Artful Dodger:

"The truth:
Did liberals believe that Iraq had WMDs?
YES

No, not in this country.. stereotyping because of US 'liberal' (but not really that liberal generally) is bad.

"Did liberals give their approval to invade Iraq?
YES"

Only because those in decision placement were lied to, they didn't think that Bush and Blair would tell such BIG lies.

"Its informal use simply means: somebody or something that is identical to or very much like somebody or something else."

I extrapolated on the use of the words. I know such a concept is big, but... maybe you and your alter ego could discuss it?

(V): Assertions about lying aren't proof. neither is "blah blah blah"

You made an incoherent statement regarding my use of the idiom carbon copy. I corrected you. Simple as that.

I know you believe that Iamon lyme and I are one in the same but you can't be further from the truth. You're not even being clever about it.

BTW, proof is not just evidence open to interpretation but something solid, definitive, and just not just a "you say so."

If you have none, then drop it already. Who cares at this point. Isn't that horse dead enough for you?

Artful Dodger: Not assertions.. fact as shown by various inquiries in the UK. It was claimed that Iraq could attack UK forces in "45 minutes" by Blair in Parliament as one of the major reasons we as a country should attack and invade Iraq. That WAS A LIE.

"You made an incoherent statement regarding my use of the idiom carbon copy."

To you... but my knowledge is different, and in reference to what Russell Brand said regarding "Role Models".

"You're not even being clever about it."

I didn't intended to be.

Artful Dodger: "I know you believe that Iamon lyme and I are one in the same but you can't be further from the truth. You're not even being clever about it."


Now now, alter ego, let's not be too hard on him. I like it when he complains to the moderator when we pretend to be the same person, and then comes back to imply that we are the same person. This guy is a laugh riot, and I really do look forward to his posts.

I'm not just saying that (V), I really really do.

Really...

Do.

The Col: That wouldn't be a first!!

(V): Saying something you KNOW isn't the case is lying. Saying something you believe to be the case isn't.

Wise Up

(V): "Two Republican politicians have urged people to eat at a US fast food chain, amid a row over gay marriage." ... "So what's the kick back to Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee??"


Two free Chick Fil A coupons. One for Rick, and one for Mike. The coupons are free for anyone, but it still makes for a nice kick back... they can kick back and enjoy a scrumptious chick fil a sandwich.

(V): (V): "Two Republican politicians have urged people to eat at a US fast food chain, amid a row over gay marriage." ... "So what's the kick back to Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee??"

answer, millions less than the kickback Obama received from the likes of solindra et al

...and on his farm he blah blah blah, e i e i oh!

Artful Dodger: Deceptions, exaggerations and half truths..... as stated in various reports on the case, documents and evidence were "sexed up".

""Following the September 11 terrorist attacks on the US in 2001, Mr Carne said, the presentation of the intelligence relating to Iraq changed significantly.

The now notorious claim in the “dodgy dossier” of September 2002, which implied that Saddam had the capacity to launch WMD within 45 minutes, had “no basis in firm intelligence”.

"This process of exaggeration was gradual, and proceeded by accretion and editing from document to document, in a way that allowed those participating to convince themselves that they were not engaged in blatant dishonesty,” he said.

"But this process led to highly misleading statements about the UK assessment of the Iraqi threat that were, in their totality, lies." ""

Get IT

Vikings: Millions less?? They got millions but less than Obama.

I guess they'll have to live with that Obama can get more millions then them, their off shore accounts will just have to fill less slowly!!

(V): You're the one who doesn't get it. You are the one who is highly exaggerating what happened. The majority of "experts" who looked at the intel knew Saddam had possessed WMDs and had used them against his people. And Saddam was happy keeping the world guessing about his possession of such weapons. With all his stonewalling of inspectors, it's little wonder that combined with the intelligence available, most concluded he was hiding something. The wimps of the world would rather trust the terrorists than to rely on the might of the military. It's you liberals who are the liars (and by US standards, you're a far left liberal loon). It's you who can't be trusted. Cherry picking quotes from your Google search isn't solid evidence. Get it?

Artful Dodger: Yes.. HAD, we all know Uncle Sam gave him WMD's ability. Just as many people know IF Kuwait hadn't been drilling underneath their border into Iraqi oil fields, then Saddam wouldn't have felt the need to invade them.

"With all his stonewalling of inspectors, it's little wonder that combined with the intelligence available, most concluded he was hiding something.!"

Most where? With millions here in the UK protesting and hearing on the news that the weapons inspectors saying Saddam hadn't any..

"It's you liberals who are the liars ..... It's you who can't be trusted. Cherry picking quotes from your Google search isn't solid evidence. Get it?"

So, you say. But seeing as you keep saying I'm a liar, I sense it's best I interpret such moans as you just being Richardy about being in the wrong.

(V): Your argument is the epitome of obfuscation. It can't be that they made a MISTAKE regarding WMDs, it has to be they lied. That line of argument is the reason many US conservatives turn off to the liberal rhetoric. You claim that the WMD issue was a "fiasco." But you've never explained how this is so. As in all politics, the "other side" seizes on an opportunity to make the mole hill a mountain. That is what not finding huge quantities of WMDs were and are: a small issue. The issue of what to do about Saddam and Iraq was much larger than a single thing. That is factual. Whether it was a mistake to invade Iraq is open to debate. There are good points being made on both sides of that question. It's dishonest to ignore that reality.

BTW, the meaning of Richard is "powerful leader." So thanks.

"That is what not finding huge quantities of WMDs were and are: a small issue. The issue of what to do about Saddam and Iraq was much larger than a single thing."

......."""Britain's most senior military officer at the time of the invasion of Iraq told the Chilcot inquiry he repeatedly asked Tony Blair for an assurance that the war would be lawful and was emphatically assured the aim was never "regime change".

In striking contrast to previous evidence about the former prime minister's war aims, Admiral Lord Boyce said : "Our policy absolutely and specifically was not regime change".

Blair's closest advisers, including Sir David Manning have told the inquiry that the former prime minister assured President George Bush he was willing to undertake regime change. Lord Turnbull, cabinet secretary at the time, described Blair as a "regime changer".

Boyce made clear he was deeply concerned about the legality of an invasion. Lord Goldsmith had warned more than once that regime change was "not a legal basis for military action"."""

We could talk about how at the time before and just after the Iraq war, it was all about WMD'S. Only once the probability of finding any has literately vanished did the Bush and Blair spin doctors say regime change was why the UK and USA had to goto war.

About the only problem of stability was that Iran might invade Iraq, it was shown that Saddam did not want Iran to know his military might was as effective as trying to fill a crack in a dam with pollyfilla.

It's plain, it's simple.. no need for debate.

(V): I never once used "regime change" in my argument. I simply said that WMD's is a small part of a larger picture. That was clear to everyone. With politics, anything is possible on either side of the isle. It's entirely possible that there was an ulterior motive at work. But to claim you "know" with certainty is laughable. And it's worth ignoring.

What do you say we fix it so no one wins or loses any more wars, and everyone gets a trophy at the end.

Artful Dodger: It's called extrapolation of the human element, remembering history.

"Is there really such a thing as an "original" thought? If you think you've had one, share it with us so I can show you that your "original" thought is really and old idea."

You said to The Col, and as such the East India Company is an example of what is happening now or back then in Iraq is not an original thought.

Iamon lyme: That's a fine idea except the liberals in the US wouldn't be satisfied if the US got an equal trophy. They'd rather see us get the shaft.

I think this chick fil a "controversy" is a prime example of what some of us were expecting to see close to election time.

Just because someone holds to family values doesn't mean they are anti-gay, any more than someone who is gay can automatically be stereotyped as being anti-family values. It's ludicrous to take an "it's all about me" attitude to this kind of extreme.

The proposed kiss-ins and harassing employees is just another example of the expected attacks against businesses that don't support Obamas re-election.

mckinley: So did Mr Rubik's

Step forward, Chick Fil-A: a fast food chain with more than 1,600 branches across America, and roots firmly in the evangelical conservative camp. Stores don't open on Sundays, and the firm has a history of supporting anti-gay efforts, according to the lobby group Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD). They claim the company has backed groups that say being gay should be recriminalised, and others that support 'ex-gay' therapy.

But it was an interview by CEO Dan Cathy, in the Baptist Press, that has turned Chick Fil-A into a conservative cause celebre: especially the bit where he publicly affirmed his traditional views on marriage. Chick Fil-A, he said, was "very much supportive of the family - the biblical definition of the family unit".

Liberals demanded a boycott, backed by celebrities including Mia Farrow and Roseanne Barr, while some city mayors even tried to ban the chain from their district. Washington DC mayor Vincent Gray denounced what he called "hate chicken", while Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel declared the chain's values "are not Chicago values"......

......And naturally, when there's a conservative cause to bang a drum for, Sarah Palin was next on the scene, posting a photograph of herself and Todd on her Facebook page, clutching a bag of fried chicken.

While brand approval for Chick Fil-A was dropping through the floor, Palin told Fox News that the backlash was having "a chilling effect on our First Amendment rights [to free speech]".

The chicken chain isn't the first to plunge headlong into poltical controversy, although experts have warned it's rarely good for business.

Retail giant Target became a target itself back in 2010, when organisations including MoveOn.org launched pickets and protests over the firm's decision to donate $150,000 to a Republican candidate in Minnesota who had a history of opposing gay rights.

Weeks of public pressure soon got shareholders worried; democracy, said activists, was not for sale......

....As huge queues snaked around the block outside branches of Chick Fil-A, police were even called in to keep order in Madison, Alabama. Another former Presidential hopeful, Rick Santorum, picked up lunch: "OK leftists go crazy", he posted on Twitter.

As Talking Points Memo reports, it all sparked something of a media frenzy, as cable news networks sent news choppers into the sky to report the drama as it happened. Yes folks, it's August: something of a slow news month.

Yet the fact remains that a fast food chain managed to draw the kind of crowds that most politicians can only dream of.

Gay rights groups are fighting back - calling on same-sex couples to photograph themselves kissing in a Chick Fil-A branch, in protest.

In this game of chicken, who will give in first? : thousands of people may have expressed their support for Dan Cathy's firm this week, but experience shows when corporations get involved in political controversy, it rarely ends well.

Fried food, with a super-sized side of politics: it's enough to give you indigestion.

Cathy, a devout Southern Baptist whose family has always been outspoken about its faith, sparked the controversy by telling the Baptist Press that he and his family-owned restaurant chain are "guilty as charged" for openly _ and financially _ supporting groups that advocate for "the biblical definition of a family unit." He later added that the United States is "inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say, `We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage."

For Marci Alt, organizer of a protest Friday at a Chick-fil-A in the relatively liberal Atlanta suburb of Decatur, it's Cathy's financial backing of conservative groups such as the Family Research Council that takes the conversation beyond merely what he said.

"Dan Cathy has the same First Amendment rights that I do. If he doesn't want to agree with same-sex marriage, I understand that," she said.

"But when he puts a pen to paper and writes a check to an organization that is about to squash my equal rights, I have a problem with that."

<<<<<from the independent>>>>>>

(V): I'm a little conflicted on this one.I don't think there should be a feeding frenzy attacking an anti gay marriage stance anymore than there should be attacks on pro gay marriage.Both sides are entitled to an opinion , rightly or wrongly , and if it is voiced respectfully and peacefully.The " witch hunt" mentality isn't attractive from either side, and having the usual crowd like Palin trying to gain political bandwagon points is sadly typical.This type of behaviour actually vindicates the same type of response to another company stating a pro gay marriage stance

The Col: "I'm a little conflicted on this one."


It would be difficult not to be if it was given any thought, which apparently you have. I'm not conflicted because in my opinion an "it's all about me" attitude will always backfire on the one who has that mindset.

Reminds me of a passing remark I heard from someone. He said, "Thinking is over-rated." I said "That's what I thought."

The Col: My only problem with the anti gay marriage lot is the wrongful interpretation of alot of the passages. As far as I remember being gay (as in man gay) is not against God, the act is.. but I wonder how much of that is regarding rape, and the sin of ejaculation outside the vagina. Female to Female acts are not forbidden which hints it's more about wasting sperm, which at the time was considered what makes biological life solely.. Temple sex was forbidden by God in the OT.

It's a strange lot..

Other than that.. Both sides have a right to an opinion, but Politicians using it as a baby kissing opportunity.

(V): When you consider marriage has about a 50/50 success rate these days, I wonder why gay people are so keen on joining such an iffy proposition other than for the legal aspects.I don't see the need for marriage regardless of the sexual preference, but I support the access to marriage for gay couples 100%

The Col: That has and is alot of it, the legal side. The right to the same rules on taxation and inheritance as a couple.

Being treated as equals.

(V): Canadians seem much more interested in the preservation of the separation of church and state than the USA.You see far less advocacy from the church in political circles.Would our extreme right like to outlaw gay marriage? of course, but the discourse is far less rabid.If a Canadian politician was invoking the bible in regards to political issues, it wouldn't play well here , they would be regulated to fringe stays.Our politicians have no shortage of issues to screw up, but religion doesn't tend to be one of them

I still don't get it. If gays don't like chick fil a, then why don't they refuse to go there to spend their money? They act as though family value groups have been showing up to disrupt gay parades, or stage quiet family gatherings at gay bars and bath houses, so this is their way to get back at them.. ? It used to be they just wanted to not be hassled, to mind their own business and for us to do the same. So what's changed?

I suppose boycotting is out of the question... If I had a back yard barbeque boycotting it wouldn't work, because enough people would show up for the party. The only way for an unhappy neighbor to ruin it would be to show up and make an ass of himself.

I was going to say that of all the disruptive distractions the liberals have been staging, for the purpose of muddying the waters just before an election, this "controversy" over some CEO of a company expressing a personal opinion has to be the nuttiest one I've seen so far...

I WAS going to say that, but now I remember how nutty the other ones were. We still have a wall street protest crowd downtown where I live, and they are still blocking doorways and pooping on the sidewalks and adding to the number of pan handlers on every city block. I only go downtown once a month now, and even that is too often.


By the way, the personal beliefs of chick fil a's CEO have been known for a long time, so the timing of this is no coincidence.

mckinley: Sorry mckinley but you're wrong on that point. The sticky notepad was an new twist on an existing idea. A piece of paper to write notes on is NOT new. It's been around for hundreds of years. People would tear off paper and tape them to surfaces so they wouldn't lose the note. So the basic concept has been around long before any of us was born. We write a note on paper and place it on a bulletin board. Same idea. So your examples fails as an original thought. The inventor built on an existing idea. To be "original" it must be completely new and not copied or derived from something else. Even Jules is WRONG with his example. Puzzles have been around for years and the best you can say about Rubic is he had an unique idea that differed from other manipulating puzzles. The rubic cube comes close but it is still built and influenced by the ideas that preceded it. The Rubic's cube is simply a 3-d model that is manipulated. Such manipulations of 3-d forms have been around since the birth of geometry. Since the rubic cube build on previous known concepts, it's not completely new. Jules will likely disagree and perhaps so will you but you'll both be wrong if you do.

The Col: The only influence directly the UK's clergy has, is in the House of Lords. These are Bishops, but they only account for 3% of the members of that chamber. N' they are of course from the Church of England, our national faith as set up by King Henry VIII so he could get divorced.

We do have extreme right wing Christians, but they do tend to be based on imported evangelical ministries via the USA, or USA taught African churches. Yet the same laws that have worked on the Extreme Muslim Clerics apply to them.

Our MP's and Lords (other than the Bishops) would never use the Bible as a means to get votes, the British public just wouldn't wear it. We know full well from history (as it is taught in school) what extreme Christianity can do. We had Cromwell and the likes of James I ... Even Queen Mary found that once the CoE was formed she could not turn the country back to Catholicism and gave up.

Religions are kept to being of spirituality, their proper place.

"A Post-it note (or Sticky Note) is a piece of stationery with a re-adherable strip of adhesive on the back, designed for temporarily attaching notes to documents and other surfaces. Although now available in a wide range of colors, shapes, and sizes, Post-it notes are most commonly a 3-inch (76 mm) square, canary yellow in color. A unique low-tack adhesive allows the notes to be easily attached and removed without leaving marks or residue.

Post-it notes were invented by 3M's Art Fry, using an adhesive developed by a colleague, Spencer Silver. Until the 1990s, when the patent expired, they were produced only in the 3M plant in Cynthiana, Kentucky."

Although it is widely reported that the Cube was built as a teaching tool to help his students understand 3D objects, his actual purpose was solving the structural problem of moving the parts independently without the entire mechanism falling apart. He did not realize that he had created a puzzle until the first time he scrambled his new Cube and then tried to restore it.[13] Rubik obtained Hungarian patent HU170062 for his "Magic Cube" in 1975. Rubik's Cube was first called the Magic Cube (Bűvös kocka) in Hungary. The puzzle had not been patented internationally within a year of the original patent. Patent law then prevented the possibility of an international patent. Ideal wanted at least a recognizable name to trademark; of course, that arrangement put Rubik in the spotlight because the Magic Cube was renamed after its inventor in 1980.


The Patent says new invention

(V): Of course it's a new invention. Do you not think before you write? What, could it be an old invention? It's not an original thought. It's an idea that was built on other ideas. Is the car an original idea? No. It was simply a buggy with an engine.

This topic surfaced when the Col claimed that Romney doesn't have an original thought. I should have challenged that differently and asked if The Col had examined ALL of Romney's thoughts (I'll save ya the time-he hasn't). It was simply another example of a lazy statement made by a liberal who had no substantive argument so he attacked the person. Liberals love to attack the person rather than focus on their ideas.

But hey, thanks for the mini lesson (you got from google) on post-it notes. That "new" invention still wasn't an original idea. It's simply true that there is nothing new under the sun. People have been using variations of the post-it pads for years.

And while you're checking your google source, could you please provide us with an example where a new idea (a new idea isn't the same as an original thought) can be considered an old invention?

"Hey Charlie, check this out. I just invented something old!"



BTW, NOTHING in your post supports your assertion that the post it or the rubic represents an original thought. You crack me up. But you do love to pettifog an issue.

Artful Dodger: You and your buddy do enough of that.. If liberals "love to attack the person rather than focus on their ideas" .. then you and your buddy must find it... orgasmic.

I'd say the A-bomb is an old invention, the universe has been using such for billions of years.. at least this one has, rules as such might be different in another universe, so such laws are not (as theory goes now) multiversal.

The post it, might have been around in terms of a piece of paper and tape, yet no-one thought of putting the two together and using a glue that is very low tack.

"NOTHING in your post supports your assertion that the post it or the rubic represents an original thought."

I expect if Jesus himself said it was you'd still disagree.

(V): Nah. You've got the pettifogging trophy. You're number one there.

Give it up Jules. You are pettifogging again. Please go read the dictionary so you can fully understand what "original" means. You clearly don't know.

And now you are comparing yourself to Jesus?

Descartes has said that there exists no idea that can be completely original and new. His stated reason is that any "new" idea is simply a recombination of previous ideas. This has been my argument. And you should know that even the Bible says that there is nothing new under the sun.

Again Jules, look up the word original. Then argue against Descartes and God.

Class dismissed.

Please note how Jules will now try to refute Descartes even though he's quoted him in the past. It never ends.

Pettifog much? Obfuscate?



Next, Jules will try to teach God a lesson too.

Artful Dodger: You seem to be a very angry man. I see no one comparing themselves to Jesus on here.

What's your point to " Note to everyone"? What is your intention of that?

it's not politics is it?

You two bicker a lot I see, but I don't think anyone wants to know.

Artful Dodger: I understand original.... I understand Descartes.. so?

By this thought then.. even Jesus was nothing new.... I think it's said he went over to India and studied there for twelve years anyway.

So?

And you know I wasn't saying I'm Jesus. I wouldn't want to be now even if I was... with some of the idiots out there 'working' in my name.... I'd be embarrassed!!

I mean... statements like "you liberals" isn't an original thought.

in his earlier works Descartes was inclined also to refer to various images in the brain as ideas.[13] And though he abandons this use in his later work, that's not so much a change of view as a clarification. Continuing definition (3) above, he writes:

… [I]t is not only the images depicted in the imagination which I call ‘ideas.’ Indeed, in so far as these images are in the corporeal imagination, that is, are depicted in some part of the brain, I do not call them ‘ideas’ at all; I call them ‘ideas’ only in so far as they give form to [informant] the mind itself, when it is directed towards that part of the brain. (2nd Replies, II.113, AT VII.160-1)

[I]n no case are the ideas of things presented to us by the senses just as we form them in our thinking. So much so that there is nothing in our ideas which is not innate to the mind or the faculty of thinking …. Nothing reaches our mind from external objects through the sense organs except certain corporeal motions … But neither the motions themselves nor the figures arising from them are conceived by us exactly as they occur in the sense organs … Hence it follows that the very ideas of the motions themselves and of the figures are innate in us. The ideas of pain, colours, sounds, and the like must be all the more innate … for there is no similarity between these ideas and the corporeal motions [which cause their production]. (Comments, I.304, AT VIIIB.358-9)

Consequently these ideas, along with that faculty [of thinking], are innate in us, i.e. they always exist within us potentially, for to exist in some faculty is not to exist actually, but merely potentially … (Comments I.305, AT VIIIA.360)

In so far as the ideas are <considered> simply <as> modes of thought, there is no recognizable inequality among them … But in so far as different ideas <are considered as images which> represent different things, it is clear that they differ widely. (3rd Med., II.27-28, AT VII.40; cf. Principles I.17, I.198-9, AT VIIIA.11)

When M. Arnauld says ‘if cold is merely an absence, there cannot be an idea of cold which represents it as a positive thing,’ it is clear that he is dealing solely with an idea taken in the formal sense. Since ideas are forms of a kind, and are not composed of any matter, when we think of them as representing something we are taking them not materially but formally. If, however, we were considering them not as representing this or that, but simply as operations of the intellect, then it could be said that we were taking them materially, but in that case they would have no reference to the truth or falsity of their objects. (4th Replies, II.162-3, AT VII.232)

[T]here is an ambiguity here in the word ‘idea.’ ‘Idea’ can be taken materially, as an operation of the intellect, in which case it cannot be said to be more perfect than me. Alternatively, it can be taken objectively, as the thing represented by that operation; and this thing, even if it is not regarded as existing outside the intellect, can still, in virtue of its essence, be more perfect than myself. (Preface to Med., II.7, AT VII.8)

....... I think therefore I am... or I am therefore I think??

Silvery Moon: Awwwww, are you angry with me now?

(V): You apparently don't fully comprehend the concept of "original thought." You need to give it up. You are wrong no matter how much google you cut and paste.

(V): my response to this post is: zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz You're still wrong. And now you're boring too!