From: owner-shindell-list-digest@smoe.org (shindell-list-digest) To: shindell-list-digest@smoe.org Subject: shindell-list-digest V6 #289 Reply-To: shindell-list@smoe.org Sender: owner-shindell-list-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-shindell-list-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk shindell-list-digest Wednesday, December 1 2004 Volume 06 : Number 289 Today's Subjects: ----------------- RE: [RS] Did Iraq have Wmd's ["Gina Alongi" ] Re: [RS] (off-topic) You made my point so why even argue? [Vanessa Wills ] [RS] Did Iraq have Wmd's ["Dave McKay" ] Re: [RS] (off-topic) You made my point so why even argue? [Rongrittz@aol.] Re: [RS] (off-topic) You made my point so why even argue? [FJPQ@aol.com] Re: [RS] (off-topic) You made my point so why even argue? [FJPQ@aol.com] Re: [RS] (off-topic: politics) Rebuttal/Clarification [Chris Foxwell Subject: RE: [RS] Did Iraq have Wmd's > I prefer a president who sticks to what he says and when he > says he is going to do something he does it. so would you then consider the rashness of your president's original intention as atoned for by his obstinancy in adhering to it? - -gina/jane a. ******************************************** "every election feels like the perfect crime, like you can fool all the people all the time..." - -p. mulvey ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 18:53:08 -0500 From: Vanessa Wills Subject: Re: [RS] (off-topic) You made my point so why even argue? "I'm more scared than ever that > more than half of the country possesses a mindset like this, lacking any sort > of subtlety or nuance." I've been involved in increasingly many conversations with people like Jason Stanley, and you're so right: one of the scariest things to contemplate is that people really do think (or not think) in precisely this manner. I thought your earlier comments were quite to the point. It's sad, though, that our (liberals, intellectuals, people with BRAINS) ability to appreciate subtlety and nuance will often work against us when it comes to winning the minds of the American people (cf. any of the Kerry/Bush debates). ::sigh:: - --Vanessa On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 17:36:04 -0500, rfoxwell@wso.williams.edu wrote: > My God. The obtuseness here is just...it's just stunning. I can't write now, I > have to go shake this off and try again later. I'm more scared than ever that > more than half of the country possesses a mindset like this, lacking any sort > of subtlety or nuance. My lord. Canada doesn't feel far enough away right > now. I'll be back when I've had a chance to collect my jaw from the floor. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 23:34:03 -0000 From: "Dave McKay" Subject: [RS] Did Iraq have Wmd's > Believe it or not, the U.S. is a safer place because of GWB's > presidency. Name the last attack since 9-11 on the U.S. I would point out that the 11 September attacks happened on Dubya's watch in the first place. When was the last attack on the US prior to that? The US isn't safer since 11/09; just less complacent. Dave. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 19:36:16 -0500 From: Rongrittz@aol.com Subject: Re: [RS] (off-topic) You made my point so why even argue? >> one of the scariest things to contemplate is that people really do think (or not think) in precisely this manner. << As my old boss used to say, it's like arguing with a drunk. And we haven't even begun to discuss Bill's original point #2: >> Bush will appoint Supreme Court Justices and federal judges who will interpret law rather than those who attempt to create laws which suit their personal sensibilities. << Please. If they think that Bush isn't going to cave to the wishes of his (ahem) 52% "mandate" and look to appoint judges whose PERSONAL SENSIBILITIES put them firmly on the anti-abortion side of the potential overturning of Roe v. Wade (not to mention the "gays are not entitled to equal rights under God and the law" side of the gay-marriage debate), they must think that we just fell off a turnip truck. RG ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 19:54:16 EST From: FJPQ@aol.com Subject: Re: [RS] (off-topic) You made my point so why even argue? In a message dated 11/30/2004 7:44:22 PM Eastern Standard Time, Rongrittz@aol.com writes: Please. If they think that Bush isn't going to cave to the wishes of his (ahem) 52% "mandate" and look to appoint judges whose PERSONAL SENSIBILITIES put them firmly on the anti-abortion side of the potential overturning of Roe v. Wade (not to mention the "gays are not entitled to equal rights under God and the law" side of the gay-marriage debate), they must think that we just fell off a turnip truck. To my mind turnips are a tad more intelligent... Scared and Disgusted somewhere near Paterson Fran ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 20:00:03 EST From: FJPQ@aol.com Subject: Re: [RS] (off-topic) You made my point so why even argue? In a message dated 11/30/2004 7:57:32 PM Eastern Standard Time, FJPQ@aol.com writes: To my mind turnips are a tad more intelligent... Scared and Disgusted somewhere near Paterson Fran Oops...I meant smarter than W and his band of what ever they are.... bleck ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 20:41:10 -0500 (EST) From: Chris Foxwell Subject: Re: [RS] (off-topic: politics) Rebuttal/Clarification On Tue, 30 Nov 2004, Jason Stanley wrote: ....................... Okay, I've collected myself a bit. First off, an apology is order. It was cheap of me to fire off an underhanded insult without actually responding to the content. I'm sorry for that. It's been a HELL of a day, some relationship trouble (isn't it always?), blah blah blah, whatever. That doesn't excuse something cheap and dirty like that, and I apologize. The sentiment behind my loose-cannon remarks are firmly entrenched in logic, however. Let me see if I can do a better job clarifying things. Jason, there is a big difference between "weapons" and "Weapons of Mass Destruction". The latter phrase implies the ability to deliver payloads, the ability to turn horrible weapons like anthrax into REALLY horrible weapons, like carpet-bombs full of anthrax. (And if you don't accept that definition, fine, but it was specifically that which Bush was targeting: Iraq's possession of WMDs *and their ability to strike us with them.*) You have blatantly and incorrectly inserted "WMDs" whenever I said "weapons" while reading my earlier post. Yes, Iraq had weapons...but they did NOT have WMDs, or the ability to strike with them. Yes, Iraq would have used WMDs if they had them...but they didn't. They had weapons, not WMDs. They had anthrax, not the ability to launch an anthrax missile at our coasts. Go down and read your own post, and my earlier post, with that in mind, and you'll see that I am not at all agreeing with you; rather, you are making a gross generalization. (Perhaps I should have been clearer in my terminology.) Hence my lamentation at the lack of subtlety and nuance in those who follow your line of reasoning. That pretty much clears things up, I think. My earlier post stands in all its long-winded glory, once you separate "weapons" from WMDs. I will now address some of your more outrageous assertions. "Again, I don't think you are in a position to say how much they had of what weapon." Um, agreed, 100%. You know who *is* in a position to make that judgement? The WEAPONS INSPECTORS. HANS BLIX. The IAEA. *Exactly those people who said that Iraq had no WMDs.* THAT is who is in a position, and THAT is who I am paraphrasing and referencing. Yes, Iraq had "weapons". No, they did not have WMDs, with capability to launch them. So sayeth EVERYONE who has been over there to investigate. Remember, Bush's claim was that Iraq had WMDs and the capability to strike us. And we found...what, that their missiles had a range of 300 miles? An abandoned shack instead of Powell's highly-vaunted mobile chemical labs, which turned out to be old traincars? Hello... "If you are referring to other Muslim countries, like Iran, just wait until they are near getting the weapons and see what happens." No, I was actually referring to North Korea. Guess what? They already have the weapons. They already have the ability to strike the United States. They have said, oft and repeatedly, that they would love to nuke us to the stone age. Hmm...why are we in Iraq again? Because Iraq is *threatening* us? Please. My 7-year-old cousin can pick apart the illogic in that claim. Again, apologies for my rude e-mail from before. I have no problem in being firm and emphatic when arguing, but I have a problem with caustic verbal volleys that accomplish nothing, so I'm a little upset with myself for that. By the way, JK, thanks for the personal note of commiseration and support. It was pretty humorous, and yeah, I've definitely encountered the nonsensical spiderweb of "logic" that your discussant was following, and that I feel I'm butting heads with here. - --Chris ------------------------------ End of shindell-list-digest V6 #289 ***********************************