've (note, that includes me!) been able to elevate the conversation above the circular misunderstandings that marked the few hundred posts in the middle of this thread.

    Regarding football, it's been a rough season for a New England fan. Last year was magical and made up for all those years they just couldn't do anything. This year is rapidly returning to the era of Bledsoe. Oh well. Can't win em all!
  2. #382  
    I think you agree with this too, since you say that after all diplomatic efforts have failed.
    Please don't quote me out of context. The only time I said the words . . . after all diplomatic efforts have failed . . . was when I said Whether or not I oppose a war against Iraq in the future if all diplomatic efforts fail is something I don't know at this time. This is not presupposing that diplomatic efforts will fail or that I will or will not oppose a war at that time.

    Regarding football, it's been a rough season for a New England fan.
    Fortunately being from the NYC metro area I can have a good laugh at my friends who like the Jets (who I have not liked since they were the Titans (if there's anyone out there, other than myself, who is old enough to remeber the NY Titans playing football at the Polo Grounds). As a Giants fan I still have some hope for this season.
    Jonathan
  3.    #383  
    Originally posted by jhappel

    Please don't quote me out of context. The only time I said the words . . . after all diplomatic efforts have failed . . . was when I said Whether or not I oppose a war against Iraq in the future if all diplomatic efforts fail is something I don't know at this time. This is not presupposing that diplomatic efforts will fail or that I will or will not oppose a war at that time.
    I'm sorry, you're right. I thought you meant you will support action later if diplomacy fails. Instead you're saying you might support force only if diplomacy fails.


    Fortunately being from the NYC metro area I can have a good laugh at my friends who like the Jets (who I have not liked since they were the Titans (if there's anyone out there, other than myself, who is old enough to remeber the NY Titans playing football at the Polo Grounds). As a Giants fan I still have some hope for this season.
    I don't like the Jets because they are like the other half of the Patriots. It seems like all of the Jets were at one time a Patriot and vice-versa. They had the first laugh (getting Parcells, Martin and others). We had the last laugh (getting Belichick and the Lombardi Trophy!!!!!!).

    Now that the Niners have the jerk Owens on their team (he's been on their team for a while but only recently has be become a jerk), the Giants are one of the few NFC teams I like.

    P.S. I just remembered the Cowboys incident. Owens has always been a jerk.
  4. #384  
    Whoa Johnathan!

    My thinking is along the same line too. I think the real reason for the U.S aggressiveness is becoming clear.


    Originally posted by jhappel


    I am opposed to a war against Iraq at this time because I think there is a lot more that can and should be done diplomatically by the UN and the other countries trying to work something out. Whether or not I oppose a war against Iraq in the future if all diplomatic efforts fail is something I don't know at this time. I think that what is happening with North Korea is a good example of my thoughts. NK has admitted that it has been actively trying to build/obtain nuclear weapons but the Shrub administration is not threatening to invade their country. This in spite of the fact that Dubya has branded NK as on of the three worst terrorist countries in the world. Instead we are trying to use diplomacy to end the threat. This leads me to think that maybe there are other forces at work with the plans for the war against Iraq. Maybe the oil industry wanting to get their hands on Iraq's oil fields?????????????
    My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?
  5.    #385  
    Originally posted by yardie

    My thinking is along the same line too. I think the real reason for the U.S aggressiveness is becoming clear.
    If the real motivation is not non-proliferation why would Powell this morning say disarmament would result in no use of force? Such actions would not result in opening of the oil fields to benefit these supposedly infinitely powerful oily Bush friends.
  6. #386  
    Its funny that the Bush admin get Cheney and Rumsfield -- the two hawks in the the inner circle -- to beat the war drum. While they get Powell -- the "dove" -- to give out the peace message.

    The U.S. is backing down because they didn't get their way with the international community -- not because they really want to.


    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    If the real motivation is not non-proliferation why would Powell this morning say disarmament would result in no use of force? Such actions would not result in opening of the oil fields to benefit these supposedly infinitely powerful oily Bush friends.
    My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?
  7.    #387  
    Originally posted by yardie
    Its funny that the Bush admin get Cheney and Rumsfield -- the two hawks in the the inner circle -- to beat the war drum. While they get Powell -- the "dove" -- to give out the peace message.

    The U.S. is backing down because they didn't get their way with the international community -- not because they really want to.


    But my point is if they really wanted to go get the oil, whiney Frenchmen wouldn't keep them from it. And I don't see where the humor is in that situation. Seems pretty logical to me, but maybe that's just me. I'd instinctively think you'd have the secretary of defense relying on miltary needs while the secretary of state urges diplomacy. Is this not the way it's supposed to work?

    And to show you (and me) I didn't just imagine the policy change/clarification (it's a change, regardless of what they say):
    http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp..._st_pe/us_iraq

    P.S. something (perhaps an ostrich) seems to have eaten part of Brain's ears.
  8. #388  
    Originally posted by yardie
    OK Mr. Nowak,

    Are you denying that most scientist believe Global warming exists?
    I would never deny that panic funds scientists, sells newspapers, and gets people elected.

    The latest, by the way, is that global warming might trigger an ice age. Neat, huh?

    Originally posted by yardie

    I see your point about the iceberg. It does make sense... but icebergs is one thing.. a chunk of ice the size of some U.S states is another.
    It's not uncommon in Antarctic summer.

    Originally posted by yardie

    I haven't come across anything that refer to the ice that broke off as an iceberg.
    Of course not. That wouldn't get scientists funding, sell newspapers, or get people elected.
  9. #389  
    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    My stance is being incredibly mis-interpretted.
    Then, logically, you're either failing to communicate it correctly, because you're convincing a number of people you hold a view you claim not to.
  10. #390  
    Yes.
    We both agree that there is policy change. The point of contention is the reason behind the policy change. I am argueing that the opposition of the international community has a lot to do with it. The North Kprean situation may also have somethign to do with. North Korea is more of a threat to U.S interests and its neighbours than Iraq will ever be under the sanctions now in place.


    Originally posted by KRamsauer


    And to show you (and me) I didn't just imagine the policy change/clarification (it's a change, regardless of what they say):
    http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp..._st_pe/us_iraq

    P.S. something (perhaps an ostrich) seems to have eaten part of Brain's ears.
    My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?
  11.    #391  
    Originally posted by John Nowak


    Then, logically, you're either failing to communicate it correctly, because you're convincing a number of people you hold a view you claim not to.
    Either failing to communicate it correctly or what? Why use "either"? Did you forget to include something? I think it's fairly clear we aren't communicating correctly here, though I think part of it has to do with an overly emotional response to these issues. Nothing wrong with that. It's the nature of the field on which we're playing.
  12.    #392  
    Originally posted by yardie
    Yes.
    We both agree that there is policy change. The point of contention is the reason behind the policy change. I am argueing that the opposition of the international community has a lot to do with it.

    Uh, I think you're just repeating what I said.
    For all those claiming Bush is a war-crazed fool, intent on ousting Saddam regardless of any actions he takes, it turns out the administration does have at least half an ear toward the world's opinions. Powell just claimed that effectively a completely disarmed Iraq would essentially be a changed regime and therefore would satisfy the policy of "Regime Change." Seems to me like a bad twisting of words to save face, but more importantly it demonstrates that we do have logical people in charge of this country. Don't stop complaining about policy--that's integral to the system--but don't doubt the country and its institutions. "The good ol' days weren't always good and tomorrow ain't as bad as it seems."
    and
    The system solicits the opinions of the world and gives veto power to a varied few. Our American system punishes the leadership who fails listen.
  13. #393  
    Originally posted by jhappel

    NK has admitted that it has been actively trying to build/obtain nuclear weapons
    No, they stated they had operational nuclear weapons.

    Originally posted by jhappel


    but the Shrub administration is not threatening to invade their country. ... Maybe the oil industry wanting to get their hands on Iraq's oil fields?????????????
    Maybe it's more dangerous to invade a country with nuclear weapons than a country without them?

    Nah, must be the oil.
  14.    #394  
    Originally posted by John Nowak


    No, they stated they had operational nuclear weapons.
    All I've seen is that "the country was conducting a covert nuclear weapons program" http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/22/in...ia/22KORE.html
  15. #395  
    Well I guess we both agree on this particular issue then


    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    Uh, I think you're just repeating what I said.
    and
    My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?
  16. #396  
    Or maybe the U.S is just afraid to pick on a country that can give it some competition.

    They have people believing that Saddam is a major threat, while one more closer to home is the real threat.


    Originally posted by John Nowak


    No, they stated they had operational nuclear weapons.



    Maybe it's more dangerous to invade a country with nuclear weapons than a country without them?

    Nah, must be the oil.
    My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?
  17.    #397  
    Originally posted by yardie
    Or maybe the U.S is just afraid to pick on a country that can give it some competition.

    They have people believing that Saddam is a major threat, while one more closer to home is the real threat.


    I think that's perfectly clear. Why would we want to go to war against someone who will start lobbing nukes? That's why we didn't invade Russia when they took over Afghanistan. This is in the realm of the so incredibly obvious I'm surprised you even have to mention it. It all comes down to which has the best risk/reward payoff. Saddam is a big threat, true. North Korea might be in the future. Recently they've shown that they are indeed open to progress, such as the release of the Japanese prisoners, the admition of their program, the setting up of a special economic zone near China. I personally have hope for N. Korea reasoning with the world. Iraq clearly won't do that. You have to speak the native language wherever you act in the world. So far reason hasn 't been ruled out as the native language of N. Korea. Long ago we realized we'd just be speaking to ourselves in Iraq.
  18. #398  
    Originally posted by yardie
    Are you denying that most scientist believe Global warming exists?
    If most scientists believed that a God/Creator exists (which I'd be willing to bet is true), does that make it true?
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  19. #399  
    Now, I can re-summarize what started all of this before the waters got all dirtied with mental spooge...

    Originally posted by yardie
    There is nothing wrong with making assumptions based based on general trends and observations.
    AAMOF, making assumptions on general trends and observations is shoddy reasoning if you're going to try and extrapolate to the larger population, especially when those 'trends and observations' have little to no statistical validity or support. Whether there's anything morally wrong about it depends on whether it harms anyone. That was never a big part of my original statement, though.
    Everyone is prejudice. The unfortunate thing is that people tend to link the word with racial and other discrimination.
    Yes, that is unfortunate that people automatically assume that when you say they're being prejudiced, they automatically try to point out how tolerant they are. However, it is also unfortunate when people try to excuse the bad practice of prejudice by saying 'everyone is prejudiced'.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  20. #400  
    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    My point is it's not prejudice. It's a prediction.
    It is a prediction to which you admit you have no evidence to support. And it is prejudiced, just like your Catholic example. Whether you think any more or less of the person is irrelevant.
    If it were something upon which I judge the worth of a human being it would be prejudice.
    No, that's bigotry.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...

Posting Permissions