Not So Young But Angry Conservatives Unite

Getting sick of the progressively worse slant and obvious bias of the media? Got booted out of other sites for offending too many liberals? Make this your home. If you SPAM here, you're gone. Trolling? Gone. Insult other posters I agree with. Gone. Get the pic. Private sanctum, private rules. No Fairness Doctrine and PC wussiness tolerated here..... ECCLESIASTES 10:2- The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of a fool to the left.

Tuesday, September 13, 2005

Are we happy now?

Michael Brown, head of FEMA, steps down.....

LINK: http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usfema134424126sep13,0,7425232.story?coll=ny-nationalnews-headlines

And now President Bush took the blame for FEMA and the federal response.....

LINK: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/09/13/MTFH89819_2005-09-13_18-35-28_EIC358139.html

Get on with life, now!

57 Comments:

  • At 6:32 PM, Blogger Ranando said…

    Now all that's left is to impeach the SOB.

     
  • At 6:51 PM, Blogger crallspace said…

    Amen, Ranando.

    Surprise that an "angry conservative" can only say, "You happy yet? Move on with life!"

     
  • At 7:09 PM, Blogger chefwes said…

    more inane, uninformed, nonfactual comments from the cheap seats... when will you fools learn time and time again you have espoused your BS and been shot to hell when the truth comes out (does RaTHergate come to mind, for one example?). Unfortunately for you leftists, you have no clue about what "impeachment"eans, nor stands for, nor the process that would need to be followed for such a thing to happen. Even if it DID happen, that would leave VP CHeney as President... now, do you REALLY want that???? BWAHAHAHAHA!

     
  • At 7:26 PM, Blogger crallspace said…

    What's unfactual? Bush ADMITTED he failed. Chefwes, if you are such a Christian, I remind you of the verse: He that loveth not, knoweth not God, for God is love.

    I am having a hard time seeing the love or compassion that I'll bet you claim to have.

     
  • At 7:34 PM, Blogger chefwes said…

    fist off, where did you see me state I was a Christian? do you SEE that? You ASSUME< you need to get FACTS before mouthing off!
    Having said that, Yes, I am, and yes, I DO love, I have helped, I have given, I have offered to open my HOME to people who were involved. You MAY not wish to comment on something you know NOTHING about, without looking like a bigger FOOL than you already are!

     
  • At 7:38 PM, Blogger chefwes said…

    No he did NOT admit he failed, he "took responsibility" thats FAR from an admission of failure, but, even the the FACTS are, The FEMA and National Guard reponse was FATSER than the FEMA and the Nationa Guard response to the 4 hurricanes and even faster still than the response to Hurricane ANDREW, by 3 days, which response. BTW, was PRAISED as being among the FASTES and BEST ever! The relief supplies that Nagin was hollering for from the Red Cross Stopped at the border by the Louisiana DHS on the ORDER of Governor Blanco, why? Because she wanted the PEOPLE to come OUT, NOT relief supplies going in... you REALLY should arm yourself for a discussion, before coming in half cocked, not knowing the FACTS

     
  • At 8:03 PM, Blogger crallspace said…

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

     
  • At 8:05 PM, Blogger crallspace said…

    I'm not going to argue with some angry neo-con who can't even spell. I read your attempts at an argument, and all you have as fuel is a load of hatred, ignorance and unAmerican BS.

    So, save your angry ALL CAPS crap for someone else. You don't impress me.

     
  • At 8:23 PM, Blogger chefwes said…

    As if youve never committed a typo in your life. This has nothing to do with spelling, or arguing, I do not argue, I simply state facts. If, my boy, you are simply unable to refute the facts, then go cry to your mommy, your views are ineffectual, inane and nonfactual, therefore, they are irrelevant to anyone with half a brain.

     
  • At 8:27 PM, Blogger crallspace said…

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

     
  • At 8:30 PM, Blogger crallspace said…

    Facts, huh? If you want to believe that your hateful distortions are fact, may God help you... seems you forgot about him. The Jesus Christ I know is a God of love. Thanks for being an example.

    Hey, by the way, my pal George asked if I'd please pass his resume along to some supporters. He'll be looking for work very soon.

    GEORGE W. BUSH

    1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
    Washington, DC 20520

    EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE:

    Law Enforcement:

    I was arrested in Kennebunkport, Maine, in 1976 for driving under the influence of alcohol. I pled guilty, paid a fine, and had my driver's license suspended for 30 days. My Texas driving record has been "lost" and is not available.

    Military:

    I joined the Texas Air National Guard and went AWOL. I refused to take a drug test or answer any questions about my drug use. By joining the Texas Air National Guard, I was able to avoid combat duty in Vietnam.

    College:

    I graduated from Yale University with a low C average. Thanks to my father's connections, I then got into Harvard Business School.

    PAST WORK EXPERIENCE:

    I ran for U.S. Congress and lost. I began my career in the oil business in Midland, Texas, in 1975. I bought an oil company, but couldn't find any oil in Texas. The company went bankrupt shortly after I sold all my stock. I bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a sweetheart deal that took land using taxpayer money. With the help of my father and our friends in the oil industry (including Enron CEO Ken Lay), I was elected governor of
    Texas.

    ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS GOVERNOR OF TEXAS:

    I changed Texas pollution laws to favor power and oil companies, making Texas the most polluted state in the Union. During my tenure, Houston replaced Los Angeles as the most smog-ridden city in America.

    I cut taxes and bankrupted the Texas treasury to the tune of billions in borrowed money.

    I set the record for the most executions by any governor in American history.

    With the help of my brother, the governor of Florida, and my father's appointments to the Supreme Court, I became President after losing by over 500,000 votes.

    ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS PRESIDENT:

    I am the first President in U.S. history to enter office with a criminal record.

    I invaded and occupied two countries at a continuing cost of over one billion dollars per week.

    I spent the U.S. surplus and effectively bankrupted the U.S. Treasury.

    I shattered the record for the largest annual deficit in U.S. history.

    I set an economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12-month period.

    I set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12-month period.

    I set the all-time record for the biggest drop in the history of the U.S. stock market. In my first year in office, over 2 million Americans lost their jobs and that trend continues every month.

    I'm proud that the members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in U.S. history. My "poorest millionaire," Condoleeza Rice, has a Chevron oil tanker named after her.

    I set the record for most campaign fund-raising trips by a U.S. President.

    I am the all-time U.S. and world record-holder for receiving the most corporate campaign donations.

    My largest lifetime campaign contributor, and one of my best friends, Kenneth Lay, presided over the largest corporate bankruptcy fraud in U.S. History, Enron.

    My political party used Enron private jets and corporate attorneys to assure my success with the U.S. Supreme Court during my election decision.

    I have protected my friends at Enron and Halliburton against investigation or prosecution.

    More time and money was spent investigating the Monica Lewinsky affair than has been spent investigating one of the biggest corporate rip-offs in history. I presided over the biggest energy crisis in U.S. history and refused to intervene when corruption involving the oil industry was revealed.

    I presided over the highest gasoline prices in U.S. history.

    I changed the U.S. policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts.

    I appointed more convicted criminals to administration than any President in U.S. history.

    I created the Ministry of Homeland Security, the largest bureaucracy in the history of the United States government.

    I've broken more international treaties than any President in U.S. history.

    I am the first President in U.S. history to have the United Nations remove the U.S. from the Human Rights Commission.

    I withdrew the U.S. from the World Court of Law.

    I refused to allow inspector's access to U.S. "prisoners of war" detainees and thereby have refused to abide by the Geneva Convention.

    I am the first President in history to refuse United Nations election inspectors (during the 2002 U.S. election).

    I set the record for fewest numbers of press conferences of any President since the advent of television.

    I set the all-time record for most days on vacation in any one-year period. After taking off the entire month of August, I presided over the worst security failure in U.S. history.

    I garnered the most sympathy ever for the U.S. after the World Trade Center attacks and less than a year later made t he U.S. the most hated country in the world, the largest failure of diplomacy in world history.

    I have set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously protest me in public venues (15 million people), shattering the record for protests against any person in the history of mankind.

    I am the first President in U.S. history to order an unprovoked, pre-emptive attack and the military occupation of a sovereign nation. I did so against the will of the United Nations, the majority of U.S. citizens, and the world community.

    I have cut health care benefits for war veterans and support a cut in duty benefits for active duty troops and their families in wartime.

    In my State of the Union Address, I lied about our reasons for attacking Iraq and then blamed the lies on our British friends.

    I am the first President in history to have a majority of Europeans (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and security.

    I am supporting development of a nuclear "Tactical Bunker Buster," a WMD.

    I have so far failed to fulfill my pledge to bring Osama Bin Laden to justice.

    RECORDS AND REFERENCES:

    All records of my tenure as governor of Texas are now in my father's library, sealed and unavailable for public view.

    All records of SEC investigations into my insider trading and my bankrupt companies are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.

    All records or minutes from meetings that I, or my Vice-President, attended regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public review.

     
  • At 8:35 PM, Blogger chefwes said…

    First off, Jesus Christ is NOT God, so that refutes your first point, Jesus Christ, legally, in order to be the sacrificial lamb, had to be a man, out of the flock, unblemished ( meaning without defect, or sin)... got anymore?
    Secondly, the rest of your "facts" are, sadly, once again non-supported innuendo, if YOU fall for it, go for it, however, try FACTS, maybe you do not know what a FACT is. Go to webster.com. look up the word FACT, facts are evidence, irrefutable, supportable, evidence. In your diatribe, you present not one single FACT!
    *BBBBZZZZZZZZZTTTT* Try again, bucko!

     
  • At 8:42 PM, Blogger chefwes said…

    See. There is a difference between innuendo and facts, yes, what you typed in your innuendo sounds really good, on the surface, however, when you know the FACTS as to what REALLY happened, or is happening, your whole argument is blown away. Fact is there were over 4 DIFFERENT reviews, 4 DIFFERENT hand counts of the votes by Newspapers, of the FLorida voting in 2000... guess what? EVERY SINGLE count of those by the LIBERAL MSM, refuted your argument, TOTALLY! THEY PROVED the BUSH WON! And what does that say about YOUR arguments, as a whole? Just this, they are non FACTUAL. See, there is a difference between truth, and fact, truth is irrefutable, forever and always, Truth is "the earth revolves around the Sun", that can never be changed. Fact is "Man can not land on the moon" prior to 1969, this was fact, however, it changed due to man LANDING on the moon!
    What you STATE as facts, at one point in time, looked TRUE, but alas, they were neither, as they have ALL been disproven.... try again, buckwheat, you lose... again!

     
  • At 8:45 PM, Blogger chefwes said…

    one other point.. who CARES what the Euroweenies think? is THIS the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, or the United States of the WORLD? Is it not a FACT that the Euroweenies HATED Reagan, for what he was doing in the cold war, for standing up to the USSR, who we DEFEATED in the Cold WAR? IS the USSR there NOW?
    Sadly... the FACTS disprove this theory, only history can judge what has happened, when ALL of the facts come out, but, guess what? Your "FACTS" keep getting disproven!

     
  • At 8:50 PM, Blogger chefwes said…

    Really, your attempts at a reasoned discussion are laughable, you have nothing to prove your points, other than slander, innuendo and half baked lies, straight from the talking points of Moveon,org, Michael Moore and the DNC... when you get something that MAY withstand scrutiny, come back and play. As for your irrelevant "argument" about Christianity, when you actually know a little about it, come and play again, Christ never wanted his followers to be wimps, as YOU would have them be. Maybe when you actually KNOW him, then we can speak further.

     
  • At 8:55 PM, Blogger chefwes said…

    In closing, may i ask, what, exactly is hateful in stating that FEMA's response to Katrina was FASTER than ANY other FEMA response, EVER, or that Gov Blanco STOPPED the Red Cross from delivering supplies into New orleans, or even the FACT (which I didn't mention) the BUSES, were delivered to take the people out of the Superdome on THURSDAY, the levee collapsed on TUESDAY, not to mention the fact that ALL those Schoolbuses and city vehicles which were sitting idle in praking lots COULD have been used to evacuate the Superdome BEFORE the leveee collapsed?
    Hmmm.. yeah, that is truly hateful, mentioning FACTS to an unarmed numbnuts!

     
  • At 8:57 PM, Blogger chefwes said…

    Sorry, buckwheat, the facts are out there, for those who wish to know, for people who refuse to acknowledge them, such as yourself, remain blissful in your ignorance, the rest of the country has work to do! Good night!

     
  • At 8:58 PM, Blogger crallspace said…

    Wow... what a sad, sad individual.

     
  • At 9:01 PM, Blogger chefwes said…

    Nice of you to acknowledge the FACT that yes, you are one sad individual, as is witnessed by your picture, your profile and your inane & illogiacl "arguments".

     
  • At 9:04 PM, Blogger crallspace said…

    Damn straight there's work to do... I don't know what bubble you live in, but your president's approval ratings are below 40%.

    Just what work do you plan on doing? Spreading hatred and ignorance, and calling the truth "a bunch of lies" is not work. Again I say, what a sad, sad individual.

    I would be too if the man I called my President was Bush. How embarrassing.

     
  • At 9:08 PM, Blogger chefwes said…

    Notice here, folks, this criticism coming from the man who has NO evidence to back up his "stance", the man who has no logic, the man who relies on ad hominem personal attacks, in order to make his "Points". Also noted, this is the one and very same man who has deleted every comment I have made on his blog, as he is simply unable to answer any of the myriad questions which I have posed to him and is unable to respond to any facts!
    Can you say "SuperSteveotheAusshole"?

     
  • At 9:12 PM, Blogger chefwes said…

    You have put forth no "Truth" bucko, you obviously have no clue what "Truth" is, read up a few posts, I explained it to you, if you have eyes to see, or ears to hear.... unfortunately, you have been drinking too much Liberal koolaid and are in direct lockstep with your other sociofascistneonazilibbypukes

     
  • At 9:27 PM, Blogger chefwes said…

    Here is your homework assignment, dannyboy. Go out, read a little bit, find some actual, unrefuted, factual points to make. When I come back , I will grade them, prove, point by point exactly why and where you are full of shit. Not that you will actually bother to READ the facts. it just might be a little entertaining to see if you can actually come up with something to back your fascist statements.
    I will say this though, if you were in Pre WW2 Germany, you would be, at the very least, a lieutenant in the Nazi Army, for your good and faithful repetitions of the Nazi talking points!

     
  • At 9:28 PM, Blogger crallspace said…

    Ok, Wes. The challenge remains for you to disprove anything I said.

    You have some obvious mental disorder and illusions of grandeur. You have to lie about shit you never did to make yourself look like a hero. This 3 posts in a row business proves the very kind of psychotic loon that you are. And your Ann Coulter insults are anything but impressive. Liberal Kool-aid? What the fuck is that?

    Get a clue, and take your personal sickness to someone who can help you. It's not me.

     
  • At 9:45 PM, Blogger chefwes said…

    Dannyboy... EVERYTHING you said has ALREADY been disproven. I hae not read past the FIRST part of your statement, as your inanities have been exposed in that very line!
    You have NOTHING, you ARE nothing. This has been mildly entertaining, reading the illogicalities of a neonazileftistcommunisitic punk. however, when you come up up with an original thought, or even a FACT, then, and only then shall I waste my time anymore.
    You, sir, have not posted one single FACT here, the whole time I have posted to you, yet YOU claim that I have delusons of granduer? Was it ME who claimed that the President of the US was a Friend of mine? No sir, that was YOU!
    Even your LIES prove you for what you are.
    Once again, I say, get a clue, do some reading, get a fact.... basically, get a life. You have not got one single solitary thought in your head that has not been placed there by your masters at DU, or MOVEON or directly from Michael Moore.
    You seriously need some help, if you would like, I can recommend several good psychiatrists, as it is obvious that the voices in your head are overruling your common sense!
    Where, PROVE it, WHERE have I EVER LIED about things I NEVER did? Are you some type of Psychic, or maybe, possibly you are a stalker?
    Simply put, this is more signs of a mental disorder on YOUR part, dannyboy. Denial is not simply a river in Egypt, apparently it is a river running in your BRAIN!

     
  • At 10:13 PM, Blogger crallspace said…

    A pissed off neo-con flailing his arms and steaming over internet posts... I love it!

     
  • At 11:59 PM, Blogger Kevin said…

    Lol -- this is a funny blog.

    Chef -- I won't dare attempt to be rational with you, but I would like to point out the following, since you were so interested in teaching another lesson in logic.

    You Wrote (and poorly I might add):
    See, there is a difference between truth, and fact, truth is irrefutable, forever and always, Truth is "the earth revolves around the Sun", that can never be changed. Fact is "Man can not land on the moon" prior to 1969, this was fact, however, it changed due to man LANDING on the moon!

    Firstly, the first definition for truth is:
    1) Conformity to fact or actuality.

    Truth is absolutely NOT irrefutable, namely in part to its own definition. As I have posted on this blog before (RE: wrongful persecution from the Church), it wasn't so long ago that the SUN revolved around the EARTH.

    Now, clearly this was not actually the case, but given that it was accepted as FACT, it was regarded as TRUTH.

    Now, the definition of fact is:
    2) Knowledge or information based on real occurrences

    Hmm. So lets take your moon landing example. You claimed it is a fact that man 'can not land on the moon prior to 1969' -- which itself suffers from a number of logical flaws, but I'll assume you meant it is factual that man 'has never landed on the moon prior to 1969'.

    In either case, the claims are still not suggestive of the acutal TRUTH namely because the TRUTH is merely based upon the FACTS that have been presented.

    Meaning, you can't actually prove that man had not been on the moon prior to 1969. Therefore, lest you presume otherwise, the TRUTH is merely a representation of the facts in which YOU ARE AWARE OF.

    I presumptiously corrected your sentence because it's just dead wrong to say 'man can not land on the moon prior to 1969'. Since the event DID occur, it is obvious that it has ALWAYS been a FACT, ergo TRUTH, that man CAN land on the moon - man just hadn't.

    I really couldn't care to jump into the larger argument at hand here, but your consistent claims of being a logician are disappointing to me, as it once again suggests a failing education system.

     
  • At 4:54 AM, Blogger NDwalters said…

    Dan Crall, you're the one flailing in water, dredging up the same DNC talking points. Find something new or stop posting your crap.

    Kevin, don't knock Wes or other posters here. That's arrogance on your part. Stop saying your some middle of the road type, but you nitpick the details. FYI, Wes had class enough not to be a prick about spelling or lack of logic.

    Ranando, find the article and get a petition for Impeachment. And even if it goes to the House or Senate, it wouldn't pass. Enjoy Democracy, asshat!

     
  • At 8:46 AM, Blogger NDwalters said…

    This is from Todd, whose password is locking up here.....

    "Kevin....your analogy is full of logic holes.....genius. ANd could some one please tell me from where in the world of pop culture did you people get "sad little man?"

    Do you realize how much you all sound alike?"

     
  • At 10:33 AM, Blogger Kevin said…

    Nick Wrote:
    Wes had class enough not to be a prick about spelling or lack of logic.

    Umm, I'm not sure that makes for a strong point in FAVOR of Wes buddy. I mean, it's an argument / debate. Where does 'lack of logic' fit in?

    Todd Wrote: (posted from Nick)
    Kevin....your analogy is full of logic holes.....genius.

    Fabulous. By all means, please correct me and fill in the holes.

     
  • At 2:04 PM, Blogger Plato's Dog said…

    Ok,Kevin, let's start with a double negative "Truth is absolutely NOT irrefutable"

    "Hmm. So lets take your moon landing example. You claimed it is a fact that man 'can not land on the moon prior to 1969' -- which itself suffers from a number of logical flaws, but I'll assume you meant it is factual that man 'has never landed on the moon prior to 1969'."

    That is in fact correct...before the US space program and the Apollo program Man Could not land on the Moon. So point out the fallacy of Wes's statement and be explicit.

    "you can't actually prove that man had not been on the moon prior to 1969." Actually you can.


    That enough for starters genius....or do you need to add some more qualifiers?

     
  • At 2:09 PM, Blogger Plato's Dog said…

    Now who called GWBush a "draft dodger"?

     
  • At 2:12 PM, Blogger Plato's Dog said…

    test

     
  • At 2:26 PM, Blogger Kevin said…

    Plato Wrote:
    Ok,Kevin, let's start with a double negative "Truth is absolutely NOT irrefutable"

    I can't find the double negative in there. Are you suggesting that NOT followed by irrefutable presents a double negative since irrefutable means 'not refutable'. Therefore my sentence being, "NOT NOT REFUTABLE"?

    That's just wrong. Are you going to also suggest to me that I couldn't write the following: "I am not irresponsible!" and rather that English would always dictate that I write ONLY "I AM responsible!"??


    Plato Wrote:
    That is in fact correct...before the US space program and the Apollo program Man Could not land on the Moon.

    Realllly? Well the debate was regarding differences between fact and truth. I pointed that truth is dependent upon facts. So while the TRUTH is a collection of FACTS, the converse does not hold; FACTS are NOT a collection of TRUTHS.

    Yes, outside of crazy theories, the FACT that man had not landed on the moon prior to 1969 is correct. BUT, only because facts are based solely upon what we can see or have presumed. And since truth is a collection of facts, truth is only based upon what we can see or presume as well. That is specifically why I pointed out how 400 years ago it was a FACT and the TRUTH that the sun revolved around the Earth. Kind of makes both of the words lose meaning eh?

    However, all of this still in NO way implies the following: before the US space program...Man Could not land on the Moon.

    Obviously since we did land on the moon, man COULD have landed on the moon at ANYTIME, we simply lacked the technology in which to do it.

    It's like saying man could NOT sail around the spherical Earth until it was done. Of course they could have, they just didn't - and feared it I might add. Just because an event occurrs and changes the perceived truth of a matter, does not mean it has actually changed anything in reality.

    I think you are linking perception and reality as the same thing.

    My logic is correct, tho I suspect you are attempting to sidestep it simply by using reality. Which is fair, but this was a debate in logic and semantics. However, I was simply pointing out to Chef (since he attempted to give such a lesson in logic), that both TRUTH and FACT change, all the time.

    Moreover, since TRUTH is 100% dependent upon FACTS, then as facts change, TRUTH must also change. Therefore, citing that TRUTH has some special relevance over FACTS is ridiculous.

    Plato also wrote:
    "you can't actually prove that man had not been on the moon prior to 1969." Actually you can.

    Ok. I will entertain the notion. HOW would you go about proving this?

     
  • At 2:26 PM, Blogger chefwes said…

    Kevin, the FACT is you ALMOST understand what you're talking about, HOWEVER (this denotes a difference), if you would have bothered to read down, just a little further, to dig a little deepr you would have seen this. Here are the actual, whole and total definitions, according to Webster's :truth Pronunciation: 'trüth
    Function: noun
    Inflected Form(s): plural truths /'trü[th]z, 'trüths/
    Etymology: Middle English trewthe, from Old English trEowth fidelity; akin to Old English trEowe faithful -- more at TRUE
    1 a archaic : FIDELITY, CONSTANCY b : sincerity in action, character, and utterance
    2 a (1) : the state of being the case : FACT (2) : the body of real things, events, and facts : ACTUALITY (3) often capitalized : a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality b : a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true (truths of thermodynamics) c : the body of true statements and propositions

    Main Entry: fact
    Pronunciation: 'fakt
    Function: noun
    Etymology: Latin factum, from neuter of factus, past participle of facere
    1 : a thing done: as a obsolete : FEAT b : CRIME (accessory after the fact) c archaic : ACTION
    2 archaic : PERFORMANCE, DOING
    3 : the quality of being actual : ACTUALITY (a question of fact hinges on evidence)
    4 a : something that has actual existence (space exploration is now a fact) b : an actual occurrence (prove the fact of damage)
    5 : a piece of information presented as having objective reality
    - in fact : in truth
    In reading the WHOLE definition, we see the difference between Truth & Fact. Facts, my boy, change, according to the reality, to use your example " it wasn't so long ago that the SUN revolved around the EARTH Wrong, my boy, the Sun NEVER revolved around the earth, this was the perception, accepted as fact by man, the TRUTH was, the Earth revolved around the sun. See, this is typical of you liberals, you TRY to find one tiny kernel of somethng that backs your point, then you twist and turn it, shout it out loud and long, hoping against hope that the perception will become reality, therefore becoming fact. The truth lies deeper, truth NEVER changes , In case you missed it... FACT (2) : the body of real things, events, and facts. Truth IS composed of FACTS, not ALL FACTS are true. 4 a : something that has actual existence (space exploration is now a fact) b : an actual occurrence (prove the fact of damage)
    otherwise, in courts, they would ask for the facts, all the facts and nothing but the facts. They don't in case you haven't noticed.
    Turn your thinking around, actually READ and get a clue. On this, as is true in so many cases... you are flat out WRONG

     
  • At 2:38 PM, Blogger Kevin said…

    Firstly, I posted a more specific comment to you slightly before you posted that. Read it, perhaps it will clarify some of what I meant.

    Secondly, I still don't see how you have showed where I am wrong. In fact, it seems that you have only illustrated further how I was right to say what I did.

    You wrote:
    The truth lies deeper, truth NEVER changes

    Yes it does. By the very definition you provided, truth DOES change. I realize that the sun never revolved around the earth, but it was PERCEIVED as true.

    So if perception of truth doesn't always hold, then what does that actually say about the word 'truth'?

    Is it meaningless?

    You also wrote:
    Truth IS composed of FACTS, not ALL FACTS are true.

    Right. So again, the point was that TRUTH is only TRUE because we semantically decide it is. It is only true because it is composed of a collection of facts. These facts, as you clearly wrote, are not always correct. Therefore, the TRUTH, by it's very definition is not always correct.

    Does this change the REALITY of a situation? No. But avoiding the question allows for assumption, something you seem to be bitterly opposed about.

    But in reality, using your definitions, we can only assume, at best, that anything is true because more information may always be presented that changes the surrounding facts.

     
  • At 2:39 PM, Blogger Kevin said…

    Also, I do love to argue/debate logic and semantics.

    I would ask, only as a favor, that you please try to construct paragraphs. It is near impossible to read what you write.

     
  • At 2:39 PM, Blogger crallspace said…

    Message for Chef: I am not interested in flame wars. We will have to agree to disagree. Bashing one another is not solving anything, and we don't know each other... we know we disagree on politics. That's all.

    Not interested in any more negativity... only progress. So let's leave it at that. No more flame wars.

     
  • At 3:03 PM, Blogger chefwes said…

    Once again, the denseness shows through, Kevin if you can not understand, simply admit it, truth never changes, while facts do, its right there, in black and white. Truth is made up of fatcs, yes, this is true, but stating that facts do not change, while truth does, simply shows your ignorance.
    I will try ONE more time, maybe the short definition will soak into your skull.
    Contained in the definition of Truth is this gem...FACT (2) : the body of real things, events, and facts.
    Perhaps you will notice, the word fact is but one part of truth.
    Truth is not dependent on one part of it to be true, Facts change, ask any cop,lawyer or Judge. The truth of the matter is what you finally get when you get ALL of the FACTS. Does this mean the truth has changed, or the simple matter that you have finally arrived at the truth?
    Your lack of simple comprehension is astounding, Kevin.

     
  • At 3:05 PM, Blogger chefwes said…

    Awww Dan, it was such fun while it lasted!

     
  • At 3:24 PM, Blogger Kevin said…

    Hmm, fascinating revelation there.

    You wrote:
    truth never changes, while facts do, its right there, in black and white.

    Well, what are 'truth' and 'facts'?

    They are words.

    Words made up by man to explain a situation to our simple comprehensive ability.

    You have stated time and again that TRUTH is composed of FACTS.

    You have also stated time and again that FACTS can change.

    If FACTS can change, then TRUTH can change.

    Let me put it in a logic set for you:

    [x] -> y
    (a group, x, implies y)

    [x] != [x]
    (then group x changes)

    *, [x]!-> y
    (therefore, group x no longer implies y)

    It's really not hard and is frustrating to me that you have avoided what I wrote.

    Truthfully, no pun there, both of us were wrong. We were wrong because we were debating TRUTH vs. FACT. What we should have been debating was the difference between TRUTH and the PERCEPTION OF TRUTH (which I later added to our conversation)

    Should you chooes to argue that line of thought, you will find that our perception of the truth does change.

    But since something can only be true based upon our perception, well then it gets a bit cyclical from there on. (more specifically, it gets a bit philosophical)

    I mean, come on, watch The Matrix. It explains the concept very well.

     
  • At 3:31 PM, Blogger chefwes said…

    Kevin says "blah, blah, blah" refuting nothing, but delving into hollywood to "prove" his point... hmm, let's see, we were talking about words, I drug out a dictionary to prove my point, Kevin turns to a Movie, a fantasy, made up, not reliant on Truth to prove his. Kevin, No, I didn't bother to read your post, when, in skimming over it, I noticed you brought fantasy into the discussion, the truth is, your FACTS are wrong.
    You have a serious issue with comprehension, so I will boil it down, as simply as possible, so that even a 5 year old can understand it, in hopes that you can raise your intelligence to that level.
    I stated "or the simple matter that you have finally arrived at the truth?"
    There is the whole story, when you have ALL of the FACTS, THEN you have arrived at the truth. The TRUTH has never changed, you simply did not HAVE it until then!

     
  • At 3:40 PM, Blogger chefwes said…

    well, ok, I DID break down and read it, in reality, he admits his error, but compounds it by trying to admit, for me, an error, which is not in evidence!
    Kevin states "We were wrong because we were debating TRUTH vs. FACT. What we should have been debating was the difference between TRUTH and the PERCEPTION OF TRUTH (which I later added to our conversation)"
    Kevin, I shall type this VERY slowly, in hopes that you will be able to comprehend.
    We WERE debating TRUTH vs FACT, this is TRUE.
    Now, a persons perception of truth, yes, that is subject to change, as the FACTS change. Changin one's perception of the TRUTH, however does not change the basic fact that the TRUTH never changed, simply your understanding of it. Once again, I repeat, "Does this mean the truth has changed, or the simple matter that you have finally arrived at the truth?" The Truth has not changed, simply your perception of it, due to FINALLY having ALL of the FACTS!
    Therefore, on BOTH counts, my original statements and suppostions are correct, and yours, once again, are incorrect. Meaning, you were and are, WRONG!

     
  • At 4:29 PM, Blogger Kevin said…

    ...and with such a lovely tone too:

    The Truth has not changed, simply your perception of it, due to FINALLY having ALL of the FACTS!

    So, as I asked: what then is the truth if it is merely subject to facts at hand?

    Still just a word right? But in practice, it is used to create something that should not be able to be broken. Hence something being, 'true'. But we know that we CAN break it, should we discover more facts.

    Follow this question with, can you possibly have ALL of the facts?

    If not, then I ask: is it ever possible to actually say that the 'truth' 100% correct?

    And if not again, then what is the purpose of people understanding 'TRUE' to mean 'TRUE'?

    I tried to drop it, but you wanted to carry on the philosophy - which is fine by me - I find it interesting.

     
  • At 4:55 PM, Blogger chefwes said…

    Let me guess... at UT a fine bastion of Liberal principles, you're studying either politics, or law, as is evidenced by yuor completely circular arguments.
    Your first point :"...and with such a lovely tone too:

    The Truth has not changed, simply your perception of it, due to FINALLY having ALL of the FACTS!" assumes that Capital letters are evidence of anger, or aggravation, to the contrary, they are meant for emphasis, surely you can understand that simple point? This, therefore, nullifies your point about tone...
    Secondly "So, as I asked: what then is the truth if it is merely subject to facts at hand?"
    It's quite simple, actually, the Truth is always the Truth, it's simply our understanding of such Truth that is at fault. And no, WE can not break it, we can simply enhance our understanding of it, which point I have pointed out time and again, yet you, in your ignorance have chosen to ignore (typical of a leftist Liberal).
    In understanding that, then the rest of your post is irrelevant rubbish. Until we come to this last point "I tried to drop it, but you wanted to carry on the philosophy - which is fine by me - I find it interesting."
    You tried to drop it, on the assumption that I would agree to be wrong, as defined by your parameters. Which parameters, I soundly, and logically rejected, on the basis that I, sir, was not wrong. If YOU are not intelligent enough to define the debate in a logical manner, in your first post, and later on try to redefine it, after discovering that you are losing, well then, what can I say, but too bad!
    The debate as to Truth versus fact is not a debate, but simply a laying out of the facts by one side (me) and an illogical attempt at refuting the facts on the other side (you).
    Had you orignally tried to frame the "debate" as Truth vs our perception of the Truth, there would have been no debate, I agree with that, totally. However, your assumptions of the facts behind Truth were still sorely in error.

     
  • At 5:08 PM, Blogger Kevin said…

    I haven't read your post yet, but thought I would mention that the 'tone' comment was sarcasm -- referencing that you had been nicer in the last post as compared to the previous run of lines such as:

    so that even a 5 year old can understand it, in hopes that you can raise your intelligence to that level.

     
  • At 5:19 PM, Blogger chefwes said…

    The comments are what makes the posting fun, sort of. If I offended you... sorry.. well.... not really, I'm a LITTLE more rude on here than I would be, in person, but only a little.
    Actually, I almost enjoyed the discussion, but did get a little frustrated by the seeming lack on incomprehension

     
  • At 5:25 PM, Blogger chefwes said…

    OF, that should read OF, before you blast me on my typos... Actually, I'm fairly well known throughout the blogs and sites that I post on for my typos. They've become somewhat famous, even having a syndrome named after them... WTS... for Wes Typing Syndrome, see, many of them result from the weird positions from which I type, for example, my leg up on the desk, the keyboard located under my leg, so I reach around my leg to type (no, nothing sexual or perverted there, just moving, in order to get more comfortable, as the situation warrants)

     
  • At 5:31 PM, Blogger Kevin said…

    hmmm. Well I am about to go and get some dinner, but I would be happy to continue this debate later on. Say in a few hours?

    You tried to drop it, on the assumption that I would agree to be wrong, as defined by your parameters. Which parameters, I soundly, and logically rejected, on the basis that I, sir, was not wrong.

    Fair enough - regarding me unfairly presuming you would change topic with me.

    If YOU are not intelligent enough to define the debate in a logical manner, in your first post, and later on try to redefine it, after discovering that you are losing, well then, what can I say, but too bad!

    I certainly didn't do so on the grounds of 'losing', but rather that it occurred to me that we have two somewhat-parallel arguments running.

    One is using logic and semantics - the other is using real life. I attempted to change the topic when it occurred to me that our language is clearly illogical (which isn't terribly hard to accept).

    Logic in itself should hold. Can we agree upon that?

    If so, then look at the symbolic logic chart that I drew up. You obviously are very familiar with logic, therefore, it should make perfect sense. If you feel it's wrong, correct it, but I believe it to be accurate.

    Now substitute the word 'FACT' for 'x', and 'TRUTH' for 'y'.

    How come the logic table no longer holds?

    All I can figure is that it is then impossible to use LOGIC to explain the real-life definition of a word.

    And before you write back snootishly, recognize that I have kept up just fine with you, so avoid the patronization for just one reply.

    Having said that, obviously I realize that something is TRUE, if it is TRUE, regardless of the words defining it. But that in itself seems to negate the word being useful.

    I guess you were just being an ass, but what were you suggesting earlier by pointing out how the earth revolving around the sun has always been true?

    Of course, it is true.

    My continual point, tho, was that if this were the year 1400, we would both be put to death for making such a claim. Why?

    Namely because of what you wrote:
    It's quite simple, actually, the Truth is always the Truth, it's simply our understanding of such Truth that is at fault. And no, WE can not break it, we can simply enhance our understanding of it...

    Agreed. We can always enhance our understanding of the truth.

    But my question then is (no sarcasm), what is the point of having 'the truth'?

    I asked that many many posts ago. Doesn't 'the truth' then keep us in a very narrow frame of mind since our understanding of it increases, and thus perception of what is true changes?

    I really do have to go, but the only question I am trying to get at (which is difficult to articulate) is how do you know that something is really true?

    Our debate SHOULD suggest that it is impossible. No? Since gaining new facts will only increase our understanding of the truth (a concept I am certainly willing to give you), how do we ever actually arrive at what is true? (the real true)

    For example, perhaps the Earth actually doesn't revolve around the Sun. Perhaps there is something much more complicated going on that we won't know for 1000's of years. The point being, each time we get a new piece of information and then 'correct' our version of the truth, where (or when) does this stop?

    I can't see how it could.

     
  • At 6:13 PM, Blogger chefwes said…

    "One is using logic and semantics - the other is using real life. I attempted to change the topic when it occurred to me that our language is clearly illogical (which isn't terribly hard to accept).

    Logic in itself should hold. Can we agree upon that?"
    Gonna be AWFULLY hard to have a discussion without using language.
    What do you suggest, a Vulcan Mind Meld? Or perhaps ESP?
    "I guess you were just being an ass, but what were you suggesting earlier by pointing out how the earth revolving around the sun has always been true?"
    Was this not a direct quotation from one of your previous posts, answering a direct challenge?
    I thought so.
    Really, in direct confrontation, your "argument" did not stand up under scrutiny, self admittedly.
    If you wish to carry it over to Philosophy, we can discuss it, not that I'd be much help in that area, as I have not studied much of the Eastern Philosophy or the New Age crap that is such the rage these days.
    You do, however pose an interesting question "But my question then is (no sarcasm), what is the point of having 'the truth'?"
    My only answer here can be, we dont HAVE "the truth" so much, as it just IS the truth. That would be like asking, "what is the meaning of life"! Man has searched for eons for the answer to that question, has anyone found it? There are many answers, but are any correct? I read the other day, one woman said that SHE had read that it was "43" where she personally had always thought that it was "42", so she was only one off!
    To be totally honest, in our first discussion, we were both arguing the same points, you were simply using the wrong word in the wrong place.
    You say you enjoy discussions on philisophy, et al, I more enjoy discussions on words, being somewhat of a "wordsmith", with the many variations of the way in which words can be used in a discussion, the many variant meanings. It's always been interesting how you can say one thing, yet the usage of one simple word, if taken in a totally different way, can totally change the meaning of your point.
    This is why I so enjoy the study of the Bible, as close to its original writings as possible. The Greek and Aramaic languages are so much more precise, as to totally change the meaning of a phrase, when you actually understand what was said! But that is off of the point.
    Many times, these days, I find myself searching for the proper word, must be "Oldtimers" disease (or else a lack of attention to what I was saying, due to other distractions!)
    So... where was I?

     
  • At 6:29 PM, Blogger chefwes said…

    "For example, perhaps the Earth actually doesn't revolve around the Sun. Perhaps there is something much more complicated going on that we won't know for 1000's of years. The point being, each time we get a new piece of information and then 'correct' our version of the truth, where (or when) does this stop?"
    Actually, now that you bring it up....
    There is evidence, not only of rotation of the planets among the stars, but there is also evidence of the stars, nay, make that universe, of having it's own rotation.
    What would it be rotating around? What is at the end of the Universe? What, exactly, caused the "Big Bang"? What, exactly caused all the minute changes needed to make Life come to pass, the exact chemical combinations necessary to sustain and promote it?

     
  • At 8:10 PM, Blogger Kevin said…

    "I guess you were just being an ass, but what were you suggesting earlier by pointing out how the earth revolving around the sun has always been true?"
    Was this not a direct quotation from one of your previous posts, answering a direct challenge?
    I thought so.


    Yes. It was one of my former posts. My question was more directed at asking why you had thrown it back at me, as if to suggest that I didn't really think that the Earth did revolve around the Sun.

    At the time, I had presented it as a question based upon what we were discussing - can truth change? (since that concept was not accepted as the truth just a few hundred years ago).

    Gonna be AWFULLY hard to have a discussion without using language.

    Right - exactly what I was trying to get at earlier as well.

    We can't discuss anything without words. But, what I began questioning was the integrity of one particular word - TRUTH.

    I suppose in some sort of summation, I was trying to ponder the relevance of 'TRUTH' if the truth about event 'x' is subject to change in the vernacular sense.

    But, it seems that we have covered most of these grounds now -- and honestly -- while perhaps I did not articulate it as well as I could/should have, your final posting gets at what I was trying to suggest.

    Oddly enough this sentence and the use of a simple BE very makes the concept a bit more clear:

    My only answer here can be, we dont HAVE "the truth" so much, as it just IS the truth. That would be like asking, "what is the meaning of life"!

     
  • At 5:32 AM, Blogger NDwalters said…

    OK, Truth is Absolute. It's not relative. And anyone who says otherwise, can't tell the difference between their ass and a hole in the ground.....

     
  • At 12:36 PM, Blogger Kevin said…

    Nick,

    I am certain that you did not just read the 52 other posts that made up this debate.

    I think it was actually a pretty fun exploration of philosophy, semantics, and general word meaning. Having said that, your cliche just sounds stupid

    Our conclusion being (I believe) that yes, truth is absolute, however, it is impossible to arrive at the absolute truth as new facts are continually being presented, thus changing the perception of something's apparent truth.

     
  • At 1:50 PM, Blogger Plato's Dog said…

    Kevin said "My logic is correct, tho I suspect you are attempting to sidestep it simply by using reality"


    Yeah Kevin...whatever. Got tired of jumping thru liberal hoops...you know....parsing the defn. of what "is" is.

    Ranando ..if you imps of satan impeach Bush....people like me will kill people like you by the droves....all we have to do is stop feeding you and your kind. Fly over country can feed itself.

     
  • At 4:04 PM, Blogger NDwalters said…

    OK, I got a great question. How come everywhere in the USA, outside of certain large cities is called flyover territory? I hear this armpit of the world talk, Red State Rednecks, etc. Now, since I've been called out as an uncivil jerk, which I have been, I'd like to hear explanations why some parts of the US think they are superior to the MAJORITY of Americans?

    Trouble is some of you did not take Geography or conveniently forgot, that there are 50 states in the Union, along with a few territories and protectorates. Now, that means there is a lot more people outside of say California and New York. Those states are the rest of the US, the Majority. Now, how is the rest of the land inconsequential? And now, even California is having its growing conservative movement. Thanks Arnie, or better yet thanks to Bill Simon, and State Rep McClintock, Darryl Issa, and others......

    Is the rest of the USA expendable to the elitists? Give me a real answer, and no arrogance please.

     
  • At 10:15 PM, Blogger Kevin said…

    I am actually a little confused by what you mean Nick.

    Honestly, I'd like to try and give my thoughts, but after reading a few times, can't really get down to what you're looking for.

    Just to give someone else some data in which to run with (if they understand the question), California and New York make up about 19% of the total US population.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home