Maxwell Render | Official public forum

What is your point?

http://www.bercasio.com/movies/dems-wmd-before-iraq.wmv

And check this out

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=-EywYDhPeY8
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=D6X8xKqO9 ... re=related

This and other examples just higher the possibility that the Iraq was really delibaretaly invaded under false pretenses.

Please...I am fatigued from apologizing for my nation for allowing our appointed but never elected, incredibly, stupid asshole, figurehead president George W. "Fuckup Whenever I Can" Bush to assume the highest office of our country...This dickhead does not represent the values of Americans...

I think the real terrorists are hiding behind the bush(es) ... not in a cavern... he he..

RonB wrote:Please...I am fatigued from apologizing for my nation

No-one expects you to, I think. We don't blame ya for not being able to singled-handedly prevent the invasion of Iraq.

He's a strange one, that Junior. I cannot help but wonder: am I the only one who finds him, because of the references he makes to God, not all that different from, say, the mullahs?

I'm not trying to insult anyone here - I'm serious. From my point of view (Western-European and leftist), that mixing up of religion and politics is baffling. And somewhat scary, too.

Just make sure history doesn't repeat as quickly. Mr. "Bomb-Bomb-Bomb-Iran" shouldn't even be a candidate anymore.

Forget the apologizing, and go voting

This thread is the perfect case of "Opinions are like @$$holes, everyone's got one." It's fine to have a purely partisan belief, but you have to be able to back your claims up with YOUR direct knowledge and evidence of the case at hand (and I'm not talking about restating political talking points from the pundits or posting links to random YouTube videos). I wonder how many of you have actually been overseas with the military, served your country, and seen first hand the true reality of the problems we face as a nation? If you have, I'd gladly debate the pros and cons of foreign policy, but I suspect most of these angry comments come from a lack of personal knowledge of the topic. It's one thing to sit on the sidelines and throw out comments, but until you've done the job yourself, your opinions are purely anecdotal.

Very true, but McCain isn't even an option. He's on his own (without staff), an incompetent man with a dangerous attitude, and it doesn't need hours of research to see that.

It's ridiculous how this "skepticism" towards common sense has become an acceptable tool of discussion in the United States. It's exactly what opened to door to Creationism gaining ground. Fox news celebrates it, Steven Colbert parodies it.

I was born in the U.S.A. I pay a BUNCH of taxes (my fair share + enough to cover the illegal Mexicans who don't have to). I live in this world.
I'm not sitting on the sideline. I'm in the thick of it.
Therefore, my ideas and opinions mean everything/nothing.
I can point out the flaws of this country and it's leaders, with or without proposing solutions to those problems.

-Adrian wrote:Very true, but McCain isn't even an option. He's on his own (without staff), an incompetent man with a dangerous attitude, and it doesn't need hours of research to see that.

But Adrian, that's the kind of comment that I'm talking about. Nowhere in my last post do I state whether I agree or disagree with a certain side of the argument, it's just that IMHO if you are going to put forth an argument you have to back it up with your own experience/evidence. The quote above is purely subjective, without any evidence offered by you to back up the claim. If it doesn't take "hours of research" to back it up, then go ahead and make some specific claims that can be debated. What is "common sense" to you, may not be remotely common sense to anybody else. In fact the very phrase "common sense" is a subjective based phrase. It implies a common belief to all which in reality is often not the case, hence the topic of this disscussion.

To keep this topic relevant to today's politics, here's one example of the argument I'm making. Both McCain and Obama hold the position that waterboarding is tantamount to torture, and therefore should not be used as an interrogation tool by the U.S. They hold the same belief, and agree on the merits of the argument, but only one (McCain) has the direct experience of torture to be able to evaluate the merits. McCain's opinion is based on experience of the issue, Obama's is based on anecdotal evidence, but they come to the same conclusion. IMHO personal experience of an issue trumps anecdotal evidence any day of the week, and twice on Sundays, so that's the point I'm making.

Bubbaloo, don't get rattled. I'm not saying that you shouldn't have an opinion, what I'm arguing is the merits of the argument you put forth, whether I agree with your premise or not.

I must say i assumed the video i posted is evidence enough, and surely it's my subjective view to begin with. Cut together or not, those aren't little faux pas'. And Bomb Iran makes me doubt he's a man of integrity. Even if only a small incident, it shows part of his character. So how is the "Commander And Chief" an option - is he good on paper?

-Adrian wrote:I must say i assumed the video i posted is evidence enough

Let's debate this quote just a little. This statement shows a flaw in your argument as it assumes what you have already set out to prove. You accepted the validity of the evidence without having personal knowledge of, or investigating the truth of the claims. The clips supported your point of view, so you accept the content to be true, and the merits of the argument unquestionable.

For arguments sake, let's say there was a YouTube video of others experiences (like mine), would you believe my evidence to be unquestionable regardless of whether it supports your claim? If say the video showed vast regions of Iraq completely stabilized, akin to any average U.S. city, with people thriving under new commerce and security, with Iraq's wanting to shake your hand in gratitude for the improvements in living conditions, with footage of U.S. soldiers patrolling through the streets with no more or less fear of combat than your average U.S. police officer feels on duty, would this change your opinion at all? Probably not, because like I said, personal experience and evidence is hard to relate to others, whereas anectodal evidence is as easy as propaganda.

Everything in life is relevant to your personal experience. One example: I constantly hear people throwing out the number of U.S. soldiers lost in Iraq as a call to withdraw troops. This is a valid position to hold, but does it bear the same weight when it is applied to personal experience? For instance, a U.S. soldier who stormed the beach of Normandy might consider our losses in Iraq during the last 5 years insignificant to the number lost in just ONE day during World War II. The loss of life is no less tragic, but when you analyze the two examples logically, personal experience is everything to the merits of the argument. Bottom line, too often people make vast judgements on situations in which they are very uninformed of issues/evidence at hand.

You accepted the validity of the evidence without having personal knowledge of, or investigating the truth of the claims.

Yes, it's an unaltered video and he's publically lying on multiple occasions. As ideal and solid an evidence as i can get, because i couldn't have been there. And he's simply put, not very smart, just like his predecessor. Don't tell me i need to present written evidence of this.
I didn't relate this to my stance on the Iraq war. The means shouldn't justify the cause in a democratic country. So if a politician consciously manipulates his statements, i wouldn't wait to see if the cause is worthy of doing so.

But i see the risk of this going out of hand, so we might want to keep politics out of this forum, as much as i'd like to know others' opinions on this.

From what i understand, you say he might be skilled where it really counts, i say his downsides are instantly too heavy to keep looking for the ups.

-Adrian wrote:Yes, it's an unaltered video and he's publically lying on multiple occasions. And he's simply put, not very smart, just like his predecessor.

Interesting. So you make the point that a politician who publically lies on multiple occasions is not fit for office. To follow your logic then I assume you were fully behind the impeachment process of Bill Clinton? As for the measure of being "smart", what is your standard for smart? Once again you are putting forth purely subjective opinion to support your claims. Plenty of very smart men have turned out to be tyrants but you ignore that fact as you consider a "smart" man to be good because it serves your purpose.

Like I said, it's not the opinion that matters, everyone is entitled to that. The validity of the opinion is everything, which is why I stress personal experience. Anyone who has seen Jay Leno's "Jay walking" segments over the last few years can see how pitifully uniformed many Americans are about their own country and history. They can give an opinion, but the opinion may not be valid as they are completely uniformed/unaware of the evidence. YouTube is not the substitute for informed investigation.