The Usurper:You are missing the point.  Maybe Czuch doesn't acknowledge your points because he doesn't agree with any of them.  That's a possibility. 

That's beside the point of my post to you.  Challenging a person's debating tactics seems legitimate to me.  So if someone twists what you say, then it's right that you should set them straight.  When people do twist things, they are often building up straw men arguments and those are easily to point out. 

But to say that the other isn't a serious debater addresses the person and not the argument.  Also your statement as to his use of logic is questionable as well (on the same grounds). 

I only point this out because  when you first came on here, you stood on the fact that you were all about a "gentlemanly" debate.  Others commended you for not throwing insults.  Now you are throwing insults (and have in other posts as well) and I can't help but wonder, where are those critical voices now?  And why the change in you?  Is it a sign of frustration?

For the most part, when I read your posts (on 911) I don't get the impression that you want us to consider your points and come to our own conclusion; but you want to tell us what we should think (apparently because you've done all the thinking for us or something like that).

The Usurper:You aren't a serious debater. You don't seriously stand on "logic" in your so-called counterpoints.

I thought you were against ad hominem arguments.  I also thought you were the one that called for letting the arguments speak for themselves. 

BTW, having evidence is meaningless if it's not credible or acceptable.  In a trial, lawyers are always trying to discredit the other's submitted evidence.  Some evidence stands up to close scrutiny, some does not.  So simply claiming you provided "evidence" isn't enough.  It has to take us some where.  And spare me the repeat; I know the evidence takes you somewhere.  But it's got to do more than that.  How long have you looked into this 911 stuff?  If a long time, then why do you expect people to "take your word for it" and accept everything you say on face value?

If you've only looked at it a short time, that is worse.  That simply shows that you fall for something without really checking into it in a deep and meaningful way.

Keep the facts coming.  Keep the questions coming.  Challenge assumptions.  But don't do the very thing you have criticized in others:  "to the man" attacks. 

And Bill O'Reilly was right about that idiot Barney Frank.   He's largely responsible for this mess along with ALL the democrats.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAuOEdttjZQ

Who was at fault for Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac failing?  Not Bush.  He pushed for regulation and was blocked by the Dems in congress:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM

The Usurper:The founding fathers were totally against a national bank and for good reasons.  This is nothing more than a grab for power.  They are not helping out the folks here, they are setting us up. 

The Usurper:I have to agree that a national bank is a very bad idea and we will regret it very soon. 

The Usurper:  Well, you'll have to wait for my response cuz I'm off to bed.   If you make a conspiracy nut of me, I'll sue. 

The Usurper:WTC7 isn't the whole story of 911.  So even if someone was convinced that it was explosives that took that building down, that part of the story alone doesn't go anywhere to explain the rest. 

Bernice:I don't mind an investigation (another one) but the thing is, the conspiracy guys have already drawn their conclusions.  They have already figured it all out.  They aren't simply asking questions, they are stating things as facts and conclusions.  I'm not being told to "consider this" or that but I'm being told, "believe this" or that.  And what a lot of these conspiracy fold do is to pound you with a huge amount of information over and over and over again.  I guess they want to wear down one's resistance or something.  For me it's simple: Give me something solid.  Conjecture isn't proof.  Questions or doubt isn't proof.  I don't just want the smoking gun, I wanna see the gun and then talk tot he guy who pulled the trigger.  They have nothing but theory - all day long. 

That and the fact that on the one hand they call Bush an complete idiot, and then they turn around and treat him like he's a mastermind genius when it comes to pulling off the impossible!  Wow!

Oh and Obama must be in on it too.  And all of congress.  And on and on and on.

The Usurper:He should have cited Mission Impossible too.  Those guys really could fool everybody!  Really.  A Tom Clancy novel.  I'm sold. 

The Usurper:It would take hundreds and hundreds of people to pull off this alleged conspiracy.  And people ALWAYS talk.  There's not one insider that's talking and that smells. 

The Usurper: All you have to find are a couple of the guys who worked on the explosives.  They had to be experts in that sort of thing and those guys aren't a dime a dozen.  Where are they all?

The Usurper: fine, we will be the judge.  But when we reject your claim you will continue harping on it anyway.  Do you think you are the first one to bring this to our attention?  Not.

The Usurper:  That's where we differ.  You see it as having one's eyes opened and I see it as having one's mind manipulated.  Any good lawyer can do that and in fact does so for a living.  A good lawyer can get a guilty man off and a good prosecutor can get an innocent man behind bars.  Proof that a convincing argument, complete with all its "evidence," doesn't mean the thing they propose is true.  Just convincing.  In the case of your position, I am neither moved by your arguments nor your so-called evidence.  So in my view, if you succeed at getting someone to believe as you do, then you will have succeeded in getting someone to believe something that simply isn't true. 

anastasia:

(V):  Could you stop with the banana argument please?  Who cares.  It has nothing to do with this board.  sheesh.  My statement was a nonsense statement and NOT meant to be taken seriously (I was avoiding using logic with humans as you suggested).  You took a yellow banana and turn it into sour grapes.  Enough already!

The Usurper: You'll never convince me.  I'm not even mildly convinced.  You put too much faith in the Bush administration.  

Czuch: yeah like national security.  Besides, we both know that any reason given will never be enough for some.  If we detained Osama bin Laden we'd probably get protests and asked what was the plausible reason for detaining him!  Somewhere out there in the world, some group would complain.  And you can bet that no matter what evidence was presented or reason given, some group in the US would protest.  Someone always does.

I like my idea.  Shoot them all from now on and take no prisoners.  Then no complaints about waterboarding or turning the music up too loud.

The Usurper: I think I read somewhere that by Geneva convention you cannot house POWs whatever in general population institutions.  So we'd have to have a similar security area such as Gitmo.

As for evidence, it's not CSI.  It's a battlefield.  They catch these guys on the battlefield.  They don't take notes and close off a crime scene.  I say just shoot them all when you see them and to hell with all this trial crap/evidence crap.  If you're caught on the battlefield, you're dead.  That will solve gitmo. 

The Usurper:I don't even know where to start.  So I won't.

Bernice: I don't know how much of what this guy says is actually true, but I will say this:  I have a hard time feeling sorry for a guy that actively supported terrorism.  And considering what I know about how the terrorists treat their prisoners, he should be glad he didn't fall into their hands as an Australian sympathetic to the US.  They would have sliced his throat, and then while he squirmed, they would have removed his head with a knife.  That's how they operate. 

I find it hard to believe that this guy's story is fully credible in light of the fact that Obama had Gitmo investigated and it was found that they met Geneva convention requirements.

But, even if this guy's claims are true, I still don't feel sorry for him.  I'm just speaking honestly.  I don't care what we do to terrorists.  I say, shoot them on the battlefield.  Save us all the headache the world puts us through when we have to treat these murderers with kid gloves. 

In Mexico, just across the border, people are being killed every day by the drug cartel.  There is a solution, but we follow the law.  Which means, they will continue to kill civilians and each other while  we play by the rules.

Or

We could just go in there and kill everyone that is a known drug smuggler.  And declare war on them and kill them.  Bomb the hell out of them.  Take back the streets.  Fight the fight their way.

But that won't be acceptable to people.  So instead of being able to just kill them all, we have to allow them to continue to bring in drugs, kill our law enforcement officers, terrorize our citizens, and fight the fight in a way that gives them the advantage.  And in the long run, this advantage will keep them in power, and us in fear.

It suck to have to play nice. 

The Usurper: You don't have time not to know.  YOu have to deal with these terrorists.  If you are going to close Gitmo with no plan, then you MUST keep it operative.  If you agree to close it, you MUST have a plan.  What you offer now is silly.  Close Gitmo but what to do with the detainees?  Well, we'll do something.   Now how much sense does that really make to yoU?

The Usurper:And your solution is?

The Usurper: At least on this point, we can agree. 

(V): They don't all think the same on every issue but they should be together on the core philosophies of the republican party (or call themselves something else).  And they do represent the people (they should) and listen to them.  Anyone in public office that thinks otherwise ought to get out quick.

(V): We can hope to diminish problems, but we will never eradicate them.  We will never wipe poverty out.  We will always have the poor.  We can diminish their numbers through opportunity and education, but the poor will always be among us.  There is no quick fix, as you say.  There is no permanent fix either.  Neither is there a fix that will make "all things right."  Sweden's socialism has been failing for years.  It's not gotten better, it's gotten worse.  And they are leaning towards a market-oriented model and leaning away from their socialist beginnings.  Personal responsibility is the number one factor in getting ahead.  Take personal responsibility and life will deal you a better hand.  And play the hand you get, don't complain about not getting a full house.  Someone else has nothing even when you have just a pair of 2's.  Work hard, complain less, be fair, look out for others.  Don't expect handouts and don't give them to people that won't help themselves.  Put your money towards more noble causes.

And BTW, any references I made to sterilization was not done seriously.  As I said in one of my posts, it was a logical extension of a socialist philosophy.  Sweden is a case in point but of course there are other examples as well.  And I think Czuch would agree with me that a socialist model tends to diminish the emphasis on personal responsibility.  After all, if you mess up, the government is there to pick up the pieces.  Both Czuch and I favor smaller government.  And speaking for myself, I would never vote for Bush again.  Both he and many of his fellow republicans "left the tenets of the faith" and adopted policies that are NOT consistent with republican philosophy.   They are part of the problem we are now it.   Had the republicans lived by their true calling, we wouldn't be in this mess.  And just so it's clear, the democrats aren't off the hook.  They helped create this mess as well.  

The Usurper:
``The [government] must put the most modern medical means in the
service of this knowledge.... Those who are physically and mentally
unhealthy and unworthy must not perpetuate their suffering in the body
of their children.... The prevention of the faculty and opportunity to
procreate on the part of the physically degenerate and mentally sick,
over a period of only 600 years, would ... free humanity from an
immeasurable misfortune.''

I know you don't agree with this quote but are you aware that Sweden predated and post dated  this destructive philosophy?  I refer to the Swedish sterilization program. Couples deemed to be inferior parents,
were sterilized - as where the mentally ill and retarded. If you're going
to have a utopian state, can't let the "losers" in life be having kids. 
Keep in mind that the sterilization policy, begun to keep the race pure, predated and
outlasted Nazi Germany. Ironic?  But let's not stop there. Sweden also lobotomized aobut 4500 people.
This policy too was a part of their socialism philosophy. Crazy people,
criminals, and other undesirables were lobotomized for the good of the
country. Nice.

(V): Or attacks put in the form of reminders.  I don't mind a discussion on repressive government policies that include many examples, but to take the current discussion and label one side "hitlerish" will be considered, at least by this moderator, a personal attack.  I've read those references and still have no specific idea as to what the "hitlerish" nonsense was referencing.  But if the posters had instead dealt in specifics, more would be gained. 

Stop the Hitlerian references.  From what I've observed, these references amount to no less than name calling and personal attacks.  

Hitler murdered 6 million Jews, had women and children murdered on his orders, and a host of other horrible crimes (not to mention the 5 plus million non-Jews that died at his hands).  

If you disagree with a political/economic policy, be descriptive in your objection.  But don't resort to "Hitlerish" and other such nonsense.  Orwellian would have been a more appropriate word in both cases where hitlerish was used. 

Wanna discuss Hitler as a topic?  Fine by me.  But using his philosophy as a club to whack your opponent will get your post fixed by me. 

And don't complain about this post of mine on this board.  Don't like it, write me personally.  Next Hitler reference aimed at another individual will be dealt with.

(V):Don't use logic and break our own rule.

(V):Yes but bananas are yellow and camels don't wear horse saddles either.  But if you carry water in a bucket with a hole in it, you're sure to put too much sugar in your coffee.

(V):

(V):Of course that's not what I'm arguing for.  I'm carrying out yours and Usurpers economic philosophy to its logical conclusion.

'Taxing' farts and burps


On that "note" I'm joining the new international political action committee, "Freedom Against Ridiculous Taxes" or FART. 

It's finally happened.  The politicians have gone completely mad and stuck their "noses" up where we thought there were all along. 

Bernice:lol

Bernice:a bunch of Killroys holding a sign ;)

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
   ..   o  ww    __     ((    ..   o  ww    __     ((
  ('')   \(--)  ("")   (..)  ('')   \(--)  ("")   (..)
 o---o-------o---oo---o----o o---o-------o---oo---o----o
 |  And Now Back To Our Regularly Scheduled Argument!  |
 |_____________________________________________________|
  =''=   ='  '=  ='=  =' '=  =''=   ='  '=  ='=   =' '=

Bernice:
lol

ScarletRose:Well, you can't pay for all these programs unless we tax the crap out of hard working Americans.  We'll never pay off the current debt without huge tax increases.

ScarletRose: Speaking of taxes.  Ours will all be going up.  If we go the way of Sweden, it will be over 50%. 

The Usurper:You'll have to learn to say "ol chap" and get your teeth to protrude. 

ScarletRose:Yeah, I have to install two fire detectors, do some practice on bass for Sunday, and veg.  ;)

Bernice:I quite smoking too and now I just fart. 

The Usurper: