FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


CIA chief: Cheney practically hoping for terrorism on US





handfleisch
First there was Limbaugh hoping for the US president to fail. Now it's Cheney's turn for his version of sick right wing tactics.

Quote:
WASHINGTON -- CIA Director Leon Panetta says former Vice President Dick Cheney's criticism of the Obama administration's approach to terrorism almost suggests "he's wishing that this country would be attacked again, in order to make his point."

Panetta told The New Yorker for an article in its June 22 issue that Cheney "smells some blood in the water" on the issue of national security.

Cheney has said in several interviews that he thinks Obama is making the U.S. less safe. He has been critical of Obama for ordering the closure of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, halting enhanced interrogations of suspected terrorists and reversing other Bush administration initiatives he says helped to prevent attacks on the U.S.

Last month the former vice president offered a withering critique of Obama's policies and a defense of the Bush administration on the same day that Obama made a major speech about national security.

Panetta said of Cheney's remarks: "It's almost, a little bit, gallows politics. When you read behind it, it's almost as if he's wishing that this country would be attacked again, in order to make his point. I think that's dangerous politics."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/14/AR2009061401540.html?hpid=moreheadlines
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
First there was Limbaugh hoping for the US president to fail. Now it's Cheney's turn for his version of sick right wing tactics.

Quote:
WASHINGTON -- CIA Director Leon Panetta says former Vice President Dick Cheney's criticism of the Obama administration's approach to terrorism almost suggests "he's wishing that this country would be attacked again, in order to make his point."

Panetta told The New Yorker for an article in its June 22 issue that Cheney "smells some blood in the water" on the issue of national security.

Cheney has said in several interviews that he thinks Obama is making the U.S. less safe. He has been critical of Obama for ordering the closure of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, halting enhanced interrogations of suspected terrorists and reversing other Bush administration initiatives he says helped to prevent attacks on the U.S.

Last month the former vice president offered a withering critique of Obama's policies and a defense of the Bush administration on the same day that Obama made a major speech about national security.

Panetta said of Cheney's remarks: "It's almost, a little bit, gallows politics. When you read behind it, it's almost as if he's wishing that this country would be attacked again, in order to make his point. I think that's dangerous politics."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/14/AR2009061401540.html?hpid=moreheadlines

Both are using the media to provoke/influence in negative ways. Hopefully you can see through it?
lagoon
Cheney has always been nothing more than a hatchet man, plain and simple.
Voodoocat
I've got bad news for you handfleisch, but just because Leon Panetta says something does not make it true. Based on your own evidence, all that Mr. Cheney has done is to state his belief that Obama's policies are making America unsafe. In no way does this indicate that Mr. Cheney want America to be attacked. Other than Panetta's comments, where do you find any evidence that Mr. Cheney hopes that America is attacked?

Sounds like another hack job on the truth, but we have come to expect that this year.
Voodoocat
Another error from handfleisch:
Quote:
First there was Limbaugh hoping for the US president to fail.


The actual words Rush Limbaugh used are:
Quote:
I know what his plans are, as he has stated them. I don't want them to succeed.


Notice that Mr. Limbaugh does not wish Obama to fail, but his plans to fail. While these two statements might sound like they are the same, they are not! Obama can be a very successful president without following his current plans. For instance, not spending twenty billion dollars to keep GM out of bankruptcy only to have GM file for bankruptcy anyway. Another example: not creating a brand new health insurance bureaucracy when the nation is wallowing in trillions of dollars of Obama inspired debt.
handfleisch
Voodoocat wrote:
I've got bad news for you handfleisch, but just because Leon Panetta says something does not make it true. Based on your own evidence, all that Mr. Cheney has done is to state his belief that Obama's policies are making America unsafe. In no way does this indicate that Mr. Cheney want America to be attacked. Other than Panetta's comments, where do you find any evidence that Mr. Cheney hopes that America is attacked?


Panetta's observation was just a spoken affirmation from an authoritative voice of what much of the country, reeling in disgust at the show Cheney is putting on, is thinking and feeling. As for the "evidence", as you say, note that Panetta took Cheney's remarks in total and characterized them that way, that Cheney is "almost... wishing that this country would be attacked again, in order to make his point." So the "evidence" that Cheney is practically wishing for an attack in his constant, vindictive, desperately self-serving effort to reverse reality and portray his administration's record as anything but a failure of historic proportions. In other words, it's what called an educated opinion about the general quality and tone of Cheney's remarks.

Voodoocat wrote:
Notice that Mr. Limbaugh does not wish Obama to fail, but his plans to fail. While these two statements might sound like they are the same, they are not! Obama can be a very successful president without following his current plans. For instance, not spending twenty billion dollars to keep GM out of bankruptcy only to have GM file for bankruptcy anyway. Another example: not creating a brand new health insurance bureaucracy when the nation is wallowing in trillions of dollars of Obama inspired debt.


Wow, a Limbaugh apologist too. Do you do stand-up?

Limbaugh knew exactly what he was doing when he issued the headline that he wants Obama to fail. He can mealy-mouth words of explanation for his dittoheads to cite, but it doesn't change what his overall message for his loyal followers: to reject anything and condemn everything Obama does from day one.
liljp617
How is saying the country is less safe hopeful of an attack?

Granted, I disagree that we're less safe and I suppose that's a matter of opinion. I didn't think we were that safe under Bush, that doesn't mean I wanted the country to get attacked to prove my opinion. =/ I'm not following...



In any case, is it normal for a former VP to be so vocal after he's been booted out of the White House? Frankly, Cheney is annoying. He puppeted Bush for 8 years and just now he wants to come out and do a little bit of open political discussion? How kind of him to finally come out into the open and talk to the American people for once! I'm amazed this man thinks he has credibility to critique other administrations. He should go home and take a few long looks in the mirror...
deanhills
liljp617 wrote:
Frankly, Cheney is annoying.
Agreed he is annoying, but in the absence of anyone else doing some sort of rebuttal on the Republican side, at least someone is saying something. Cheney is also annoyed. I can't believe that he would be happy for the US to be attacked by terrorists. What may well be the case is that he is worried that that could happen on Obama's watch. Perhaps he is overly concerned, on the other hand he may have information that we do not know about to worry him into his anxiety attacks. I'm not worried as the US has a very strong military, and I believe Obama is listening to good advice. Perhaps Cheney should take a few Valiums and go on a holiday to the Bahams, chill out and relax. Perhaps when he returns after that he could make a more constructive and meaningful contribution. Right now he is embarassing the Republicans and annoying the Democrats. I'm not unhappy that the Democrats are being annoyed, but wish it could have been as a result of greater substance and solid needling.
Solon_Poledourus
My biggest complaint about Cheney is not that he is criticizing Obama, and saying we are less safe. It is that for all of his criticism, he has offered up zero alternative solutions. Oh wait, he says we should continue to torture more people. That obviously hasn't worked, especially in light of the fact that we got more information from suspects by giving sugar free cookies to a diabetic detainee, and referring to another by the nickname his mother used for him.

I don't mind the critiquing of Obama, hell, I do it just as much as anyone from the Republican party. But when they represent their party, criticism just isn't enough. They have to offer alternatives, plans, solutions. Just going on the news and bashing the guy only serves one purpose: To illicit angry reactions from their audience. It's done for ratings and to create civil unrest so that people resist Obama's ideas that much more. It solves nothing.

Cheney and Limbaugh are chickenhawks and they are known for this kind of tactic. Bill Maher was pretty much the same way for the Democrats(at least he's funny though), but even he is critiquing Obama now. He is also offering Obama some advice; to be a bit more like Bush. I don't like the idea of more Bush, but I agree that Obama needs to put his foot down from time to time. Quit acting like some kid at a party trying to make friends with everyone in the room.

Sometimes, people respect you more when you are up front about not liking them, and not caring if they like you.
handfleisch
liljp617 wrote:

In any case, is it normal for a former VP to be so vocal after he's been booted out of the White House? Frankly, Cheney is annoying. He puppeted Bush for 8 years and just now he wants to come out and do a little bit of open political discussion? How kind of him to finally come out into the open and talk to the American people for once! I'm amazed this man thinks he has credibility to critique other administrations. He should go home and take a few long looks in the mirror...


No, it is not normal. Cheney is shredding the tradition that departed administrations step back and let the new guys run things without slams from the ex-WH leaders. And you're right about his lack of credibility and self-awareness, but of course that goes for all the neo-cons in general.

The only funny side to this is that Cheney has made Bush look decent in comparison, since GWB hasn't done anything like these broadsided attacks and has publicly said he would be keeping his peace now that he isn't in office anymore. Strange to say, but on this one he's positively a class act compared to old VP.
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
The only funny side to this is that Cheney has made Bush look decent in comparison
Brilliant observation! Wonder whether this has been their strategy all along? And Cheney is being paid to do what he is doing earning MEGA bucks.
ocalhoun
Solon_Poledourus wrote:
My biggest complaint about Cheney is not that he is criticizing Obama, and saying we are less safe. It is that for all of his criticism, he has offered up zero alternative solutions. Oh wait, he says we should continue to torture more people. That obviously hasn't worked, especially in light of the fact that we got more information from suspects by giving sugar free cookies to a diabetic detainee, and referring to another by the nickname his mother used for him.

These things only work in combination with harsh treatment. After bad treatment, a little kindness goes a long way.

Without harsh treatment, a little kindness gets you nothing but happy prisoners.

handfleisch wrote:


Panetta's observation was just a spoken affirmation from an authoritative voice of what much of the country, reeling in disgust at the show Cheney is putting on, is thinking and feeling.

BS ALERT
So, this Panetta person can magically determine what much of the country is thinking and feeling?
More impressive still, Panetta can translate this into specific accusations!
Quote:
As for the "evidence", as you say, note that Panetta took Cheney's remarks in total and characterized them that way, that Cheney is "almost... wishing that this country would be attacked again, in order to make his point." So the "evidence" that Cheney is practically wishing for an attack in his constant, vindictive, desperately self-serving effort to reverse reality and portray his administration's record as anything but a failure of historic proportions.

So, in other words, there is no evidence at all that Cheney wants the US to be attacked other than that this Panetta person read his comments, then proceeded to do a psychic reading of Cheney, and during the Seance, it was determined that he wanted the US to be attacked.
Quote:
In other words, it's what called an educated opinion about the general quality and tone of Cheney's remarks.

Can't we just read Cheney's remarks ourselves, and make our own educated opinions?
handfleisch
deanhills wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
The only funny side to this is that Cheney has made Bush look decent in comparison
Brilliant observation!


You're totally right
Solon_Poledourus
ocalhoun wrote:
These things only work in combination with harsh treatment. After bad treatment, a little kindness goes a long way.

Without harsh treatment, a little kindness gets you nothing but happy prisoners.
I agree. I'm not against "harsh" treatment, I'm only against illegal treatment. Prison shouldn't be a cakewalk, especially a prison specifically housing suspected enemy combatants. But it shouldn't be a Gulag or an interrogation camp run by a new Gestapo either.
deanhills
Solon_Poledourus wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
These things only work in combination with harsh treatment. After bad treatment, a little kindness goes a long way.

Without harsh treatment, a little kindness gets you nothing but happy prisoners.
I agree. I'm not against "harsh" treatment, I'm only against illegal treatment. Prison shouldn't be a cakewalk, especially a prison specifically housing suspected enemy combatants. But it shouldn't be a Gulag or an interrogation camp run by a new Gestapo either.
OK, so in this new city of yours where people have the right to carry arms and defend themselves, and where the news media will be closed, what would you do with detainees? Say you have inherited Gitmo yesterday, what would you be doing today to sort out the detainees?
Solon_Poledourus
deanhills wrote:
OK, so in this new city of yours where people have the right to carry arms and defend themselves, and where the news media will be closed, what would you do with detainees? Say you have inherited Gitmo yesterday, what would you be doing today to sort out the detainees?
Assuming it were any of my business in the first place...

I would do as much background checking as possible for criminal activity, associations, etc. Those who I found to have a criminal past would be deported to their homeland(their treatment there is not my problem). Those found not to have any criminal history, I would sponsor them to be sent to another country willing to take them in. Those who are a very obviously not involved with crime or associated with any seedy people would have the option to go somewhere else or apply for citizenship in Poledourustan.

Those found guilty of any crimes against the people of Poledourustan would be punished swiftly and accordingly.
deanhills
Solon_Poledourus wrote:
Those found guilty of any crimes against the people of Poledourustan would be punished swiftly and accordingly.
How would that be done?
Solon_Poledourus
I wrote:
Those found guilty of any crimes against the people of Poledourustan would be punished swiftly and accordingly.
deanhills wrote:
How would that be done?
What do you mean? How would I punish them? Or how would I determine their guilt?

Determining guilt - Investigate the suspect. The same way every other person is investigated for international crimes.
Punishment - Depends on what they are guilty of. Money laundering, for example, would be a hefty prison sentence. Murder, acts of war, etc. would get the death penalty. Just being associated with known terror suspects would result in deportation, etc.
deanhills
Solon_Poledourus wrote:
What do you mean? How would I punish them? Or how would I determine their guilt?

Determining guilt - Investigate the suspect. The same way every other person is investigated for international crimes.
Punishment - Depends on what they are guilty of. Money laundering, for example, would be a hefty prison sentence. Murder, acts of war, etc. would get the death penalty. Just being associated with known terror suspects would result in deportation, etc.
You said that if found guilty of any crimes against the people of Poledourustan, that they would be punished swiftly and accordingly. I was curious to know what that means. Do they go to jail, or are they hanged/electrocuted/shot?
Solon_Poledourus
deanhills wrote:
You said that if found guilty of any crimes against the people of Poledourustan, that they would be punished swiftly and accordingly. I was curious to know what that means. Do they go to jail, or are they hanged/electrocuted/shot?
Ahh... depends on the crime.
deanhills
Solon_Poledourus wrote:
deanhills wrote:
You said that if found guilty of any crimes against the people of Poledourustan, that they would be punished swiftly and accordingly. I was curious to know what that means. Do they go to jail, or are they hanged/electrocuted/shot?
Ahh... depends on the crime.
OK. Let's be specific then, someone murdered somebody else.
Solon_Poledourus
deanhills wrote:
OK. Let's be specific then, someone murdered somebody else.
Premeditated murder gets the death penalty.
handfleisch
handfleisch wrote:
Limbaugh knew exactly what he was doing when he issued the headline that he wants Obama to fail. He can mealy-mouth words of explanation for his dittoheads to cite, but it doesn't change what his overall message for his loyal followers: to reject anything and condemn everything Obama does from day one.


Oh and Limbaugh said quite a few things during his "hope to fail" period. Anyone with a strong stomach can check out his rhetoric with the embarrassingly childish crowd at the CPAC convention here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgKCWt7jrrc
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:

Oh and Limbaugh said quite a few things during his "hope to fail" period.

So what? How long are you going to sit there and lambaste a radio personality?
Solon_Poledourus
Limbaugh is right up there with Howard Stern for political influence. In other words - He may have an opinion, but you would never know if you couldn't see past the annoying BS. And even then, it's weak and built upon lies.
handfleisch
handfleisch wrote:
The only funny side to this is that Cheney has made Bush look decent in comparison, since GWB hasn't done anything like these broadsided attacks and has publicly said he would be keeping his peace now that he isn't in office anymore. Strange to say, but on this one he's positively a class act compared to old VP.


Oops, looks like I spoke too soon. Serves me right for giving Bush even a backhanded compliment...

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/18/bush-takes-swipes-at-policies-of-obama/
Quote:
Bush takes swipes at Obama policies
"I know it's going to be the private sector that leads this country out of the current economic times we're in," the former president said to applause from members of a local business group. "You can spend your money better than the government can spend your money."
...
Repeatedly in his hourlong speech and question-and-answer session, Mr. Bush said he would not directly criticize the new president, who has moved to take over financial institutions and several large corporations. Several times, however, he took direct aim at Obama policies as he defended his own during eight years in office.

"Government does not create wealth. The major role for the government is to create an environment where people take risks to expand the job rate in the United States," he said to huge cheers.


And here's a good rant encapsulating my reaction, too:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31448391/ns/msnbc_tv-tucker/

Quote:
What did he do? Attack the president of the United States and basically did what he does pretty well, which is rewrite history. Now Bush is babbling, trying to make sense out of the worst eight years this country has ever had since the Great Depression.

And if he‘s going to go out and do this, and I think we need to remind the American people, and I think we have an obligation to say this—Bush gave us what? Record deficits, record foreign debt, record trade deficits, butchering the middle class, letting the financial sector run wild with absolutely no oversight. Those are a just a few things—I don‘t have a whole hour to do this, but the American people are not stupid. Our new NBC News poll proves this. The American people do not blame Barack Obama for the fiscal condition of this country.

Here are the numbers. Fifty-three percent say that Bush and the congressional Republicans are to blame. Only six percent blame President Obama. Now, weeks ago, the president said he didn‘t want to second-guess the current president. That‘s exactly what he‘s doing. Bush is lying and he is setting the framework for the Republicans to make the case against President Obama at a very tough time. Gosh, how one speech can change people. It‘s almost like the state of the union address, the 16 words.

This is the last person that anybody in the Obama administration should pay attention to. Bush has no credibility. He has no authority. He has no clue what‘s going on. You see, he didn‘t stop with the economy. Brainless Bush went out and goes after, with a generic statement about health care reform. He really cared about that. He goes on to say, “There are a lot of way to remedy the situation without nationalizing health care.” He also said - “You can spend your money better than the government can spend your money.” I tell you what, just a couple of dandies out there on the rubber-chicken circuit.

This is a man who sat there for eight years—eight years—and did absolutely nothing when it comes to the number one issue in this country for families, which is health care. He told you to go out and get a private savings account. This is vintage Bush, appealing to the lowest common denominator when it comes to the problems we face as a country. I guess you could say that things haven‘t changed. They think we‘re stupid. But in the words of the former president, “Fool me once, you can‘t get fooled again, or whatever that was.”
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
The only funny side to this is that Cheney has made Bush look decent in comparison, since GWB hasn't done anything like these broadsided attacks and has publicly said he would be keeping his peace now that he isn't in office anymore. Strange to say, but on this one he's positively a class act compared to old VP.


Oops, looks like I spoke too soon. Serves me right for giving Bush even a backhanded compliment...

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/18/bush-takes-swipes-at-policies-of-obama/
Quote:
Bush takes swipes at Obama policies
"I know it's going to be the private sector that leads this country out of the current economic times we're in," the former president said to applause from members of a local business group. "You can spend your money better than the government can spend your money."
...
Repeatedly in his hourlong speech and question-and-answer session, Mr. Bush said he would not directly criticize the new president, who has moved to take over financial institutions and several large corporations. Several times, however, he took direct aim at Obama policies as he defended his own during eight years in office.

"Government does not create wealth. The major role for the government is to create an environment where people take risks to expand the job rate in the United States," he said to huge cheers.


And here's a good rant encapsulating my reaction, too:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31448391/ns/msnbc_tv-tucker/

Quote:
What did he do? Attack the president of the United States and basically did what he does pretty well, which is rewrite history. Now Bush is babbling, trying to make sense out of the worst eight years this country has ever had since the Great Depression.

And if he‘s going to go out and do this, and I think we need to remind the American people, and I think we have an obligation to say this—Bush gave us what? Record deficits, record foreign debt, record trade deficits, butchering the middle class, letting the financial sector run wild with absolutely no oversight. Those are a just a few things—I don‘t have a whole hour to do this, but the American people are not stupid. Our new NBC News poll proves this. The American people do not blame Barack Obama for the fiscal condition of this country.

Here are the numbers. Fifty-three percent say that Bush and the congressional Republicans are to blame. Only six percent blame President Obama. Now, weeks ago, the president said he didn‘t want to second-guess the current president. That‘s exactly what he‘s doing. Bush is lying and he is setting the framework for the Republicans to make the case against President Obama at a very tough time. Gosh, how one speech can change people. It‘s almost like the state of the union address, the 16 words.

This is the last person that anybody in the Obama administration should pay attention to. Bush has no credibility. He has no authority. He has no clue what‘s going on. You see, he didn‘t stop with the economy. Brainless Bush went out and goes after, with a generic statement about health care reform. He really cared about that. He goes on to say, “There are a lot of way to remedy the situation without nationalizing health care.” He also said - “You can spend your money better than the government can spend your money.” I tell you what, just a couple of dandies out there on the rubber-chicken circuit.

This is a man who sat there for eight years—eight years—and did absolutely nothing when it comes to the number one issue in this country for families, which is health care. He told you to go out and get a private savings account. This is vintage Bush, appealing to the lowest common denominator when it comes to the problems we face as a country. I guess you could say that things haven‘t changed. They think we‘re stupid. But in the words of the former president, “Fool me once, you can‘t get fooled again, or whatever that was.”
Well at least one thing that Bush would have learned from this rhetoric is that it is probably still too early for him to be writing his memoirs. Give Obama another year, and people may be embracing Bush by that time, and that is not saying how good Bush is, just where Obama's "popularity ratings" will be. Twisted Evil
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:

Quote:
Bush takes swipes at Obama policies
"You can spend your money better than the government can spend your money."


That seems like a good point to me...

And really, there's nothing wrong about 'taking swipes' at the president's politics. You shouldn't attack him on personal matters, but I condemn any attitude that would have you be silent when you disagree with his policies.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
handfleisch wrote:

Quote:
Bush takes swipes at Obama policies
"You can spend your money better than the government can spend your money."


That seems like a good point to me...

And really, there's nothing wrong about 'taking swipes' at the president's politics. You shouldn't attack him on personal matters, but I condemn any attitude that would have you be silent when you disagree with his policies.
I'm beginning to wonder whether saying something is making a difference. American citizens have been saying quite a lot over a long period of time, but in a diminished responsible way, putting the burden on other people to fix, and those people putting it on others - "they this", "they that" and "they the other". Where are "we, the people ....?"
Moonspider
handfleisch wrote:

And here's a good rant encapsulating my reaction, too:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31448391/ns/msnbc_tv-tucker/


I have no respect for this "rant." First of all, anyone who calls President Bush the "worst president in history" is either someone with little knowledge of U.S. history or a credentialed but biased historian.

Secondly, anyone who uses personal insults in their arguments automatically loses. (In this case Schultz referred to President Bush's "chicken brain" and later called him "brainless Bush.") It's human psychology. As soon as someone starts making statements that will be offensive to a person or persons on the other side of the argument, the other person becomes defensive and will not listen to anything else, no matter how reasonable. They focus on the perceived injury and that alone.

It's taught to every business student and in every managerial/leadership class.

No one wins an argument by hurling insults. And no one changes someone's opinion or behavior by attacking the person.

Respectfully,
M
handfleisch
Moonspider wrote:
handfleisch wrote:

And here's a good rant encapsulating my reaction, too:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31448391/ns/msnbc_tv-tucker/


I have no respect for this "rant." First of all, anyone who calls President Bush the "worst president in history" is either someone with little knowledge of U.S. history or a credentialed but biased historian.

Secondly, anyone who uses personal insults in their arguments automatically loses. (In this case Schultz referred to President Bush's "chicken brain" and later called him "brainless Bush.") It's human psychology. As soon as someone starts making statements that will be offensive to a person or persons on the other side of the argument, the other person becomes defensive and will not listen to anything else, no matter how reasonable. They focus on the perceived injury and that alone.

It's taught to every business student and in every managerial/leadership class.

No one wins an argument by hurling insults. And no one changes someone's opinion or behavior by attacking the person.


Uhhh... "rant" implies emotion and therefore possibly insult. We've already gone over the worst-president-ever part, and I cited a large number of (yes, self-selecting but credentialed) historians who would agree. Suffice to say one-of-the-worst.

I have a feeling you just wrote this to get Frihost points. It'd be more interesting if you followed up on the replies to your risible statements here http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-107439.html
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
Moonspider wrote:
handfleisch wrote:

And here's a good rant encapsulating my reaction, too:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31448391/ns/msnbc_tv-tucker/


I have no respect for this "rant." First of all, anyone who calls President Bush the "worst president in history" is either someone with little knowledge of U.S. history or a credentialed but biased historian.

Secondly, anyone who uses personal insults in their arguments automatically loses. (In this case Schultz referred to President Bush's "chicken brain" and later called him "brainless Bush.") It's human psychology. As soon as someone starts making statements that will be offensive to a person or persons on the other side of the argument, the other person becomes defensive and will not listen to anything else, no matter how reasonable. They focus on the perceived injury and that alone.

It's taught to every business student and in every managerial/leadership class.

No one wins an argument by hurling insults. And no one changes someone's opinion or behavior by attacking the person.


Uhhh... "rant" implies emotion and therefore possibly insult. We've already gone over the worst-president-ever part, and I cited a large number of (yes, self-selecting but credentialed) historians who would agree. Suffice to say one-of-the-worst.

I have a feeling you just wrote this to get Frihost points. It'd be more interesting if you followed up on the replies to your risible statements here http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-107439.html
Accusing Moonspider of writing for points is quite insulting Handfleisch, and totally out of whack. He has to be one of the posters on Frihost Forums that has consistently made excellent postings. I agree totally with the contents of Moonspiders posting, and there is quite a bit of wisdom in it. Perhaps it should even be made into a Sticky. I've seen Moonspider practising what he said in the posting throughout all of his postings. Personal insults are distracting, focus away from effective discussions. In fact, personal insults could easily become a problem in their own right as people get more focussed on the personal insults than the discussion on hand.
Solon_Poledourus
birdcow wrote:
lol
Really? The code I used to put your "lol" in quotes was longer than your post.

I think it should be a rule that your post doesn't even get posted if it is shorter than the code which puts the
whoever the hell wrote:
tags around your post.



Seriously...
handfleisch
deanhills wrote:
Accusing Moonspider of writing for points is quite insulting Handfleisch, and totally out of whack. He has to be one of the posters on Frihost Forums that has consistently made excellent postings. I agree totally with the contents of Moonspiders posting, and there is quite a bit of wisdom in it. Perhaps it should even be made into a Sticky. I've seen Moonspider practising what he said in the posting throughout all of his postings. Personal insults are distracting, focus away from effective discussions. In fact, personal insults could easily become a problem in their own right as people get more focussed on the personal insults than the discussion on hand.


What I wrote is hardly offensive.

It's one thing for you to be so easily offended, which would show you're in the wrong place. But getting easily offended on behalf of others? That's truly "out of whack", as you say, and indicates you need to get away from your computer and get some fresh air.
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Accusing Moonspider of writing for points is quite insulting Handfleisch, and totally out of whack. He has to be one of the posters on Frihost Forums that has consistently made excellent postings. I agree totally with the contents of Moonspiders posting, and there is quite a bit of wisdom in it. Perhaps it should even be made into a Sticky. I've seen Moonspider practising what he said in the posting throughout all of his postings. Personal insults are distracting, focus away from effective discussions. In fact, personal insults could easily become a problem in their own right as people get more focussed on the personal insults than the discussion on hand.


What I wrote is hardly offensive.
I'm sure Moonspider can speak for himself, however am almost certain he won't comment on it. That is why I thought I would bring it to your attention. However, if you cannot recognize that the content of what you said was offensive, then possibly there is no sense in bringing it to your attention.
Moonspider
handfleisch wrote:
Moonspider wrote:
handfleisch wrote:

And here's a good rant encapsulating my reaction, too:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31448391/ns/msnbc_tv-tucker/


I have no respect for this "rant." First of all, anyone who calls President Bush the "worst president in history" is either someone with little knowledge of U.S. history or a credentialed but biased historian.

Secondly, anyone who uses personal insults in their arguments automatically loses. (In this case Schultz referred to President Bush's "chicken brain" and later called him "brainless Bush.") It's human psychology. As soon as someone starts making statements that will be offensive to a person or persons on the other side of the argument, the other person becomes defensive and will not listen to anything else, no matter how reasonable. They focus on the perceived injury and that alone.

It's taught to every business student and in every managerial/leadership class.

No one wins an argument by hurling insults. And no one changes someone's opinion or behavior by attacking the person.


Uhhh... "rant" implies emotion and therefore possibly insult. We've already gone over the worst-president-ever part, and I cited a large number of (yes, self-selecting but credentialed) historians who would agree. Suffice to say one-of-the-worst.


I agree wholeheartedly with your definition of “rant.” That’s exactly why I believe it has no place in a debate/argument.

But I stand by my comment that any credentialed historians who believe president Bush was one of the worst presidents in history are biased by their own feelings. I respect their academic achievements but truly believe emotion to be clouding their judgment with regard to this subject. We’ll see where President Bush stands four decades from now when historians will be able to judge his presidency more objectively.

handfleisch wrote:
I have a feeling you just wrote this to get Frihost points. It'd be more interesting if you followed up on the replies to your risible statements here http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-107439.html


No need to hurl daggers. Like I said before, trying to demean the person with whom you are debating costs you in an argument. It does nothing to enhance your position. To be honest though, I have no idea how the point system works and pay no attention to it. I write in the forums simply because I enjoy debating and learn from it. I have a website, but last updated it in 2007, I believe.

I know I don’t write often, but that’s simply a function of time constraints and fastidiousness. I have but one life but am attempting to live four or five, it seems!

With regards to the other statements to which you refer and requested my reply, I saw nothing in that thread that seemed to warrant a reply. Was there something asked of me which I did not address?

Respectfully,
M
handfleisch
Moonspider wrote:
But I stand by my comment that any credentialed historians who believe president Bush was one of the worst presidents in history are biased by their own feelings. I respect their academic achievements but truly believe emotion to be clouding their judgment with regard to this subject. We’ll see where President Bush stands four decades from now when historians will be able to judge his presidency more objectively.

handfleisch wrote:
I have a feeling you just wrote this to get Frihost points. It'd be more interesting if you followed up on the replies to your risible statements here http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-107439.html


No need to hurl daggers. Like I said before, trying to demean the person with whom you are debating costs you in an argument. ...

With regards to the other statements to which you refer and requested my reply, I saw nothing in that thread that seemed to warrant a reply. Was there something asked of me which I did not address?


Well, I find it strange to reject the conclusions of large number of credentialed historians who have reluctantly concluded on the record that Bush was one of the worst presidents in history; it's their job to know, research, compare and contrast. Rejecting it just seems like rejecting news or facts that don't suit your opinions.

I really did not mean to be demeaning; I just said your reply was perfunctory. I didn't know you were so sensitive and will keep that in mind.

About the other thread, the replies to your posts are straightforward, so if you don't find them worthy of further reply, so be it.
Moonspider
handfleisch wrote:
Well, I find it strange to reject the conclusions of large number of credentialed historians who have reluctantly concluded on the record that Bush was one of the worst presidents in history; it's their job to know, research, compare and contrast. Rejecting it just seems like rejecting news or facts that don't suit your opinions.


Not at all. History is not mathematics. I’ve disagreed with a lot of historians and archaeologists on a variety of topics over the years. I do it today as a layman, having moved out of the history and archaeology business years ago to pursue a business career. (My wife’s an archaeologist, so one of us had to make a living! Wink)

handfleisch wrote:
I didn't know you were so sensitive and will keep that in mind.


Once again with the daggers…

If you choose to think me sensitive, then so be it. To be honest I don’t think you meant your statement to be an accurate summation of my emotional nature, but rather an attempt to demean me.

I know that emotions are not easily conveyed in text, and that is therefore a weakness of written communication. In truth I try to write as dispassionately and logically as possible, as I believe at least the majority of my posts convey. However yours seem to be ripe with emotion, such as anger, disdain, pride, and joy. Forgive me if I mischaracterized the feelings you wish to convey in your writings.

My point in calling attention to your comments was not because I was offended by them. I intended to try and point out that such statements are not constructive and actually weaken your arguments by weakening your own position. Call it constructive criticism, if you will.

Alas, we seem to have strayed off topic. So I think we should allow the conversation to drift back to that of the thread. You may have the last word in this discussion unless you wish to ask a direct question.

Respectfully,
M
Vrythramax
Frihost Forum Rules wrote:
General Rules: Section c:

"Posts, avatars, signatures and usernames must not degrade, insult or disrespect other users or groups of people. "

Section f:

"Posts, avatars, signatures and usernames must not contain flame bait or anything encouraging another user to break the rules. "

Any of the rules broken in this category may result in a warning or a ban

Rules Related to Posts: Section b:

"Back-seat moderating is not allowed. If you witness someone break a rule or you think (s)he did, please report the post or user.
Do not reply to the offending post or topic and attempt to handle the situation yourself. If you attempt to handle the situation yourself, a warning might be given. "


Enough said?
Related topics
Misunderrepresented again, Dubya and the US economy
Cheney's top aide indicted; CIA leak probe continues
Who thinks Rummy should stay?
US CIA Chief Resigns
US CIA at fault again?
Introducing Me to Myself
American bashing
odd that nobody posted this
Outrageous: Denmark re-publish Mohammud cartoons
should we care about antartic ice melting?
Is World War III Inevitable?
Senate to investigate CIA torture prisons under Bush
Pres. Obama holds first White House Seder (Jewish Passover)
Why not unlock moderators now!
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.