Big Lies

[Odin]

(02-24-2017, 02:54 AM)gabrielle Wrote: Then you've got the crazy Nomad aunts who are lefty feminists and "man-haters."  

Oh gosh, the Xers really are going to be just like the Lost when they are old, LOL!

[David Horn]

(02-23-2017, 08:20 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Trump obviously thinks intimidation works real well. We'll see how it plays out on both sides.

Trump's tactics are transparent: hammer away, don't relent and demand <insert whatever his mind is thinking today>.  Many people will concede just to shut him up.  He's counting on it.

[Bob Butler 54]

Noting a nuance in the spin game.  The main stream press is reporting that Trump is asking intelligence agencies for reports that justify policies...  such as the travel ban.  There is a difference between asking for a report to justify a policy and asking for a report on how effective a policy might be.  He has already committed to a policy on political ground, and is asking the intelligence agencies to produce propaganda to justify the politics.  They are in at least some cases declining. 

I have noted that on these forums extreme partisans can live in alternate realities where they cannot agree on what ought to be objective fact.  This seems to be a problem at the highest level of government as well.

[pbrower2a]

(02-24-2017, 01:42 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(02-24-2017, 08:34 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(02-23-2017, 08:20 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Trump obviously thinks intimidation works real well. We'll see how it plays out on both sides.

Trump's tactics are transparent: hammer away, don't relent and demand <insert whatever his mind is thinking today>.  Many people will concede just to shut him up.  He's counting on it.

An example of the "highchair tyrant" role. Some people never grow out of it because it works well for them given whatever debased life goals they happen to have.

The old temper tantrum. Rule #1 of effective parents: never, never, never give in to a temper tantrum. Wait it out and show that temper tantrums do not work.

[Eric the Green]

(02-24-2017, 09:44 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Noting a nuance in the spin game.  The main stream press is reporting that Trump is asking intelligence agencies for reports that justify policies...  such as the travel ban.  There is a difference between asking for a report to justify a policy and asking for a report on how effective a policy might be.  He has already committed to a policy on political ground, and is asking the intelligence agencies to produce propaganda to justify the politics.  They are in at least some cases declining. 

In this he is following the example of the previous Republican president.

[Bob Butler 54]

(02-24-2017, 04:06 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(02-24-2017, 03:27 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-24-2017, 09:44 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Noting a nuance in the spin game.  The main stream press is reporting that Trump is asking intelligence agencies for reports that justify policies...  such as the travel ban.  There is a difference between asking for a report to justify a policy and asking for a report on how effective a policy might be.  He has already committed to a policy on political ground, and is asking the intelligence agencies to produce propaganda to justify the politics.  They are in at least some cases declining. 

In this he is following the example of the previous Republican president.

No Eric. There is no similarity. We are in uncharted territory.

I'd acknowledge some similarity, but Trump has indeed taken the pattern well beyond into uncharted territory.

On the other hand, Trump hasn't pushed false Casus belli... at least not yet.  Trump seems quite at home in uncharted territory, but Bush 43 knew how to do a Big Lie when he felt like it.

[Eric the Green]

(02-24-2017, 04:20 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(02-24-2017, 04:06 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(02-24-2017, 03:27 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-24-2017, 09:44 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Noting a nuance in the spin game.  The main stream press is reporting that Trump is asking intelligence agencies for reports that justify policies...  such as the travel ban.  There is a difference between asking for a report to justify a policy and asking for a report on how effective a policy might be.  He has already committed to a policy on political ground, and is asking the intelligence agencies to produce propaganda to justify the politics.  They are in at least some cases declining. 

In this he is following the example of the previous Republican president.

No Eric. There is no similarity. We are in uncharted territory.

I'd acknowledge some similarity, but Trump has indeed taken the pattern well beyond into uncharted territory.

On the other hand, Trump hasn't pushed false Casus belli... at least not yet.  Trump seems quite at home in uncharted territory, but Bush 43 knew how to do a Big Lie when he felt like it.

Yes he sure did. His intelligence agency was crafted to support his war in Iraq. Bush and Cheney designed it specifically to cook up the rationale.

Trump may take it to a level where it becomes normal procedure for lies on a daily basis. Not sure the CIA will be in his pocket on that though. He'd have to restaff the entire agency, and all similar agencies. That's certainly possible.

[Classic-Xer]

(02-24-2017, 09:44 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Noting a nuance in the spin game.  The main stream press is reporting that Trump is asking intelligence agencies for reports that justify policies...  such as the travel ban.  There is a difference between asking for a report to justify a policy and asking for a report on how effective a policy might be.  He has already committed to a policy on political ground, and is asking the intelligence agencies to produce propaganda to justify the politics.  They are in at least some cases declining. 

I have noted that on these forums extreme partisans can live in alternate realities where they cannot agree on what ought to be objective fact.  This seems to be a problem at the highest level of government as well.

I hope blues aren't foolish enough to deny the existence of Islamic terrorism and ignore which region that it's been coming/ will be coming in from and the realities associated with the governments ( 5 currently without a formal government, 1 with a severely weakened government and one state (the largest) sponsor of terrorism) and the condition of the countries (6 hell holes with Islamic radicals and one stable society controlled by Islamic radicals ) involved in the ban and the impacts that immigration from any of them may have on us/our children as far as the future of America is concerned. I don't live in an alternate reality. I live in reality, so to speak. Do blues live in reality?

[Ragnarök_62]

(02-25-2017, 01:06 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(02-24-2017, 09:44 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Noting a nuance in the spin game.  The main stream press is reporting that Trump is asking intelligence agencies for reports that justify policies...  such as the travel ban.  There is a difference between asking for a report to justify a policy and asking for a report on how effective a policy might be.  He has already committed to a policy on political ground, and is asking the intelligence agencies to produce propaganda to justify the politics.  They are in at least some cases declining. 

I have noted that on these forums extreme partisans can live in alternate realities where they cannot agree on what ought to be objective fact.  This seems to be a problem at the highest level of government as well.

I hope blues aren't foolish enough to deny the existence of Islamic terrorism and ignore which region that it's been coming/ will be coming in from and the realities associated with the governments ( 5 currently without a formal government, 1 with a severely weakened government and one state (the largest) sponsor of terrorism) and the condition of the countries (6 hell holes with Islamic radicals and one stable society controlled by Islamic radicals ) involved in  the ban and the impacts that immigration from any of them may have on us/our children as far as the future of America is concerned. I don't live in an alternate reality. I live in reality, so to speak. Do blues live in reality?

I'm red and black. 

1.  I think we should have 0 imports of Muslims.  I mean just look at the havoc in Europe from said imports. Muslims appear to be viruses that kill the host , so to speak. Just go to youtube.com and take a look!

2. Bob, I do think the best policy is to reduce the virus count that's allowed.  Eons of evolution of the immune system indicate that the best offense is the best defense.

3. Classic, Muslims from the MidEast and Africa can easily be seen as viruses.
a. They replicate fast.
b. They try to hide from proper detection
c. They can remain hidden, awaiting an optimal time to replicate if conditions aren't right, at present.
d. Objective science can easily conclude what the signs of infection look like in Europe, an infected host There are symptoms. Virus causes lots of rapes, virus attacks cells, known as women with rape.  Virus causes defective cell to cell signaling. Infected elite cells suppress normal immune system function.
f. Virus diverts resources to its own survival. Cf. Welfare for refugee viruses.     hehehehehehehehehehehehehehh    :do  <-Rags  




    <-   hmm........ I ... just .......... know..... I've seen......... this....................................thingie.............................clonk. aladjl;asdjf;ljasdl;fjdl;sdhfad;erwuy589319fds;kljfl;asdjfl;da24sdjasdfjklasdfasdfjklasdfjkldfuiouioweuiosdfjklasdfjklsdfmnkvmcvjkld;jfioaidufopweupoei2381-578-759018375908790fadjfad;slfjl;dj;815-85d8hhhhhhhhhhhhzzzzzzkljjklsdffjkldfdsdflsdjf;l57!@#$%^&*(*&^&&*(%(%(GGH....<<<<>>>>>  clonk!

[Classic-Xer]

(02-24-2017, 04:46 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-24-2017, 04:20 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(02-24-2017, 04:06 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(02-24-2017, 03:27 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-24-2017, 09:44 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Noting a nuance in the spin game.  The main stream press is reporting that Trump is asking intelligence agencies for reports that justify policies...  such as the travel ban.  There is a difference between asking for a report to justify a policy and asking for a report on how effective a policy might be.  He has already committed to a policy on political ground, and is asking the intelligence agencies to produce propaganda to justify the politics.  They are in at least some cases declining. 

In this he is following the example of the previous Republican president.

No Eric. There is no similarity. We are in uncharted territory.

I'd acknowledge some similarity, but Trump has indeed taken the pattern well beyond into uncharted territory.

On the other hand, Trump hasn't pushed false Casus belli... at least not yet.  Trump seems quite at home in uncharted territory, but Bush 43 knew how to do a Big Lie when he felt like it.

Yes he sure did. His intelligence agency was crafted to support his war in Iraq. Bush and Cheney designed it specifically to cook up the rationale.

Trump may take it to a level where it becomes normal procedure for lies on a daily basis. Not sure the CIA will be in his pocket on that though. He'd have to restaff the entire agency, and all similar agencies. That's certainly possible.

As far as the so-called Big Lie, I didn't see Bush do anything to cover it up. He pretty much seemed to accept they were wrong about Saddam having an active WMD program. As far as WMD's, I've read that they found about five thousand artillery shells with sarin gas over the years that followed the invasion. Once again, I don't think blues were paying attention to the details, what was going on and being debated at the time. I understood that we were guessing about the existence of WMD's and WMD program. If I could understand it, why couldn't you or Bob understand it and accept that we were wrong about them.

[Bob Butler 54]

(02-25-2017, 01:06 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(02-24-2017, 09:44 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Noting a nuance in the spin game.  The main stream press is reporting that Trump is asking intelligence agencies for reports that justify policies...  such as the travel ban.  There is a difference between asking for a report to justify a policy and asking for a report on how effective a policy might be.  He has already committed to a policy on political ground, and is asking the intelligence agencies to produce propaganda to justify the politics.  They are in at least some cases declining. 

I have noted that on these forums extreme partisans can live in alternate realities where they cannot agree on what ought to be objective fact.  This seems to be a problem at the highest level of government as well.

I hope blues aren't foolish enough to deny the existence of Islamic terrorism and ignore which region that it's been coming/ will be coming in from and the realities associated with the governments ( 5 currently without a formal government, 1 with a severely weakened government and one state (the largest) sponsor of terrorism) and the condition of the countries (6 hell holes with Islamic radicals and one stable society controlled by Islamic radicals ) involved in  the ban and the impacts that immigration from any of them may have on us/our children as far as the future of America is concerned. I don't live in an alternate reality. I live in reality, so to speak. Do blues live in reality?

I don't see the Islamic religion as being a good indicator of likelihood to commit terrorism.  There are a few political entities, often associated with warlord government and failed states, that believe with some cause that committing acts of terror against the West improves recruiting.  Al Qaida a while back and ISIS now can stand as examples.  That's not a religious motivation.  Thus, I find those calling the guilty 'Islamic terrorists' is not an indication of a reality dweller.  The motivation is political and military.

I also find Middle Eastern terrorists aren't a significant threat.  The death count from terror as compared to cancer of car accidents are trivial.  The US attacks on organizations like ISIS are more apt to motivate ISIS to stronger efforts than to destroy ISIS.  Again, see Powell's Questions.  If one isn't fighting with a plausible path towards victory, perhaps you ought not to be fighting?

But there is a common gut instinct when hit to hit back.  So long as any small number of terror events occur, there will be those who do something.  I'm just not very inclined to do something unless it improves the situation.

[Ragnarök_62]

(02-24-2017, 01:41 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(02-24-2017, 07:43 AM)Odin Wrote:

(02-24-2017, 02:54 AM)gabrielle Wrote: Then you've got the crazy Nomad aunts who are lefty feminists and "man-haters."  

Oh gosh, the Xers really are going to be just like the Lost when they are old, LOL!

I'm going to post some clips from cylinder recordings in the near future. No joke!

gegegegeheheheheehehehehasdfjk;fjadkl;jfl;asdjfl;dasjf;lsdajf;asdjfl;dsjf;adfj;adjf;dfj;asdjf;sdlajfl;dsjf;djfl;djsf;ld


Cylinder recorders, yeah, that's a Lost thingie.   Wrt my Lost relatives,  how about the ones that lived to circa 1980?  Would they not be cassette Losts?  Hmm... let's go back 2 saeculums

Quote:The rags to riches life of P.T. Barnum (Burt Lancaster), the iconic carnival showman and co-creator of "The Greatest Show on Earth," is told in this TV movie. The elderly and still puckish Barnum recounts via flashbacks his adventures as a floundering teenage salesman and an exhibitor of human oddities, and his eventual role as the entertainer who brought attractions such as Tom Thumb (Sandor Raski) and "the Swedish Nightingale," Jenny Lind (Hanna Schygulla), to the American masses.
July 5, 1810 – April 7, 1891)

1810?  Eh,  whatever passed for Joneser.

[Classic-Xer]

(02-25-2017, 01:44 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(02-25-2017, 01:06 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(02-24-2017, 09:44 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Noting a nuance in the spin game.  The main stream press is reporting that Trump is asking intelligence agencies for reports that justify policies...  such as the travel ban.  There is a difference between asking for a report to justify a policy and asking for a report on how effective a policy might be.  He has already committed to a policy on political ground, and is asking the intelligence agencies to produce propaganda to justify the politics.  They are in at least some cases declining. 

I have noted that on these forums extreme partisans can live in alternate realities where they cannot agree on what ought to be objective fact.  This seems to be a problem at the highest level of government as well.

I hope blues aren't foolish enough to deny the existence of Islamic terrorism and ignore which region that it's been coming/ will be coming in from and the realities associated with the governments ( 5 currently without a formal government, 1 with a severely weakened government and one state (the largest) sponsor of terrorism) and the condition of the countries (6 hell holes with Islamic radicals and one stable society controlled by Islamic radicals ) involved in  the ban and the impacts that immigration from any of them may have on us/our children as far as the future of America is concerned. I don't live in an alternate reality. I live in reality, so to speak. Do blues live in reality?

I don't see the Islamic religion as being a good indicator of likelihood to commit terrorism.  There are a few political entities, often associated with warlord government and failed states, that believe with some cause that committing acts of terror against the West improves recruiting.  Al Qaida a while back and ISIS now can stand as examples.  That's not a religious motivation.  Thus, I find those calling the guilty 'Islamic terrorists' is not an indication of a reality dweller.  The motivation is political and military.

I also find Middle Eastern terrorists aren't a significant threat.  The death count from terror as compared to cancer of car accidents are trivial.  The US attacks on organizations like ISIS are more apt to motivate ISIS to stronger efforts than to destroy ISIS.  Again, see Powell's Questions.  If one isn't fighting with a plausible path towards victory, perhaps you ought not to be fighting?

But there is a common gut instinct when hit to hit back.  So long as any small number of terror events occur, there will be those who do something.  I'm just not very inclined to do something unless it improves the situation.

So, are saying that they're actions aren't/weren't religiously motivated? I disagree, Abu Ackba (Praise be to God) is an obvious example of a religious expression/motive that's directly associated with Islam to me. Hint: Every Islamic terrorist attack that we have witnessed as a country has been committed by someone related to a Muslim who came here as a refugee/immigrant during the Clinton years who received some sort of clearance to come over here and live with us or by a Muslim who immigrated to/ or visited Europe and then came over here for a short term visit from some place in Europe or by a Muslim who came over here for a short term visit/ as a cleared immigrant directly from an Islamic country. That's a reality. A reality that many blues like you don't seem able to acknowledge or accept or openly state and view as being truthful and as being relevant to the rest of the American population. I'm not sure it's good idea for blues to embrace Muslims as they've been doing politically considering they're positioning themselves to be the ones who are blamed in the future for terrorist attacks.

[Ragnarök_62]

(02-25-2017, 03:42 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: <snip>
So, are saying that they're actions aren't/weren't religiously motivated? I disagree, Abu Ackba (Praise be to God) is an obvious example of a religious expression/motive that's directly associated with Islam to me. Hint: Every Islamic terrorist attack that we have witnessed as a country has been committed by someone related to a Muslim who came here as a refugee/immigrant during the Clinton years who received some sort of clearance to come over here and live with us or by a Muslim who immigrated to/ or visited Europe and then came over here for a short term visit from some place in Europe or by a Muslim who came over here for a short term visit/ as a cleared immigrant directly from an Islamic country. That's a reality. A reality that many blues like you don't seem able to acknowledge or accept or openly state and view as being truthful and as being relevant to the rest of the American population. I'm not sure it's good idea for blues to embrace Muslims as they've been doing politically considering they're positioning themselves to be the ones who are blamed in the future for terrorist attacks.

Like I said before, Muslims = viruses.  Some may be ummmm.... "sugar coated" as to evade detection. Others have defective replication mechanisms, "moderate Muslims", and outright defective , "moderate/liberal Muslims".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus

Here are the symptoms:

https://civilusdefendus.wordpress.com/ci...-conquest/
https://www.amazon.com/Infiltration-Musl...1595552480
John X has loads of stuff on this.

[Bob Butler 54]

(02-25-2017, 03:42 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: So, are saying that they're actions aren't/weren't religiously motivated? I disagree, Abu Ackba (Praise be to God) is an obvious example of a religious expression/motive that's directly associated with Islam to me. Hint: Every Islamic terrorist attack that we have witnessed as a country has been committed by someone related to a Muslim who came here as a refugee/immigrant during the Clinton years who received some sort of clearance to come over here and live with us or by a Muslim who immigrated to/ or visited Europe and then came over here for a short term visit from some place in Europe or by a Muslim who came over here for a short term visit/ as a cleared immigrant directly from an Islamic country. That's a reality. A reality that many blues like you don't seem able to acknowledge or accept or openly state and view as being truthful and as being relevant to the rest of the American population. I'm not sure it's good idea for blues to embrace Muslims as they've been doing politically considering they're positioning themselves to be the ones who are blamed in the future for terrorist attacks.

It isn't simple.  Another perspective.  I've often talked of the 'arrow of progress', from autocratic, religious, military Agricultural Age cultures to democratic, secular economic Industrial Age cultures.  Democracy, human rights and equality are the primary philosophical goals in the transition of a given culture.  As technology takes the workforce off the land into more modern pursuits, cultures are forced to change.  This process of change is ugly, featuring war, revolution, migrations off the land and other grave problems.  For the Anglo Americans, this involved the series of S&H crises including the English Civil War, American Revolution, American Civil War and the Great Depression.  Societies don't change values lightly and easily.  Stalin and Mao marked ugly blotches in Asian progress.

It's the Middle East's turn.  They are not going to hang on to autocratic dictatorial government indefinitely.  Getting out of the pattern, though, is going to require ugly upheaval.  I don't think we can present them with an easy short cut.  All we can do is present one set of solutions.

Their headache, though, is that they have been schrod by the West, have been victims of colonial imperialism and Marxism.  Neither philosophy has been kind to them.  Bush 43 invaded Iraq expecting to be welcomed as a liberator.  He was, for several weeks, which is as long as it took to wear out his welcome.  At any rate, the West has redrawn the borders of the Middle Eastern countries with intent to divide tribes and religious affiliations, to make it hard for the locals to organize united countries.  They were after the oil, and are still after the oil.  Through the colonial imperialist people, while preaching the best and noblest values of democracy, equality and human rights, we were showing them the worst of colonial imperialism, economic oppression, and tyranny through puppets bought by oil money.

And the Marxists didn't show them any better.  Putin looking to keep his military bases, backing Assad's government sponsored terror, is typical enough of how the Soviet Union would cared far more for their own interests than the interests of the local people.

Which is one aspect of why the transition from the Agricultural to Industrial patterns has been so slow and misguided in the region.  Both major Western philosophies for how to transition out of tyranny have been thoroughly discredited.  The history of the region has shown how corrupt and evil the west can be.  If the more rural elements of the US are up in arms about progressive government here, how much worse have the rural elements of the Middle East been treated?

And if Jefferson and Marx are discredited as showing the path of progress, what's left?  How can they embrace progress when the two major Western paths towards progress have abused them so thoroughly as to be totally discredited?

They're stuck with religion.  They want for good reason to rebel agains a poor governmental and economic situation, but lacking secular values that seem acceptable they are stuck embracing their Agricultural Age past.

Yes, religion is part of it.  No, Agricultural Age religion isn't going to help them.  The Koran doesn't teach the checks and balances that hold an autocratic government in check.  They are raising autocratic tyrants to replace their autocratic tyrants.  It took Anglo-American civilization centuries of crisis wars to shake the old Agricultural Age transition, but you could at least see the progress in any given crisis.  If they cling to Agricultural Age autocratic religious tradition for their moral center, they will quite often get nowhere.  This is especially true as their prophet and his immediate heirs began the expansion of their new civilization with a time of military conquest associated with a rejection and demonization of other cultures.

So, yes, the Middle East is thoroughly messed up.  Yes, their old and flawed religious values are important to them.  No, the Koran doesn't teach how to transition to a culture more appropriate to modern technology.  No, given modern technology there aren't going to be enough jobs working the land for them to simply revert to their pre oil borders, economy and cultures.

Thus, I see the base problems as secular, not religious.  Thus, the answer is not hate and prejudice directed at an old system of religion.  Yes, the region is very very troubled and nigh on the entire region practices Islam, but directing one's focus on the religion does not begin to be adequate.

But, sigh, a lot of people don't have my perspective.  A simple justification for causing hurt is enough.  They hurt us.  We have to fight back.  Grab the simplest and most obvious factor that justifies hate and violence and obsess on it.

I don't see it as that simple.  Not at all.

[Eric the Green]

(02-25-2017, 04:22 AM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(02-25-2017, 03:42 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: <snip>
So, are saying that they're actions aren't/weren't religiously motivated? I disagree, Abu Ackba (Praise be to God) is an obvious example of a religious expression/motive that's directly associated with Islam to me. Hint: Every Islamic terrorist attack that we have witnessed as a country has been committed by someone related to a Muslim who came here as a refugee/immigrant during the Clinton years who received some sort of clearance to come over here and live with us or by a Muslim who immigrated to/ or visited Europe and then came over here for a short term visit from some place in Europe or by a Muslim who came over here for a short term visit/ as a cleared immigrant directly from an Islamic country. That's a reality. A reality that many blues like you don't seem able to acknowledge or accept or openly state and view as being truthful and as being relevant to the rest of the American population. I'm not sure it's good idea for blues to embrace Muslims as they've been doing politically considering they're positioning themselves to be the ones who are blamed in the future for terrorist attacks.

Like I said before, Muslims = viruses.  Some may be ummmm.... "sugar coated" as to evade detection. Others have defective replication mechanisms, "moderate Muslims", and outright defective , "moderate/liberal Muslims".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus

Here are the symptoms:

https://civilusdefendus.wordpress.com/ci...-conquest/
https://www.amazon.com/Infiltration-Musl...1595552480
John X has loads of stuff on this.

Most Muslims are peaceful and are not terrorists. Most Muslim clerics denounce the violent ideology.

[Eric the Green]

(02-25-2017, 01:41 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(02-24-2017, 04:46 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-24-2017, 04:20 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(02-24-2017, 04:06 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(02-24-2017, 03:27 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: In this he is following the example of the previous Republican president.

No Eric. There is no similarity. We are in uncharted territory.

I'd acknowledge some similarity, but Trump has indeed taken the pattern well beyond into uncharted territory.

On the other hand, Trump hasn't pushed false Casus belli... at least not yet.  Trump seems quite at home in uncharted territory, but Bush 43 knew how to do a Big Lie when he felt like it.

Yes he sure did. His intelligence agency was crafted to support his war in Iraq. Bush and Cheney designed it specifically to cook up the rationale.

Trump may take it to a level where it becomes normal procedure for lies on a daily basis. Not sure the CIA will be in his pocket on that though. He'd have to restaff the entire agency, and all similar agencies. That's certainly possible.

As far as the so-called Big Lie, I didn't see Bush do anything to cover it up. He pretty much seemed to accept they were wrong about Saddam having an active WMD program. As far as WMD's, I've read that they found about five thousand artillery shells with sarin gas over the years that followed the invasion. Once again, I don't think blues were paying attention to the details, what was going on and being debated at the time. I understood that we were guessing about the existence of WMD's and WMD program. If I could understand it, why couldn't you or Bob understand it and accept that we were wrong about them.

Bush's lies and his takeover of intelligence was secret until it was revealed by the press. He lied to justify support for an invasion. There was no proof of such weapons, so there was no justification. Many people could see that, and opposed the invasion. We can't accept that Bush was wrong about WMD, because the invasion cost hundreds of thousands of lives and created conditions which gave rise to the Islamic State. That's good reason not to accept Bush's big lies.

As Bush stated before the US invasion, he favored regime change in Iraq. The better way to go was not to violate international law and attack a sovereign state without reason. The Arab Spring would have happened 8 years later anyway. The people of Iraq would have risen up then and asked for our support. If the USA favored regime change in Iraq, that was the time-- not to invade, but to support the rebels as we did in Libya (without adequate follow-through), and like we should have done more about in Syria (whose people asked for our support) than we did. Without the prior Iraq invasion and its results, Americans might have been more willing to support the Arab Spring Revolution when it came.

[Eric the Green]

(02-25-2017, 01:06 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(02-24-2017, 09:44 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Noting a nuance in the spin game.  The main stream press is reporting that Trump is asking intelligence agencies for reports that justify policies...  such as the travel ban.  There is a difference between asking for a report to justify a policy and asking for a report on how effective a policy might be.  He has already committed to a policy on political ground, and is asking the intelligence agencies to produce propaganda to justify the politics.  They are in at least some cases declining. 

I have noted that on these forums extreme partisans can live in alternate realities where they cannot agree on what ought to be objective fact.  This seems to be a problem at the highest level of government as well.

I hope blues aren't foolish enough to deny the existence of Islamic terrorism and ignore which region that it's been coming/ will be coming in from and the realities associated with the governments ( 5 currently without a formal government, 1 with a severely weakened government and one state (the largest) sponsor of terrorism) and the condition of the countries (6 hell holes with Islamic radicals and one stable society controlled by Islamic radicals ) involved in the ban and the impacts that immigration from any of them may have on us/our children as far as the future of America is concerned. I don't live in an alternate reality. I live in reality, so to speak. Do blues live in reality?

The reality is that the states Trump chose to deny travel from have been the source of almost none of the terrorist attacks, and those he exempted because he himself does business there, the source of thousands of them.

The reality is that a religious test for entry into the USA violates the constitution.

The reality is that refugees from monstrous dictators like Assad (terrorist governments) are thoroughly vetted for at least a year and a half already, so there was no need for any change in policy.

The reality is that refugees from Syria have committed no terrorist acts in the USA. The only possible terrorist who travelled to the USA in recent years came here on a marriage visa to her terrorist husband who was born in the USA. She came from a country that is not part of Trump's travel ban.

The reality is that most terror attacks in Europe were directed by the Islamic State by its agents who already lived there before the current refugee crisis, and most crimes by Muslims were committed by residents already there and not new refugees from Assad's terror.

The reality is that the USA created the conditions for the Islamic State by its invasion of Iraq and the inevitable resistance to it.

[pbrower2a]

(02-25-2017, 01:06 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(02-24-2017, 09:44 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Noting a nuance in the spin game.  The main stream press is reporting that Trump is asking intelligence agencies for reports that justify policies...  such as the travel ban.  There is a difference between asking for a report to justify a policy and asking for a report on how effective a policy might be.  He has already committed to a policy on political ground, and is asking the intelligence agencies to produce propaganda to justify the politics.  They are in at least some cases declining. 

I have noted that on these forums extreme partisans can live in alternate realities where they cannot agree on what ought to be objective fact.  This seems to be a problem at the highest level of government as well.

I hope blues aren't foolish enough to deny the existence of Islamic terrorism and ignore which region that it's been coming/ will be coming in from and the realities associated with the governments ( 5 currently without a formal government, 1 with a severely weakened government and one state (the largest) sponsor of terrorism) and the condition of the countries (6 hell holes with Islamic radicals and one stable society controlled by Islamic radicals ) involved in  the ban and the impacts that immigration from any of them may have on us/our children as far as the future of America is concerned. I don't live in an alternate reality. I live in reality, so to speak. Do blues live in reality?

I also recognize that we Americans are more at risk from white-supremacist terrorism, the violence of urban gangs, ordinary street crime, and environmental carcinogens than we are of 'Islamic terrorism'. By supporting a politician who sees nothing wrong with gutting restraints upon carcinogens, you support pointless death, even if it is hard to predict who will be the incremental increase in deaths from cancer. You would impose greater risks upon us Americans so that a few people can get enhanced profits. You endorse a politician likely to make more people hate America and create pretexts for terrorist attacks upon America and Americans.

I can't say that either you or President Trump endorses any policies that can cause obvious increases in use of illicit drugs whose proceeds in part go into the horrid drug wars in Colombia and Mexico.

People seeking refuge in America are generally trying to get away from thug regimes or terrorist activity. Such people are likely to follow the expectations of good citizenship here, and having been granted asylum here they will most likely stay clear of terrorist activity. If some refugees in Germany have anything to say about it, they squealed on someone in their midst who showed an interest in committing terrorism in Germany. German police caught the would-be terrorist linked to Daesh.

The only 'alternative reality' in my world is fiction and fantasy that I can easily separate from reality.

[Eric the Green]