When You Heard George W. Say...

[3FLryan]

I wonder?

[Alric]

Well I know what i would want to do. I am not sure if I would actually do it though because I would probably get jumped and beat up by the secret service. And I would likely end up in jail as well.

[Indecent Exposure]

I'd sait. Nodding, thiking. I expect that from you anyway =) Imran

[Universal Mind]

Did he really say that? Can you show me a video or anything? It's hard to realistically picture a President using the word "God damn" in a public setting, and it's hard to realistically picture one actually downgrading the Constitution to absolute insignificance in a public setting. Is this some hearsay claim? If you can prove to me that he really said that, you will have a new Bush hater among the ranks. Then EVERYBODY on this site will be a Bush hater. But... innocent until proven guilty.

[3FLryan]

Hahahahaha. Sure. It's a wonder what people don't know. here another doesn't say the quote, but you might still learn something from this anyway want another? We're screwed, man. Just face it. Do research and get your news from something other than FOX or ABC or NY Times or whatever.

[Alric]

Yea its old news and it was all over at the time. Of course most people ignored it.

[Universal Mind]

Man, you people got me all worked up. Guerilla News Network, Homeland Stupidity, and Capitol Hill Blue? Who the fuck are they? And even they talked about "reportedly". So it is exactly what I asked about-- hearsay. It wouldn't be admissible in court. I thought somebody might have a video or something more than hearsay from a source that actually has something to lose by lying, as CBS and Dan Rather did. The big news corporations that are in fierce competition with each other and have shareholders and greedy executives and can be slammed out of existence by making up crap are much more reliable than lefty sites that attract an audience by saying Bush has sex with pigs and beats up nursery school kids. Those left wing sites don't get support from being trusted. They get their support from being left wing. I bet Moveon.org has all kinds of stories like that. But very seriously, let me know if you can actually prove he said that. I will make a big sign and join you at an anti-Bush rally and scream to the top of my lungs for two hours.

[Indecent Exposure]

I'll have to back universal here i would expect it from him however, i cant say i bleive it unti li see proof Imran

[Kaniaz]

I&#39;m sorry. But it&#39;s a <strike>grand right wing conspiracy (sorry Hilary)</strike> pretty lame duck as far as things go. Apart from the fact George Bush is a person, and people say stupid things - him arguably moreso than other presidents, I never heard anything about it until now. Smear campaigns run on both sides of the fence, and I&#39;m never quite so quick to believe things like this. After all, is it really what you say, or what you do that matters?

[3FLryan]

After all, is it really what you say, or what you do that matters? [/b] Um. If you haven't noticed anything he's done in office...he pretty much has treated the constitution as a goddamn piece of paper. Did you even watch the YouTube I posted?

[Howie]

It is a piece of paper. And if God exist there is a good chance he damned it.

[Indecent Exposure]

What presidents do and say are interchangable mainly they say which results in others do-ing Imran

[Alric]

Well if you google "the constitution is a goddamn piece of paper" you get almost 200k pages worth of stuff saying the same thing(all with the same details by the way). The problem is that it wasn't public so there is no video of it. I am not sure what you consider a good source though so you should probably go look it up yourself. Its also old news, so even if was reported by say CBS, you might not find it. Personally I don't care. You tell more by his action than what he said anyway.

[3FLryan]

Have you even considered the possibility that big news networks don't actually cover all relevant stories? Do you know what propaganda is? It is very hard to piece together truth. "That story is a piece of propaganda," you say. Okay. I concede that it might very well be. I have no hard proof that the guy who wrote this story didn't make it up. I remind you that we also have no hard proof of what happened on 9/11, yet most of America believes musilm terrorists hijacked planes and attacked America. There is no proof of this. It's just what we are told. I invite you to entertain the possibility that big media conglomerates ignore important stories because they have other interests in mind. Now, if you research what has gone on in the media for the past few years, how lying and distortions have virtually evaporated truth in some cases, then it's not hard to deduce that something is very wrong in how news is presented in this country. I'm not asking you to believe that he said that, I'm asking you if you think it is possible. Given his actions, actions of high ranking people around him, their plans for the future of America, and the fact that he's a pompous asshole known to get mad when people don't comply with his presidential orders, I find it probable that he actually said this. Do you not, as well? In this day and age, the name of a news source, sadly, does not matter. It just doesn't, okay? The trick is piecing together bits of truth from many sources, and it is a very arduous process that hardly anyone undertakes. I give up trying to convince anyone of anything here. All I ask is that people question everything constantly. Logic is the answer to the emotional responses the government wants us to have. The problem is, it is just so hard to sort through the vast ammounts of information at our disposal. That's why people turn to the news they are force-fed at 6 o'clock on NBC. It's much more convenient for us, and much more convenient for the media conglomerates that are nothing other than Big Money, who run stories they want us to see, dazzling over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again with words like "fear." Personally I don't care. You tell more by his action than what he said anyway. [/b] You do realize that his actions while president have been completely analogous to the statement in question.

[Alric]

Yea, which is why I think its probably true.

[3FLryan]

Sorry, Alric, I was inappropriately defensive and misinterpreted what you said. I apologize.

[Universal Mind]

The big news corporations are all about money. Believe me... Shareholders are the people behind the curtain, and they want great stock portfolios. The executives that work for them want to make them happy and keep their jobs, and they are money-seeking missiles. They wake up early in the morning and go out into the world to do what it takes to make the most money they can possibly make that day. At night, they go to dinners and cocktail parties so they can buddy up with the people who can help them make the most money they can make. They are like the Terminator, except their entire mission is to make money and not to kill Sarah Connor. It is what they are all about. With that said... The major news networks are in competition with each other. Money-seeking missile competition! They are constantly fighting to get better ratings than the other ones because the shareholders and executives can get better commisions from the advertizer payments. The #1 sales pitch the networks use in their favor is the phrase "something you won't see anywhere else". If one network neglects a story, another one will be all over it and bragging that they showed it. If MSNBC and CNN get too liberal, Fox News is born for the purpose of a non-liberal leaning with conservative commentators. And when one of them is caught flat out lying, it's bye bye to a thirty year career. Although all of them have certain qualities of bias and neglect, there is the best possible check and balance system at work among them. I trust that system far more than anything like bushisanazi.com or cheneyrunsoveroldladies.org. Such outlets have no check and balance system and are not rooted in reliability. The big news corporations are not completely reliable, but it is impossible to have a more reliable news system than that.

[3FLryan]

Your post is an irrelevant re-hashing of what you have already stated. Logic is in favor of the strong probability that George W. Bush did in fact utter that statement. If you still object, read my previous post until you understand. Thanks.

[Universal Mind]

Your post is an irrelevant re-hashing of what you have already stated. Logic is in favor of the strong probability that George W. Bush did in fact utter that statement. If you still object, read my previous post until you understand. Thanks. [/b] I read your post again, and I didn't see where you countered my points. You made a lot of claims, but you did not back them up. I backed up what I said. My last post was a much more detailed analysis of my earlier one. It was also a counterargument to your post. It is your turn to counter, if you can. Tell me a more reliable news system than the one I described. Take into account the points I made about why what I described is the most reliable system possible, though it has some faults, and tell me either why my premises are false or how they do not logically lead to the conclusions I discussed. You have not done that. Vague accusations against big media will not cut it. I am asking for concrete examples and good back up for them, either in the form of strong evidence or strong logic. I have seen neither from you. I think you need to read my post much more carefully. You might need to do it several times. Don't forget the challenge. Saying something like, "Well, he probably did it," is a weak argument. I need more evidence than that to believe such a serious charge. I am not a leap to conclusion type. I need solid logic. I have not seen it yet. Also, I don't think that somebody who is good enough at being a politician to get to the Presidency is going to dare make a comment like that when there are people in the room he can't 100% trust. That is an absurd concept. I also understand the nature of the War on Terror and what we are up against, and although I don't agree with some of Bush's tactics regarding domestic security, I can see where he is coming from and do not leap to the conclusion that he has absolutely zero respect for the Constitution. I also have not seen the proof that he is an asshole to his staff. If he were, then it would be even more outrageous to conclude that he would make such a comment to or near them because he would have less reason to trust them. So the conclusion that the most logical stance is that Bush must have made the comment is unfounded. Is it possible that he said it? Yes. It's just not substantially supported. It is also far fetched, for the reasons I described. There is also the possiblity that Al Gore wears female underwear and that John Kerry worships ostriches. But what does mere possibility have to do with anything? It is possible that a wild boar is about to crash through my window and eat my keyboard. But it is not an idea I have any reason to take too seriously. So tell me the most reliable news sources and why you claim they are.

[Wolffe]

I read your post again, and I didn't see where you countered my points. You made a lot of claims, but you did not back them up. I backed up what I said. My last post was a much more detailed analysis of my earlier one. It was also a counterargument to your post. It is your turn to counter, if you can. Tell me a more reliable news system than the one I described. Take into account the points I made about why what I described is the most reliable system possible, though it has some faults, and tell me either why my premises are false or how they do not logically lead to the conclusions I discussed. You have not done that. Vague accusations against big media will not cut it. I am asking for concrete examples and good back up for them, either in the form of strong evidence or strong logic. I have seen neither from you. I think you need to read my post much more carefully. You might need to do it several times. Don't forget the challenge. ... Blah blah, bravada ... seriously. So tell me the most reliable news sources and why you claim they are. [/b] He already said that his reasons were because Bush has already basically said it before, just not flat-out; so there's no real reason why it wouldnt slip out if it weren't on camera, or whatever. The fact that this Real ID, radio tagged passports, etc. thing is going on, as talked about in the other topic, which directly conflicts with the constitution's whole 'free country' thing, it strongly suggests what is being reported is more than likely.

[Universal Mind]

He already said that his reasons were because Bush has already basically said it before, just not flat-out; so there's no real reason why it wouldnt slip out if it weren't on camera, or whatever. The fact that this Real ID, radio tagged passports, etc. thing is going on, as talked about in the other topic, which directly conflicts with the constitution's whole 'free country' thing, it strongly suggests what is being reported is more than likely. [/b] I don't think that somebody who is good enough at being a politician to get to the Presidency is going to dare make a comment like that when there are people in the room he can't 100% trust. That is an absurd concept. I also understand the nature of the War on Terror and what we are up against, and although I don't agree with some of Bush's tactics regarding domestic security, I can see where he is coming from and do not leap to the conclusion that he has absolutely zero respect for the Constitution. I also have not seen the proof that he is an asshole to his staff. If he were, then it would be even more outrageous to conclude that he would make such a comment to or near them because he would have less reason to trust them. So the conclusion that the most logical stance is that Bush must have made the comment is unfounded. [/b] That is my counterargument to the points ryan made and you reiterated. I have not seen a counterargument to my counterargument, except your point that Bush has said things like that. He has said nothing close to it, but if you have proof of a quote, I would love to check it out.

[Wolffe]

That is my counterargument to the points ryan made and you reiterated. I have not seen a counterargument to my counterargument, except your point that Bush has said things like that. He has said nothing close to it, but if you have proof of a quote, I would love to check it out. [/b] I gave a reason why it was likely that Bush had said it though

[3FLryan]

I don't know of any reliable news sources, that's the point. You read stories and piece together truth, based on the total storehouse of knowledge granted to you. A) Just because the mainstream media didn't report it doesn't mean it didn't happen. Do you agree to A? I grant that you will never be convinced by my argument; your total storehouse of knowledge doesn't permit you to logically fathom the possibility that these media companies didn't report this story. Rest assured that neither will I ever agree to your absurd conclusion that it is no more probable Bush said that statement than Al Gore wears women's underwear, nor will I understand your commitment to saying you haven't seen any proof that Bush is a baby who likes power and things done his way. From your argument, I have gathered that you look at problems critically, don't jump to conclusions, and need strong logic before you are persuaded of anything: I need more evidence than that to believe such a serious charge. I am not a leap to conclusion type. I need solid logic. I have not seen it yet...I also have not seen the proof... ...It's just not substantially supported. It is also far fetched...[/b] This is good. I like this, everyone should think like this. Let us change the discussion and set down a new path, for it would be helpful to know if you take this same sort of tenacious questioning up against every problem. What do you believe happened on September 11, 2001? As a follow up, I would like to point out that there are many stories that were either completely ignored or reported only MUCH later by the mainstream media pertaining to this date, and many of these stories were of considerable import. According to your doctrine, however, these stories would have been pounced on, as the media companies fought to get the highest ratings by bringing fresh, interesting, and never-before-seen material to light. How do you respond? EDIT: Might not be able to post again for a day or two, have a lot of work I need to finish before the weekend! EDIT #2: Also note, on the 9/11 question, I'm not looking for an in-depth response (or even on the other question, if it doesn't require one). A few sentences will do.

[Universal Mind]

I don't know of any reliable news sources, that's the point. You read stories and piece together truth, based on the total storehouse of knowledge granted to you. A) Just because the mainstream media didn't report it doesn't mean it didn't happen. Do you agree to A? I grant that you will never be convinced by my argument; your total storehouse of knowledge doesn't permit you to logically fathom the possibility that these media companies didn't report this story. Rest assured that neither will I ever agree to your absurd conclusion that it is no more probable Bush said that statement than Al Gore wears women's underwear, nor will I understand your commitment to saying you haven't seen any proof that Bush is a baby who likes power and things done his way. From your argument, I have gathered that you look at problems critically, don't jump to conclusions, and need strong logic before you are persuaded of anything: This is good. I like this, everyone should think like this. Let us change the discussion and set down a new path, for it would be helpful to know if you take this same sort of tenacious questioning up against every problem. What do you believe happened on September 11, 2001? As a follow up, I would like to point out that there are many stories that were either completely ignored or reported only MUCH later by the mainstream media pertaining to this date, and many of these stories were of considerable import. According to your doctrine, however, these stories would have been pounced on, as the media companies fought to get the highest ratings by bringing fresh, interesting, and never-before-seen material to light. How do you respond? [/b] I don't believe that because the mainstream media didn't report something it automatically didn't happen. What I said was those left wing sites that were linked are far less credible than big corporate media. The latter has everything to lose. I told you that it is possible that Bush made that comment, just not probable. I said that all news outlets are guilty of neglect. I was just saying some are far more credible and dependable than others. I never said that the probability that Bush made the comment and the probability that Al Gore wears women's underwear are equal. I was just illustrating the irrelevance of mere possibility. What do I think happened on 9/11? The most plausible story is that 19 angry, delusional, gullible Muslims who hated life hijacked airplanes and mindlessly killed a bunch of innocent people along with themselves. They tend to do that. If there was some major conspiracy of the Bush Administration or Haliburton or the Illuminati or whatever, it was the most impressive thing ever pulled off and kept secret. (Did you see the South Park episode that made that point? I actually questioned if Trey Parker heard me talking in my sleep. It was so in line with what I think.) If there are claims of merit that point to such a crazy stunt that was successful and kept secret, I don't understand why they are not all over the place. If the corporate news media knows about them and has kept them secret, revelations of them would destroy the big news media because the facts would be way to humongous for the media to slide away from them. It would be the biggest news in history. It is not impossible, just highly improbable with something on that level. I have read other sources about how certain beams did such and such and how the buildings fell this way and an explosion happened at the wrong time, but I do not know enough about engineering to counter the claims. However, there are zillions of engineers in the United States, and they aren't exactly going off about this stuff. It seems that they would be. I do believe that the National Security Council and the Bush Administration were warned about 9/11 ahead of time. It is just that they get about a thousand warnings a day, and the 9/11 tip off was too vague to be handled accurately. I don't think they knew that airplanes would be crashing into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, although some experts in the U.S. warned that it seemed likely that airplanes would be used as weapons in a terrorist attack at some point. They turned out to be right, but hindsight is 20/20. If you are worried that I automatically believe whatever the mainstream tells me, I invite you to the Religion/Spirituality forum. You will see just how unmoved I am by popular opinion.

[3FLryan]

The most plausible story is that 19 angry, delusional, gullible Muslims who hated life hijacked airplanes and mindlessly killed a bunch of innocent people along with themselves.[/b] I'm sorry, I can't go any further in this discussion. It seems to me, with all the evidence at hand, that this is the least plausible story out of all of them (and I am far from saying it was the iluminati or whatever). And all I can tell you about the "engineer" thing is, well, if you're really interested, you should probably do research and find out just how many people in academia oppose the official story. I assure you, it is quite a lot. For example, one of my friends in engineering school says his professor has his door covered with explanations of why it is clear the WTC fell due to controlled demolition. I just thought one who's mind is so obviously rooted in logic would ask for actual proof of a story so important.