Welcome to AikiWeb Aikido Information
AikiWeb: The Source for Aikido Information
AikiWeb's principal purpose is to serve the Internet community as a repository and dissemination point for aikido information.

Sections
home
aikido articles
columns

Discussions
forums
aikiblogs

Databases
dojo search
seminars
image gallery
supplies
links directory

Reviews
book reviews
video reviews
dvd reviews
equip. reviews

News
submit
archive

Miscellaneous
newsletter
rss feeds
polls
about

Follow us on



Home > AikiWeb Aikido Forums
Go Back   AikiWeb Aikido Forums > Open Discussions

Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history, humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced features available, you will need to register first. Registration is absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 09-20-2007, 03:33 PM   #26
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: Mike eschews documentation, for personality-attacks...again.

Quote:
Neil Mick wrote: View Post
But for the more rational among us:

Signing statement (United States)
The "more rational" among you use Wikipedia as a source? You realize that every Tom, Dick, and Harry with an axe to grind writes and edits the Wikipedia entries as they see fit, don't you?

Now notice, just to show exactly what you're doing is what I have pointed out several times.... you take a point and try to argue some tangent rather than admit you were wrong. Your statement was that Bush "used them as end-runs around bills he doesn't like", you don't even attempt to defend. You're now trying to do a Neil Mick and protract the discussion into something quite different.

And looking at the Wikipedia entry, where does it contradict a single thing that I've said? Nowhere. At most it discusses extraneous points and says nothing about Bush trying to circumvent (that's a big word that means "make an end run around", Neil) the law. So your charge is baseless, immediately and you're too petty to simply admit it... you want to argue endlessly, so my point is made about your ethics, once again.

The ABA panel (very liberal and pro-Democrat) says that signing statements are "controversial". Fine. The Wall Street Journal made fun of the ABA panel. Each to his own opinion. Saying an action is "controversial" tells us nothing.

In response to the Patriot Act addenda that the Democrats wanted slipped in, Bush's stance is actually very legally correct. It's sort of like the FISA act, the War Powers act, and a couple of others. In order to keep peace between the executive and legislative branches, presidents have signed certain acts, like the War Powers act, but have noted that those acts in no way are meant to pre-empt the presidents powers under the Constitution. In other words, as an example, the president can declare a war and under the emergency powers entrusted him can wiretap, etc., without having to have each case reviewed by a panel of judges. FISA, and a number of other "acts" are known to be flimsy intrusions into the executive branches powers in time of war. Of course Bush is going to note that in a "signing statement" when he signs a like the Patriot Act. Get some education and quit this constant shallow, emotional, shrill talk-before-you-think, Neil.
Quote:
When someone pretends that there is not controversy around W's use of signing statements in the face of reams of documentation...what have we got, Mike?
But see, this is exactly the duplicity I was talking about, Neil. I never said there wasn't controversy nor did I "pretend" it. So my characterization of you is exactly true:

Quote:
Neil likes to assert things like the above and then drag you into a protracted discussion.... even though he's dimly aware that the initial statements he makes aren't true. It's this willingness to lay out what he knows to be questionable as the "truth" that leads me over and over back to my comments about dishonesty.
You stand exposed for what you are. What's your beef?

Regards,

Mike Sigman
 
Old 09-20-2007, 03:38 PM   #27
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: In Defence of George W. Bush

Quote:
Ryan Sanford wrote: View Post
Even if the last sentence was an attack on Bush, he still defended (or at least shifted attacks to others) him in most of the rest of the post. Considering that Niel was the author, you should be happy.
You know the really sad thing? I actually agree with Mike that it is an ad hominem (tho, not prohibited on AW, as W is a public figure) to call Bush "stupid," or lacking intelligence. There have been no official output of Bush's IQ, so no one can really tell exactly how smart/stupid he is (not that an IQ test is even the final arbiter of that question).

But I certainly took issue with some of the other posters in the "Sick Puppies" thread, castigating W for his stupidity.

If Mike were more interested in progressing an interesting dialogue rather than personality-driven attacks: he could have run with it, and we could well have found ourselves arguing on the same sides.

Small wonder that Mike likes to debase complicated Middle Eastern discussions into the much simpler LCD "Arab vs Jew" formula. It's how he likes to debate.
 
Old 09-20-2007, 03:54 PM   #28
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Tongue Re: Mike eschews documentation, for personality-attacks...again.

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
The "more rational" among you use Wikipedia as a source? You realize that every Tom, Dick, and Harry with an axe to grind writes and edits the Wikipedia entries as they see fit, don't you?
To you, perhaps: but to the rest of us, we all realize that there is extensive discussion on the validity of the topics, in the discussion page of wikipedia.

"Nice attempts," BTW, to completely ignore the rest of my sources.

Pathetic: but a nice try. Thanks for playing.

Quote:
Now notice, just to show exactly what you're doing is what I have pointed out several times.... you take a point and try to argue some tangent rather than admit you were wrong.
Notice, how you try to turn an action of what YOU'RE doing, into something of which I'm guilty...

Quote:
When someone disingenuously acts like a signing statement is some illegal or underhanded mechanism simply to use as a "gotcha"
Sorry, it might not be "illegal:" (which, I never claimed, as you're well aware) but to go around the Congress and act as if the Executive is a branch ABOVE the other two is, IMO, underhanded.

Quote:
And looking at the Wikipedia entry, where does it contradict a single thing that I've said? Nowhere. At most it discusses extraneous points and says nothing about Bush trying to circumvent (that's a big word that means "make an end run around", Neil) the law.
There's a good reason for this, Mike: you're doing what you usually do...you fail to read the rest of the links. It's SoP for Mike to read a few lines of a post and ignore the meat of the links. Here, he does it again.

Quote:
The ABA panel (very liberal and pro-Democrat)
Does anyone else notice how many organizations out there have been "outed" by Mike for being pro-liberal, pro-Democrat?

Thank GOD Mike's here to make it all right!!!!

Quote:
In response to the Patriot Act addenda that the Democrats wanted slipped in, Bush's stance is actually very legally correct. It's sort of like the FISA act, the War Powers act, and a couple of others.
Don't you just LOVE apologists?? Where would all the mass murderers of the world be without 'em?

Quote:
You stand exposed for what you are. What's your beef?

Regards,

Mike Sigman
Right you are, Mike...just, wrong pronouns.

YOU stand exposed for what YOU are...a troll, far more interested in flaming, proving your shallow political views are RIGHT (over and above any sort of two-way discussion...all anyone has to do is look at the "Sick Puppies" thread, to see your MO, writ large), while claiming, in the midst of overwhelming documentation (all the while, providing almost NONE), that all others are WRONG (even to the point of calling ALL who disagree chemically dependent, liars, et al, ad nauseum).
 
Old 09-20-2007, 04:12 PM   #29
akiy
 
akiy's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 5,991
Offline
Re: In Defence of George W. Bush

OK, folks. Cut it out with the personal attacks. That's enough.

Thread closed.

-- Jun

Please help support AikiWeb -- become an AikiWeb Contributing Member!
 

Please visit our sponsor:

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!



Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Aikido, defence, and tactics DaveO General 6 07-24-2010 10:54 AM
Review: George Ledyard Seminar at Shindai AikiWeb System AikiWeb System 0 06-22-2005 06:17 PM
Randori Seminar with George Ledyard Sensei aikibaka131 Seminars 11 10-24-2003 01:30 AM
Self defence vs fights Ta Kung General 32 05-21-2003 10:00 PM
Legal Aspects of Self Defence DaveO General 3 09-11-2002 06:50 AM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:08 PM.



vBulletin Copyright © 2000-2017 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
----------
Copyright 1997-2017 AikiWeb and its Authors, All Rights Reserved.
----------
For questions and comments about this website:
Send E-mail
plainlaid-picaresque outchasing-protistan explicantia-altarage seaford-stellionate