| Branches of Government Debate topics of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of Government. | 
03-05-2006, 07:49 PM
|
#41 (permalink)
| | Banned
Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Omaha Beach
Posts: 7,363
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Points: 21,485, Level: 92 | Level up: 93%, 865 Points needed | | Quote: |
Originally Posted by Dylan Quote: |
Originally Posted by Jefferson Quote: |
Originally Posted by Dylan So... Newsmax is unbiased, while the Washington Post is unreliable?
Oookay.  | Didn't say that, did I?
But it might do people well to actually read several sources - from both "sides of the aisle". | At least the Washington Post is a real newspaper, with accountability.
You shouldn't question other people's sources, and then present your own as untarnished fact, when they're obviously biased. | Excuse me?
Did I present that as "untarnished fact"? I did NOTHING but post the article. No comment, no endorsement. I just posted the article.
Stop putting words in my mouth. | 
|  | |
03-05-2006, 08:34 PM
|
#42 (permalink)
| | Council Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,810
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Level up: 52%, 19 Points needed | | Quote: |
Originally Posted by Jefferson Quote: |
Originally Posted by Dylan Quote: |
Originally Posted by Jefferson Quote: |
Originally Posted by Dylan So... Newsmax is unbiased, while the Washington Post is unreliable?
Oookay. | Didn't say that, did I?
But it might do people well to actually read several sources - from both "sides of the aisle". | At least the Washington Post is a real newspaper, with accountability.
You shouldn't question other people's sources, and then present your own as untarnished fact, when they're obviously biased. | Excuse me?
Did I present that as "untarnished fact"? I did NOTHING but post the article. No comment, no endorsement. I just posted the article.
Stop putting words in my mouth. |
You may have noticed that when other people post links on this site (With the exception of Hev) they have a tendency to post "This link is kind of liberal" or "this link is kind of conservative." You didn't. Not saying anything gives the impression of an unbiased source. | |
| | |
03-05-2006, 09:23 PM
|
#43 (permalink)
| | Senator
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 5,844
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Points: 17,941, Level: 85 | Level up: 86%, 409 Points needed | | Quote: |
Originally Posted by Jefferson Quote: |
Originally Posted by foundit66 Quote: |
Originally Posted by Jefferson Quote: |
Originally Posted by hevusa Jefferson, you are arguing something very much off topic. The point is Bush was informed before Katrina that the levees would not withstand a CAT 5 hurricane. Yet after the fact Bush speaks to the media and says he didn't know that the levees would break.
Flat out lie. He was informed to the contrary and the lie was caught on tape. | You're just full of it!
Bush was informed - by the Civil Engineers - that a Category 5 MIGHT cause a hole in a levee and/or spill over one.
Note the word "MIGHT".
And Bush was correct in saying that nobody knew the levees WOULD break. | That's NOT what Bush said.
Quit rewriting history.
THIS is what he said...
"I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees." They said it was a possibility, so OBVIOUSLY it was anticipated... | It is a possibility that we're going to have a down-pour tonight in my city. But we aren't anticipating it.
Two totally different words and meanings. | anticipate: to give advance thought, discussion, or treatment to http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/anticipate
Making up your own definitions to words doesn't count...
They talked about it.
It WAS anticipated. | |
| | |
03-05-2006, 10:18 PM
|
#44 (permalink)
| | Banned
Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Omaha Beach
Posts: 7,363
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Points: 21,485, Level: 92 | Level up: 93%, 865 Points needed | | Wrong.
Possibility does NOT equal anticipation.
Nice try... | |
| | |
03-05-2006, 10:49 PM
|
#45 (permalink)
| | Senator
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 5,844
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Points: 17,941, Level: 85 | Level up: 86%, 409 Points needed | | Quote: |
Originally Posted by Jefferson Wrong.
Possibility does NOT equal anticipation.
Nice try... | You are obfuscating again.
I never said "possibility equals anticipation".
What I AM saying is that if you discuss the possibility of something, that act IS a sign of anticipation.
I proved that via the definition of "anticipation".
anticipate: to give advance thought, discussion, or treatment to http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/anticipate
You can deny it all you like. You can obfuscate it all you like.
You're only fooling yourself...
When Bush was briefed about the levees, that was an "anticipation" of what he later claimed was not "anticipated". | |
| | |
03-05-2006, 11:02 PM
|
#46 (permalink)
| | Citizen
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 73
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Level up: 26%, 43 Points needed | | Quote: |
Originally Posted by foundit66 Quote: |
Originally Posted by Jefferson Wrong.
Possibility does NOT equal anticipation.
Nice try... | You are obfuscating again.
I never said "possibility equals anticipation".
What I AM saying is that if you discuss the possibility of something, that act IS a sign of anticipation.
I proved that via the definition of "anticipation".
anticipate: to give advance thought, discussion, or treatment to http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/anticipate
You can deny it all you like. You can obfuscate it all you like.
You're only fooling yourself...
When Bush was briefed about the levees, that was an "anticipation" of what he later claimed was not "anticipated". | Jesus H. Christ! At least during the Clinton years, it was Clinton who insisted the debate was over the defintion of the word "is." Now Bush's critics are in effect denouncing him for not being a walking dictionary.
It is so weak!!! | |
| | |
03-05-2006, 11:02 PM
|
#47 (permalink)
| | Banned
Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Omaha Beach
Posts: 7,363
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Points: 21,485, Level: 92 | Level up: 93%, 865 Points needed | | Quote: |
Originally Posted by foundit66 Quote: |
Originally Posted by Jefferson Wrong.
Possibility does NOT equal anticipation.
Nice try... | You are obfuscating again.
I never said "possibility equals anticipation".
What I AM saying is that if you discuss the possibility of something, that act IS a sign of anticipation.
I proved that via the definition of "anticipation".
anticipate: to give advance thought, discussion, or treatment to http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/anticipate
You can deny it all you like. You can obfuscate it all you like.
You're only fooling yourself...
When Bush was briefed about the levees, that was an "anticipation" of what he later claimed was not "anticipated". | Yeah. Whatever.  | |
| | |
03-05-2006, 11:08 PM
|
#48 (permalink)
| | Senator
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 5,844
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Points: 17,941, Level: 85 | Level up: 86%, 409 Points needed | | Quote: |
Originally Posted by ZX3 Quote: |
Originally Posted by foundit66 What I AM saying is that if you discuss the possibility of something, that act IS a sign of anticipation.
I proved that via the definition of "anticipation".
anticipate: to give advance thought, discussion, or treatment to http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/anticipate
You can deny it all you like. You can obfuscate it all you like.
You're only fooling yourself...
When Bush was briefed about the levees, that was an "anticipation" of what he later claimed was not "anticipated". | Jesus H. Christ! At least during the Clinton years, it was Clinton who insisted the debate was over the defintion of the word "is." Now Bush's critics are in effect denouncing him for not being a walking dictionary.
It is so weak!!! | I gave the common usage of the word "anticipate".
Clinton was using a non-common usage of the word "sex". He was using a LEGAL definition of "sex" which excluded aspects of the common usage of the word "sex", like "oral sex".
Likewise, your stance uses a non-common usage of the word "anticipate".
It has nothing to do with being a "walking dictionary".
MOST people comprehend the meaning of the word "anticipate".
If you talk about something being a possibility, then you are clearly "anticipating" that possibility. anticipate: to give advance thought, discussion, or treatment to http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/anticipate
This IS what the word means.
The fact that people have to have it explained to them speaks poorly about the people needing the explanation. Not those who provide it... | |
| | |
03-06-2006, 12:29 PM
|
#49 (permalink)
| | Banned
Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Omaha Beach
Posts: 7,363
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Points: 21,485, Level: 92 | Level up: 93%, 865 Points needed | | Only a goober with an agenda would believe that POSSIBLE and ANTICIPATED mean the same thing. | |
| | |
03-06-2006, 02:06 PM
|
#50 (permalink)
| | Super Moderator
Country:  Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Seattle (grew up around D.C.)
Gender: 
Posts: 8,493
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Points: 26,333, Level: 96 | Level up: 97%, 17 Points needed | | The point is if something you learn something is possible then you can anticipate it.
__________________ --- help me Instant Runoff Voting, you're my only hope --- "There is no such thing as laziness. Laziness is only lack of incentive." Norman Reider, MD
Morality is not contingent on religion to exist. Therefore religion only detracts from the purity of morality. | |
| | | Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode | |
