|
God Help Us All !!! (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Renegade |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
What can we point to from this administration as something that will be looked back favorably upon that could potentially upset all the negatives that are realized today? |
Freedom fries. Also, successfully overseeing an unprecedented era of democratic reform in the Midd... haha, nah. Just kidding. But the freedom fries were pretty great. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
Freedom fries. Also, successfully overseeing an unprecedented era of democratic reform in the Midd... haha, nah. Just kidding. But the freedom fries were pretty great. |
Well to be fair, Bush has done more to further the success of political satire than any other sitting president. I really have to give him that. That kinda makes up for the 2000+ lost lives and some 20,000 wounded vets we have ... a consolation prize if you will. |
|
|
| donnybrasco |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
No moron, FDR’s decision to enter WW2 only became the right decision imo once Hitler invaded France. If he could have been contained within the Ruhr valley, with the absence of any genocide, than it wouldn’t have been worth it for America to go to war and lose several hundred thousand lives. The US had no such treaty with Poland, or France, or Britain. Once Hitler invaded France, than the balance of power in Europe was becoming disrupted to which point it became America’s interest to intervene on the European continent once again.
Well at the time Lincoln had tangible accomplishments that could be seen as beneficial then … like the Homestead act, like the emancipation proclamation, like the National Banking Acts, etc. What can we point to from this administration as something that will be looked back favorably upon that could potentially upset all the negatives that are realized today? |
Yes, I meant Kerry...so many losers going up against Bush, I get confused sometimes, sorry. :crazy: I haven't had my coffee today yet either.
You're talking crystal ball stuff again when it comes to WW2. FDR didn't know about genocide or what Hitler was or wasn't going to do in terms of murdering millions. All he knew was that there was a war on who's outcome was certainly not decided, and if WW1 was any indicator, for all he knew it was going to be another long and protracted one in France. And what makes you think Hitler could have been contained in the Ruhr after 1939 but before the beginning of 1940? I'm really curious where you get this notion from. WW2 STARTED on Sept. 1st, 1939 my friend. Thre isn't a single Historian in the world who disputes this.
As for Lincoln's immediate and benefitial accomplishments, you CERTAINLY don't know your history when you talk about Emancipation being a noticable and immediate benefit! Ask any knowledgable historian today and they will tell you that his primary reason for doing it at the time he did was to win public opinion support in England, thus keeping England from coming in to the war directly on the side of the Confederacy. Lincoln was also reluctant to declare emmancipation because he knew that the idea that the north was fighting for black people wouild be an un-popular one with the troops and many of it's citizens. He didn't want to turn it in to a war about slavery! But that is what it became in the end...the long-term benefit not realized again, until years, maybe even decades later.
Yikes. This is like telling a 3 year old about history. Basic stuff here. You should know all of this. Surprised that you don't. "Moron". |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by donnybrasco
You're talking crystal ball stuff again when it comes to WW2. FDR didn't know about genocide or what Hitler was or wasn't going to do in terms of murdering millions. All he knew was that there was a war on who's outcome was certainly not decided, and if WW1 was any indicator, for all he knew it was going to be another long and protracted one in France.
|
You’re making my argument for me. That’s right, FDR didn’t know about genocide, Hitler’s ultimate ambitions, or the climactic but necessary battle that WW2 was going to be. That’s why when he was fighting to get the US into the war ever since war broke out, it was the wrong decision at the time. Knowing what we know now of course it seems like the right decision but hindsight is 20/20. For all FDR knew at the time, this could have been another European bloody stalemate. When his decision to go to war became the right decision was after Hitler successfully invaded and captured France, thus disrupting the balance of power in the Europe. Now let’s go back to see what I said, “FDR was right with respect to the war. But that only came to fruition ever since the invasion of France (not before).” Which you seem to be agreeing with based upon what you outlined above. So why the hell are you arguing with me if you agree with the premises behind my argument??
| quote: |
And what makes you think Hitler could have been contained in the Ruhr after 1939 but before the beginning of 1940? I'm really curious where you get this notion from. WW2 STARTED on Sept. 1st, 1939 my friend. Thre isn't a single Historian in the world who disputes this.
|
No one is disputing when the war started. What we’re disputing is when it was the “right” decision to bring America into the war with what was known at the time back then. What makes me think Hitler could have been contained in 1939? Well how about the Maginot Line? It certainly provided a false sense of comfort and security to the French. Of course once Hitler blitzkrieged France my mind would have changed after which I would have advocated involving America in the war.
| quote: |
As for Lincoln's immediate and benefitial accomplishments, you CERTAINLY don't know your history when you talk about Emancipation being a noticable and immediate benefit! Ask any knowledgable historian today and they will tell you that his primary reason for doing it at the time he did was to win public opinion support in England, thus keeping England from coming in to the war directly on the side of the Confederacy. Lincoln was also reluctant to declare emmancipation because he knew that the idea that the north was fighting for black people wouild be an un-popular one with the troops and many of it's citizens. He didn't want to turn it in to a war about slavery! But that is what it became in the end...the long-term benefit not realized again, until years, maybe even decades later.
|
Lincoln’s wish to emancipate the slaves was formed long before foreign policy came into consideration. It started with the question of what to do with captured slaves back in July of 1862 with the second confiscation act:
http://www.history.umd.edu/Freedmen/conact2.htm
Political pressure prevented him from declaring all slavery as illegal as it would have caused a revolt in slave states in the Union, that’s why the emancipation proclamation was limited to the confederacy and not neutral slave holding states, and slave states in the union. Lincoln clearly desired to free the slaves, however, was prevented from doing so. Despite that, the emancipation proclamation had many noticeable and immediate benefits of:
A) Building up foreign support for the Union as you so conveniently outlined above.
B) Freeing the thousands of slaves from the Confederacy as the Union army drove into the south.
Intangible future benefits that had yet to occur but could be guessed at, was the 13th amendment. Why it is that you’re only contributing to my argument and damaging the coherence of yours, I’m still trying to understand.
| quote: |
Yikes. This is like telling a 3 year old about history. Basic stuff here. You should know all of this. Surprised that you don't. "Moron". |
Yea you keep thinking that champ. |
|
|
| steinbrenner |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
I was responding to the person who said things are not credible on the internet. If you go and reread my post you'll see that there was nothing strawman about my argument. |
let's see here. he said:
| quote: | | What? What will not happen? TX what do you mean by educated? Huh? It seems like the only education your getting is by reading what is on the internet, some of the most inaccurate information. Besides why do you know all the frivolous subjects; do you know anything about math or science and this is something that you can't just look up wikipedia or something like that. |
he first seems to make a generalized statement about the entire internet. then specifies later in the same paragraph, talking about wikipedia and similar sites. i don't think it's far of a jump to say that he most likely meant to equate "wikipedia or something like that" with "the internet" or for an intelligent, unbiased reader to at least seriously question his meaning. because i seriously doubt he would question the accuracy of information from an official government website, for example. he could have worded it more clearly, but you could also have read it more comprehensively. instead, you took only the small bit of his paragraph that you felt you could easily refute yet wasn't really his point at all, and respond in this fashion:
| quote: | | The internet is really just a means of transmitting blocks of data (over a packet switched network.) You can't say that something is or is not credible just because it's on the internet, that's like saying that something's not credible because you heard it over the phone or because you read it in a book at the library. |
everything you said is true, but it does not address the complete statement that metalgear put forward. you invented your own easily defeatable argument, and did so quite well. thus the strawman.
| quote: | | Did you register a new screen name just so that you could say that to me, you ? |
now you're smart AND famous. (and defensive) |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by steinbrenner
now you're smart AND famous. (and defensive) |
and I'm still curious as to why someone would be so spineless that they would have to create a new screenname in order to make a specific argument. |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
Wikipedia survives research test
Wikipedia's accuracy judged to be as good as that of Britannica
| quote: | The Independent questions Wikipedia's accuracy
February 13, 2006
United Kingdom newspaper The Independent has run a story scrutinizing the accuracy of Wikipedia articles, using eight experts in various fields to comment on particular articles' validity. The experts' opinions ranged on topics from the Russian Revolution of 1917 to Kate Moss, Tony Blair and invitro fertilization.
Robert McHenry, a former editor-in-chief of Encyclopaedia Britannica posits his belief that contrary to the underlying notion that Wikipedia articles are constantly improving, the "mass [of articles] tend to the mediocre."
According to historian Antony Beevor, "With Wikipedia's entries, there is a lack of satisfaction, not so much through inaccuracy but there are a lot of vague statements which you cannot really disprove but which you don't think are necessarily helpful."
While noting that Wikipedia's most controversial topics are rife for distortion, The Independent article goes on to point out that a number of studies have shown articles to be accurate. In comparing the online site to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, Nature found that on average, Wikipedia had only one more error per entry than the traditional "gold standard" for encyclopaedias. Likewise, the German computer magazine, c't, gave Wikipedia a 3.6 rating out of 5 for accuracy, which surpassed two other rivals, such as Microsoft Encarta which received a 3.1.
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/The_Ind...edia's_accuracy
|
|
|
|
| metalgearsolid |
| quote: | Originally posted by steinbrenner
he first seems to make a generalized statement about the entire internet. then specifies later in the same paragraph, talking about wikipedia and similar sites. i don't think it's far of a jump to say that he most likely meant to equate "wikipedia or something like that" with "the internet" or for an intelligent, unbiased reader to at least seriously question his meaning. because i seriously doubt he would question the accuracy of information from an official government website, for example. he could have worded it more clearly, but you could also have read it more comprehensively. instead, you took only the small bit of his paragraph that you felt you could easily refute yet wasn't really his point at all, and respond in this fashion: |
Yes, when I post it is sometimes improtant to read it comprehensively or ask for me to clearly define what I meant. I for one do not trust the government. They are the wolfram&Heart of the world. If you have ever watched Angel than you know what I am talking about. Now this does not mean that some information posted by the government is not true most times it is.
| quote: | | everything you said is true, but it does not address the complete statement that metalgear put forward. you invented your own easily defeatable argument, and did so quite well. thus the strawman. |
TX never really answers the full question. Your right he does choose the part of the question which he can easily respond to and yes he does not do such a good job at thinking comprehensively but what do you expect from someone who's thinking is done by paranoid websites who tort information to the edges of the universe?What TX needs to do is quit drinking so much alcoholic beverages, in fact, I have a recommendation for TX-NON-ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES
| quote: | | now you're smart AND famous. (and defensive) |
Yes-he can be a bit beligerant at times but TX has a good heart under all that stupidity. Remember he will say that instead of going after him we should go after the source. The source of his thinking that his. In order to undertand TX we must know what he reads what he drinks what he reads what he wears when no one is looking. We must know the virus before eradicating it. |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by metalgearsolid
Yes-he can be a bit beligerant at times but TX has a good heart under all that stupidity. Remember he will say that instead of going after him we should go after the source. The source of his thinking that his. In order to undertand TX we must know what he reads what he drinks what he reads what he wears when no one is looking. We must know the virus before eradicating it. |
Is that you talking to yourself, metalgear? (Using both your semi-intelligent and semi-idiotic personae?) Now I'm curious and want to see TA's server logs. :p
I like how you try to throw in the little jab about my being stupid, when it's painfully obvious that you're just trying to stir the pot again.
You gotta love the ministry of disinformation. Such class acts they are. |
|
|
| metalgearsolid |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
Is that you talking to yourself, metalgear? (Using both your semi-intelligent and semi-idiotic personae?) Now I'm curious and want to see TA's server logs. :p
I like how you try to throw in the little jab about my being stupid, when it's painfully obvious that you're just trying to stir the pot again.
You gotta love the ministry of disinformation. Such class acts they are. |
Pot? Is that what you have been smoking or are you referring to this debate as a pot with no liquid or solid in the pot? I was just trying to spark some enlightenment in the both of you. After all as time progresses in PDD some of us tend on becoming a bit agitated with one another and that is no good.
I mean come on here are we all still in HS or something? I certainly hope not that would really be worse than the C0r knowing that we are all on the same level which is close to the bottom of our pot.
And this ministry of disinformation such as fox news and cnn..umm I am going to go on a longhand out here and say the only accurate news there is is coming from the tv is the daily show./end rant/quit talking with myself it gets a bit lonely/see if Arbiter wants to argue/goes back to see if anything Arbiter has responded/whats to go to outer space/wants to own a home in a different galaxy/did you know that our universe might collapse and that would be the end of us/and we here are worried about nuclear proliferation what a bunch of fools |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by metalgearsolid
Pot? Is that what you have been smoking or are you referring to this debate as a pot with no liquid or solid in the pot? I was just trying to spark some enlightenment in the both of you. After all as time progresses in PDD some of us tend on becoming a bit agitated with one another and that is no good.
I mean come on here are we all still in HS or something? I certainly hope not that would really be worse than the C0r knowing that we are all on the same level which is close to the bottom of our pot.
And this ministry of disinformation such as fox news and cnn..umm I am going to go on a longhand out here and say the only accurate news there is is coming from the tv is the daily show./end rant/quit talking with myself it gets a bit lonely/see if Arbiter wants to argue/goes back to see if anything Arbiter has responded/whats to go to outer space/wants to own a home in a different galaxy/did you know that our universe might collapse and that would be the end of us/and we here are worried about nuclear proliferation what a bunch of fools |
"Stir the pot" is a common phrase in the English language. I could have just as easily said "stir the " but I was trying to avoid obscenities.
Anyway, yes, you're obviously a pretty good " stirer," but I'll just leave it at that. |
|
|
| metalgearsolid |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
"Stir the pot" is a common phrase in the English language. I could have just as easily said "stir the " but I was trying to avoid obscenities.
Anyway, yes, you're obviously a pretty good " stirer," but I'll just leave it at that. |
Relax what is with you? I can't wait till ultraviolet comes out. The movie is looking good and why must you look for a fight just admit it. Your the one looking for a fight. Just let it go man. You are so messed up from anger its just fruitless to be this way. Just lighten up man. |
|
|
|
|
