LMM Episode 13-Scream Louder

[omiolo]

are you a Harry Reid fan?

I like Harry very much!

What about Gordon Smith?

[HiveRadical]

I'm sad to hear that omiolo!

[omiolo]

"I'm sad to hear that omiolo! "

don't tell me you don't like Udall from New Mexico too?

What about Gordon Smith?

[HiveRadical]

I don't know too much about Udall and Smith I'm a little under informed on too, Reid I know about much more since his rise to power. I thought Smith's stuff on polygamy to be an interesting controversy.

[cabivo]

Turn your outrage into actions go to these sites: houseDOTgov SenateDOTgov Tell Conyers and your representative IMPEACH! ALL the judiciary must hear from all of us: judiciaryDOThouseDOTgov Send a FREE fax at faxzeroDOTcom to them and email and call them Contact media at: fairDOTorg check out afterdowningstreetDOTorg Watch the vid on here called "the prosecution of george bush for murder" and show it to people plus go here: freewaybloggerDOTcom and do what you see SPEAK UP OR BE COMPLICIT !

[HiveRadical]

and defend in any depth their accusations or antipathy for Bush. And your statement on 9/11 has me worried about your perceptions of it. What do you mean when you say you feel we could have prevented it? Please don't say you've got inklings of the the 'truthers' in your perception.

[muzutu]

HiveRadical:

READ THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AND TRY TO DISPUTE EVEN ONE OF THEM.

How you can be so blind as to state no one has explained it when it's right in front of your face.

You can also go to impeachbushDOTorg and read their list.

Also, read Bugliosi's book "The Prosecution of George Bush for Murder"

Then read the Constitution and learn what is legal and what is not.

Then after all that, go look in the mirror and ask yourself if you are brave enough to admit you have been wrong.

[HiveRadical]

The quotes the stats, the hard data, I'm not arguing any of that, I'm arguing the premise needed to come to the conclusion for each of the articles, the premise demanded for them to be lying and deceiving are things on the order of the capacity premise demanded for the conspiracy views of the 9/11 so-called 'truthers.' The combination of hind sight being 20/20 combined with the irrational desire to seemingly want to pin virtually all evil on Bush is doing things to your collective heads.

[muzutu]

The hard data is correct, but you need to be show how to come to a conclusion?

Do you need to be shown how to tie your shoes too?

[HiveRadical]

No. I disagree with the underlying assumptions. This isn't a matter of tying knots, there are huge assumptions made in coming to the conclusion that the hard data means they were lying, deceiving or otherwise going against their obligations or engaged in wrong doing.

[HiveRadical]

Tell you what. You pick the strongest out of the articles and we'll address that in context of what needs to be shown to actually demonstrate it to be true as stated in the Article. Then I can systematically and precisely show you where any of the specific claims in whatever article you end up choosing is flawed. You pick. If you can demonstrate me to be incorrect you'll bring (IMO) one of the strongest advocates possible to your cause. But let's actually discuss an article or two in detail.

[muzutu]

I'm not going to waste my time explaining what is already explained, you don't think the articles are true and supportable, so as I said originally, YOU prove one wrong.

It's FACT that they sold the war on lies.

One example, the CIA gave Bush a report by ALL 16 of our spy agencies and it said Saddam was no threat UNLESS WE ATTACKED HIM.

A couple days later in Cincinnati, bush then said he was an immenent threat.

THAT IS NOT HINDSITE, THAT IS SEEING THE FACT HE INTENTIONALLY LIED.

[HiveRadical]

They didn't say he was "no threat UNLESS WE ATTACKED HIM." They said they perceived the immediate threat level as being low, but they didn't say it was non-existent and they never claimed (as intelligence generally can not) that they knew that their conclusions were accurate.

[HiveRadical]

A combination of both a few inaccuracies and a failure to demonstrate a real and cohesive understanding the nature of the situations being judged makes your claims of lying and deceit and evil come off as, IMO, loony. And your poor analogy equating judging the intents of a person engaged in part of running a sovereign state to the simplicity of manipulating strings to tie a knot acts as another piece of evidence that you're wanting in cognitive comprehensiveness in your analyses.

[HiveRadical]

muzutu,

I also think it's erroneous to paint this as me asking you to explain what's already been explained, I'm not doing anything of the sort, rather I'm asking you to present the strongest of the group and then be prepared to defend the reasoning required to get from point A to your determinations. I've demonstrated your presentation and subsequent conclusion as erroneous on the threat point, such fudging betrays a bias the trends towards distortion and often accompanies faulty assumptions.

[seyaso]

You haven't demonstrated anything to him or anyone HiveRadical, the FACTS are FACTS.

ALL SIXTEEN OF OUR INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES SAID HE WAS NO THREAT, then immediately following that bush claimed we were in immediate danger.

You need to read that report

You are obviously just out to do what Faux News does and twist and warp anything just to try to sway people's vision of the truth.

The truth, testimony and documents and everything else is right there for you, it is up to YOU to face up to it.

[HiveRadical]

Give us the exact words from the report and in context. Let's see it verbatim.

[HiveRadical]

I really don't see how someone can cling to the presumptions of Kucinich's accusation. Personally I see a great deal of the view you project, and those who share that view, to be irrational. I don't think that this war is wonderful but I also don't think it's insupportable or not warranted. I've never had anyone go through