The State of the Union: Lies about a Dishonest War

Kal Alexander wrote:

RogerM wrote:
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

People are entitled to their opinions, but they aren't entitled to
state them as facts. If you want to say, "I think Bush lied about
WMD", that's fine. If you want to say, "Bush lied about WMD",
expect to be challenged.

They are opinions, dude. That's the assumption in a casual
conversation.

No one's writing a book, here.

You know this for a fact?

(Sorry, couldn't resist that one.)

Nice one.

--

People who go looking to be offended will rarely be disappointed

The ultimate purpose of humanity is to judge God.

For those who ca it's would HAVE, should HAVE, and could HAVE.

RogerM wrote:

...."based to a large degree on population" So it's only somewhat
undemocratic?

What? Do you even know how the Electoral College is formulated? Each state
has a number of electors equal to its number of Representatives and
Senators. Since a state's number of Representatives is based on population,
but its number of Senators is not, I used the phrase "based to a large
degree on population". Undemocratic has nothing to do with it.


....Because it doesn't provide for 'one man - one vote'. 'To a degree'
isn't sufficiently democratic. What about the degree to which it goes
against the will of the majority?

[sigh....] see above response.

...In any case, as I understand it, the electoral votes aren't constrained
by law to reflect the popular vote of the particular state. It's more
of a 'gentlemen's agreement' that the votes will go to the candidate who
garners the highest popular vote.

Why not have a system where every voter is equal?

The framers of our Constitution looked out over the landscape and saw a
country where a large percentage of the population was semi-literate, huge
numbers of citizens couldn't even sign their own name, and most were rural
dwellers at the end of a four to six month communication line. In short, a
place where the preponderance of the population might easily be subject to
misinformation and manipulation. This was one of the reasons that our
government was formed as a Republic, and not a Democracy, and similarly
justification for the Electoral College. In a Republic, the population
elects regional representatives of [hopefully] knowledgeable, sober, mature
judgment, and said representatives exercise their best judgment in making
decisions of state. There is always an insulating layer of supposedly good
judgment between the population as a whole, and the crucial and oft-times
irrevocable decisions of state. In today's world, literacy , of course, is
drastically improved, and speed of communication is no longer a factor. But
we still have that pesky little problem of misinformation and manipulation.
Fully one-quarter to one-third (at a minimum) of the voting population is
easily vulnerable, and huge portions of our population live in different
worlds from one another (urban v rural, etc.). The aforementioned
"...insulating layer of supposedly good judgment..." together with the
equalizing and stabilizing effect of the Electoral system remain, imho, a
good thing.

"None" wrote in message news:2gzSb.3106

.... People
are entitled to their opinions, they shouldn't have to write a novel each
and every time they wish to express it, just so someone can feel like
they've seen some "facts and logic" You want facts and logic, go argue on
an M.I.T. group!

How unbelievably appropriate for you to have written the above.

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 07:17:40 +0000, Turby wrote:

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 02:55:58 GMT, devil wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 22:32:12 +0000, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"None" wrote in message
ink.net...

Wow! are you ever in the wrong medium if that's what you're after. People
are entitled to their opinions, they shouldn't have to write a novel each
and every time they wish to express it, just so someone can feel like
they've seen some "facts and logic" You want facts and logic, go argue on
an M.I.T. group!

People are entitled to their opinions, but they aren't entitled to state
them as facts. If you want to say, "I think Bush lied about WMD", that's
fine. If you want to say, "Bush lied about WMD", expect to be challenged.

Bush just repeated what his minders told him. So, yes, the clown is
innocent. By reason of cluelessness.

Not quite. It's a bit more nefarious than that. He gets his info from
the National Security Council. That's comprised of a bunch of people,
including the Directors of the CIA and NSA. There's always been
competition between those two organizations about whose info is more
accurate. They often disagree. Any report that Bush sees has a caveat
about the accuracy of the report. He was told the info about WMDs was
not totally credible. He ignored the warnings because he wanted to,
and relayed the threat to the American people as fact, when he knew it
wasn't.

He may get his info etc. But surely he doesn't really understand? End up
merely repeating what he is being told, I suspect.

And BTW it does sound like the "intelligence" establishment was skeptical
about the whole thing. Ended up delivering the conclusion that they had
been asked for. From the basement in the White House I suppose.

But Bush? Come on?

John Gaquin wrote:

RogerM wrote:

Why not have a system where every voter is equal?

The framers of our Constitution looked out over the landscape and saw a
country where a large percentage of the population was semi-literate, huge
numbers of citizens couldn't even sign their own name, and most were rural
dwellers at the end of a four to six month communication line. In short, a
place where the preponderance of the population might easily be subject to
misinformation and manipulation.

Oh how things have changed...NOT!

This was one of the reasons that our
government was formed as a Republic, and not a Democracy, and similarly
justification for the Electoral College. In a Republic, the population
elects regional representatives of [hopefully] knowledgeable, sober, mature
judgment, and said representatives exercise their best judgment in making
decisions of state.

Putting their own corrupt interests above those of the voters. Great
system, there. How are these elite selected?

There is always an insulating layer of supposedly good
judgment between the population as a whole, and the crucial and oft-times
irrevocable decisions of state. In today's world, literacy , of course, is
drastically improved, and speed of communication is no longer a factor. But
we still have that pesky little problem of misinformation and manipulation.

Not to mention the corruption of the elite class.

Fully one-quarter to one-third (at a minimum) of the voting population is
easily vulnerable, and huge portions of our population live in different
worlds from one another (urban v rural, etc.).

This part is pure comedy.

The aforementioned
"...insulating layer of supposedly good judgment..." together with the
equalizing and stabilizing effect of the Electoral system remain, imho, a
good thing.

You are taking so much on faith, it is hard to believe.

--

People who go looking to be offended will rarely be disappointed

The ultimate purpose of humanity is to judge God.

For those who ca it's would HAVE, should HAVE, and could HAVE.

"RogerM" wrote in message

Fully one-quarter to one-third (at a minimum) of the voting population
is
easily vulnerable, and huge portions of our population live in different
worlds from one another (urban v rural, etc.).

This part is pure comedy.

Why is that?

The aforementioned
"...insulating layer of supposedly good judgment..." together with the
equalizing and stabilizing effect of the Electoral system remain, imho,
a
good thing.

You are taking so much on faith, it is hard to believe.

Why is it hard to believe? This system has served us well these past 225
years and is not, imo, in need of drastic repair. Show me another country
[I'll give you Britain] of constitutional representative government that can
match our record of over 200 years of constancy and stability. Explain to
me why we should emulate Italy, which has had the pleasure of somewhere
around 200 changes of government since WWII.










--

People who go looking to be offended will rarely be disappointed

The ultimate purpose of humanity is to judge God.

For those who ca it's would HAVE, should HAVE, and could HAVE.

"None" wrote in message
ink.net...

Most likely.


How so?

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 16:19:04 GMT, devil wrote:

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 07:17:40 +0000, Turby wrote:

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 02:55:58 GMT, devil wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 22:32:12 +0000, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"None" wrote in message
ink.net...

Wow! are you ever in the wrong medium if that's what you're after. People
are entitled to their opinions, they shouldn't have to write a novel each
and every time they wish to express it, just so someone can feel like
they've seen some "facts and logic" You want facts and logic, go argue on
an M.I.T. group!

People are entitled to their opinions, but they aren't entitled to state
them as facts. If you want to say, "I think Bush lied about WMD", that's
fine. If you want to say, "Bush lied about WMD", expect to be challenged.

Bush just repeated what his minders told him. So, yes, the clown is
innocent. By reason of cluelessness.

Not quite. It's a bit more nefarious than that. He gets his info from
the National Security Council. That's comprised of a bunch of people,
including the Directors of the CIA and NSA. There's always been
competition between those two organizations about whose info is more
accurate. They often disagree. Any report that Bush sees has a caveat
about the accuracy of the report. He was told the info about WMDs was
not totally credible. He ignored the warnings because he wanted to,
and relayed the threat to the American people as fact, when he knew it
wasn't.

He may get his info etc. But surely he doesn't really understand? End up
merely repeating what he is being told, I suspect.

And BTW it does sound like the "intelligence" establishment was skeptical
about the whole thing. Ended up delivering the conclusion that they had
been asked for. From the basement in the White House I suppose.

I don't buy it. I doubt very much that the CIA would cook its books to
suit the president. They focus on intel where they are told to focus,
but it defeats their purpose to not call it as they see it. OTOH, the
admin wanted to invade Iraq from day one. As has been reported, 5
hours after 9/11 occurred, Rumsfeld was asking for Iraqi invasion
plans. With that kind of blind determination, it was, "damn the facts,
we're going in." And Bush? He may not be the smartest president, but
he's not a moron. He knew full well the risk. As the saying goes, it's
easier to ask forgiveness than permission. But he needed _some_
support, so he told a few fibs. Nothing like lying about a blowjob
under oath mind you, but enough to get us into a war.

Turby the Turbosurfer

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"None" wrote in message
ink.net...

Most likely.


How so?

What a lovely exchange! Can't you guys leave enough of what you're talking
about so that the rest of us can pick up on it instead of having to go through
the archives to connect it with the subject of your discussion?

Seems to me that polite people in the cyberworld do that kind of thing as a
matter of common courtesy. Any reason you're not doing it?