:D
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Typical of you Golgot. You always back away when the heat gets turned on. I said this before and I'll say it again... with friends like you, who needs enemies? I could do without your support, frankly, because I find that your arguments, supposedly in my defense, seem to undercut my position more often than support it. I respect your opinion, but your cowardly escape at this stage is just completely typical of you.

I stand by what I have said and will, in due course, provide all the necessary justification for my remarks. I'm not claiming to be perfect--sure, I've made mistakes. But I'm not about to apologize when there is no need to do so.

In any case, FOR THE RECORD, let it be remembered that I stood for what I believe to be the TRUTH, and whether or not you or anyone else agrees with me is besides the point--my opinion is on the table--the facts I have presented speak for themselves.

Another point I would like to make--the Bush administration justified its invasion of Iraq on the grounds that Iraq supposedly possesses weapons of mass destruction, which it could, potentially, give away to terrorists, notably Al Quaeda.

YET... at the same time, the Bush administration is closely allied with Pakistan:

• Another Islamic military dictatorship...
• Which has a highly publicized nuclear weapons program, funded and supported by the US, incidentally...
• Which, EVEN NOW, harbors, and sponsors AL QUAEDA TERRORISTS within its borders...
• Which has, in the past, sponsored Al Quaeda terrorist activity across its borders...
• And which, in all probability, is currently harboring Osama bin Laden in its borders...somewhere on the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan, most likely, but that's just speculation on my part.

So, the question is, why? Why did the Bush administration choose to back away from Afghanistan and Pakistan--a hotbed of Al Quaeda activity, and choose, instead, to focus its attention on Iraq--a nation that:

• Has no established connection with Al Quaeda...
• Has no proven weapons of mass destruction...
• Is reeling from 10 years of economic sanctions...

This got me thinking, and the reasons I could come up with are:

1. Political strategy--Pakistan is a long-time ally of the US, in spite of its overt Al Quaeda terrorist connections and its belligerent US-sponsored nuclear weapons program...
2. Economic gain--Pakistan is a poor, undeveloped country with no rich oil deposits that would make an invasion profitable to an oil man like Bush

Essentially, the Bush invasion of Iraq stinks to high heaven--not only does it border on neo-colonialism--i.e. the arbitrary invasion of a sovereign nation on trumped up grounds and the massive ensuing payoff from reconstruction projects, etc.--but the whole grounds for the invasion was a deliberate deception--an OUTRIGHT LIE on the part of the Bush administration, which it is currently attempting to dismiss as arising from faulty intelligence sources--all the more grounds for it to be called to account for its actions.

Django, these last points are of course very good.

You know full well i agree with them. (and there are plenty more points "we" can add to them).....

Or at least if you actually READ other people's posts with the EXPECTATION of being ABLE to have you PERSPECTIVE ALTERED as well as SUPPORTED, you'd realise that i haven't changed my position of being against the invasion of Iraq for very similar reasons to you.

The reason i write "we" as "we", is because the differences between us are:
(a) you don't seem to recognise that just screaming your opinion doesn't get you anywhere. There is no point howling into the wind to "historically document your position".
(b) You don't seem to get that the point of a forum is to convince others and to learn from them. If you're just going to rant at everyone you won't get anywhere. (i've been guilty of this - but i've learned from my mistakes).

As it is, when i attack you, it is because you are displaying the very DOGMA of principle that i dislike equally when it occurs in people of political beliefs that differ from mine. You see - just because we have similar conclusions doesn't mean we are bestest-buddies-for-life. It doesn't mean i will agree with everything you say. This is why i push you to justify your statements - so that others can ponder the facts that helped you arrive at your decisions and reach their own conclusions. (and if the source of your beliefs is instinctual - i understand that, and there can be validity in that, but don't expect to convince others with it, or to be able to have your opinions stand unchallenged in a forum).

The reason i have more respect for Yoda than i do for you, despite disagreeing strongly with the majority of his political beliefs and conclusions, is that he has shown himself to be prepared to listen and re-evaluate his case, and he at least gives reasons for things he states as fact. He doesn't keep harping on about something if his point becomes discredited. As you do.

Lose the dogma Django - and maybe people might listen to you more. Why not open up the door to that possibility?

As it is - all i want to do is have some solid debate on the iraq/terror cases, and learn more about the economic situation. As it is, i find myself getting tied up wanting you to remove the dogma from your reviews. Yoda, for a start, is going to be constantly drawn into berating you rather than dealing with my points of view, so that annoys me too.

We've all had a quick grapple with the iraq/terror points - but they've been swallowed up by you constantly stuffing your shoe in your mouth over other issues. Personally, if this goes on much longer, i'm going to ignore your posts, forgoe whatever decent points you might make, and take myself off to some thread where clarity can be achieved.

Don't feel aggrieved. Just change your reasons for being here.

EDIT:

And incidently - stop accusing me of cowardice you raging DOGMATON

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

Equally incidently: What else do you do to try and convince people who don't have a problem with the iraq/terror thing and other social issues aside from screaming at them?? Personally, i: make shorts that use comedy to involve people; have written numerous social-commentary comedy sitcom scripts and radio plays that i am currently marketing; am currently writing articles; write to my MP and other influential political figures and march when the marches reinforce concurrent socio-politcal activity; and i have conversations where i remain patient for as long as possible and try to learn as much as possible about my "opposite" numbers (unless/until they turn out to be as dogmatic as someone like yourself - in which case i normally recognise not much can be done. But **** it, i can't help but have a few more stabs at trying to trigger change inside their heads)

Well? What do you actually do to try and change things eh?

Guantanamo and individual-rights during a "war" against terror
 

Here's some ponderings on Guantanamo:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/waron...096516,00.html

This article looks at the Britains there - most notable of whom are the "tipton two" - two lads from Manchester against whom there is absolutely zero evidence. They're just convenient scape-goats by the looks of it. One had been sent off to have an arranged marriage by his parents, disappeared, wound up in an Afghanistan jail, and was nominated by locals when an appeal went out for terrorists to be handed over. He doesn't even know how to load a gun.

Of course, it looks like many of these guys are going to have to plead guilty to some meaningless charge to be able to come back to Britain to face a reasonable legal examination of their case. Marvellous. Guilty no-matter-what so that you can become innocent-b4-proven-guilty. Yeah, that works. :rolleyes:

This article looks at the how american defence teams have refused to work under the principles of Guantanamo.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo...098618,00.html

And here is an in-depth report on the whole set-up, including a look at the disturbing use of mind-altering drugs.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo...098604,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo...098573,00.html

-------

On the use of new laws that allow for pre-proof imprisonment, there has been contoversy in britain too - and an increasing feeling of alienation and persecution amongst the 2 million-strong Muslim population.

As this article shows, only 5 of the 529 people arrested since 9/11 have been charged with terrorist actions. The rest have been charged with having forged passports, or possesing arms, or have been shown to be completely innocent.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_ne...101744,00.html

My personal opinion is that a lot of this is inevitable, and that terrorism has almost certainly been prevented by throwing the net this wide. Guantanamo worries me more because the incarceration is harsher, the periods longer, and in some cases, the original justification/reasons for "arrests" highly dubious. And, as many articles have pointed out, there's a huge irony in claiming to be defending "freedom and justice" while simultaneously flouting those principles.

And again, the application of the "Patriot" acts seem to be being applied in a harsher way than the acts implemented over here (prior to 9/11 as it goes anyway). This article paints a disturbing picture.

-the numbers of those interned without charges isn't released.
-protestors classified as terrorists.
-a lawyer involved in various anti-Patriot-act cases being prevented from flying and strip-searched so often she fears to leave the US in case she wouldn't be allowed back. (tho why she wants to stay is beyond me ;) :p )
-a union activist feeling he was only safe from internment coz he had a white wife.
-A hindu man who had once employed a suspected terrorist at his petrol station getting arrested instead, imprisoned without rights, threatened with death, and then deported, and now struggles to find work. Despite having done nothing.

Not good

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/liber...037121,00.html

Thank you for that acknowledgement.

I'm not screaming my position--I am simply stating the facts, clearly and concisely. It is known as effective communication.

The point of a forum is to communicate your point of view to others and learn from their points of view. Nobody's ranting--all I did was request for some guidelines for clear, effective communication, to minimize the wastage of time.

I hardly think I have been dogmatic in anything I have said. I have made a clear, concise case for my beliefs, providing documentary evidence for some, if not all, of my claims, and promising to do so for the rest soon enough. You can hardly fault me for protesting if my "opposition" uses questionable tactics such as:

• Diversion from the main issues I have raised by addressing peripheral issues...
• Making meaningless long-winded statements that get you nowhere...
• Launching mean-spirited, antagonistic personal attacks, and, especially, using the underhanded tactic of posting negative reputation points to punish me for points they disagree with me on...
• And last, but not least, ... making statements that are totally lacking in objectivity ...

I have, on many occasions, admitted my errors and re-evaluated my opinion, but I refuse to apologize for standing by my point of view, which I believe to be pretty firmly established in my mind. It's not to say that I'm not open-minded or open to change and reasonable discussion--I am turned off by vicious personal attacks and long-winded BS that fails to make any sort of coherent point.

Like I have already said, I am far from being dogmatic. On the contrary, I believe my statements to be completely reasonable.

I am also interested in constructive debate, sans dogma. That has been my position all along, and I think I'm being pretty reasonable here.

Sorry for upsetting you, Golgot. I do respect your point of view and value your contributions. However, I just think that you need to take a firmer stand on the issues and quit hedging and compromising with your opponents--it comes across as if you are not firm in your point of view and are too easily swayed. I wholeheartedly congratulate you on all your numerous achievements and commend you for taking your civic duties so seriously. However, like I said, I am being far from dogmatic--I think all I'm doing is making a clear, concise statement of my views, with the occasional wise-crack thrown in for good measure. And, I think, I am justified in requiring others to be clear, concise and to the point as well.

Dind't I post a reply to Toose in this thread? Something about false logic? Where is it? Who deleted it?

Golgot, thanks for this documentation. Very interesting.

Django mate, the places where you are being dogmatic are in refusing to accept that:

(a) you broached the topic of economics and discussion of the points you raised is not pursuing side issues. (But your prevarication about it is getting in the way of discussion of the other points you have made, which are being discussed where they have advanced from previous points [or at least they would be :rolleyes:])
(b) your insult of Caitlyn is way out of whack. There is no way you can justify it (or that you can know her political alignment coz she never states it)

It's that simple.

Oh, and incidently, how is me questioning your internal-honesty and inability to admit mistakes (note the above examples) equatable to hedging or running away from the iraq/terror issues? The answer is they aren't. You've got to stop lumping everything together. (the way i see it is that you are undermining your own arguments, and indeed those of others who have comparable views, by your flawed and hypocritical approaches. Sorry it's come to this, but these things equate to dogma. You've got to get your head round this, for your own good)

Thought i'd reply to this so it doesn't get lost in the blather.

No idea Sunny. Maybe you just forgot coz your noggin is undernourished from lack of good food, or disrupted by pesticides, or mutated by irradiation? So many possibilities ;) :p

Golgot, I see where you're coming from, but I disagree with your interpretations of my words:

I mentioned the topic of economics as an aside...as a launching point to my discussion of the other issues I mentioned. Just because I mentioned it doesn't imply I want to carry on a discussion about it, neither is it a justification to do so, because I have quite explicitly, and repeatedly, stated my intent of not doing so. That's hardly dogmatic, dude! :rolleyes:

Okay, I admit that my remark was extreme and over the top and I apologize to Caitlyn for that. However, my comment was arising out of my perception of her attitudes towards me and the sorts of things she has said in the past. Sorry to offend, but she does come across as a bit of a right-wing radical.

First of all, I think you are completely off about my "internal honesty and inability to admit mistakes" and the above examples in no way reflect that. I have justified my comments repeatedly and have no obligation to apologize where none is called for. Indeed, your repeated insistence, and those of Yoda and Caitlyn, that I apologize where no apology is called for strikes me as way more dogmatic and unreasonable than anything I might have said. In any case, my comment was directed at your post in which you not only said that you had "given up on me" but also threatened to hound me and beat me up! Of course, I realize that these words were spoken in the heat of the moment, so I don't take them seriously, but let's face it, to me, it looked like you were copping out at a crucial stage of the discussion, and I was addressing that perceived cop-out on your part. Sorry if I misinterpreted your words, and, of course, I am always glad to have you on my side, with your extensive knowledge, your meaningful insights and your reservoir of news articles and ideas. Great to have you back in action.

This article is taken from the MSN headlines:

Django, i can forsee all of this happening again and again to be honest - but at least you've FINALLY admitted that you had no call to use that most offensive of terms against Caitlyn. Your appraisal seems to be still way off tho. You can't seem to distinguish between questioning and exposition. As far as i can tell Caitlyn never states her political preference - she just insists on rigour from all sides concerned.

As for the economics thing - i'm going to take my little questions for Yods to a different thread. I take it you won't be joining us there.

http://www.movieforums.com/community...572#post128572

Probably not.

I'm glad you finally understand what threads of discussion in a forum are for. I hope Yoda and Caitlyn get the picture too!

Django, you really are a monumental pillock. But thank you so much for your invaluable lessons in proper forum conduct :rolleyes:

Addressing points raised, especially those under the criteria stated at the start - would that be what threads are for perchance?

How many forums were you banned from b4 you found this one with a broad and tolerant policy btw?

Golgot, I have been more than patient with you, but you are beginning to get on my nerves...

Sure, you have some great input to contribute, but other than that, as the song goes: "You ain't nothin' but a hound dawg, and you ain't no friend of mine..."

Quit hounding me with your meaningless crap!

FYI... in answer to your questions:

The reason we have threads of discussion is so that each topic of discussion can each be addressed in its proper place, and so that we could avoid a forum that was totally cluttered up with irrelevant posts.

Other than that, no, I have never ever been banned from any forums...not ever. And this forum is a whole lot stricter and more stringent than any forums I have participated in previously.

Whateveeeeeer man. I'm not that proud of having been drawn into insulting you - seeing as i'm ultimately trying to help you, and in the face of your kind compliments. But you have some exceptionally frustrating facets to your personality. Still - interesting as this little microcosm of the divisive-left as this has been - i think i'm not going to achieve what i'd like to. You seem to have had ample material from this site (and a previous site where you were also hounded i seem to recall, from reading past posts) to have addressed your peculiar i-am-totally-reasonable-and-everyone-else-is-wrong-or-must-agree-with-me-completely complex.

So - whatever.

In other words, you detail whatever gripes you have, and whenever you feel like it, you can arbitrarily classify one of them as an "aside," and commence complaining about anyone who insists on addressing it. That's ridiculous.

Moreover, it's not as if you mentioned it casually. You mentioned it in your original post, and I ignored it, choosing instead to address sunfrog. You then essentially stuck yourself in the middle of our discussion, answering my post directed towards him. You took the original initiative in discussing the economy. But even if you hadn't, you are in no position to dictate an inflexible list of what is and is not to be discussed. Debate is a two-way street. All my experience with you tells me that you just don't "get" that.

More importantly, though, is that I've not skimped in addressing the "thrust" of your argument; I've merely addressed the economic issues as well. And, despite your claims, I've kept things fairly succint given the subject matter. I am not going to expend further energy trimming and editing my arguments to accomodate your personal lack of free time (which, ironically, there seems to be enough of to argue personal matters like these for a dozen posts or so).


Personally, I prefer this one, taken from Yahoo! News, which includes something that yours conveniently omits:

This, of course, did not stop virtually every major Democratic candidate from labeling this as some form of corrupt war-profiteering.


Book of Django, Section 4, Law 3: anything which I do not want to discuss at any particular moment is to be classified as "irrelevant," regardless of whether or not I am the one who brought it up.


If this is true, then you haven't been around much. I've got more online community experience than I know what to do with; I've served in virtually every position imaginable, from newbie to owner and in every level in-between, and I can say, without a doubt, that in the overwhelming majority of public forums out there, slinging accusations of racism and claims of neo-Nazism at the staff would almost always be cause for some kind of formal reprimand. Without-a-freaking-doubt.

I like that phrase... "drawn into insulting you"... you insult me and then blame me for your insults? You have some nerve, you left-wing hack! Why don't you shovel the **** off your front yard and get the hell out of my face!

Incidentally, you mentioned a previous forum that I had participated in... well, the only reason that things got out of hand in that forum was owing to 9/11, and the sudden influx of extremely bigoted and violent voices into that forum. It turned into a race war, ultimately, and had to be shut down because people were stalking others and issuing death threats and the like. As it happens, I was one of the few voices of reason on that forum.

This has already been addressed: YOU mentioned the economy. Then, when I didn't respond, YOU mentioned it again, replying to a post about economics that wasn't even directed at you.

This is all irrelevant, though, because I've been addressing your criticisms, as well as leveling a few of my own. The idea that any additional topics of conversation constitute some sort of suspicious distraction is absurd.


This entire paragraph is rhetoric. It does nothing to refute the very clear, verifiable timeline I detailed with the links I provided.

Also, when, pray tell, did you apologize?


Sure: inventories dropped by $14.1 billion over the third quarter. This single fact essentially kills the idea that the rebound came about on account of restocking.


The "climate of fear and uncertainty" was in place before Y2K, but I don't recall anyone being fearful or uncertain afterwards.

And, again, what kind of inventories are we talking about? Personal or business, for one? And regardless, what incredible products were being stockpiled on which the entire economy supposedly hinged on?


Again, you're misusing the term "production" in this context. Regardless, no, I don't believe we are talking about that. We're talking about the resurgent economy, and who (or what) deserves the credit for it. And I'm saying that, Bush or not, it cannot be attributed primarily to restocked inventories, as we know for a fact that things like Fixed Residential Investment led the way.


Any luck?


Inflation refers to an increase in the number of dollars in circulation, not to a larger number of goods being produced.

Anyway, I think you'd do well to learn what these terms all mean before you go launching into opinionated diatribes using them.


It doesn't particularly matter what your intention was. You cannot duck out of a discussion on the grounds that it is not turning out to be precisely what you had expected. Anyone with an ounce of sense knows that when you enter a discussion (especially on such a generally potent topic), it is quite likely to become more in-depth, and has the potential to expand. Whether or not you figured it likely to continue is meaningless.

Also, I took the liberty of taking my post, dividing it up into two files, and doing a word count on each. 43% of the words in the post you are referring to is dedicated to addressing your so-called primary complaints about the war, and the Bush administration. Hardly a "tiny fraction."


It's a thread, not a monestary. You brought up the topic (twice), and it is reasonably related to what you have aribtrarily dubbed the key issues.



You're jumping to conclusions. Here's the answer you didn't wait for: it was implemented immediately. Or, at least, part of it was. That's why we got our refunds early. The cut, though applying to all, only went into effect immediately for the lower and middle classes. Consequently, we saw an immediate, but not massive, increase in GDP. The wealthy were supposed to wait a few years for their part of the cut...

...however, on May 28th of this year, he sped things up, giving them their portion of the cut earlier than originally intended. This happened in the middle of the second quarter. The very next quarter saw the largest growth in 20 years. Are these both coincidences?


It doesn't contradict my point at all. You said the stock market had only begun to recover in the last 6 months. I pointed out that that it had rebounded to over 10,000 by the end of 2001. You said that was wrong, so I went and proved it. So what claim, as I asked once before, have you contradicted?

By the way: it hit 10,000 again the day you posted this, and closed above 10,000 yesterday.


Did you actually read it? Your economic philosophy tends to revolve around the consumer, and demand, and things like purchasing power. My "economics lecture" was posted to show you that your base focus is on the wrong things.


Under your definition of the word, perhaps not.


The issue is not one of discipline. It's not that I am unable to stop myself from engaging in "needless diversions and pointless crap," it's that I don't agree with you on which things qualify.


Well, then I guess I'm doing the research for you. You're welcome.


It's not difficult to understand (though it does get fuzzy when I consider that you initially went out of your way to discuss it). I simply refuse to discuss political matters within the tiny little boundries you have conveniently designated. You made statements, some of them are incorrect, and I've decided to say so. Why is that so difficult to understand?


You're saying that you believe that all the things Bush has been saying about Iraq were true just a few short years ago?

Also, my case is hardly contingent on Clinton. As I've stated several times now, many people from both parties have made similar claims, but in the past and recently. Hence, despite your repeated denials, my point stands: this is not a mistake which can be pinned on Bush and Co. exclusively. They apparently fell victim to a mistake which duped many others, as well, regardless of political party.


I hope you'll concede that some degree of flexibility is required. IE: certain "when we deem necessary" clauses are inevitable, and not by themselves cause for concern. That pretty much sums up my philosophy on the Patriot Act: sure, it can be abused. So can most facets of government. But that doesn't mean it will be, that doesn't mean it necessarily has, and that certainly doesn't mean that it's doing more harm than good.


Great. Until you do, your criticism will naturally be considered moot.


You're implying, then, that Lincoln was wrong to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, and that increased governmental and military flexibility cannot be justified in times of war? If so, should we trot a Supreme Court Justice out onto the battlefield and hold a trial for each of the opposing soldiers, too?


The difference is that there's no possible way for us to verify this man's testimony, personally, whereas you're quite capable of doing a little economic research before spouting off.

Anyway, as long as you admit you have no real way of testing the credibility of the testimony in question, your claim that there is "no link" should either be dropped, or else modified to reflect that it is simply your belief, and not a demonstrable fact, that no link exists.


That's right, you're not in a position to comment...but you did anyway. That's my point. You do the same in regards to economics: admit that you don't much on the matter, but proceed to make all sorts of opinionated claims, anyway.


If there were no weapons, then the US only lacks justification for claiming an imminent threat. It does not, however, kill all justification for the invasion, as the human rights issues make for a very compelling case.

From Yahoo! News:

The argument is partially based on emotion, I admit, but how on earth can you maintain that we made a mistake by invading in light of such deplorable evil?


You do if you want to consider your claim substantiated. You made an assertion, and I'm questioning it. So far, the only responses I've gotten have consisted of contradiction, or else dismissive statements like the one above. These are not arguments, as I'm quite sure you know.


See above. You're not putting forth any kind of argument. This is exactly in line with my claim to you months ago about ultimately having nothing to offer but opinion. I don't know if you're unwilling, or unable, to withstand any sort of questioning, but neither is acceptable if you wish to address serious political issues on this forum.

In regards to this specific contention of yours, I have demonstrated that things appear the same regardless of which candidate you choose to analyze. Therefore, if you wish to maintain that Bush is using his status to immorally pay off his contributors (remember, simply enacting the policies he said he would doesn't qualify), you must provide a logical reason for believing so.


More of the same. See above.


It depends on how you define "working for a living," I suppose. And yes, the forum is my business, though I make only a modest profit from it as of now, and what profit I do make does not seem to be contingent on my level of participation. Regardless, you seem to have found plenty of time to argue about why we shouldn't argue about economics...certainly enough to have just done so in the first place.

This, too, is in line with your history here. You often claim a lack of time when it comes to issues you are not particularly knowledge of (is that a convenient coincidence, in your mind?), only to find time for various other discussions on other topics. That's your prerogative, of course, but it's quite clear to me that you have the time to address these issues...just not the inclination.

How do you always manage to miss the point of things? Is it deliberate?

Yes, we've all heard your version of the events which took place on the previous forum you inhabitated. Events which none of us can verify, leaving us to either believe or disbelieve your characterization of them based on our personal experiences with you.

I believe Golgot's point, then, is that while you continue to insist that you are acting reasonably within this thread,no one else who is participating agrees. And if you can misrepresent your conduct to us in this discussion (and over the length of your membership here, as well), it calls into question your interpretation of the controversy on the last board you frequented.

Not so. The fact of the matter is that 90% of the time (at least so it seems to me), when I broach a subject, the thread I created gets cluttered with long-winded comments on peripheral subjects, such as subjects only mentioned in passing or the character or past habits of posters, etc., while the actual subject at hand goes largely ignored--kind of what's happening in here right now.

Well, in my first post, I did very clearly mention that I did not start this thread to discuss the economy. Rather, I started it to discuss the other issues I raised. My point is that there are other threads that discuss the economy--if you want to discuss the economy, post in those threads. I started this thread to discuss the other issues I raised. That's the reason we have threads in the forum, right?

Well, you give me little choice in the matter, do you? If I ignore the posts, you come down on me for evasion. If I reply to them, you claim that my claims are paradoxical. In any case, I think we could all benefit from greater clarity and brevity in our posts. Like I said, I really don't have the time to wade through irrelevant crap. That said, from this point on, I am going to ignore any post made that deals with a peripheral or non issue. (Except when I have to answer to a personal attack).

That statement from Bush rings hollow, in my opinion--just a media eyewash after the fact, it seems to me. :rolleyes:

You have to admit that it all looks very suspicious...very fishy. You can hardly blame the Democrats, whatever Halliburton might say in their own defense.

Hilarious, Yoda. Fact is that while I may have referred to the economy, I clearly stated, on numerous occasions, that this thread was not intended to discuss the economy.

Well, what I said was that Caitlyn's political leanings come across as extreme radical right-wing, bordering on neo-Nazism. There is a subtle difference, that it seems convenient for you to ignore. I hardly think that a statement such as this qualifies as an insult, especially in the context of the insulting and belittling remarks and other treatment that I have time and again had to put up with from the two of you. In that context, my remark, while being extreme (I admit) is totally justified, I think. Why should I apologize when I protest to biased and officious treatment from the staff? I think the staff should be the ones to apologize. I stand by my statement, while acknowledging that it was far more extreme than I intended, and, perhaps, more offensive than it should have been.

The clutter you speak of is nothing more than the inevitable side-topics with which every political thread must contend with.

Regardless, I've been carrying on with you over the "actual subject at hand" for several posts now, so even if you regard part of our discussion as "clutter," I don't see any basis for stating that your pet issues are going "largely ignored," which is really the only thing that would validate your complaints.


Sure. But a) thread topics are not sacred, b) this topic is fairly related to the ones you demand we focus on, and c) you're the one who started the blasted conversation in the first place.


Uh, you're forgetting the third (most obvious) choice: reply to them, but don't make paradoxical or unsupported claims.


My mistake; I meant to link to this one, which contains the text I quoted.


I most definitely can blame them. Their statements are extreme and unsupported. I might not blame them if they'd expressed some suspicion, but they went far, far beyond that, without any real basis, as far as I can tell.


As I stated before, you did more than refer to it; you interjected yourself into a discussion I was engaging sunfrog in. Now you're apparently shocked and upset that it led to an actual discussion on the matter. What the hell did you expect?


The difference is subtle to the point of being borderline non-existent. This is another escape-hatch: tell someone they SEEM like something, and you can later deny having actually called them it. It's sneaky, but ultimately transparent. Regardless, my point is not contingent on you actually, literally, technically calling her a neo-Nazi.


You should not necessarily have to apologize for merely protesting what you believe to be biased treatment. I don't believe anyone's ever said otherwise. Your methods, however, often warrant an apology. In this case, you acknowledge as much in apologizing to Caitlyn earlier.

That said, I think that statement definitely qualified as an insult. Its offense is not lessened merely because you consider yourself to have been insulted beforehand.

Okay: like I said above, from this point on, I am totally going to IGNORE any statements that are unrelated to the topic of this thread:

IGNORED

IGNORED

IGNORED

IGNORED

IGNORED (The economy is not the main topic of discussion)

(Should be IGNORED, but I will reply to this one...) The climate of fear and uncertainty that preceded Y2K led to the overstocking of inventories prior to Y2K, in anticipation of major failures and disruptions following Y2K. When this didn't happen, the overstocked inventories remained, leading to cutbacks in production and job layoffs.

IGNORED

IGNORED


Don't worry... I haven't forgotten.

IGNORED

IGNORED

IGNORED

(Should be IGNORED but I'll reply to it) I don't see how it could possibly be implemented immediately. That's physically impossible. What with the tax cycle, bureaucracy, red-tape, so on and so forth. Even if it were implemented "immediately", there would have been a noticeable time lag between the time Bush signed the tax cut and the time when its effects were felt. If the GDP began to rise as soon as he signed the cut, then it follows that some other factor was at play. I think that's pretty obvious.

(Should be IGNORED but I'll reply to it) Well, you were right when you said that, following the stock-marked collapse after 9/11, it rose to above 10,000. But you conveniently omitted the fact that immediately thereafter, it slumped again to around 7,500, the lowest point in the last 5 years. Subsequently, it recovered a little, then slumped again. And it has only begun to recover in the last six months or so thereafter.

(Should be IGNORED but I'll reply to it) Sure, and I'm glad of it... but you omitted the point that this was the first time in 18 months that it has done so...

IGNORED

IGNORED

IGNORED

IGNORED

IGNORED

Well, 5 years ago, things were very different in the world.

I just don't buy that line of defense. The administration had access to the latest, top of the line intelligence sources. The US is the world's only remaining super-power. The sorts of errors that have crept into the justification of the Iraq war are way too serious to ignore. It sets up a serious precedent--I mean, here we have the President of the US invading a sovereign nation on a completely trumped-up charge, with no basis in fact at all. Is this justifiable? Whose to say it won't happen again? It is way too serious an issue to ignore or write off as an error in the system.

I personally see the Patriot Act is instituting a compromise on the public's civil liberties and human rights in the name of defense. Sure, in an emergency scenario, things are bound to be very different--we experience a temporary suspension of civil liberties for the sake of public safety. But the Patriot Act is not a temporary suspension--it has been instituted as law. This is very disturbing because it seems to me to be totally unconstitutional--pushing the US in the direction of a police state, perhaps? Without civil liberties for its residents, how can the US claim to be a bastion for freedom, other than in name only?

Okay, feel free to do so.

Like I said, during times of war, a state of emergency might be declared in which people experience the temporary suspension of rights they take for granted. But does the same apply to an unprovoked foreign invasion? What you describe, in the case of Lincoln, sounds like a state of emergency. Does the same principle apply here? I don't really think so. It seems to me that the Bush administration is using public paranoia with respect to terrorism to institute his own reign of law in the US--perhaps bordering on martial law. Is that Bush's intention, finally? To declare martial law in the United States and completely suspend all the civil liberties and human rights we take for granted, all in the interest of supposedly protecting us from terrorism? In that case, is he very different from Saddam Hussein, whom he has recently deposed?

IGNORED

Well, until it has been demonstrably proven that a link exists, I think it is acceptable to claim that no link has been proven to exist. Ergo, no link, so far, exists.

Well, I may not be in a position to make a definite claim but I do have the right to express an opinion. You may call it an "opinionated claim"--I call it an opinion!

What, in the context of the "War on Terrorism". How is the Iraq invasion at all connected with the war on terrorism, other than through the false claims made by the Bush administration. Why has Pakistan been ignored--which, by any standards, poses a much greater terrorist threat than Iraq?

Because, there is evil all over the world. Does that give us the right to invade any and every nation on the planet in the name of setting things right? How about addressing the evils in the US first--evils like oppression of minorities, corporate corruption, hypocrisy and lies in the administration, etc.? What does it say in the Bible..."Before you take the speck out of your neighbor's eye, take the plank out of your own eye..." In any case, the argument that invasion is justified under the pretext of resolving the internal domestic conflicts of a sovereign nation amounts to nothing less than imperialism or colonialism.

I see many, many strong arguments, which you have conveniently ignored, for the most part.

I have repeatedly explained my position to you. If you fail to comprehend it by this point, there's no point in me continuing to try to explain it to you.

IGNORED

IGNORED

IGNORED

IGNORED

IGNORED

IGNORED

That article reads like a paraphrase of the one I posted,... and considering that it comes from the same Associated Press source, it isn't surprising.

Well, the Pentagon undeniably states that Halliburton did overcharge, so how are the Democrats' allegations unfounded?

IGNORED

IGNORED

Let's see... that's a total of 29 "Ignored" quotes from a total of 43 quotes. That averages out to roughly 67.44% of your posted material, Yoda (I'm taking each quote as a single entity, even though they are of varying lengths).

So, that tells me that, on the average, 2/3 of the material you post is irrelevant and off-topic. Admittedly based on the unscientific statistical study of only your last 3 posts.

But, let's wait and see.... the fun is only just beginning! :D

Right, that does it. I'm moving myself to another recent thread. Django, you dear deluded entity, you live in such a mental cul-de-sac that you prevent rather than promote (useful) debate. Your negative contributions outweigh your positive ones to such an extent that I'm prepared to forgo whatever decent points you might bring to a debate in exchange for some meaningful give-and-take.

I'm not proud of having thrown insults at you - but there are various reasons why i lowered myself to that: your insults of others, your blinkered and denial-riddled "defence" of "leftist" positions, and your bizarre view that because i agree with the general drift of your politics that i'm in line with everything you say and do. I wanted to shock you into re-appraisal.

It's your habit of throwing up a smoke-screen of denial everytime you are challenged on topics you've brought up that is so frustrating. You clearly have well-meaning spiritual and political aspirations. It's just your actions in practice that are so frustrating.

As such, you are going on my ignored list i'm afraid.

Bye bye.

-----

Rather than make a new one, i think there's a recent thread which we could use for appraisal of the iraq/occupation/intelligence/civil-rights trends in the light of the information we have. There's a number of points i'd like to discuss in detail, but there's such a large amount of wailing going on here it's just too much effort.

Anyone who cares to join me can come to this thread:

"Prepared for war but not for peace"
http://www.movieforums.com/community...3&page=4&pp=25

Adios!

I was going to reply directly to the original post here but I think the healthy, in "healthy debate" has left the building here.

Unfortunately, spend some time round lovely Django, and you'll realise he's well-meaning but generally careening. And he somehow manages to bring out the worst in everyone, including himself. I can't read what his latest post said coz he's the one and only on my "ignore" list. Weeeeee. I highly recommend it (wish it hadn't come to this - but it does make the conversation more lucid ;))

Why not start your own thread... I, for one, would be very interested in your thoughts on this... :)

Or see if any of the queries on the "prepared for peace..." thread take your fancy ;)

Golgot, the only reason you have me on your ignore list is because you're too much of a coward to acknowledge that I'm dead on! You certainly don't earn much respect from me!

:rotfl:

Actually, it was coz i was tired of getting drawn into your nonsense. I'd rather be discussing the real issues. You can be on justified ground. You can be completely miles off into unreasonableness. I've taken you off ignore in case you do come up with anything reasonable again. But, look, i'm getting drawn into tittle-tattle with you again already :rolleyes: - Your belief that you are "absolutely spot on" about everything is just incredible. The Djogma continues :p

Thanks for taking me off the ignore list. I don't say I'm spot on about everything... but I stand by my assertions until they are proven wrong. If proven wrong, I acknowledge them. But, until then, I stand by them. I hardly think that's dogmatic.

But there in lies the part you don’t seem to comprehend… you made a list of accusations… labeled them as FACT … and then neglected to produce one shred of evidence to back them up… As the accuser, the burden of proof rests on your shoulders…

I have provided a great deal of evidence already... lots more to come... have no fear!

Two months later...no additional evidence. And you've yet to reply to any of my arguments on the economy, either.

You've been busted again, man: you brought up the economy, I ignored you and talked to someone else, you shoved your way into the conversation, the conversation continued, and right about the time I started producing statistical proof, you whined that you didn't want to talk about economics. Yet another argumentative coincidence, right?

You keep pulling things out of your ass, and we keep telling you they smell like sh*t.