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

[nt250]

Your welcome:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4530930.stm

12/15/05

They have definately improved it since a year ago.

You know that sentence I added about Karl Marx? Somebody did the exact same thing to me when I got banned from the message board I was posting at. Somebody went to Wikipedia, found the page for that boards site, and added an entire paragraph to it about the boards, censorship, and mentioned me by user name. I'm not sure exactly how long it lasted but it was a hell of a lot longer than the five minutes my sentence about Karl lasted.

I like Wikipedia. I use it a lot. It's got some great graphics and images. It's great for looking up dates, or names. But Wikipedia is like the site that banned me from the boards. IMDb is like an encyclopedia of movies. It relies on voluteers and contributors for the information is contains. It is FULL of errors and IMDb does not allow it's pages to be edited by users. All entries are submitted and reviewed before they are posted to the site. And still it has numerous mistakes. From double entries to typos to blatantly wrong information.

I would never use Wikipedia to hold up my side of an argument. But I don't tend to rely on links to prove any point I'm trying to make, either. I post my opinions and I back them up with my own words. If Grump had asked me to supply a link to Kerry's testimony I would have, and I would have copied the relevent quotes from his testimony to defend my argument. I wouldn't have just linked to it because it's very long, and I wouldn't expect someone to read the whole thing when my point is contained in two paragraphs of it.

But some people do that. I've had people post links to entire websites to make a point. That usually back fires on them because I do go read the site and it usually makes it pretty clear that they didn't bother to read it themselves.

It's like when someone posts a link to an article and you can tell they never read past the headline.

What is really comical about this whole Wikipedia thing is that both Jillian and Grump have made it VERY clear that neither one of THEM would read anything past a byline they didn't approve of but they're defending a website with hundreds of thousands of articles on it that could have come from anywhere. Now that's comical.

 

[Annie]

They have definately improved it since a year ago.

You know that sentence I added about Karl Marx? Somebody did the exact same thing to me when I got banned from the message board I was posting at. Somebody went to Wikipedia, found the page for that boards site, and added an entire paragraph to it about the boards, censorship, and mentioned me by user name. I'm not sure exactly how long it lasted but it was a hell of a lot longer than the five minutes my sentence about Karl lasted.

I like Wikipedia. I use it a lot. It's got some great graphics and images. It's great for looking up dates, or names. But Wikipedia is like the site that banned me from the boards. IMDb is like an encyclopedia of movies. It relies on voluteers and contributors for the information is contains. It is FULL of errors and IMDb does not allow it's pages to be edited by users. All entries are submitted and reviewed before they are posted to the site. And still it has numerous mistakes. From double entries to typos to blatantly wrong information.

I would never use Wikipedia to hold up my side of an argument. But I don't tend to rely on links to prove any point I'm trying to make, either. I post my opinions and I back them up with my own words. If Grump had asked me to supply a link to Kerry's testimony I would have, and I would have copied the relevent quotes from his testimony to defend my argument. I wouldn't have just linked to it because it's very long, and I wouldn't expect someone to read the whole thing when my point is contained in two paragraphs of it.

But some people do that. I've had people post links to entire websites to make a point. That usually back fires on them because I do go read the site and it usually makes it pretty clear that they didn't bother to read it themselves.

It's like when someone posts a link to an article and you can tell they never read past the headline.

What is really comical about this whole Wikipedia thing is that both Jillian and Grump have made it VERY clear that neither one of THEM would read anything past a byline they didn't approve of but they're defending a website with hundreds of thousands of articles on it that could have come from anywhere. Now that's comical.

I agree, I often use it to find relevant search ideas. Notice though, that the 'reliability' equivalency was in 'science' related, not so much on more controversial topics, where expertise is 'opinion' with links.

 

[nt250]

I agree, I often use it to find relevant search ideas. Notice though, that the 'reliability' equivalency was in 'science' related, not so much on more controversial topics, where expertise is 'opinion' with links.

Yes, I did notice that and you're right. When it comes to politics I have no idea why anyone would consider a link to someone elses opinion to be valid backup for their own.

Except liberals.

 

[jillian]

Jillian,

Can you please do me the favor of keeping your replies to me on the subject of the post you are replying to, and not on several that I've made on different threads?

I'm having enough trouble keeping track of threads as it is.

As far as your reply here about the subject of my post you replied to, I suggest you take your own advice.

Tough...... :halo:

And do try to keep control of your anger. It oozes through your posts.

Cheers.

 

[jillian]

Interesting. Perhaps you can help me to put that statement in some context. What reading does the "jillian-meter" give to factcheck.org?

lol... I like that..

The "jillian-meter" has found that factcheck.org is generally reliable(and note the word, GENERALLY). I've relied on it many times and if you note, factcheck is equally demanding of both left and right-wing claims. So there ya go.

The number I gave wiki wasn't my own. It was a from general assessment done by people far more knowledgeable about those things than I am. Just don't have time to be bothered on a beautiful Sunday looking for it.

 

[dilloduck]

Tough...... :halo:

And do try to keep control of your anger. It oozes through your posts.

Cheers.

Hey little miss sunshine---this thread relates to comments made by a Democrat who has been notorious for doing the same thing he was condemning Chavez for. Is it your contention that he was defending Bush from being criticized by foreigners? If so--why would he do that?

 

[Gunny]

Hey little miss sunshine---this thread relates to comments made by a Democrat who has been notorious for doing the same thing he was condemning Chavez for. Is it your contention that he was defending Bush from being criticized by foreigners? If so--why would he do that?

Y'know, I think way too much is being read into this. Chavez is a dickhead. I used to thump the crap out of my little brother but Lord help anyone else who tried it.

 

[dilloduck]

Y'know, I think way too much is being read into this. Chavez is a dickhead. I used to thump the crap out of my little brother but Lord help anyone else who tried it.

I don't think so Gunny--I understand the "little brother" syndrome but what we have here is a prime example of the lefts' hypocrisy.Rangel doesn't have a bone in his body that has any affection for the Bush Administration. He saw it as an opportunity to attempt to display his great sense of patriotism yet when he will turn around and do the exact same thing as an American, I find his protestations empty.

 

[nt250]

Tough...... :halo:

And do try to keep control of your anger. It oozes through your posts.

Cheers.

If was angry at you, you'd know it.

Listen, I have been very polite to you considering the replies you've made to me. You've argued points to me that I never made. You repeat points I have made very clear back to me like I didn't make them and you've corrected me when I said exactly what you think you are correcting me for.

I don't know what the board ettiquette is here, but my own rules for posting are that I try really hard not to make it personal, I try really hard not to take it personal, and I try really hard not to carry an argument to different threads.

All I asked you to do was to keep your repiles to the posts I made the statements. I am having a very hard time keeping track of threads here because some of the categories are so similiar. War on Terror? US Current Events? Politics? Religion/Ethics? And it doesn't help when threads get moved and merged.

I would also think that others following a thread would be totally confused about references to other threads that they are not following being made in this thread.

I asked you nicely. You chose to insult me again.

 

[Gunny]

I don't think so Gunny--I understand the "little brother" syndrome but what we have here is a prime example of the lefts' hypocrisy.Rangel doesn't have a bone in his body that has any affection for the Bush Administration. He saw it as an opportunity to attempt to display his great sense of patriotism yet when he will turn around and do the exact same thing as an American, I find his protestations empty.

You could be right. I'm not ruling out anything, really, just giving one American the benefit of the doubt over an erstwhile dictator with a Napolean complex.

I DO see your point, and it is a BIG problem on the left side of the aisle. They want to have their cake and eat it too. They think they can say and do whatever they want but refuse to acknowledge that even if they aren't Chavez, they initiated the dogpile. After all, it is the world's liberal minds and disconnected thinking that has made US-and-Bush bashing en vogue.

 

[nt250]

You could be right. I'm not ruling out anything, really, just giving one American the benefit of the doubt over an erstwhile dictator with a Napolean complex.

I DO see your point, and it is a BIG problem on the left side of the aisle. They want to have their cake and eat it too. They think they can say and do whatever they want but refuse to acknowledge that even if they aren't Chavez, they initiated the dogpile. After all, it is the world's liberal minds and disconnected thinking that has made US-and-Bush bashing en vogue.

I agree, and I'm sure you never seriously hurt your little brother while "thumping" him.

This whole family sticks together excuse is a matter of degree. Calling your little brother a dork, and then defending him when someone else calls him a dork, is not the same thing as breaking his arm and defending him when someone else breaks the other arm.

And yes, I think the things Chavez said about Bush were that degree.

 

[dilloduck]

I agree, and I'm sure you never seriously hurt your little brother while "thumping" him.

This whole family sticks together excuse is a matter of degree. Calling your little brother a dork, and then defending him when someone else calls him a dork, is not the same thing as breaking his arm and defending him when someone else breaks the other arm.

And yes, I think the things Chavez said about Bush were that degree.

I'm just trying to approach the issue as it relates to honesty, integrity and truth. While I realize that truth in politics is a rare bird, it does exist in real life and it's a shame that politicians can't get a grip on it. Our elected and appointed government make some pretty important decisions that have a broad effect on a lot of people. When the game of smoke and mirrors and false impressions become more important than the truth, I know that it's not what our founding fathers' intended when they were designing the USA.

Someone lies, then someone lies to make the other liar look bad. If it doesn't stop the we we all be slaves to the lies we tell and the ones we don't confront. Yes, it IS that bad.

 

[Dr Grump]

Maybe this site is different because it leans much more conservative than other message boards I've posted on, and I've only been posting here for a few months, but I don't find that to be true at all. Even if it is true here, liberals are much more guilty of it.

I do find it to be true. Go figure.

And worse, not only are liberals guilty of using blogs and opinion pieces as sources (blogs are opinions by the way), liberals seem to be totally unable to tell the difference between an opinion article and a news article.

I know blogs are opinion pieces, which is why I discount them. Funny re liberals and opinions articles. That many be true of some, however, with the notable exception of Kathi, I find most other conservatives do nothing BUT post op-ed pieces.

If you don't believe that, just post an Ann Coulter column and it'll prove it to you.

Anything she posts is an opinion. She has facts within her column, but then skews those facts to her POV. Just post an Ann Coulter piece...any piece, and I'll prove it to you.

The problem with that kind of argument is that it can't be countered at all, and it proves Karl's point that no source provided to you, other than one you already agree with, will satisfy you. It also proves that you are totally unwilling to concede an obvious point. And a pretty petty point at that.

Of course it can be countered. Take the piece on Chavez I posted. There were points in there that actually backed up Karl's point - to a degree. And if you think it is petty, then that is your opinion and you are entitled to it. I have seen several of your posts over the past month or so, and you are one person who refuses to give anybody a free pass who disagrees with you whether they provide a link or not, so really I am only keeping Karl to the standards that you keep everybody to yourself. Go figure. But the bottom line is with this particular subject is that Karl provided absolutely NO link or evidence to back up his opinion. If he wants to be taken seriously as a debater then it is on him to do so. Just out of interest, if you have been following the thread you would have seen this example: what would you say if I said to you "George Bush is PROVEN to be a drug using, womanising, liar who is making 100s of millions of dollars out of this war on terror"? And you said "Back it up" and I said "I don't have to". Would you think me credible.

Maybe it's your user name. You are very Grumpy.

Well, NT, I have to back Jillian up on this one. If anybody on these boards comes across as tetchie and pissed off MOST of the time it is you (and increasingly Dillo for some reason). Check out what is written directly under my name...:O)

 

[Dr Grump]

What is really comical about this whole Wikipedia thing is that both Jillian and Grump have made it VERY clear that neither one of THEM would read anything past a byline they didn't approve of but they're defending a website with hundreds of thousands of articles on it that could have come from anywhere. Now that's comical

Au contraire, I do read past bylines...and I have yet to be proven wrong in my assertions when reading them. Go figure. Those wikipedia articles are scrutinised and if they are in dispute then they are discussed. In fact the article on Chavez I posted is one of those in dispute. Go check it out. And as I have said many times, if people can refute an article from the site, please do so. I am not close-minded on the subject by any means.

 

[nt250]

Au contraire, I do read past bylines...and I have yet to be proven wrong in my assertions when reading them. Go figure. Those wikipedia articles are scrutinised and if they are in dispute then they are discussed. In fact the article on Chavez I posted is one of those in dispute. Go check it out. And as I have said many times, if people can refute an article from the site, please do so. I am not close-minded on the subject by any means.

You can't dispute an opinion.

 

[jillian]

You can't dispute an opinion.

I do believe he was referring to the INFORMATION contained in the wikipedia link.

And you can dispute an opinion to the extent that you can disagree with it outright or prove the opinion is based on an incorrect premise or incorrect information.

It's "feelings" that can't be disputed because people feel what they feel and one might not understand another's "feelings" but they are what they are.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Is it your contention that he was defending Bush from being criticized by foreigners?

Have you even been reading this thread?

 

[red states rule]

Have you even been reading this thread?

Since libs think Pres Bush is at fault for everything that is wrong in the Middle East why not this?

http://blamebush.typepad.com/blamebush/history_lessons/index.html

Bush Still Won't Accept Blame for Pearl Harbor
Today, the Shrub went through the robotic motions of honoring the brave men, womyn, and transgendered who died at Pearl Harbor thanks to his family's relentless quest for absolute power. No doubt, Bush naively believes that being born five years after that day of infamy excuses him from any guilt. But if the dead could speak, they'd cry out from their watery graves and demand he apologize and atone for his complicity in the attacks.

It's common knowledge that the Shrub's grandfather, Prescott Shrub Bush, bankrolled the Third Reich out of his own pockets, but the rabbit-hole of treachery and betrayal goes much deeper than anyone could possibly have imagined. As I will reveal, the Bush family not only orchestrated the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, but conspired with some of history's most notorious figures in order to assume control of the White House for decades to come.

It was the summer of 1941. Senator Prescott Bush covertly met with fellow Skull & Bones members Gen. Hideki Tojo, Joseph Goebbels, and Fatty Arbuckle to hatch an insidious plot so secret that only a few Democrat Underground members and that weird guy at the comic book store know about it. On the 7th of December, Japan would launch a "surprise attack" on the U.S. Naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, launching a war and allowing young naval aviator George Herbert Walker Bush pad his political resume with a phony act of heroism at sea. In return, Arbuckle would use his Hollywood connections to disgrace Tojo's political adversary, Ministry of Finance Kiichi Miyazawa, in an elaborate sex scandal involving an underaged prostitute and a syphillitic goat. Goebbels would provide beer and brauts.

Just as planned, the Pearl Harbor attacks came by complete surprise, and the entire U.S. Pacific Fleet was destroyed. George H.W. Bush went off to war, and was shot down over Iwo Jima. His crewmates and fellow Skull and Bonesmen perished, but he was "miraculously" pulled from the water and would shamelessly use his military service for political gain years later. Back in Tokyo, Tojo patiently awaited for Prescott Bush to fulfill his part of the bargain and destroy his political rival, Miyazawa.


On August 9, 1945, atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki - bombs built with uranium procured by Prescott Bush's Vanadium Corporation. Japan quickly surrendered, and Tojo was captured by the allies and summarily executed without a trail. Newly appointed Chancellor of Germany, Joseph Goebbels, took his own life outside a Berlin-area Piggly Wiggly, and Fatty Arbuckle became embroiled in a career-ending sex scandal of his own. Miyazawa, on the other hand, was promoted to the Japanese Diet, which monitors and controls the Nipponese sushi trade. For a while it seemed as if the Bush Dynasty would evade meeting their obligations in the sinister pact.

The Bushies would soon learn, however, that there was still a bill to be paid, and it would be paid with liquid assets.

Flash forward to 1992. In the midst of a failing political campaign, President George Herbert Walker Bush attends a state visit in Tokyo, Japan. Journalists would later describe the President as appearing pale and disoriented, at least more so than usual. Perhaps out of guilt over the needless deaths of his old crewmates, or from stress over troubles with his coke-addicted, alcoholic son, the president is overcome by a wave of nausea. He opens his mouth, and for a moment it appears as if he's going to speak. Instead, he shocks the world by vacating the contents of his stomach all over the Japanese Prime Minister...none other than Kiichi Miyazawa himself.

In ancient Japanese culture, being ralfed on by dinner guests was considered such a dishonor that the victims often committed ritual suicide before the puke even dried. Japan had long since abandoned the barbaric Samurai Code, but the stigma of being a vomit receptacle remained. Shamed and disgraced, Miyazawa was forced out of office with a vote of "no confidence" less than one year later, and the old pact between Prescott Bush and Admiral Tojo was finally fulfilled.


However, Miyazawa was from from finished. While Geedumbya ascended to the throne, the disgraced prime minister plotted his revenge. As a member of the powerful Trilateral Commission, he was able to secure documents that would both expose the Bush family's involvement in the Pearl Harbor attacks, and completely exonerate Fatty Arbuckle. Determined to get the damning evidence to the American press, he entrusted it with his nephew, a commercial fisherman operating off the coast of Hawaii. In February of 2001, just weeks after Bush stole the presidency, the Japanese trawler Emime Maru was destroyed by the U.S.S. Greenville. All aboard the vessel were killed - including Miyazawa's nephew, who had mere days before deposited the documents in a safety deposit box at the Manhattan branch of Fuji Bank - located in the south tower of the World Trade Center.

Paranoid conspiracy nuts will have fun with that little morsel, but we all know the real reason Bush ordered the 9/11 attacks was to steal Iraq's oil. Nonetheless, the evidence of Bush's treachery was destroyed forever, along with any hopes of seeing him brought to justice for his crimes.

As I expected, Dumbya didn't mention any of this in his pretty little speech today. Like he always does, he'll evade responsibility, pass the buck, and allow 2,000 brave servicemen to remain helplessly trapped at the bottom of the ocean just so he doesn't have to pay them their social security.

 

[nt250]

I do believe he was referring to the INFORMATION contained in the wikipedia link.

And you can dispute an opinion to the extent that you can disagree with it outright or prove the opinion is based on an incorrect premise or incorrect information.

It's "feelings" that can't be disputed because people feel what they feel and one might not understand another's "feelings" but they are what they are.

No shit.

This whole argument about Wikipedia proves that.

It is my opinion that Wikipedia is not a valid source to use to back up an argument. Nothing I've read here has proved otherwise.

If Grump can use that standard why can't I?

 

[jillian]

No shit.

This whole argument about Wikipedia proves that.

It is my opinion that Wikipedia is not a valid source to use to back up an argument. Nothing I've read here has proved otherwise.

If Grump can use that standard why can't I?

Because you're confusing Wikipedia... which contains "facts" with the "opinions" of political pundits and bloggers which contain nothing more than opinions and which aren't reliable.

But carry on...

Oh...and there was no argument about Wikipedia until you created one.