Rangel: An Attack on Bush is an attack on all Americans (Merged)

[Gunny]

So, we ALL agree that South American dictators SHOULDN'T be taken serious, and when "out of country", should be on a short chain.

:baby4:

That's "shot" vs "on a short chain."

 

[jillian]

I have to disagree here. I don't use Wikipedia as an unimpeachable source because it is common knowledge that it sometimes contains erroneous information; therfore, not reliable. I would think one would want something unasailable as a reference.

Again, I didn't use the word unimpeachable. I was very specific as to what I believe it's level of reliability is...

What I don't find unasailable are blogs and pundits on either extreme. I am, as MM pointed out, kinda fond of factcheck.org and snopes.com

 

[Gunny]

Again, I didn't use the word unimpeachable. I was very specific as to what I believe it's level of reliability is...

What I don't find unasailable are blogs and pundits on either extreme. I am, as MM pointed out, kinda fond of factcheck.org and snopes.com

Just tossing in my two cents. While I may use Wikipedia as a quickie reference in general, I don't use it as a source to back up an argument. Seen it shot down too many times.

I have not once used a blog as a reference to support an argument.

 

[Dr Grump]

You're babbling again.

With me it's genetic, what's your excuse?

...and you're so gal-LANT about it :guitar1:

(Groan!!). I hope your musicianship is better than your stand-up routine!:halo:

 

[Dr Grump]

It was more the pull quotes, only the statements on the page that were neutral or positive toward Chavez were posted. Others were omitted, such as:

I did point out to Karl on several occasions there were things in the article that assisted his POV. As for the examples you gave, what is the difference between say Chavez trying to make it so he can serve another term, as opposed to say Texan legislators redrawing district boundries? Also, you ever heard of the term Gerrymandering? It ain't a Spanish (therefore Venezualan) term. Finally, your pull quotes don't prove Chavez is a dictator or in any way, shape or form, Hitler. He's a politician. That alone makes him suspect...

 

[UnAmericanYOU]

No worries, MM.

I did point out to Karl on several occasions there were things in the article that assisted his POV.

What was his POV? Anti-Chavez? You quoted the only the facts to supported your opinion but omitted that fact.

As for the examples you gave, what is the difference between say Chavez trying to make it so he can serve another term, as opposed to say Texan legislators redrawing district boundries?

The former is a hallmark of a dictatorship, the other is legal abuse of a representative republic.

Need more? Abolishing term limits on the executive branch by the head of the executive branch is different from the legislative branch gerrymandering in order to fufill constiutional duties.

Also, you ever heard of the term Gerrymandering?

Yes. Damn Census Department.

It ain't a Spanish (therefore Venezualan) term.

Que?

Not everything Spanish is Venezualan, is it? Chavez didn't gerrymander, he's consolidated constitutional power to himself.

Finally, your pull quotes don't prove Chavez is a dictator or in any way, shape or form, Hitler. He's a politician. That alone makes him suspect...

Are you calling me Hitler? Because if you are....

Mr. Godwin, you have a telephone call on the white phone in the main lobby. Please pick up the white phone in the lobby. Thank you.


There's some similarities. Mussolini and Hitler both were political prisoners that were elected fairly until they appointed themselves president for life. Then there's that cult of personality thing going, Chavez's kissing up to more established dictators like Castro, the constant coup threats, the assassination threats, the tirades on the floor of the UN, the paranoia and obsessiveness with more powerful countries, the recalls, the contensted election results....

All dictators are politicans, but not all politicans are dictators.

 

[musicman]

With me it's genetic, what's your excuse?

I require none. I brook no babbling.

(Groan!!). I hope your musicianship is better than your stand-up routine!:halo:

LOL - a question that others must decide, I suppose. But, my stand up has stood the test of time; I crack myself up! :rotflmao:

 

[Dr Grump]

What was his POV? Anti-Chavez? You quoted the only the facts to supported your opinion but omitted that fact.

Of course I only quoted facts that supported my opinion. It is not my job to post facts that support his. That's his job. But at least I tried to point him in the right direction!

The former is a hallmark of a dictatorship, the other is legal abuse of a representative republic.

I disagree. He has the majority in their Parliament/congress or whatever type of govt they have in Venezuela. The USA can change term limits via the amendment process - heck it's already been done once. He will try to change the term limits by a similar process. Thing is, he might get the vote because his party has a decent majority in their parliament. Britain and Australian Prime Ministers can serve as long as their cabinets/population keep on voting them in.

Need more? Abolishing term limits on the executive branch by the head of the executive branch is different from the legislative branch gerrymandering in order to fufill constiutional duties.

He isn't abolishing term limits on a whim and on his own. It has to be voted on.

Not everything Spanish is Venezualan, is it? Chavez didn't gerrymander, he's consolidated constitutional power to himself.

I know he didn't Gerrymander. My point (which I probably should have been more clear about) was that dodgy politics just aren't limited to third-world countries.

Are you calling me Hitler? Because if you are.

Whoops. Apologies. My bad. I missed a couple of words out. I was supposed to put "or is" before the word Hitler.

There's some similarities. Mussolini and Hitler both were political prisoners that were elected fairly until they appointed themselves president for life. Then there's that cult of personality thing going, Chavez's kissing up to more established dictators like Castro, the constant coup threats, the assassination threats, the tirades on the floor of the UN, the paranoia and obsessiveness with more powerful countries, the recalls, the contensted election results.

There's nothing new there. He has a lot more dissimilarities with Hitler etc than similarities. And some of the things you have pointed out could be applied to many western politicians.

N
All dictators are politicans, but not all politicans are dictators.

True. I still don't see him as a dictator.....yet....

 

[Dr Grump]

I require none. I brook no babbling

That sir, is in the eye of the beholder!

LOL - a question that others must decide, I suppose. But, my stand up has stood the test of time; I crack myself up! :rotflmao:

heh!

 

[musicman]

Of course I only quoted facts that supported my opinion. It is not my job to post facts that support his. That's his job.

Then, perhaps we have uncovered a failing of mine. It is conceivable that I have missed the distinction between a "discussion" and a "debate". The point of a debate, it would seem, is to "win"; toward that all-important end, then, such gambits as the "rhetorical device" and the "half-truth" are not only permissible, but ADMIRABLE.

All in all, I'd have to say I much prefer a discussion - the point of which is the vigorous defense of one's views in the context of the whole truth. Anything less smells to me of a weak argument; a "debater", caught in the act of trickery and games, has lost the battle. For all his education and skill, Bill Clinton, for example, is shown at the last to be a pathetic charlatan. He has, finally, no credibility; he prostituted that precoius asset long ago - and cheaply. He sold it for a "win".

But at least I tried to point him in the right direction!

No - you tried to "win".

 

[Dr Grump]

Then, perhaps we have uncovered a failing of mine. It is conceivable that I have missed the distinction between a "discussion" and a "debate". The point of a debate, it would seem, is to "win"; toward that all-important end, then, such gambits as the "rhetorical device" and the "half-truth" are not only permissible, but ADMIRABLE.

I disagree with your premise. IMO, a debate is when two people of opposing views put forth evidence to support said views. The supportive evidence can come in many forms and it is usually the crux of the debate. I don't see it as a failing of yours, just you serruptitiously trying to take a high(er) moral ground with a form of false modesty. That in itself is, a half-truth IMO...

All in all, I'd have to say I much prefer a discussion - the point of which is the vigorous defense of one's views in the context of the whole truth. Anything less smells to me of a weak argument; a "debater", caught in the act of trickery and games, has lost the battle.

Really? What if there is no trickery or games? Then the debate continues to its end, no? Usually that either ends with a concession by one party or a stalemate. More often than not it is a stalemate on messageboards (in my experience). One of the problems with your assertions is that when you "discuss" you no doubt think your context of the whole truth is the "real" context.

For all his education and skill, Bill Clinton, for example, is shown at the last to be a pathetic charlatan. He has, finally, no credibility; he prostituted that precoius asset long ago - and cheaply. He sold it for a "win".

I agree with your opinion. I would also add that all those involved, including the repubs who went after him, came out with little credibility. Bill shoulda fessed up. Then again, if I had a wife like Hillary it would be a tad daunting. At the very least he should have told Starr it was none of his damn business.

No - you tried to "win".

No, I tried to do both - point him in the right direction and win. Almost every person on this board who believes in anything tries for the win. If you are making a general observation about the members of this board, no problemo. If you are singling me out, I think you are being one-eyed. :coffee3:

 

[musicman]

I disagree with your premise. IMO, a debate is when two people of opposing views put forth evidence to support said views. The supportive evidence can come in many forms and it is usually the crux of the debate. I don't see it as a failing of yours, just you serruptitiously trying to take a high(er) moral ground with a form of false modesty. That in itself is, a half-truth IMO...

=sigh= You're so young in so many ways, Dr Grump. I have pointed out - with a tinge of regretful irony - the thread of disingenuousness that runs through the debating style of too many on this board. You have chosen (or, perhaps not) to miss the point entirely. I really do wish you well. I really do hope you grow.

Really? What if there is no trickery or games? Then the debate continues to its end, no? Usually that either ends with a concession by one party or a stalemate. More often than not it is a stalemate on messageboards (in my experience). One of the problems with your assertions is that when you "discuss" you no doubt think your context of the whole truth is the "real" context.

You're basically defending dishonesty.

I agree with your opinion. I would also add that all those involved, including the repubs who went after him, came out with little credibility. Bill shoulda fessed up. Then again, if I had a wife like Hillary it would be a tad daunting. At the very least he should have told Starr it was none of his damn business.

And now you're defending dishonesty again. Ken Starr was doing AMERICA'S business. A chief executive who commits perjury is VERY MUCH America's business.

No, I tried to do both - point him in the right direction and win. Almost every person on this board who believes in anything tries for the win. If you are making a general observation about the members of this board, no problemo. If you are singling me out, I think you are being one-eyed. :coffee3:

Would that I WERE singling you out, Dr Grump. But, as I said, it is the debating style of too many on this board.

 

[Dr Grump]

=sigh= You're so young in so many ways, Dr Grump. I have pointed out - with a tinge of regretful irony - the thread of disingenuousness that runs through the debating style of too many on this board. You have chosen (or, perhaps not) to miss the point entirely. I really do wish you well. I really do hope you grow.

sigh - you are so condescending in so many ways. What you are after is the perfect world. It will never happen. I got your point, I just disagree with its premise. Perhaps you are more suited for a blue leotard and red cape and fight for truth, justice and the American way...

You're basically defending dishonesty.

No I am not. I am defending robust debate. You are too cynical/world weary to see that aspect.

And now you're defending dishonesty again. Ken Starr was doing AMERICA'S business. A chief executive who commits perjury is VERY MUCH America's business.

I was talking about pre perjury. I have never defended Clinton's perjury - never will. He should have told them it was none of their business and not answered the questions. Instead he took a different road - to his detriment.

Would that I WERE singling you out, Dr Grump. But, as I said, it is the debating style of too many on this board.

Fair enough!

 

[UnAmericanYOU]

Of course I only quoted facts that supported my opinion. It is not my job to post facts that support his. That's his job. But at least I tried to point him in the right direction!

Then it was backwards, using facts to support your opinion while ignoring other facts from the same source that don't support your opinion is tantamount to writing a thesis paper, you are supposed to rebut what you disagree with on your own source.

I disagree. He has the majority in their Parliament/congress or whatever type of govt they have in Venezuela. The USA can change term limits via the amendment process - heck it's already been done once.

What Chavez has done is more along the lines of GWB jamming through a friendly Congress a resolution to become president indefinitely.

He will try to change the term limits by a similar process.

A thesis paper has to have clarity? Who will? Bush, nope, Chavez, yep.

Thing is, he might get the vote because his party has a decent majority in their parliament. Britain and Australian Prime Ministers can serve as long as their cabinets/population keep on voting them in.

Different forms of government, the electorate votes for the party that votes for the leader. The "no confidence" vote is when your party's given up on you.

Are we on Tony Blair now? Yes, he'll step down, and soon, his Labour Party successor will be able to establish himself/herself before his/her party comes up for a vote to keep the majority (but they won't). <-----OPINION!

He isn't abolishing term limits on a whim and on his own. It has to be voted on.

He's abolishing term limits on himself through questionable means.

I know he didn't Gerrymander. My point (which I probably should have been more clear about) was that dodgy politics just aren't limited to third-world countries.

No, but they're more prevalent there, especially in Latin American countries. There is a worse to the bad.

Whoops. Apologies. My bad. I missed a couple of words out. I was supposed to put "or is" before the word Hitler.

LOL, I was wondering, okay.

There's nothing new there. He has a lot more dissimilarities with Hitler etc than similarities. And some of the things you have pointed out could be applied to many western politicians.

Yeah, why I invoked Godwin's law, there will be only one Hitler, and that's a good thing.

Chavez's "presidency" has all those similarities to a classiscal dictatorship (AND the nationalism) , nothing new for those parts

True. I still don't see him as a dictator.....yet....

Chavez? He was sort of neutralized by Calderon's win, now he's thinking Bush will try to kill him for his remarks but he won't be able to.

Over-the-top Latino rhetoric again. Wait 'til this December...

 

[musicman]

sigh - you are so condescending in so many ways.

Not really - and I'm sorry you've chosen to interpret me that way. Older people are allowed to express sadness at the foolishness of youth; we've bought that right with our tears. We do not condescend - we offer context.

What you are after is the perfect world. It will never happen. I got your point, I just disagree with its premise. Perhaps you are more suited for a blue leotard and red cape and fight for truth, justice and the American way...

You're confusing me with the socialists; unlike them, I am well aware of man's limitations. But, human nature is not its own defense; because we are inherently weak doesn't mean we're duty bound to wallow in it. We can aspire; we can strive for better ideals.

No I am not. I am defending robust debate. You are too cynical/world weary to see that aspect.

I am not cynical in the slightest. I've been around the track SEVERAL times, and have managed to come up peaceful in my heart, and guardedly optimistic.

Debate can be robust without reeking, Dr Grump. It's only when it is dumbed down to a continuing exercise in "hide the bullshit lie; find the bullshit lie" that it becomes an unbearable drag.

I was talking about pre perjury. I have never defended Clinton's perjury - never will. He should have told them it was none of their business and not answered the questions.

I don't believe he had that option.

Instead he took a different road - to his detriment.

I don't believe he had much of an option here, either - other than changing who essentially was/is. Being Bill Clinton, he lied.

Fair enough!

 

[Annie]

Somehow, I lost my way in this conversation/dialogue:

Not really - and I'm sorry you've chosen to interpret me that way. Older people are allowed to express sadness at the foolishness of youth; we've bought that right with our tears. We do not condescend - we offer context.

What you are after is the perfect world. It will never happen. I got your point, I just disagree with its premise. Perhaps you are more suited for a blue leotard and red cape and fight for truth, justice and the American way...

You're confusing me with the socialists; unlike them, I am well aware of man's limitations. But, human nature is not its own defense; because we are inherently weak doesn't mean we're duty bound to wallow in it. We can aspire; we can strive for better ideals.

No I am not. I am defending robust debate. You are too cynical/world weary to see that aspect.

I am not cynical in the slightest. I've been around the track SEVERAL times, and have managed to come up peaceful in my heart, and guardedly optimistic.

Debate can be robust without reeking, Dr Grump. It's only when it is dumbed down to a continuing exercise in "hide the bullshit lie; find the bullshit lie" that it becomes an unbearable drag.

 

[musicman]

Somehow, I lost my way in this conversation/dialogue:

LOL - Dr Grump and I do tend to meander, don't we? I'd say the meat of our discussion comes down to what is and isn't good debating form. I'll try to sum it up - with the understanding that this is MY take; Dr Grump is certainly welcome to present his perceptions, if they differ from mine:

...I am defending robust debate.You are too cynical/world weary to see that aspect.

I am not cynical in the slightest...[d]ebate can be robust without reeking, Dr Grump. It's only when it is dumbed down to a continuing exercise in "hide the bullshit lie; find the bullshit lie" that it becomes an unbearable drag.

 

[Annie]

LOL - Dr Grump and I do tend to meander, don't we? I'd say the meat of our discussion comes down to what is and isn't good debating form. I'll try to sum it up - with the understanding that this is MY take; Dr Grump is certainly welcome to present his perceptions, if they differ from mine:

Sorry, I'm still lost.

 

[musicman]

Sorry, I'm still lost.

And understandably so; this thread has taken some weird twists and turns, and that's my fault, to no small degree. I've been on the periphery of it, for the most part, and took exception only to some stylistic approaches being employed during the arguments of others. A accused B of cherry-picking; B replied, in essence, "Well, it's my JOB to cherry-pick the points which support my arguments - just as it's the other guy's job to prop up HIS arguments by whatever means necessary". I disagree with this view; I believe discourse suffers thereby.

 

[OCA]

And understandably so; this thread has taken some weird twists and turns, and that's my fault, to no small degree. I've been on the periphery of it, for the most part, and took exception only to some stylistic approaches being employed during the arguments of others. A accused B of cherry-picking; B replied, in essence, "Well, it's my JOB to cherry-pick the points which support my arguments - just as it's the other guy's job to prop up HIS arguments by whatever means necessary". I disagree with this view; I believe discourse suffers thereby.

Music you stupid old fart, you got into a "discussion' with this idiot Chump? Its like tits on a boar, absolutely useless.

You are absolutely correct that cherry picking and then ignoring facts that dispute his view are his hallmarks, has he started his baseless chest thumping yet?