You May Have Missed

Onceler said:
It's the kind of 1st reaction an apologist would have. There could be a variety of reasons why he wouldn't name someone; why is the immediate reaction to cast doubt on his testimony?

Same kind of reactions we have heard from the Bushies on evidence that intel was cherrypicked for Iraq: O'Neil - he must be lying. Clarke - liar. Powell's aide - liar. It gets to a point where a whole lotta people have to be lying for Bush to be telling the truth.

I have no reason to doubt this guy. His testimony is perfectly consistent with other revelations that have come out about this admin...
Click to expand...

REGARDLESS of who is testifying or what they are testifying about... I always have doubts when they say "a senior official".
 
Superfreak said:
and that somehow makes me a Bush apologist? Asking why he did not tell us WHO said it? By saying a senior official or some such bullshit... it means no one can address this with whomever supposedly said it to him. Which is bullshit. He is not protecting a source, he is making a blind accusation.
Click to expand...

Why? I don't know SF, there could be a lot of reasons.

Maybe the senior official was karl rove. Who has been quoting as saying, and not kidding "that mf, we will fuck him like he's never been fucked before" about someone he felt crossed him.

You know, some people think, hey, I don't need that shit, i want some peace.

Who knows. The why is probably dependent on the who.
 
Also... did I say the guy is lying? NO. I asked why the hell wouldn't he name the person. You say there could be a variety of reasons why he wouldn't tell us.... suggest some of them to me. Because I cannot think of any.
 
Darla said:
Why? I don't know SF, there could be a lot of reasons.

Maybe the senior official was karl rove. Who has been quoting as saying, and not kidding "that mf, we will fuck him like he's never been fucked before" about someone he felt crossed him.

You know, some people think, hey, I don't need that shit, i want some peace.

Who knows. The why is probably dependent on the who.
Click to expand...

See this doesn't make sense to me. AGAIN, I am NOT saying the guy is lying... but if he wants peace... don't bring it up. If you bring it up, then you are going to get hounded until you tell us who it is. Because there is NO possible way for anyone to verify this or question the accused if we don't know who the hell it is.
 
Superfreak said:
Also... did I say the guy is lying? NO. I asked why the hell wouldn't he name the person. You say there could be a variety of reasons why he wouldn't tell us.... suggest some of them to me. Because I cannot think of any.
Click to expand...


No brainer.

Unless its pertinent to a criminal or civil matter, or a serious matter of State, it's generally in poor taste to name people and embarrass them in a public forum, particullary if they haven't done anything criminally or civilly wrong. It's considered a simple matter of tact, in polite society.
 
Superfreak said:
See this doesn't make sense to me. AGAIN, I am NOT saying the guy is lying... but if he wants peace... don't bring it up. If you bring it up, then you are going to get hounded until you tell us who it is. Because there is NO possible way for anyone to verify this or question the accused if we don't know who the hell it is.
Click to expand...


Bull. No one is hounding him. Stories like this disappear in a day.

I can see why he wouldn't want to name someone: burning bridges, friendship, a certain degree of loyalty, intimidation, lack of necessity. You'll probably tear each of these apart, since you're intent on focusing on this rather insignificant part of the testimony, and believing that someone would just make something like this up.
 
Bottom line: NOTE TO ALL....

If someone accuses the Bush Administration of anything... just accept it as fact. Do not ask questions. Just accept it. For if you question anything you are an apologist.
 
Superfreak said:
Apparently it just doesn't matter who said it. All you have to do is lob a blind accusation and as long as it is directed at Bush... who gives a shit about actually researching it or asking any questions of the accuser.
Click to expand...


Hey, dufus - this isn't testimony from George Soros. It's testimony from the former Surgeon General.
 
Cypress said:
No brainer.

Unless its pertinent to a criminal or civil matter, or a serious matter of State, it's generally in poor taste to name people and embarrass them in a public forum, particullary if they haven't done anything criminally or civilly wrong. It's considered a simple matter of tact, in polite society.
Click to expand...

This is complete bullshit. If you say a Senior Official, then you are in essence making people associate the statement with everyone in the administration. Thus embarassing the entire administration. Which is bullshit. It is in POOR taste to make an accusation without giving the accused the ability to dispute you.
 
Superfreak said:
Bottom line: NOTE TO ALL....

If someone accuses the Bush Administration of anything... just accept it as fact. Do not ask questions. Just accept it. For if you question anything you are an apologist.
Click to expand...


No, I look at the preponderance of evidence.

First, this dude has a measure of credility. He has no reason to lie, and he's a U.S. Surgeon General. Not the clerk from the corner liquor store.

Second, what he's tesifying to is entirely consistent with what many other scientists have said - the Bush Adminstration puts rightwing theology and ideology, over good public science policy.
 
Onceler said:
Hey, dufus - this isn't testimony from George Soros. It's testimony from the former Surgeon General.
Click to expand...

As I said.... I don't care WHO is testifying or WHAT they are testifying on... when they make a blind accusation I will question it.

Also, being the former surgeon general is irrelevant. Unless you are suggesting that those in power don't lie? It is also irrelevant in that this testimony has NOTHING to do with his expertise. He is taking a shot at someone in the administration, but doing so in a cowardly manner.
 
"Also, being the former surgeon general is irrelevant. Unless you are suggesting that those in power don't lie? "

I'd love to see at least some hint of motivation for that, before making my FIRST REACTION casting doubt on his testimony...
 
Cypress said:
No, I look at the preponderance of evidence.

First, this dude has a measure of credility. He has no reason to lie, and he's a U.S. Surgeon General. Not the clerk from the corner liquor store. "

With regards to the medical field. I agree he has credibility. But this isn't medical, it is political.... and there is NO reason for him not to say "Rover said...." or "Cheney said...". None.

"Second, what he's tesifying to is entirely consistent with what many other scientists have said - the Bush Adminstration puts rightwing theology and ideology, over good public science policy.
Click to expand...

Right... you are putting special olympics bias due to the Kennedy family involvement on par with embryonic stem cell research???
 
Onceler said:
"Also, being the former surgeon general is irrelevant. Unless you are suggesting that those in power don't lie? "

I'd love to see at least some hint of motivation for that, before making my FIRST REACTION casting doubt on his testimony...
Click to expand...

Very easy... the guy is pissed at the administration for not allowing federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. So he takes a pot shot. I just have a hard time believing someone this annoyed with the administrations position on scientific issues wouldn't name the person. I cannot see one possible explantion that would rationalize why he wouldn't say who it was.
 
Lol...

Superfreak said:
Bottom line: NOTE TO ALL....

If someone accuses the Bush Administration of anything... just accept it as fact. Do not ask questions. Just accept it. For if you question anything you are an apologist.
Click to expand...


However this only applies to Liberals...they question everything conservatives say or do...yet claim immunity from scrutiny...:clink:
 
Superfreak said:
Very easy... the guy is pissed at the administration for not allowing federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. So he takes a pot shot. I just have a hard time believing someone this annoyed with the administrations position on scientific issues wouldn't name the person. I cannot see one possible explantion that would rationalize why he wouldn't say who it was.
Click to expand...

Then you're insane. As I said, there are loads of reasons people prefer not to name someone, especially someone higher up, if it's not necessary to do so, and in this case, it wasn't. I'd be interested to see the testimony; did anyone even ask a follow-up asking who it was? You have a really skewed idea of human behavior.

So, it's easier for you to believe that this guy, a former Surgeon General under this admin, concocted this story out of thin air, than it is for you to believe that this admin, who have NEVER behaved unethically or coerced (informally, of course) their employees to do anything against their better judgment, would do this?

When did YOU get a lobotomy...did the Kennedys do it to you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top