It wasn't an ad hominem attack. Yes, it was a sly insult of your analytical powers, but between the lines it also was a rebuttal to your argument. I'll explain: The point is that you think Saddam's having WMDs in 1988 has some impact on the fact (not the opinion) that there were no WMDs in 2003. What happened in 1988 doesn't change facts in 2003. But 63% of Republicans (seemingly, including you) still think there were WMDs, even when all the top Republican leaders say so. If your position is, "There were WMDs in 1988 therefore there were WMDs in 2003," that's illogical. We know there were none.

The implication in the joke is that the reason you still believe there were WMDs is that you watch Fox News, which is notorious for wilfully spreading misinformation, particularly following Republican party lines, including about the existence of WMDs.

@KnivesOut, sorry for ruining your joke by explaining it.>> ^lantern53:

You realize you lose the argument when you make personal attacks and avoid the question?
Also I don't watch Fox and Friends. But I agree that the TV becomes an idiot box when you watch TYTs.
Here:
The Halabja poison gas attack (Kurdish: Kîmyabarana Helebce), also known as Halabja massacre or Bloody Friday,[1] was a genocidal massacre against the Kurdish people that took place on March 16, 1988, during the closing days of the Iran–Iraq War, when chemical weapons were used by the Iraqi government forces in the Kurdish town of Halabja in Iraqi Kurdistan.

You realize you lose the argument when you make personal attacks and avoid the question?

Also I don't watch Fox and Friends. But I agree that the TV becomes an idiot box when you watch TYTs.

Here:

The Halabja poison gas attack (Kurdish: Kîmyabarana Helebce), also known as Halabja massacre or Bloody Friday,[1] was a genocidal massacre against the Kurdish people that took place on March 16, 1988, during the closing days of the Iran–Iraq War, when chemical weapons were used by the Iraqi government forces in the Kurdish town of Halabja in Iraqi Kurdistan.

Yep. Thanks for finding it

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Iraqi-guard-grabs-butts >> ^PlayhousePals:

Dupe? http://videosift.com/video/Iraqi-guard-grabs-butts

2 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

This video has been declared a duplicate by the original submitter; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof declared by Fusionaut.

Dupe? http://videosift.com/video/Iraqi-guard-grabs-butts

Ai, ai, ai! So many!>> ^jonny:

You forgot French, Iroquois, Mexican, Cuban, Malay, Korean, Panamanian, Venezuelan, Columbian, African but oddly not Afrikaner, ... and don't forget Poland! oh... actually, I guess we never really hated them. But really, no one can forget how we hated Ourselves.
>> ^Fusionaut:
First, Americans were afraid of the British, then the Natives, then the British again, then other Americans, after that the Africans, then the Spanish, then the African-Americans, then the Germans, then the African-Americans, then the Germans and the Japanese, then the Russians, then other Americans (Commies/Atheists), then the Vietcong, then the Russians again, then the Iraqis, then the Iranians, then the Al Qaeda, then the Iraqis again, then other Americans again (TSA), and NOW they're afraid of losing electricity. (I may be missing some groups and this list may be out of sequence)
P.S. oh yeah, don't forget Muslims!

You forgot French, Iroquois, Mexican, Cuban, Malay, Korean, Panamanian, Venezuelan, Columbian, African but oddly not Afrikaner, ... and don't forget Poland! oh... actually, I guess we never really hated them. But really, no one can forget how we hated Ourselves.

>> ^Fusionaut:

First, Americans were afraid of the British, then the Natives, then the British again, then other Americans, after that the Africans, then the Spanish, then the African-Americans, then the Germans, then the African-Americans, then the Germans and the Japanese, then the Russians, then other Americans (Commies/Atheists), then the Vietcong, then the Russians again, then the Iraqis, then the Iranians, then the Al Qaeda, then the Iraqis again, then other Americans again (TSA), and NOW they're afraid of losing electricity. (I may be missing some groups and this list may be out of sequence)
P.S. oh yeah, don't forget Muslims!

First, Americans were afraid of the British, then the Natives, then the British again, then other Americans, after that the Africans, then the Spanish, then the African-Americans, then the Germans, then the African-Americans, then the Germans and the Japanese, then the Russians, then other Americans (Commies/Atheists), then the Vietcong, then the Russians again, then the Iraqis, then the Iranians, then the Al Qaeda, then the Iraqis again, then other Americans again (TSA), and NOW they're afraid of losing electricity. (I may be missing some groups and this list may be out of sequence)

P.S. oh yeah, don't forget Muslims!

Did you not read what I wrote? I'm pretty sure I said the national debt is a problem. My issue with you is your rationale for the national debt is overly simplistic and utterly ridiculous. OH NOEZ! The average taxpayer owes 137K if the national debt is broken down per taxpayer, and the overwhelming majority of Americans don't have 137K lying around to pay that. Say, do most Americans have 50K laying around? No. So if the debt were cut in third roughly, surely it wouldn't be a problem. See? The rationale doesn't hold up. Most Americans don't have 10K laying around either, but if that were the debt per taxpayer, the national debt wouldn't be a problem. Not to mention the fact that wealth is concentrated in this country, too. Granted, most people don't have 137K laying around, but you know who has millions upon millions laying around? Guys like Warren Buffett, Mitt Romney, etc. etc. The stat you threw out doesn't mean a damn thing. It just sounds bad.

That's the kind of crap that makes discussing something like this with you utterly impossible. You don't care if the national debt is truly a problem. You WANT it to be a big problem that must be dealt with immediately, and THE ONLY WAY to deal with it is... survey says... reduce spending. NO TAX INCREASES!!! EVER!!!

It's a pointless discussion. You've already made up your mind the national debt is a problem that must be dealt with like a crisis, with only one way to deal with it. Any rational person would look at this issue and conclude that even if it is huge problem, (which by the way, since you can't apparently read, I DO think it's a problem, but does not need to be dealt with in extreme measures, or unilaterally with spending cuts only) cutting spending isn't the only solution. I also know that we've run up historical deficits in our past and came out the other end a stronger nation. I also know that the vast majority of the current deficit has been caused by the Iraqi and Afghan wars, by the Bush tax cuts (which actually caused more debt than those wars did, and a collapsing economy.

Comparison between POLICIES of Bush vs Obama as contributors to the national debt:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24editorial_graph2/24editorial_graph2-popup.gif

Sorry, but that's the truth. The reality is we spent ourselves out in two wars and cutting taxes to ridiculous proportions.

As a side note, I just did my taxes. I'm married with no kids, my wife doesn't work due to medical reasons. I make $122,000/yr in a lower than average cost of living area. You know what my effective federal tax rate was? 10%! How in the hell can the federal gov't do what it needs to do when I'm paying 10% effective federal tax rate?! It's absurd. And it's not like I was hell bound to escape paying taxes. My deductions? $5000 in wife's traditional IRA contribution, state income taxes, mortgage interest, and some charitable donations. I benefited also from 401k contributions and a Flexible Spending Account program.

Unless you're willing to go on record and say GDP cannot be raised significantly from where it is today in the next 5 years, which would increase tax revenues to make up for much of the deficits we're running today, you don't have a leg to stand on. I'm not in favor of cutting any gov't spending that would jeopardize significantly economic growth in the short run. Therefore, I don't think we can cut a whole lot of spending right now, and we'll unfortunately have to run very large deficits in the short run. However, once the economy grows significantly, we will need to cut spending at that point, and run substantial surpluses for awhile to get the debt more manageable again.

That is what we've done in the past, and it worked when facing very severe economic downturns. Call me crazy, but I look at history and see what worked, and follow that path.

>> ^bobknight33:

From you example of going into debt for war sake is a nice comparison. In today's terms we spent 1 trillion on the Bush war and and a fair amount on Obama continuation of the wars. If we were only in 1 - 2 trillion of debt that's one thing but we are hitting 16 Trillion dollars of debt. That is a whole different kind of debt.
Like I said earlier our government has currently cause each of us to incur a bill of 50K per man woman and child or 137K per taxpayer. Who of us can pay that debt back? Not Me and surly not you.

You basically don't see this as a problem so I ask you when does it become a problem?

>> ^kevingrr:

@ghark
1 - I'm not sure which swipe of Chris Hedges you are referring to. If it is in regard to the Moral Landscape I can only comment that Hedges takes every opportunity to inject himself into the spotlight. Having read the Moral Landscape I can say that the ideas Harris presents CAN be challenged by legitimate thinkers, of which Hedges is not.
Hedges game has been to misrepresent Harris' point of view as written in End of Faith. I would go so far as to call Hedges an all out liar. See my post in this thread:

2 - Where here is Sam blindly racist? He states that acts of terror are more likely to be carried out by young Muslim men than by 5 year old girls or grandmothers.
If I said that black athletes are more likely to be basketball players and white athletes are more likely to be baseball players would that make me racist? Because in terms of professional sports that simply IS the case. Note I am not saying WHY that is the case - I am simply saying it is and the statistics prove it.
As I have said before Sam is not racist, but he is honest about who is most likely to have some bad ideas and he does not like bad ideas.
3. Sam is not a pacifist but he is not a warmonger either. As I listened to the entirety of the interview I noted he had a very nuanced idea of when war, or physical violence of any kind, is justified.
One last link regarding Hedges:
Here


Shouldn't the definition of terrorism (of which there are many) be carefully examined before making that statement? I assume you are using the 'American mainstream media' version, which of course means, an act in which a colored person with a beard tries to inflict injury or death on other (usually white) people. If the definition is not looked at with mainstream-media-tinted spectacles then it would not be a stretch to say that the 105,000+ documented Iraqi civilian casualties since 2003 were caused by American (and allied troops) terrorism. Political and resource motivated civilian slaughter on a massive scale (and on foreign soil) sounds very terrorist-like to me. Using this line of logic, would it not make more statistical sense to worry about young to middle aged white males having access to military training than scanning middle aged Muslim men at airports.

My point is not to blame the US troops, Australian troops were also involved, my point is simply that someone of Harris' intellect should be above the simple fear mongering and use of blatant misleading generalizations that he's demonstrating in this video. He was one of my hero's for a while there, and seeing him for what he truly seems to be leaves me a bit hollow inside.

As far as Hedges goes, he seems to be on the mark most of the time, and is an excellent speaker, however I thought his shots at Harris were pretty poor form (during his book launch) because it just seemed to be a blatant publicity stunt, so I agree with you on that to a degree.

Please take in mind My BS meter couldn't handle more than about 25-30 mins of the video, and as @LukinStone mentions, Harris explains some of his comments in more detail later in the video, I just couldn't make it that far unfortunately. Most of what I was hearing was self-gratification, "a large American city has about a 50% chance of having a nuclear bomb set off in it within the next decade or so", racist comments and some war mongering, there's only so much I can take

How much effort was put into this "fakeout" when the dweeb who was there can so readily "expose" it?

Sorry gang, you can call this "trickery" or what-have-you, and even if you had a signed confession from Stossel that his intent was to dress up Bolton, what the libmedia does around the clock with manipulative rubbish, plus their backup Democratainment Wing (Vancouver nee Hollywood), you've still got a ways to go, removing the sequoia from thine own eye before the mote in FOX's.



>> ^dag:

Agree. The unedited version doesn't help Fox. What applause there is is for te questioner - not Bolton.>> ^longde:
QM, Stossel's clip in your link is damning; it's clear he manipulated the video to drum up applause for Bolton.
Where's Schultz when you need him?
>> ^quantumushroom:
Stossel has responded and showed the whole unedited clip.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/blog/2012
/02/27/unedited-students-liberty-video-0
No chorus of boos for Bolton. Not much of anything.

BTW if you want bias, here's all the liberal "news" bias you can eat.
-----------------------
This guy might be telling the truth, who knows? He's shilling for his little Mike Moore wannabe film company.
Do you really think official US policy was to blackbag random civilians? For what measurable gain? We won the Iraq War by offering the Iraqis a chance for freedom.
Invading countries run by tyrants in order to kill them? Good work!

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Agree. The unedited version doesn't help Fox. What applause there is is for te questioner - not Bolton.>> ^longde:

QM, Stossel's clip in your link is damning; it's clear he manipulated the video to drum up applause for Bolton.
Where's Schultz when you need him?
>> ^quantumushroom:
Stossel has responded and showed the whole unedited clip.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/blog/2012
/02/27/unedited-students-liberty-video-0
No chorus of boos for Bolton. Not much of anything.

BTW if you want bias, here's all the liberal "news" bias you can eat.
-----------------------
This guy might be telling the truth, who knows? He's shilling for his little Mike Moore wannabe film company.
Do you really think official US policy was to blackbag random civilians? For what measurable gain? We won the Iraq War by offering the Iraqis a chance for freedom.
Invading countries run by tyrants in order to kill them? Good work!

QM, Stossel's clip in your link is damning; it's clear he manipulated the video to drum up applause for Bolton.

Where's Schultz when you need him?
>> ^quantumushroom:

Stossel has responded and showed the whole unedited clip.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/blog/2012
/02/27/unedited-students-liberty-video-0
No chorus of boos for Bolton. Not much of anything.

BTW if you want bias, here's all the liberal "news" bias you can eat.
-----------------------
This guy might be telling the truth, who knows? He's shilling for his little Mike Moore wannabe film company.
Do you really think official US policy was to blackbag random civilians? For what measurable gain? We won the Iraq War by offering the Iraqis a chance for freedom.
Invading countries run by tyrants in order to kill them? Good work!

Stossel has responded and showed the whole unedited clip.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/blog/2012/02/27/unedited-students-liberty-video-0

No chorus of boos for Bolton. Not much of anything.


BTW if you want bias, here's all the liberal "news" bias you can eat.

-----------------------

This guy might be telling the truth, who knows? He's shilling for his little Mike Moore wannabe film company.

Do you really think official US policy was to blackbag random civilians? For what measurable gain? We won the Iraq War by offering the Iraqis a chance for freedom.

Invading countries run by tyrants in order to kill them? Good work!