TRANSMISSIONS FROM ARIZONA

[Pope Lecherous]

Enough data is available at this point, that we can justly question the credibility of the Administration. We now KNOW that the Administration cherry picked intelligence, we know that they ignored intel which didn't fit their narrative. We KNOW that the military had run through the war games and recommended a very different approach to any potential Iraqi invasion. We now KNOW that there was no Al Queda in Iraq before the invasion. We now KNOW that Saddam had nothing to do with Bin Laden. We now KNOW that Saddam had no WMD's nor any programs actively working to get them.

GWB may believe he's doing the right thing... but there is, by far, enough publicly available information to call into question his credibility, judgment and honesty. When the administration has screwed up in dealing with EVERYTHING we have knowledge about, trying to play the "Well, you don't know everything" card is a canard. The war in Iraq has no direct correlation with 9/11, Bin Laden or terrorism. There was no threat, there was a crazy dictator, locked in his own country and who posed no real risk. The real risk comes from the crazy, dangerous terrorists, whom we've let wander off into Pakistan while we completely fucked a random country that had no real value to us.

So then why did he do it?  That's what we don't know.  Save your judgement and put him on trial... THEN call him a bad guy if it's for his personal agenda.  That's all i said.

[AFK]

Umm, I haven't been a part of the whole George Bush/War arc of this thread so keep me the fuck out of it.  I was responding to your assumption about what people on this board do or don't do in their individual lives.  So have your little tete-a-tete with the others about The War on Terra, but if you are going to respond to me, please respond to me about what I say, not what others have said. 

That's right.  You also said i was being judgemental and that's Un-Discordian.  You're also right about that.  However, this applies to everyone else that was being judgemental of GW.  You had the courage to call me out when i was pointing the finger of judgement at the posters, why didnt you call them out for doing the same shit?  If you disapprove of people being judgemental, but you do not challenge them because they agree with your own personal judgements, then this is something that strikes me as VERY UN-Discordian.  You brought yourself into it when you exposed the contradiction.  I wont Judge you as not a good discordian though, because #1 there may be some other reason you didnt call them out and #2 It hasn't been defined what a good Discordian is.

I can say, though, that if you didnt challenge them because you were scared to... that is not a good thing.  That is why i want to know why you didnt challenge them.

Because I've kept out of that part of the thread because I don't give a fuck about it.  My involvement in this thread has to do with YOU calling out US based on limited information.  About you making judgements on what we are doing in our personal lives.  About you casting aspersions on someone like TGRR, assuming his life revolves around posting on the internet.  To me that's low-class, low-life bullshit. 

I'm not in the business of discussing what a good Discordian IS.  But I sure as hell know that making assumptions about other Discordians, (or anyone for that matter) based on only what they see (on the internet) is bunk and is NOT open-minded thought. 

[Mangrove]

I really don't want to get entrenched in this thread however, as a long time member of PD.com (and if my memory serves me correctly), past history has shown that making declarations as to what is and is not 'REALLY DISCORDIAN' is the slipperiest of slippery slopes and, as such, not generally advised.

But everyone may post as they wilt (of course).

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Enough data is available at this point, that we can justly question the credibility of the Administration. We now KNOW that the Administration cherry picked intelligence, we know that they ignored intel which didn't fit their narrative. We KNOW that the military had run through the war games and recommended a very different approach to any potential Iraqi invasion. We now KNOW that there was no Al Queda in Iraq before the invasion. We now KNOW that Saddam had nothing to do with Bin Laden. We now KNOW that Saddam had no WMD's nor any programs actively working to get them.

GWB may believe he's doing the right thing... but there is, by far, enough publicly available information to call into question his credibility, judgment and honesty. When the administration has screwed up in dealing with EVERYTHING we have knowledge about, trying to play the "Well, you don't know everything" card is a canard. The war in Iraq has no direct correlation with 9/11, Bin Laden or terrorism. There was no threat, there was a crazy dictator, locked in his own country and who posed no real risk. The real risk comes from the crazy, dangerous terrorists, whom we've let wander off into Pakistan while we completely fucked a random country that had no real value to us.

So then why did he do it?  That's what we don't know.  Save your judgement and put him on trial... THEN call him a bad guy if it's for his personal agenda.  That's all i said.

You have got to be kidding me. Are you really that incapable in critical thinking skills? We don't need to know why he made bad decisions, to know that the decisions were bad ones. We have more than enough data to know that they were well aware that Saddam posed no direct threat. We also have enough data to KNOW that the neo-con think tanks had a "magical horsie" theory that if we invaded Iraq we could magically put a democracy there that would make the ME a much better place. We can put those two things together and come up with some tentative conclusions about our Dear President and his reasons.

At the end of the day, his intentions don't matter nearly as much as his decisions and the implementation of those decisions. In that, this Administration gets an 'F'. They didn't plan the invasion well (even though folks like Gen Zinni and others had lots of data and recommendations) and they passed on 'intel' that they KNEW to be false. Barring any other idiotic decisions made... those two KNOWN points alone provide plenty of data to indicate that Mr. Bush will not go into history as a savior. You're an idiot to buy into his "history will judge" BS.  when History judges, it usually finds things to be worse, not better.

Lincoln's actions of suspending HC, in historical context, has been judged unconstitutional and wrong.
History has judged that we sat on our ass while good men died in Pearl Harbor.
History has judged that the sitting President was informend that the Japanese were likely to surrender, and he still dropped the bomb.

Now, when in history has a discredited president been vindicated? I can't think of a single instance.

[Payne]

Enough data is available at this point, that we can justly question the credibility of the Administration. We now KNOW that the Administration cherry picked intelligence, we know that they ignored intel which didn't fit their narrative. We KNOW that the military had run through the war games and recommended a very different approach to any potential Iraqi invasion. We now KNOW that there was no Al Queda in Iraq before the invasion. We now KNOW that Saddam had nothing to do with Bin Laden. We now KNOW that Saddam had no WMD's nor any programs actively working to get them.

GWB may believe he's doing the right thing... but there is, by far, enough publicly available information to call into question his credibility, judgment and honesty. When the administration has screwed up in dealing with EVERYTHING we have knowledge about, trying to play the "Well, you don't know everything" card is a canard. The war in Iraq has no direct correlation with 9/11, Bin Laden or terrorism. There was no threat, there was a crazy dictator, locked in his own country and who posed no real risk. The real risk comes from the crazy, dangerous terrorists, whom we've let wander off into Pakistan while we completely fucked a random country that had no real value to us.

So then why did he do it?  That's what we don't know.  Save your judgement and put him on trial... THEN call him a bad guy if it's for his personal agenda.  That's all i said.

And in the meantime if he's a real nasty piece of work, we have no right to say anything about it? We have towait till an election comes round?

No, constant criticsim and judgement is neccessary. These aren't bad things in and of themselves.

They only become "bad" when applied dogmatically.

Bush (or anyone else) shouldn't have us bowing to their will just because they MIGHT know something we don't, making them immune to criticism. Our "Democratic" leaders are there to serve US. "Government for the People, By the People"?

Personally, I think Democracy is in large part a fuckin mess. I want to be able to call MY leaders on bullshit as and when they bullshit me. Not every election time when I get a Black or White, Yes or No, 50/50 choice on whether I'm going to swallow someones BS untill the next election.

If this means that they have to tell us what they know in advance of acting on it, so be it. Perhaps a more open Government wouldn't be hated as much by the Terrists we Fear-Oh-So-Much? I don't know, but it could be a worthwhile experiment.

[Pope Lecherous]

Because I've kept out of that part of the thread because I don't give a fuck about it.  My involvement in this thread has to do with YOU calling out US based on limited information.  About you making judgements on what we are doing in our personal lives.  About you casting aspersions on someone like TGRR, assuming his life revolves around posting on the internet.  To me that's low-class, low-life bullshit. 

I am not one who cares about politics and that is what determines if the military gets employed correctly or incorrectly, justly or injustly.  In this case, the military is being used correctly... as a tool to preserve American power.  It may or may not be justified, but that's of no consequence because i don't care about politics.  As for talking shit about tgrr, i did that out of spite to demonstrate something he brings to the site that is destructive, despite the quality he brings to the table in rants.  Low-class, low-life that is accurate about the method i used to illustrate my point.  

I'm not in the business of discussing what a good Discordian IS.  But I sure as hell know that making assumptions about other Discordians, (or anyone for that matter) based on only what they see (on the internet) is bunk and is NOT open-minded thought. 

I made many assumptions about Roger that were baseless. As far as making assumptions about Discordians goes I DON'T doubt that you guys accomplish shit in real life, but it had to be said to draw out the contradiction.

[Requia ☣]

I am not one who cares about politics and that is what determines if the military gets employed correctly or incorrectly, justly or injustly.  In this case, the military is being used correctly... as a tool to preserve American power.  It may or may not be justified, but that's of no consequence...

You sir, are a goldmine of trolling material.

[AFK]

Because I've kept out of that part of the thread because I don't give a fuck about it.  My involvement in this thread has to do with YOU calling out US based on limited information.  About you making judgements on what we are doing in our personal lives.  About you casting aspersions on someone like TGRR, assuming his life revolves around posting on the internet.  To me that's low-class, low-life bullshit. 

I am not one who cares about politics and that is what determines if the military gets employed correctly or incorrectly, justly or injustly.  In this case, the military is being used correctly... as a tool to preserve American power.  It may or may not be justified, but that's of no consequence because i don't care about politics.  As for talking shit about tgrr, i did that out of spite to demonstrate something he brings to the site that is destructive, despite the quality he brings to the table in rants.  Low-class, low-life that is accurate about the method i used to illustrate my point.  

If TGRR was so destructive to these boards, and he's been around for a majority of the board's existence, don't you think it would've been destroyed by now?  Or do you think the rest of us are that insignificant and robotic in our thought that we'd allow one person to destroy the forum? 

I'm not in the business of discussing what a good Discordian IS.  But I sure as hell know that making assumptions about other Discordians, (or anyone for that matter) based on only what they see (on the internet) is bunk and is NOT open-minded thought. 

I made many assumptions about Roger that were baseless. As far as making assumptions about Discordians goes I DON'T doubt that you guys accomplish shit in real life, but it had to be said to draw out the contradiction.

Sometimes asking nicely works too. 

[Pope Lecherous]

If TGRR was so destructive to these boards, and he's been around for a majority of the board's existence, don't you think it would've been destroyed by now?  Or do you think the rest of us are that insignificant and robotic in our thought that we'd allow one person to destroy the forum? 

The board's existence was never in danger.

Sometimes asking nicely works too. 

Showing people that they have contradicted themselves is far easier than telling someone they are wrong.  For example, i told Pope Naughty Nasturtiums that he was wrong about something and he doesn't believe me.  When he responds, i will make him contradict himself since he refuses to believe me. In this case, i can do it nicely and without antagonizing.  Hopefully others will realize also, that they value things higher than human life... whatever it may be.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

If TGRR was so destructive to these boards, and he's been around for a majority of the board's existence, don't you think it would've been destroyed by now?  Or do you think the rest of us are that insignificant and robotic in our thought that we'd allow one person to destroy the forum? 

The board's existence was never in danger.

Sometimes asking nicely works too. 

Showing people that they have contradicted themselves is far easier than telling someone they are wrong.  For example, i told Pope Naughty Nasturtiums that he was wrong about something and he doesn't believe me.  When he responds, i will make him contradict himself since he refuses to believe me. In this case, i can do it nicely and without antagonizing.  Hopefully others will realize also, that they value things higher than human life... whatever it may be.

What sort of Discordian thinks that contradictions mean something must be wrong?

[Pope Lecherous]

You have got to be kidding me. Are you really that incapable in critical thinking skills? We don't need to know why he made bad decisions, to know that the decisions were bad ones. We have more than enough data to know that they were well aware that Saddam posed no direct threat. We also have enough data to KNOW that the neo-con think tanks had a "magical horsie" theory that if we invaded Iraq we could magically put a democracy there that would make the ME a much better place. We can put those two things together and come up with some tentative conclusions about our Dear President and his reasons.

The shitty reasons for doing shitty things that they feed the public, along with fear set the stage for them to take action.  If they knew these things would not lead to what they told the public then why were they done?  Something else is at stake that we don't know anything about.  If you want to challenge him on shit that he is doing, and he is guilty of then condemn him for those things.  How can you say you know there is no bigger plan at work here, when things are so obviously strange?  Trying to put a democracy in the ME would be a waste of effort, it doesnt quite suit their culture, but we ended up over there.  There has been something else going on.

At the end of the day, his intentions don't matter nearly as much as his decisions and the implementation of those decisions. In that, this Administration gets an 'F'. They didn't plan the invasion well (even though folks like Gen Zinni and others had lots of data and recommendations) and they passed on 'intel' that they KNEW to be false. Barring any other idiotic decisions made... those two KNOWN points alone provide plenty of data to indicate that Mr. Bush will not go into history as a savior. You're an idiot to buy into his "history will judge" BS.  when History judges, it usually finds things to be worse, not better.

Lincoln's actions of suspending HC, in historical context, has been judged unconstitutional and wrong.
History has judged that we sat on our ass while good men died in Pearl Harbor.
History has judged that the sitting President was informend that the Japanese were likely to surrender, and he still dropped the bomb.

Now, when in history has a discredited president been vindicated? I can't think of a single instance.

The things Lincoln was doing were judged unconstitutional and wrong at the time.  The democratic party of the era didnt make it easy for him to use "war time" powers that had never been used before, including detainment which had been considered unlawful and spending money without congressional approval.  After all was said and done, congress supported his actions retroactively.

[Requia ☣]

Of course contradictions mean something is wrong, but only logical ones. Alogical contradictions can still be right.

(Av(B^C)) -> ((AvB)^(AvC)) and all that good stuff.

[Pope Lecherous]

What sort of Discordian thinks that contradictions mean something must be wrong?

A piece of information can be correct or incorrect, if not something else.  He made a claim that is incorrect and i can demonstrate exactly why, by making him contradict himself.  The contradiction cannot prove him correct, it can only prove his claim incorrect.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

You have got to be kidding me. Are you really that incapable in critical thinking skills? We don't need to know why he made bad decisions, to know that the decisions were bad ones. We have more than enough data to know that they were well aware that Saddam posed no direct threat. We also have enough data to KNOW that the neo-con think tanks had a "magical horsie" theory that if we invaded Iraq we could magically put a democracy there that would make the ME a much better place. We can put those two things together and come up with some tentative conclusions about our Dear President and his reasons.

The shitty reasons for doing shitty things that they feed the public, along with fear set the stage for them to take action.  If they knew these things would not lead to what they told the public then why were they done?  Something else is at stake that we don't know anything about.  If you want to challenge him on shit that he is doing, and he is guilty of then condemn him for those things.  How can you say you know there is no bigger plan at work here, when things are so obviously strange?  Trying to put a democracy in the ME would be a waste of effort, it doesnt quite suit their culture, but we ended up over there.  There has been something else going on.

*blink*

You must be trolling right? Are you actually arguing "Everything is a clusterfuck, so obviously they have some more important issues here"? I am close to speechless.

At the end of the day, his intentions don't matter nearly as much as his decisions and the implementation of those decisions. In that, this Administration gets an 'F'. They didn't plan the invasion well (even though folks like Gen Zinni and others had lots of data and recommendations) and they passed on 'intel' that they KNEW to be false. Barring any other idiotic decisions made... those two KNOWN points alone provide plenty of data to indicate that Mr. Bush will not go into history as a savior. You're an idiot to buy into his "history will judge" BS.  when History judges, it usually finds things to be worse, not better.

Lincoln's actions of suspending HC, in historical context, has been judged unconstitutional and wrong.
History has judged that we sat on our ass while good men died in Pearl Harbor.
History has judged that the sitting President was informend that the Japanese were likely to surrender, and he still dropped the bomb.

Now, when in history has a discredited president been vindicated? I can't think of a single instance.

The things Lincoln was doing were judged unconstitutional and wrong at the time.  The democratic party of the era didnt make it easy for him to use "war time" powers that had never been used before, including detainment which had been considered unlawful and spending money without congressional approval.  After all was said and done, congress supported his actions retroactively.
[/quote]

None of which has anything to do with the fact that history didn't say "Oh well, he really wanted to save the Union, so its OK", nor has that happened with any of our Presidents.... it seems highly unlikely to happen with Bush. Though if you would like to provide me with some reason, other than blind faith to support your presumption, then I'm all ears.

[Requia ☣]

What sort of Discordian thinks that contradictions mean something must be wrong?

A piece of information can be correct or incorrect, if not something else.  He made a claim that is incorrect and i can demonstrate exactly why, by making him contradict himself.  The contradiction cannot prove him correct, it can only prove his claim incorrect.

Alright, let's do the contradiction game.  You propose that a country has the right to attack other nations in order to maintain it's power and standard of living, with no other justification.

I then propose that under that idea, the terrorists have a right to blow us up in order to preserve *their* way of life, with no other justification than that it helps them.