From the Texas thread - the debate over the nature of debate

Using his coatsleeve to wipe the blood from around his mouth, Bush then said that he would do everything possible to ensure more U.S. troops die in a senseless war.

Demonstrating bold leadership, he then announced that henceforth U.S. troops would not be given enough armored vehicles, would receive defective body armor, and would be denied even the most basic IED signal jamming devices.

Wow… the news practically writes itself![/quote]

MFGR, that’s great. When in doubt, make shit up, and make sure you twist every bit of bad news so that it seems to suport your personal view.

:loco:

But I’m sure you think you’re not :loco:

MFGR, in what possible way was that constructive? If you want to start a political satire thread, do so. (Hell, there’s enough material out there, it could go on forever.)
I love political satire.
I absolutely adore political satire.
I do not think your comment belongs here; it does not contribute to an informed, respectful debate.

It’s a valid interpretation of his meaning. He’s the one saying he’ll keep the troops in a senseless war. Just look at how his administration has done everything possible to screw the troops in Iraq – inadequate armor (and not even bothering to ask the manufacturer to go to max production), not enough IED jamming devices, body armor shortages and quality problems, etc. He’s also the one who lied to put us in the war. If he doesn’t take responsibility for that then screw calling him a “leader.”

Of course, this is the man who said:

[quote]“Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.”

No it isn’t. :unamused:

Its your valid opinion of how he has screwed things up. But, it most certainly is not a valid interpretation of what Bush meant.

Surely you can see the distinction.

Well, when George “Bloodthirsty” Bush feels it’s necessary to keep troops dying in an unnecessary war, I think there my interpretation is pretty close to the mark.

Oh, come on, MFGR. You know that your above statement is one of your opinion… i.e., you believe that the war is unnecessary. Bush obviously believes that the war is necessary. Thus, your interpretation of Bush’s meaning is obviously wrong. :unamused:

“Say it long enough and loud enough and someone will believe it.”

I vote for a seperate “Sayings of a mofa” thread.

Or at least an “[color=red]*[/color]” to be mandatory on mofa’s posts.

[quote=“TainanCowboy”]“Say it long enough and loud enough and someone will believe it.”

I vote for a separate “Sayings of a mofa” thread.

Or at least an “[color=red]*[/color]” to be mandatory on mofa’s posts.[/quote] [color=green][url=http://tw.forumosa.com/t/political-satire-and-political-jokes/20668/1 comment[/url] was over the top so far as debate and discussion are concerned. I’ve started a new Political Satire thread and moved it there. That seems appropriate, and requires no asterix. :wink: That leaves all of this conversation as just so much off-topic chatter… and thus flounder, unless someone feels this deserves to be in IP Feedback? [/color]

Oh, come on, MFGR. You know that your above statement is one of your opinion… i.e., you believe that the war is unnecessary. Bush obviously believes that the war is necessary. Thus, your interpretation of Bush’s meaning is obviously wrong. :unamused:[/quote]

Necessary for what? For not finding the WMDs that weren’t there? Seems like Bush was far better at getting the UN inspectors out of Iraq than Saddam … and then he had the nerve to lie about it to the American people.

Was it necessary for us to put 1/2 our combat capabilities into the middle of nowhere just because Bush has a private obsession with Iraq?

Was it necessary for 1,800+ U.S. soldiers to die on a wild goose chase spurred by Bush’s private obsessions?

Just curious about what was so “necessary” about the war. A solid majority of Americans see this war as having made America less safe, so please show us how hurting America and killing U.S. soldiers is “necessary”. :unamused:

Oh, come on, MFGR. You know that your above statement is one of your opinion… i.e., you believe that the war is unnecessary. Bush obviously believes that the war is necessary. Thus, your interpretation of Bush’s meaning is obviously wrong. :unamused:[/quote]

Necessary for what? For not finding the WMDs that weren’t there? Seems like Bush was far better at getting the UN inspectors out of Iraq than Saddam … and then he had the nerve to lie about it to the American people.

Was it necessary for us to put 1/2 our combat capabilities into the middle of nowhere just because Bush has a private obsession with Iraq?

Was it necessary for 1,800+ U.S. soldiers to die on a wild goose chase spurred by Bush’s private obsessions?

Just curious about what was so “necessary” about the war. A solid majority of Americans see this war as having made America less safe, so please show us how hurting America and killing U.S. soldiers is “necessary”. :unamused:[/quote]

Isn’t half of having a debate the willingness to understand what the other side is saying? You clearly lack this skill.

mofangongren,
Just do like I do. When they say “neccessary” substitute “profitable”.

How has the US profited from Iraq or Afghanistan? Cynicism is cheap and easy but what is YOUR solution. Iraq was clearly a problem for a number of people both Democrat and Republican and for a number of world and UN leaders. Suddenly, it’s all about Bush and his obsession? Talk like this just underlines the absolute certainty that I have that not one of you has ever stepped foot once in the Middle East. The proof is in the pudding, but I guess that makes me sound like MFGR. ****

Bush’s words seem clear to me. Whether or not he expresses himself clearly is a problem he’ll have to face, but don’t expect me to cut him a lot of slack when he talks up the sacrifices he’s willing for others to make in an unjustified war. If he wants to crap on Sheehan in public speeches and do so in an unclear way, then he’d better get his thinking cap screwed back on.

He was willing to pursue a very much “optional” war without doing the due diligence that we would normally expect from a president embarking upon one of the most solemn acts a leader can take. He’s lied about the war, and when he hasn’t lied he’s fudged the facts or been outright mistaken – and the Downing Street memos make Bush’s pre-911 obsessions all the clearer.

If you want me to “understand” a point of view that includes using 1,800+ dead and 15,000+ wounded to pursue a man’s private obsession, then frankly I cannot. I was raised an American, not a North Korean.

[quote=“mofangongren”]Necessary for what? For not finding the WMDs that weren’t there? Seems like Bush was far better at getting the UN inspectors out of Iraq than Saddam … and then he had the nerve to lie about it to the American people.

Was it necessary for us to put 1/2 our combat capabilities into the middle of nowhere just because Bush has a private obsession with Iraq?

Was it necessary for 1,800+ U.S. soldiers to die on a wild goose chase spurred by Bush’s private obsessions?

Just curious about what was so “necessary” about the war. A solid majority of Americans see this war as having made America less safe, so please show us how hurting America and killing U.S. soldiers is “necessary”. :unamused:[/quote]

Are you deliberately obfuscating the issue here?

You are entitled to disagree with Bush regarding the necessity of going to war in Iraq. Bush is likewise entitled to his contrary opinion.

I am saying, however, that you are wrong to distort Bush’s meaning when he makes a statement.

This isn’t that difficult. Is it?

Please, MFGR
, we are begging you here…

You don’t have to agree with the other side of debates, you don’t have to respect it, or even be open to learning more about it. But so many of your posts these days seem exhibit this absurd unwillingness to acknowledge that anyone even holds views that are contrary to yours.

That’s what Tigerman was saying. He wasn’t making an affirmative argument that the war was a good thing (even though you know from past experience that he believes that) – he was just saying that there are people who do believe the war a good idea, and that Bush is probably one of those people.

Note: This isn’t Hobbes as a moderator talking here. I’m not saying you’re breaking any rules here. But as a reader of these threads it is so frustrating to see a smart guy ignoring the actual tough questions by pretending that there is no debate.

[color=blue]When you ask things like “Why do the Republicans hate America so much?” it just makes me wonder what is the point of these kinds of questions? You know that there are two solutions: (a) Republicans agree with you that GOP policies are bad for America, and they do them anyway because they hate America; or (b) Republicans disagree with you that GOP policies are bad for America.

You know that the answer is (a), so why not make comments on the substance of some of those disagreements rather than pretending the answer is (b)… a starting point that will lead to no interesting discussion whatsoever?[/color]

:s Oh well… I’m not terribly optimistic that this good faith effort is going to have any effect, so I’ll try and draw this to a close.

Just one more example though, regarding your reference to the poll saying Americans think the war made them less safe, and asking why it is necessary to make America less safe.

Here is a CBS poll indicating that a majority of Americans don’t believe that human beings evolved at all (a majority believe that God created humans exactly as we are now).

Now imagine I ask you [color=black]“Why do these evolution apologists people want to teach our children lies in school?”[/color] … well, what would be the point of that question?

It is obvious that nobody wants to teach our children lies in school. And despite the fact that a majority of Americans disagree with it, the fact remains that evolution proponents actually believe their theory.

And despite the fact that a majority of Americans feel the war has made us less safe, there remain many millions who feel that the war has made us more safe – and ignoring this so that you can ask smart-a** remarks is really a shame.

:idunno:

You know, MFGR, that I probably wouldn’t even bother writing this if you weren’t such a sharp poster? If you were just some idiot who couldn’t understand the distinction between genuine ill-intent and a difference-of-opinion, then I would just let it go. It’s just that you’ve got so much potential to contribute good arguments. (I also happen to think that you have one of the best senses of humor I’ve read on the entire site – when it isn’t a political joke that is :wink: )

– Just such a waste of “poster resources” to see you spend your time on bolgerian nonsense.

Okay. End of rant.

Cheers,
Hobbes

[color=green]Discussion begun in [/color][url=http://tw.forumosa.com/t/rhetoric-101-down-out-in-texas-sheehan-part-2/20506/1 101 - Down & Out in Texas (Sheehan) Part 2[/url]

And you speak for yourself, but you, seemingly like Sheehan assume that all people do or should agree with you, and if they don’t something is wrong with them.

I feel the war was justified. You seem to forget this. Your opinion is not ubiquitous.

WHERE!? I posted that link. Where did he crap on her? He was as polite as he should have been.

How can you possibly make this assertion? Do you have the background or relevant experience to support this?

Then I guess you can’t understand the need to go to WWII either. Noone wants to say “ONLY 1800 dead in two years? Fucking A that’s great.” I think the lack of enormous numbers of deaths says a lot about the readiness of our troops, despite equiptment setbacks. They do a great job that I would, and did not envy.

And to say that Iraq and Saddam was a private obsession is crapola. I guess the Saudis disagree too huh? Maybe the Kuwaitis? The flacid UN security council, who wanted to do something, but couldn’t swing it.

There are a lot of people in the world who feel this war is a good thing, despite the stumblings, for the ME region, and the world at large. Several of them post here. But because they, myself included, feel that way, we are regulated by you to “neocon warmonger” status.

Blah.

I liked you better when you said you disagreed with the war because it was bad for the US economy. At least then I could see your POV.

Blah.

Cindy Sheehan has raised up a lot of the basic fundamental issues underpinning the rush to go to war in Iraq, fundamental issues that I didn’t buy into from Day 1 on this war.

Most Americans feel Bush misled the nation about the rationale for the war, and I don’t think this is unreasonable. People are pissed off that they were bamboozled. Heck, I’m pissed off that Bush bamboozled them. After 9-11 we extended a huge amount of trust to Bush and saw that squandered. If you want me to believe anything about that lying sack of crap, well he’s blown whatever credibility he might have had with me. :noway:

Basically, I think you guys want me to extend a whole lot of “understanding” to the same old manure pile. I’m not doing it. It might seem frustrating to you, but that’s how it is – and if you look at the change in U.S. opinion I’m far from alone. Try understanding that. :wink:

Now, if it is “civil” discourse you want, we can have a great discussion anytime. I’m game for it. However, we’ve seen quite a bit of smearboating so far in the Sheehan discussion – it would seem that it was the pro-Bush crowd that first made the decision not to engage in a reasonable debate. What was that stuff MaPoSquid had about when Sheehan should be glad her kid got blown to bits?? :unamused:

jdsmith – Regarding WWII, the Japanese bombed us and then Germans and Italians declared war on us. We declared war on them afterwards. Unless post-911 there were a bunch of Iraqi U-boats roaming the eastern seaboard, I don’t quite catch your drift.

Now we’re talking! :slight_smile:

This is exactly what I was hoping to get back to:

----You think that the assumptions that the remove-Hussein crowd were using were/are bogus.

----The people who hold these assumptions believe that they are not bogus.

THAT is actually something that can be the source of a constructive discussion. Why are the assumptions wrong? Why are they right? What are the counterarguments? This is what it’s all about. Far more interesting to ask [color=darkblue]“Why do you think we’re more safe? I say that’s wrong for X and Y and Z reasons…”[/color] than to ask [color=darkblue]“Why do you want to make us less safe?”[/color]

To the extent that there remains this “Well the reason the assumptions are bogus is that the majority of Americans think they are bogus” argument… well, I’m really not too bothered by that. Yes, it’s a weak argument, (as I pointed out with the link in my last post, a majority of Americans also reject the theory of evolution – but that doesn’t mean that the creationists are necessarily right; just means they are more numerous) – but at least it’s an argument. At least it is addressing the points where people disagree, and not just dismissing any contrary view as an obvious example of a desire to do harm.

Good stuff. :thumbsup:

EDIT: Just saw your post above, and when it comes to refusal “share” or “understand” the ideas you don’t agree with, you will get absolutely no criticism from me. I think I even explicitly wrote in my post that nobody was asking you to accept or try to understand the other side – just to acknowledge that the other side believes something that you do not.

Cheers,
H

[quote=“mofangongren”]Sheehan has done a brilliant job of forcing the American people to get back to the basic assumptions underlying this war. Frankly, the Bush administration has done a better job shutting down the discussion of the war than it has done in fighting the actual war. The fact that you three moderators are spending this much time off-topic and focused on begging me to share and “understand” bogus assumptions behind the war is a sign that you don’t understand the position of a growing number of Americans.[/quote] Unless I miss my guess, it’s “we four moderators” who have been asking, not to share bogus assumptions, but to understand the position of the other side. Come on MFGR, you know that I support W’s Iraqi misadventure as little as yourself. That’s entirely beside the point that’s being made, over and over again, about the nature of mature debate and discussion. Engage, effectively. Understand where the other side is coming from. If our position is correct, it should be possible to demonstrate that without misrepresentation. We may not be able to convince those on the other side that they’ve been led down the garden path, or simply wandered off the path, or even to play by the same rules–but that doesn’t matter.

You ought to be engaged in the dialogue for two reasons: 1. what you can learn; 2. what you can share. If others aren’t interested in what you’ve got to share with them, they’re not going to learn anything. That’s too bad for them.

Aren’t you’re interested in learning either: 1) that some of your positions might be wrong (always a good assumption for anyone honest with themselves); 2) that there might be a better means of presenting your arguments? If not, then what’s the point of all the time and effort? It might be a chance to blow of some steam at the end of the day, I suppose. You could simply enjoy arguing for the sake of argument. You could be practicing for a job on the next incarnation of Cross-fire

But if so, don’t dress anyone else’s reluctance to join you as Bush/ Rove et al effectively shutting down discussion on the war, or shutting down this particular protester. Those on the other side may want different conclusions from you; I just want to see better arguments, as Hobbes noted above. And if you don’t have any arguments, just witty characterizations, I’ve even started a [url=http://tw.forumosa.com/t/political-satire-and-political-jokes/20668/1 Satire thread[/url] to accomodate you.

[quote=“Jaboney”][quote=“TainanCowboy”]“Say it long enough and loud enough and someone will believe it.”

I vote for a separate “Sayings of a mofa” thread.

Or at least an “[color=red]*[/color]” to be mandatory on mofa’s posts.[/quote] [color=green][url=http://tw.forumosa.com/t/political-satire-and-political-jokes/20668/1 comment[/url] was over the top so far as debate and discussion are concerned. I’ve started a new Political Satire thread and moved it there. That seems appropriate, and requires no asterix. :wink: That leaves all of this conversation as just so much off-topic chatter… and thus flounder, unless someone feels this deserves to be in IP Feedback? [/color][/quote]Jaboney -
As surprising as this may sound I agree with your decision.
Mofa is well known for posting absolute travesty in support of his agenda and I fully believe that his reasons for doing this warrant further inquiry.
Good for you in opening a thread for pursuing this… :bravo: