• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Cheney: Obama Should Be Debriefing, Not Investigating

That's ALL you have done, as anyone that reads the thread with any degree of interest or comprehnesion of the english language will conclude.

And, as this is all you will continue to do, there's no point in continuing.

If you didnt want to answer the question, all you had to do was not reply.

Run around in circles. You ask a question based on a logical fallacy then claim I'm dodging the question because you made a flawed hypotetical. I understand the english language perfectly clear, enough with the personal attack.

Its obvious you want to continue the partisan hackery as you failed to answer the question I first posed before you started with the fallacies or any of the related questions.

Just to give you an idea of what this means. From the book With Good Reason by S. Morris Engel: "More and more young people are attending high schools and colleges today than ever before. Yet there is more juvenile delinquency and more alienation among the young. This makes it clear that these young people are being corrupted by their education."
 
Last edited:
Run around in circles. You ask a question based on a logical fallacy then claim I'm dodging the question because you made a flawed hypotetical. I understand the english language perfectly clear, enough with the personal attack.

Its obvious you want to continue the partisan hackery as you failed to answer the question I first posed before you started with the fallacies or any of the related questions.

Just to give you an idea of what this means. From the book With Good Reason by S. Morris Engel: "More and more young people are attending high schools and colleges today than ever before. Yet there is more juvenile delinquency and more alienation among the young. This makes it clear that these young people are being corrupted by their education."

I've read both sides of this discussion and you are the one guilty of partisan hackery and dodging questions by a continued whining about the Bush presidency. I haven't been entirely happy with a president since Bush I. The current bozo is absolutely the worst and possibly the most dangerous to our way of life and therefore should be the topic of this discussion. "Breaking News" is not a history forum!
 
I've read both sides of this discussion and you are the one guilty of partisan hackery and dodging questions by a continued whining about the Bush presidency. I haven't been entirely happy with a president since Bush I. The current bozo is absolutely the worst and possibly the most dangerous to our way of life and therefore should be the topic of this discussion. "Breaking News" is not a history forum!


I'm whining about the bush administration? Really? I asked him a fair question if he felt the same way when our embassy in Iraq was attacked and if it was because of our torture program or not. So once again I asked the same kind of question he asked. His question was based on a logical fallacy meant to bring the subject off topic. Again the laws against torture were broken plain and simple. Rev it's hard to take you seriously when you think beck and Hannity are credible sources. What next worldnetdaily, john birch society and stormfront?
 
Run around in circles. You ask a question based on a logical fallacy...
The point you (willingly) refuse to get is that there is no logical fallacy in my question.
 
I'm whining about the bush administration? Really? I asked him a fair question if he felt the same way when our embassy in Iraq was attacked and if it was because of our torture program or not. So once again I asked the same kind of question he asked. His question was based on a logical fallacy meant to bring the subject off topic. Again the laws against torture were broken plain and simple. Rev it's hard to take you seriously when you think beck and Hannity are credible sources. What next worldnetdaily, john birch society and stormfront?

You tried to make a point that an individual attack in a war zone during an ongoing seven year conflict was because we got too harsh during an interrogation. Just an absurd assertion. What's happening now is that the democrats are attacking the CIA to deflect from the health care debacle. They've already found information that supports Cheney's contention. It seems to me that any further digging is purely for the purpose of divulging classified information to our enemies, either purposefully or through unbelievable incompetence.

Beck, Hannity, Oreilly, Cooper, Blitzer, Ratigan, Mathews, what's the difference. They all have an axe to grind and one must be wary.
 
Hey Low Revs, you forget the rest to your signature...

Social security = SOCIALIST Retirement Security
Public schools = SOCIALIST Public Education
Highways/Buses = SOCIALIST Transportation
Medicare = SOCIALIST Healthcare
Police Departments = SOCIALIST Protection
1940's War Effort = SOCIALIST Nationalism
 
Hey Low Revs, you forget the rest to your signature...

Social security = SOCIALIST Retirement Security
Public schools = SOCIALIST Public Education
Highways/Buses = SOCIALIST Transportation
Medicare = SOCIALIST Healthcare
Police Departments = SOCIALIST Protection
1940's War Effort = SOCIALIST Nationalism

How did people get the idea that all government spending is socialist, and to claim as much somehow negates the argument against that which is?
 
How did people get the idea that all government spending is socialist, and to claim as much somehow negates the argument against that which is?

Publicly funded programs run by the government isn't socialist?

News to me.
 
Publicly funded programs run by the government isn't socialist?
News to me.
Because you apparently aren't aware of the meaning of the term.

"Socialist" programs are those that promote or contain socialist elements, those in which the governmnt owns/controls the means of producing and distributing wealth, usually but not necessarily including a component that engages in the redistribution of wealth through the welfare state.

Thus, my wonderment as to how people got the idea that all government spending is socialist, and how to claim as much somehow negates the argument against that which is.
 
Because you apparently aren't aware of the meaning of the term.

"Socialist" programs are those that promote or contain socialist elements, those in which the governmnt owns/controls the means of producing and distributing wealth, usually but not necessarily including a component that engages in the redistribution of wealth through the welfare state.

Thus, my wonderment as to how people got the idea that all government spending is socialist, and how to claim as much somehow negates the argument against that which is.

Social security, Public schools, Highways/Buses, Medicare, Police Departments, 1940's War Effort.

None of those apply? Especially considering your definition reiterates socialism "not necessarily includes a component that engages in the redistribution of wealth through the welfare state."
 
How did people get the idea that all government spending is socialist, and to claim as much somehow negates the argument against that which is?

Generally, it's the argument put forth by the same people who claim conservatives demand 1) no taxes at all and 2) still demand the same breadth of government we have today, and point it out as though it's a contradiction in conservative thought.
 
Clearly.


No. These do not have the components described.

So the government does not oversee the public funding of highways and appropriate the funds to the contractors they deem qualified?

Public schools are not publicly funded whereas the government deems which districts get which funds and for what reasons?

The gov't doesn't appropriate publicly paid funds as they deem necessary to police forces?

By the way, while we fought socialists we were never closer to socialism ourselves. The 1940's War Effort was government mandate that private corporations save "waste" such as metals, dye, and rubber, and must give such waste to the government for use in the war, thus appropriating the wealth of companies to the betterment of the nation.
 
So the government does not oversee the public funding of highways and appropriate the funds to the contractors they deem qualified?

Seeing as they are private contractors, the government does not control the means of production.

Public schools are not publicly funded whereas the government deems which districts get which funds and for what reasons?

The gov't doesn't appropriate publicly paid funds as they deem necessary to police forces?

By the way, while we fought socialists we were never closer to socialism ourselves. The 1940's War Effort was government mandate that private corporations save "waste" such as metals, dye, and rubber, and must give such waste to the government for use in the war, thus appropriating the wealth of companies to the betterment of the nation.

You seem to have the idea that any public spending of any kind of "socialist." That's the whole point. It's not.

But I'll grant that nationalizing an industry is indeed a socialist measure.
 
So the government does not oversee the public funding of highways and appropriate the funds to the contractors they deem qualified?

Public schools are not publicly funded whereas the government deems which districts get which funds and for what reasons?

The gov't doesn't appropriate publicly paid funds as they deem necessary to police forces?
You obviously still havent made it past the idea that not all government spending is socialist.
 
Social security, Public schools, Highways/Buses, Medicare, Police Departments, 1940's War Effort.

None of those apply? Especially considering your definition reiterates socialism "not necessarily includes a component that engages in the redistribution of wealth through the welfare state."

I think the point they are making is that any government program the far right doesn't like is...by definition...Socialist. (like any kind of welfare....except the "Corporate" kind..of course)

Conversely...Anything the far right likes is....Patriotic! (like any war, government spying on its citizens, abuse of power, injecting religious dogma into government policy, any policy proposed by a Yale grad,etc)

It's really very simple...........Like the rest of their "Thinking" always is.:lol:
 
Last edited:
I think the point they are making is that any government program the far right doesn't like is...by definition...Socialist.
Anyone that exhibits such a pre-pubescent level of reasoning ability, as illustrated above, is clearly incapable of intelligent discourse.
 
First a trial for Treason & war crimes & then execution upon conviction.
Same for Cheney.

1. Lying us into a war in which over 3,000 American GI's were killed will be a good start for the treason charge

Same punishment for the Dems who authorized the invasion?

2. Torture of prisoners will be a good basis for International War Crimes prosecution.

Bush & Cheney have already admitted to authorizing war crimes, so the only phase to really prove is the treason charge.

Fantasy world.
 
Sorry...no. That was based on Neocon lies so they are excused. (like shooting fish in a barrel here...Thanks@!):2wave:

What lies? You mean these lies?

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Democrat Quotes on WMD
 
What lies? You mean these lies?

The Neocon lies that led to the Iraq fiasco are to many to list here & have been covered ad infinitum in other threads.
I suggest you research them at your leisure.
 
Sorry...no. That was based on Neocon lies so they are excused.
Now, now, don't lie.
What you MEAN to say is that you excuse the Democrats because they are Democrats.
 
Now, now, don't lie.
What you MEAN to say is that you excuse the Democrats because they are Democrats.

No, what I think it means, if true, is that Democrats are en masse gullible morons who shouldn't be trusted with planning a birthday party, much less the country.
 
Back
Top Bottom