Paul O'Neill Rips Bush . . .

[ARogueTrader]

Equal weight to security and freedom will keep this country strong.

When will congress repeal the parts of the patriot acts that are no longer needed in a time of "peace?" Never ending wars are a part of totalitarian technology.

The problem with a slippery slope, is that you can be on your ass before you even know it was a danger.

We don't want to err on security, but neither should we err on the side of diminished freedom.

I don't doubt that we will swing too far in the direction of security, and as long as we are allowed to swing back toward freedom that is normal. Will we swing back? That is the question.

With the advancement of technology, it doesn't take an alarmist to be concerned with the technology of spying on the public by the state.

Imagine if Nixon had the technological tools in his hands of "spying" that we now have today.

Quote from rolegario:

But you've already made the jump psychologically from our current situation to having a police state, and one of your base assumptions is that the current leadership is "unscrupulous". The Congress and Supreme Court (with a couple of isolated exceptions) have so far accepted the extra steps taken on security since 9/11, and two-thirds of the population think the administration's doing a good job on national security.

Keeping trains running is a cakewalk compared to preventing extremists, who can blend in with the populace and who are hell-bent on causing chaos in your country, from succeeding in their aims. Implementing stronger borders, immigration policies, and improved airport security are not simple tasks either, unless you are willing to sacrifice some civil liberties (in fact, the more civil liberties you are willing to sacrifice, the easier it is to secure the borders; a difficult balance that any administration needs to strike).

Let's face it, even with the additional security, the US is still the freest country on the planet. I have no problem with you or anyone else issuing any warnings, but to imply that we've hung the Constitution out to dry is a little overly paranoid. Most people have enough faith in our system of government to believe that we're not on some slippery slope toward totalitarianism.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Quote from bungrider:

Again, typical McCarthyist empty rhetoric.

Let's attack the attacker instead of focusing on the problem.

AAA, I really did expect more from you than this.

Ok, you and Rogue Trader think O'neill is such a great American now that he's criticizing Bush, let me ask you a question: Why didn't he complain about the "secret" invasion plans before? Why wait, like Pete Rose, until his book is published to reveal the full horror of the Bush tyranny?

And why is it "McCarthyism", or more accurately ad hominem, to point out the obvious motivation for O'Neill's attempt to backstab Bush? He was canned. Do you think that has any relevance to evaluating the credibility of his charges? Do you think the fact that he was a complete and utter failure as Treasury Secretary has any relevance to assessing his judgment on economic matters" Would we be better off now if Bush had followed his advice and abandoned the timid tax cuts he finally got through congress?

 

[waggie945]

Quote from ARogueTrader:

"We live in an age when scandal means nothing, when the destruction of the environment means nothing, when a politician lying means nothing, when budget deficits mean nothing, when the passage of the patriot acts mean nothing..."

True.

 

[waggie945]

Quote from RogueTrader:

"Imagine if the alarmists who thought we should have stronger borders and immigration policies before 911 had been listened to.

If we had simply had better airport and airline security, such a simple and inexpensive thing, non of the insanity and overreaction would have happened."

I lived across the street from the World Trade Center from 1984-1991, and to this day I cannot believe that those massive structures and the people in them are gone, forever.

Blame the FAA, who was in bed with the commercial airline industry for simpy keeping everything status quo, and the CEO's of all the Airlines who didn't want to spend the money to do something as prudent as reinforce the cockpit doors to commerical airliners.

Successful people, traders, and Nation's are the ones that ask the question: What If? rather than simply trying to maintain the old cronie status-quo. It's time for our Nation to get back into the philosophy and attitude of asking What If?

 

[ARogueTrader]

Why did O'Neill keep his mouth shut before he was fired?

Blind Republican loyalty perhaps.

"And why is it "McCarthyism", or more accurately ad hominem, to point out the obvious motivation for O'Neill's attempt to backstab Bush?"

Logically, motivation has nothing to do with a statement being true or false.

Either O'Neill made true and accurate statements, or he didn't.

A liar, cheat, and a scumbag can still tell truth....so the truth cannot be ascertained on the basis of motive or moral state alone.

What you are attempting to do is slur the credibility of his assertions, which is an ad hominem attack on his argument. This is the technology employed by Hannity, et. al.

Which is all you can implement, as you are not making a case for the statements to be false, but rather giving an opinion as to why O'Neill would lie.

This is Hannityism, McCarthyism, ad hominem, etc.

The more one side needs to resort to ad hominem and slur, the more they lack the ability to counter arguments logically and with fact.

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

Ok, you and Rogue Trader think O'neill is such a great American now that he's criticizing Bush, let me ask you a question: Why didn't he complain about the "secret" invasion plans before? Why wait, like Pete Rose, until his book is published to reveal the full horror of the Bush tyranny?

And why is it "McCarthyism", or more accurately ad hominem, to point out the obvious motivation for O'Neill's attempt to backstab Bush? He was canned. Do you think that has any relevance to evaluating the credibility of his charges? Do you think the fact that he was a complete and utter failure as Treasury Secretary has any relevance to assessing his judgment on economic matters" Would we be better off now if Bush had followed his advice and abandoned the timid tax cuts he finally got through congress?

 

[msfe]

Quote from rolegario:

Let's face it, even with the additional security, the US is still the freest country on the planet.

bwaahahahaaa ... good one

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Quote from ARogueTrader:

Why did O'Neill keep his mouth shut before he was fired?

Blind Republican loyalty perhaps.

"And why is it "McCarthyism", or more accurately ad hominem, to point out the obvious motivation for O'Neill's attempt to backstab Bush?"

Logically, motivation has nothing to do with a statement being true or false.

Either O'Neill made true and accurate statements, or he didn't.

A liar, cheat, and a scumbag can still tell truth....so the truth cannot be ascertained on the basis of motive or moral state alone.

What you are attempting to do is slur the credibility of his assertions, which is an ad hominem attack on his argument. This is the technology employed by Hannity, et. al.

Which is all you can implement, as you are not making a case for the statements to be false, but rather giving an opinion as to why O'Neill would lie.

This is Hannityism, McCarthyism, ad hominem, etc.

The more one side needs to resort to ad hominem and slur, the more they lack the ability to counter arguments logically and with fact.

You keep repeating your made-up term "Hannityism" like it means something. I am not really disputing O'Neill's facts but the conclusions and inferences he now draws from them. Obviously he is aware that the way to make a media splash is to hurl senationalistic accusations at the President. The fact that he, as a former cabinet member, is prepared to do that speaks volumes about his character, integrity and judgment. Moreover, the facts concerning the economy demonstrate that he was dead wrong and Bush was right in pushing for tax cuts. Of course, that means nothing to people who equate the President to Hitler.

As for "Hannityism, McCarhtyism, ad hominem, etc" to describe vicious personal attacks unrelated to the facts, I suggest more meaningful terms might be Clintonism, Carvillism, Daschleism, Deanism and Kennedyism."

 

[ARogueTrader]

Hannityism means something, or else you wouldn't understand what I am saying.

You want to call it Kennedyism or something else, fine with me, a rose by any other name.

Hannityism stands as very descriptive. Think of a fat necked bulldog of a man with veins bulging, big forehead, low brow, shaking his finger at you, leaning forward, and calling you names and not addressing issues, employing the political technology of logical fallacy after logical fallacy.

No doubt that description fits many pundits, but Hannity fits the bill perfectly too, so I will stick with the terminology.



It is logically possible that O'Neill came to his senses after being fired. Perhaps he went in with eyes open, trusting, loyal and naive.....and after not going with the flow, after challenging the President was dumped.

Upon being dumped, and a period of reflection, he perhaps begin to see things differently.

Who knows for certain? The point is that you are attacking him personally, not what he is saying. You don't know his true motivations.

Do you see the difference? Do you understand the difference between attacking an argument, a position, and attacking the man?

Or are you so immersed in the technology of Hannityism that you can't differentiate between the two?

Study up on logical fallacies, and you will see how frequently Hannityism employs them.

It is very easy, and effective to attack the man when the audience is not paying attention to the technology of Hannityism.

Yet, it is a logical fallacy none the less to do so.

Prejudice, fanaticism, fascism, etc. all employ logical fallacy in their arguments, as reasoning without fallacy doesn't allow such totalitarian and dogmatic thought to continue unabated. Logic keeps people in their heads and out of their emotionalism.

It is much harder to debate what the man says on a logical reasonable foundation without bringing the man or his character into it.

Logic keeps the character and character assassination out of if, and forces us to focus on the issues, and the arguments that validate them.

Your conclusion that Bush's tax cuts was the right course is very premature.

The trickle down theory remains just that, another unproven theory.

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

You keep repeating your made-up term "Hannityism" like it means something. I am not really disputing O'Neill's facts but the conclusions and inferences he now draws from them. Obviously he is aware that the way to make a media splash is to hurl senationalistic accusations at the President. The fact that he, as a former cabinet member, is prepared to do that speaks volumes about his character, integrity and judgment. Moreover, the facts concerning the economy demonstrate that he was dead wrong and Bush was right in pushing for tax cuts. Of course, that means nothing to people who equate the President to Hitler.

As for "Hannityism, McCarhtyism, ad hominem, etc" to describe vicious personal attacks unrelated to the facts, I suggest more meaningful terms might be Clintonism, Carvillism, Daschleism, Deanism and Kennedyism."

 

[waggie945]

And these were my conclusions:

1.) Paul O'Neill is a typical "proud" Academic
nothing more, nothing less.

2.) Carl Rove pulls the majority of the strings in this Administration
There is no doubt about this. It's almost scary the amount of
"control" that he exerts over Bush.

3.) Did you happen to see the document dated, January 2001
entitled, "Occupation of Post-War Iraq" that had the name
Deutsche Bank in parenthesis?

Phuck, I wish I had this kind of information!

:eek:

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Quote from ARogueTrader:

...

Think of a fat necked bulldog of a man with veins bulging, big forehead, low brow, shaking his finger at you, leaning forward, and calling you names and not addressing issues, employing the political technology of logical fallacy after logical fallacy.

Ok, now I understand. You're describing Howard Dean.