Keeping it civil instead of returning to our dark ways

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Done and done. Your point?

That negligence can easily morph into wilfullness given proper bias?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
It it weren't Hank,

You often have grammar and spelling errors in your posts. The effect is to make one think the overall post is hastily prepared, and perhaps not well-thought out. Often the content conveys a similar message.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by bilmore
That negligence can easily morph into wilfullness given proper bias?

When it comes to justifications for actions so grave as leading a nation to war, I apply a "knew or should have known" standard.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
The President and VP are not covered under the stricter provisions of the Hatch Act, as these are recognized as explicitly political positions.

A simpler answer would have been that the Hatch Act does not apply to an elected position.

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
But there are a number of senior positions that are covered by the strictest provisions of the Hatch Act.

Is the national security advisor one of those positions and if so, cite please.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Not Me
One thing is for sure, the "seals" that were placed on these dangerous WMDs were completely ineffective. See my point?

They should have used something else.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
When it comes to justifications for actions so grave as leading a nation to war, I apply a "knew or should have known" standard.

To be a lie, you had to have known that the statement was false and have intent to deceive. Moreover, even if we redefine the word, everyone else in the whole fucking world, Old Europe included, lied because they all thought he had WMDs and according to you should have known he didn't.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
They should have used something else.

So it wasn't the russians who moved them to syria, it was eskimos. Fucking eskimos.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
When it comes to justifications for actions so grave as leading a nation to war, I apply a "knew or should have known" standard.

This is beginning to feel like talking to Sebby.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Not Me
To be a lie, you had to have known that the statement was false and have intent to deceive. Moreover, even if we redefine the word, everyone else in the whole fucking world, Old Europe included, lied because they all thought he had WMDs and according to you should have known he didn't.

I didn't elect Old Europe and Old Europe is not accountable to me. You're helping bilmore shift focus again.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I didn't elect Old Europe and Old Europe is not accountable to me. You're helping bilmore shift focus again.

No, I am pointing out the ridiculousness of your definition. How could it be that someone should have known something that no one else knew?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by bilmore
This is beginning to feel like talking to Sebby.

No, I've just been listening to our wise leader.

THE PRESIDENT: And a political candidate who jumps to conclusions without knowing the facts is not the person you want as the Commander-in-Chief.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
No, I've just been listening to our wise leader.

THE PRESIDENT: And a political candidate who jumps to conclusions without knowing the facts is not the person you want as the Commander-in-Chief.

Nor is a poster who forgets the words in the SOTU speech one with whom you want to be discussing the SOTU speech.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
They said (I don't have the exact quote) that this happened while Bush was in charge of the area. First, they had no proof of that. Second, the info coming out would seem to strongly imply, at least, that this was incorrect. Is it my burden to prove them wrong? Shouldn't they have some burden to be able to prove what they print, six days before the election?

I'll believe that you have found the NYT saying something inaccurate when you quote it.

Why is it that the stories that you deem helpful become "the larger story", and mine are "smaller"? Mine are central to the work of the Democrats and the liberal media to portray Bush as a liar, as a basic theme in the fight to elect a Democrat. (And, my gawd, Bush's National Guard service is a "larger story"? That's lame, Ty.)

You don't have to be a Dem or a GOPster to see that the question of whether Iraq had WMD was bigger than the question of whether Joe Wilson is a liar, or that the question of whether Bush was blowing off his National Guard service and getting preferential treatment in the process was bigger than the question of whether Dan Rather's reporting on that story relied in part on a couple of bogus documents. As a question of chronology and scope, it's really pretty clear. I understand that you and your ideological cohorts would rather change the subject to talk about the bias of the liberal media, etc. That was the point we were making.

No, you've posted to blogs that tell us why Wilson's lies mean so little in the face of Bush's horrid National Guard service.

I believe the post that you are thinking of is this one, but -- characteristically -- you've got it wrong.

I'm glad you added "to my recollection." It keeps you honest.

I'm sure we're both being honest.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by bilmore
Nor is a poster who forgets the words in the SOTU speech one with whom you want to be discussing the SOTU speech.

The White House subsequently disavowed (and none too willingly) claims made in the State of the Union address. Were they lying then, too? It's hard to keep track.

[Shape Shifter]

The "large overview" pic is pretty cool.

http://www.digitalglobe.com/sample_imagery.shtml