Quote:

---

Originally posted by dreamtrove:

You missed the part of the story where Rummy said that the media had been infiltrated by terrorists, and anything that you read which was critical of the administration had been written by terorrists. It was an orwellian moment.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kaneman:
Irony?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hardware:
Ladies and gentlemen, the best argument from Kaneman, a person who thinks backwards writing is the height of wit.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by misbehaven:
In unusually explicit terms, Rumsfeld portrayed the administration’s critics as suffering from “moral or intellectual confusion” about what threatens the nation’s security and accused them of lacking the courage to fight back.

...it should be obvious to anyone that terrorists must be confronted, not appeased.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
I'm still waiting for them to start defining dissent and lack of agreement with their asinine policies as a "mental illness" that shortly will be dealt with by forced medication/incarceration.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
"Oh, he doesn't agree with us, he must be insane!"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Weird.

Kaneman and USbrowncoat use the exact same language to bolster each others trolls.

coincidence ???

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I don’t know what Rumsfeld was talking about specifically, but morally and intellectually confused sounds about right to describe many of the anti-war arguments. I’ve been telling people on this board for a long time that the kind of stupid comments that the anti-war and the anti-Bush camp uses make themselves look stupid. From the pointless and childless ad hominem, like arguing that Bush is “evil” or a “terrorist,” to flat-out fantasies like arguing that a foiled terrorist attempt wasn’t a terrorist attempt all, but the evil work of Dr. Bush and his “neocon” minions. It’s not that there aren’t some good reasons to disagree with Bush or the war, but the anti-war and anti-Bush types often don’t use them, preferring instead for elaborate fallacies and fantasies. I can’t really disagree with Rumsfeld on that particular phrase.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I don’t know what Rumsfeld was talking about specifically, but morally and intellectually confused sounds about right to describe many of the anti-war arguments.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
Not really, I had my suspitions from USB's first post.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
And when the ruling elite dismiss fully half of the nation as fools and madmen, and the other half agrees as you do, Finn, the way is paved for Totalitarianism.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Neither faction has a monopoly on stupid comments, Finn. The trouble with your argument, is that it implies that logical and sensible opposition to the party-line is really not important. What's important is the absurd knee-jerk flailing around that a lot of people engage in.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Meanwhile, still waiting for a response from Finn.

Finn, I will argue you point by point if you wish.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
And it was quite clear to anyone who bothered to actually read my post that I was not talking about logical and sensible opposition. What I was talking about, which I gave examples of, were wild, unfounded and ridiculous accusations.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by charliethebloody:


anyone who claims they know exactly what's going on is either lying or not very bright...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Charlie, is that you, m'lady?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I don’t know what Rumsfeld was talking about specifically, but morally and intellectually confused sounds about right to describe many of the anti-war arguments. I’ve been telling people on this board for a long time that the kind of stupid comments that the anti-war and the anti-Bush camp uses make themselves look stupid. From the pointless and childless ad hominem, like arguing that Bush is “evil” or a “terrorist,” to flat-out fantasies like arguing that a foiled terrorist attempt wasn’t a terrorist attempt all, but the evil work of Dr. Bush and his “neocon” minions. It’s not that there aren’t some good reasons to disagree with Bush or the war, but the anti-war and anti-Bush types often don’t use them, preferring instead for elaborate fallacies and fantasies. I can’t really disagree with Rumsfeld on that particular phrase.

---

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by piratejenny:
you know when we get a bomb dropped on us or the next big terror attack I wonder if you will be singing the same tune...just keep doing what your doing and thinking what you think....

---