If I believe I have something wrong so I go to a doctor, and he says I have a cancerous tumor. Then I go to another and he says the same thing. And another and he says the same thing. And another, etc. I even have a History of cancer in my family. In fact 2 years before I had a family member die of cancer suddenly and unnexpectedly.
So I go tell my family members that I have a cancerous tumor. The majority agree I should have it operated on.
So I decide to go and have the operation. After the operation it is found out that the tumor was benign.
Did I lie to my family?
Who lied then? Who is responsible for the lie?
Should I have had the tumor removed anyways?
That is the way I see Iraq/Sadaam/Intelligence/Bush.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Only if you also ignore the doctors who tell you that it's not as bad as others thought, or doctors that tell you it's better to treat the tumor with different, less-invasive therapies.
And you'd have to throw in the advice of doctors who think you should have more tissue removed to avoid future problems, like looting.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
As I said on the other thread, if the doctors tell you that the tests suggest you likely have a cancer, and you tell everyone else that you definitely have a cancer, you have lied.
Furthermore, the Iraq situation is more like the case where Bush is the doctor, and the American people are the patient - because it is America that Bush is "operating" on. If your doctor tells you that you definitely have cancer, you have surgery, the surgery has negative side effects, and you don't have cancer, then you have reason not only to say the doctor lied to you, but also to sue him. This is true even if the doctor can point back to some test results that suggested you probably do have cancer. Doctors and Presidents are supposed to know the difference between what is certain to be true and what the test results suggest.
[ October 12, 2004, 02:59 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
The doctors lie because they really want to operate. That's their livelihood. Think of all the unnecessary C-sections and septo-rhinoplasties.
If we never went to war, that's a lot of bomb builders and little green hat makers out of a job.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
But it wasn't doctors that told me to use different measures. Just "friends of the family". My family told me to get the operation.
You're saying listen to the "friends of the family" more than your own family members.
Because the Doctors all said it was cancer.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
The U.N. Doctors said they could find no cancer, and needed more time for tests.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: As I said on the other thread, if the doctors tell you that the tests suggest you likely have a cancer, and you tell everyone else that you definitely have a cancer, you have lied.
No, it's the doctors telling you in their professional opinion that there's no doubt there's cancer, and you relaying that the doctors say there's no doubt there's cancer.
My analogy stands.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: The U.N. Doctors said they could find no cancer, and needed more time for tests.
No, they're the "friends of the family" unless you believe that Kerry believes them more than his own personal Doctors.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
Yeah, what Chris said. Chad : friends of the family who happened to be doctors too, at last. And who examinated the patient as well as the "official" doctors.
[ October 12, 2004, 03:04 PM: Message edited by: Anna ]
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
What intelligence report ever said there was "no doubt" that Iraq had WMDs? I've heard many that "estimated" there were WMDs, or said it was likely the WMDs were still there, but point me to one specifically that said we knew with certainty that such a program existed.
[ October 12, 2004, 03:05 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
If all the doctors told the same lie, then there was a conspiracy...possibly a plan to divide the spoils.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: Also, I should hope that you select a doctor to remove your tumor who has a clear plan as to how to monitor your recovery, and that you had made sure your insurance was going to pay for the whole process.
Which Bush has done and is monitoring their recovery, which is happening, but there are good days and bad days and the recovery is slow. Also, you do have insurance, unless you commander in chief Kery gives it away to foreign countries as he is planning on doing on election.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
quote: unless you commander in chief Kery gives it away to foreign countries as he is planning on doing on election.
Chad, I would like you to state why you are so sure we want to involve in your policy. As I stated in another thread, you internal politic is your business. The international politic is as much ours than yours. And anyway, "foreign" does not mean "barbarian who wish to destroy us", right ? I can tell you that if the French chosed your future president, it wouldn't be Kerry neither Bush !
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: What intelligence report ever said there was "no doubt" that Iraq had WMDs?
The exact same ones Bush, Cheney and Powell listed and YOU quoted.
This wasn't Bush, Cheney and Powell deciding he had WMD's. This was the intelligence committees of the WORLD deciding he had them based on their evidence.
Are you not seeing that what Bush, Cheney and Powell said WERE the intelligence reports. Were the opinions of the intelligence committees of the world.
Read the Butler report. Read ANY and all of the US intelligence reports discussed in the 9/11 commission.
Heck why don't you just believe the 9/11 commission and what they said? It's very clear. They said quite blankly (and to your arguments absolute killing) that the intelligence was faulty and that Bush didn't lie. Can't get much clearer than that.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
quote: This was the intelligence committees of the WORLD deciding he had them based on their evidence.
Well, I can tell you our intelligence told us there were no WMD, so maybe it wasn't the entire world's intelligence but only the American one. And Bush must have known about what ours said, or he is really stupid. So liar or moron, you choose.
[ October 12, 2004, 03:15 PM: Message edited by: Anna ]
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
And then some doctors are affiliated with a certain hospital. When the hospital invests in some new equipment they send out a memo urging the doctors to use it.
In this case the hospital had just bought up huge amounts of commodities (gold, platinum, oil), liquidated at bargain basement prices, and they needed someone to start an inflationary cycle.
Fortunately the hospital has doctors in both camps, so they didn't have to wait long. Some doctors stirring up trouble with their carcinogens, and some rushing in with a scalpel to cut the tumors out.
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
What if your father, who also had to deal with the same type of cancer, told you from his experience that an operation would only destabilize your body and that containment is the wiser course of action?
Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
Chad, here's an analogy for you. But this is a lot more like what we are actually talking about. You go see a doctor. He tells you that because of a history of cancer and because of symptoms that you have a marrow cancer in your legbone, but he needs to do some further tests to verify it. If it turns out you have the cancer, he's going to have to amputate. There's just one problem. You won't let him do the X-ray. You also won't let him do the CT Scan. You won't let him take a blood sample. You won't let him do any of that stuff. So you go home. But then it turns out that your cancer is a strange and new type of cancer. It is contagious! It could hurt or wipe out hundreds! So the doctors tell you you can't leave the house. Occasionally you try to leave, and sometimes you are even able to sneak out, but you certainly can't spread the disease with the short leash they keep you on. However, Somebody in your town is discovered to have ebola. A dozen people die horrible disgusting and messy deaths. The Mayor declares war on disease. About a year later, they still haven't found the source of the ebola. So you hear a knock on your door. They tell you that you have run out of time. You MUST allow the tests to confirm whether you have or do not have this new and contagious cancer. You slam the door in their face. You start to notice an increase in surveillance on your house. One day you look out the window and see a SWAT van sitting in your neighbors driveway with a small artillery piece pointed at you. Finally, when half the police force of the city has taken up positions in your neighborhood (though not on your property) you agree to let the doctors come and take their blood tests. The doctors come in with their machines, prop your leg up on a table, and stick the needle in to take the test. But before they have a chance to pull up on the plunger and remove the sample back to the lab, the police chief and a patrol of officers blow through your front door, come up with a surgical saw, and amputate your leg anyway.
Did you have the cancer? Conventional wisdom says yes. Did all the doctors you had seen think you had cancer. Yes, but they needed to do some additional tests. If you DID have cancer, would the police be right to force you to amputate. Well, since it was contagious and posed a danger to the whole city, yes.
Did the mayor act properly in ordering your amputation just as the doctors were finally performing their tests?
Hell no.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
You might not want to include Dr. Powell in your analogy. He was one of the ones advising more tests.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Is everyone blatantly forgetting as well that I have a History of cancer as well. I have had it before?
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:The exact same ones Bush, Cheney and Powell listed and YOU quoted.
I didn't quote any intelligence reports. All those I've read about merely said Saddam likely had WMDs, not that he definitely, without question had WMDs.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
Everyone has a history of cancer if you go back far enough.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
No, we just don't think it warrants enough evidence by itself. Especially if you were a hypochondriac who did indeed have cancer before, but had been known to exaggerate your own sickness even to your closest friends, for the sympathy. Or, in this case, fear.
At what point are you going to cover all the holes in your analogy so we'll all throw up our hands and go, "Oh! Of course Mr. Bush was right all along! How silly of us!"
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Idemo, you are forgetting that there had already been 10 years of inconclusive tests before that. Waiting 10 years for results of whether the tumor is cancerous or not, then asking for another 10 years of tests to really verify is not a good way to deal with cancer. Cancer spreads. After 10 years of tests, it's time to make a decision IMHO. And it's better that the tumor is gone. Especially since I had cancer before.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
I don't think Sadaam actually having used WMD's is an exageration. He used them without remorse. That is a HUGE piece of undeniable evidence.
That's having had cancer before. No doubt about it.
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
Chad, in your analogy you are deciding whether or not you should accpet a dangerous operation for your OWN body. Any direct risks or benefits affect you and you alone.
If we were conducting a war against Utah, your analogy might work. But in Iraq's case we were considering evidence for the invasion of another country. That is like you deciding whether someone ELSE should be operated on.
Making bad medical decisions for your own body is one thing, but forcing operations on others based on scant evidence is a completely different beast.
Edit: Did I just spell invastion? Yikes.
[ October 12, 2004, 03:36 PM: Message edited by: vwiggin ]
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: At what point are you going to cover all the holes in your analogy so we'll all throw up our hands and go, "Oh! Of course Mr. Bush was right all along! How silly of us!"
I'd use a stronger word than "silly". Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
If that is how you see it vwiggen, then you missed the entire point of the analogy.
Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
Ah yes, the doctors have been allowed in your house before. But you have always kicked them out before they could actually perform the tests. This time the needle was actually IN your leg! They were taking a sample. The only reason you are allowing this, of course, is because you have half your local police force aiming sniper rifles at you from nearby rooftops, which seems to engender cooperation. Nobody is saying the mayor moved improperly by moving the police in to intimidate you. But if that intimidation was finally facilitating an unprecedented level of cooperation from you, the cancer guy, then they should have at least waited until the doctors were satisfied that there was, indeed, cancer in your leg before they chopped it off.
Amputation should ALWAYS be a last resort, of course.
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
If that point is how your view is correct, then yes. I've missed it completely. Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
Jon Stewart on the latest WMD report:
"Some people see the glass and call it half full. Some people, they see the glass and call it a dragon."
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
The proper analogy is shopping doctors until you get one that'll give you a prescription to the narcotics you want.
USintelligence analysts did not say "Iraq probably possesses Weapons of Mass Destruction". Quite the opposite, they reported that Iraq nearly certainly did not possess WoMD capabilities.
However, the DubyaAdministration sent in three political appointees -- already known to have an agenda favoring war against Iraq -- to sift through the intelligence for information which might possibly lead one to believe that Iraq possessed WoMDs,no matter how dubious; and to censor/screen out any caveats, naysaying, and disproofs which would cast doubt on the allegations. Then they used those dubious reports by their own flunkies as if they were proven facts to try to convince others that the "intelligence" consisted of cold hard facts. And for the most part, they succeeded through "intelligence" "leaks" to politicians and the press.
[ October 12, 2004, 03:59 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Aspectre, your claim is absolutely false in the wake of the 9/11 commission. Look it up and read it. Read the Butler report, because your claim is absurdly false to the level of being humorous.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
This is turning into a very complicated analogy.
Hobbes Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
Just wait until the Nazi aliens doctors show up. Then it gets interesting.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
oh! oh! can I call Godwin's law?
or does it only apply to when the mention of Nazi aliens is serious?
[ October 12, 2004, 03:51 PM: Message edited by: Megan ]
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
quote:This time the needle was actually IN your leg! They were taking a sample.
And sometimes a needle in the leg involves leaving a sample, an infusion, an injection.
Sometimes knowing that there is something bad in the leg comes from having put it there yourself...like how we handed the N. Koreans nuclear weapon technology on a silver platter, and how we gave the Chinese ICBM launch technology, and how we like to insert and support little Caesars in unstable countries.
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
I don't know if Godwin's law apply to Nazi aliens. I know Enterprise law does though:
Enterprise law: Any episode of Enterprise involving Nazi Aliens is crap, or, at least, crappier than other Enterprise episodes.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
I did, CStroman, at least the portions easily accessible through the Web. And you didn't. Just because you are too lazy to read the original reports and thus willing to have your thoughts formed by secondary reports written by neo"conservative" flakes hired solely for their willingness to lie through selective editing of quotations doesn't mean that their information is contextually true.
[ October 12, 2004, 03:56 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:This is turning into a very complicated analogy.
Indeed, but one thing should be clear in any of these analogies: If your doctor tells you that you definitely have cancer when you don't have cancer, and as a result you undergo a surgical operation that causes you serious damage and high medical expenses, then you should get a new doctor.
And a new president...
[ October 12, 2004, 04:11 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
How are you going to find a new doctor who is not entangled in the military/industrial complex or in the centralbank/EU/UN mess?
Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
Hear, hear!
If I work for a corporation and I heartily recommend a course of action based on rock hard facts that I have, that I swear by, and that are widely accepted, and they turn out to be wrong, then I'm out on my ear no matter whether I truly believed the facts or not. Especially if I was the driving force behind the action.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
An analogy a teacher I had used was waaay simpler, and obviously covers only a fraction of the issues, but it goes like this:
"A student known to be dangerous walks into a class, his hands behind his back, and says he has a gun. Nobody can see behind his back."
The thing with this is it's the same thing. If you have a gun, you have a choice of whether to take him on his word and shoot him or to think he may be bluffing, I should get reinforcements.
It's a very simplistic view but for me it crystalized the potential dangers and uncertainties of a larger situation.
[ October 12, 2004, 04:17 PM: Message edited by: Teshi ]
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Actually no, if the proof shows that it was the analyst who gave you the reports fault, then you fire the analyst.
But an idiot would leave the tumor there knowing that they had cancer before. And there seem to be lots of those.
And aspectres post is TOO humorous. That he actually believes it makes it hysterical.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:And aspectres post is TOO humorous. That he actually believes it makes it hysterical.
That's incredibly rude. Knock it off, Stroman. That's part of playing here.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
I think we are all getting hysterical about each other. *feeble smile* EDIT to add : I thought we were way away from any politeness here for quite a time. And I'm not talking about this thread sepcifically. Not being rude when having passionate discussion is difficult sometimes, but I would like this board to stay special
[ October 12, 2004, 04:27 PM: Message edited by: Anna ]
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
quote:If you have a gun, you have a choice of whether to take him on his word and shoot him
You have a gun, and you could shoot the known dangerous kid, but everybody else in the class hates your guts, so you wonder what the class' reaction will be if you get off the first shot. Better to let the known dangerous kid get off the first shot and hope his aim is bad.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Many non-idiots do leave tumors in place and obt for nonsurgical proceedures - if an operation is too dangerous to make it worthwhile, or if there is not enough evidence that it is dangerous.
In the case of Iraq, both of these are true.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:That's incredibly rude. Knock it off, Stroman. That's part of playing here.
How can you call him on his post to aspectre and not call aspectre's post to him?
Dagonee
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote: Better to let the known dangerous kid get off the first shot and hope his aim is bad.
But if his aim isn't bad then everyone beats you up for not doing anything.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
I think Stroman should have checked to make sure that the medical degrees his doctors have weren't given by Lenny's Bait Shop and Surgery School or Oncologists R Us.
Or perhaps his analogy would be more fitting if the he had gone around town to everyone and said "Hey the doctors say I have cancer and this is a really contagious form of cancer. If we all don't get me some surgery fast, we're all gonna die from it."
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
If you shoot a kid for claiming he has a gun behind is back, and he does not, then you go to jail. Does anyone doubt that?
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: In the case of Iraq, both of these are true.
Wrong, they are both false. If you'd had cancer before, and had a tumor. It gets removed. My grandmother just had a biopsy done on a NON-Cancerous tumor, and it was removed. She's never had cancer by the way.
If you have a way to remove it, then you do it.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
If you have something that is possibly a cancer in the middle of your brain, you don't have it removed unless you are certain it will be a severe danger. That is because the brain is sensitive enough that the surgery can be as deadly as the cancer, and you don't want to take risks like that unless you are sure you need to.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: If you shoot a kid for claiming he has a gun behind is back, and he does not, then you go to jail. Does anyone doubt that?
Absolutely yes.
It's the same as putting your finger in your coat and pretending you have a gun.
Or pointing a lazer tag pistol at an officer.
Or yelling "FIRE" in theater.
Or yelling "I have a bomb and I'm going to blow up this plane" on an airplane.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Sadaam wasn't in the "Middle of our brain" he was very removable (and was). His removal has been an "Operational Success" to this day.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Also, operations "hurt". My grandmother is still very sore from having her tumor removed.
The operation is not deemed a failure if there is pain involved. That is part of the procedure. The willingness to suffer a little pain now so you don't have to suffer the cancer later.
You prefer the cancer later I see.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
quote:But if his aim isn't bad then everyone beats you up for not doing anything
Yep, like Clinton got beat up for not taking out Osama when he supposedly had the chance.
If you've got a gun, and you hope to play the good guy, you can't win. You either shoot too soon or not soon enough.
Better to play the bad guy, walk into class unannounced and shoot all your enemies without saying a word. (everybody knows the bad guy always gets the girl)
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
Oh yes. American Army did put on fire a very sensitive part of the WORLD, it is anything but a success, and you still feel like you WON ? Now I'M hysterical about what YOU trust.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Before I get eaten by anti-war people, my goal in re-stating a second analogy was not to show that Bush should have or should not have gone to war, only that you cannot tell for sure in a situation like that, except by relying on (as it turns out) incorrect intelligence.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Sadaam wasn't in the "Middle of our brain" he was very removable (and was).
Not without some terrible side effects, including: -Creating a new terrorist haven in Iraq -Inciting terrorists against us around the world -Creating anarachy, death, and destruction in Iraq, not to mention the possibility that an even worse government might take power there now -Costing us $200 billion that we cannot pay back without deficit spending -Dissolving the credibility of the U.S. around the world -Overextending our military to the point where we can't handle other more dangerous "diseases"
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
$120 billion. Kerry's the one throwing around the $200 amount.
Don't want Bush lying and letting it go unchallenged, can't let Kerry do it either.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
So you want the terrorist to hide out in countries where we can't get to them instead of Iraq where we can?
Inciting people who already hate us and want to kill us to hate us more and want to kill us more?
Well, you could appease them by becomming muslim because that is the only solution they will accept. Doing something that pisses those types of people off is a GOOD thing. Doing what they want you to do is a bad thing. We call it "negotiating with terrorists".
quote:-Creating anarachy, death, and destruction in Iraq, not to mention the possibility that an even worse government might take power there now
There is no anarchy in Iraq. There is the governing council and US Coalition and Iraqi forces who are enforcing the law at their behest. Anywhere lawlessness breaks out, it is opposed and repressed.
You need to seriously read up on the Samarra offensive to see how much progress is really being made.
You statement is a lie.
Death by terrorist car bombings are THEIR responsibility. We did not force them to blow up other Iraqi's. They chose to do it. They are responsible for THEIR actions. True there have been MINIMAL deaths in Iraq of civillians and soldiers for a 2 year long war. It would be less had terrorists not continued to kill randomly.
As for destruction, you are completely ignoring the rebuilding of Iraq which is FACTUALLY going forward at an unprecedented rate. That is a FACT which you ignore, but a FACT none the less.
quote: -Costing us $200 billion that we cannot pay back without deficit spending
That is also a LIE. John Kerry lied about that. It is a FACT that it cost approximately 130Billion so far. Absolute fact. Look it up on Factcheck.org, but I have a feeling you don't care about the facts at all.
quote: -Dissolving the credibility of the U.S. around the world
It was already in peril due to "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" Clinton. He lied. And if what other countries think of us is a main concern to you, then maybe you should do what they want you to so they will like you. Kerry seems to be willing to do what they want so they like us. Those aren't friends I want to have.
quote: -Overextending our military to the point where we can't handle other more dangerous "diseases"
And Kerry claims we didn't send in enough troops. Make up your mind. More US troops or Less?
BTW, isn't it the "all powerful UN" that is supposed to be "handling" those other diseases, or are you saying we should ignore the UN in Iran and S.K. and "go it alone" there but not in "Iraq"?
Make up your mind. UN or NO-UN?
Your flip flopping faster than Kerry.
And your arguments are false.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Wow, you can actually see froth... Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:How can you call him on his post to aspectre and not call aspectre's post to him?
Honestly? Becuase Stroman is LDS and conservative, and so am I. I'm obviously not doing it for political reasons. I expect those who agree with aspectre politically to call him on his rudeness.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No, $200 billion in what Tres was talking about. We are going to spend at least $200 billion there, that further $80 billion has been set aside for this purpose and is well on course to being spent.
We just haven't spent it yet.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Sorry, didn't mean to be abrasive. I literally found his comments humorous. I would have totally expected them to be "sarcasm", then when it was apparent that he was serious in believing those things, it became even funnier.
Sorry, I shouldn't have laughed out loud about it. I'm sorry. You have a right to believe what you want to and post it, as do I.
I'm seriously not "frothing" over anything and have been calm on every post. They may not read like that, but they really are just statements refuting fraudulous claims.
Anyways, sorry I laughed and poked fun. I realize that it's ok to do if you're a liberal, but not republican, since we're supposed to know better. I will try harder.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Honestly, Hatrack is so much more fun if you save the ********* moments for the times of maximum impact.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
$200B going to be spent and $200B already gone are two completely different things. Kerry and Edwards claimed it was already spent.
They just didn't realize they were wrong and recycled the media innaccuracy. But hey, when your current events staff is the news media, I expect nothing more really.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
See, Chad, even when you're ostensibly apologizing, you still say things that come off as smug.
quote: I realize that it's ok to do if you're a liberal, but not republican, since we're supposed to know better.
Instead of pretending to be conciliatory, try actually BEING conciliatory.
[ October 12, 2004, 05:27 PM: Message edited by: Megan ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
But Xaposert's points are what we're talking about, not Kerry/Edwards, and he's quite right as to the $200 billion being a cost. Costs exist before they're paid.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)