Triumphant! Bush got it right.

[sbailey924]

Originally posted by HOZ@Mar 8 2005, 11:51 AM

Mind you there was plenty of hang wringing about how terrible the Taleban treated their women and such before hand wasn't there? I mean before the neocon, unilateralist, warmongerer Christian took their cause to heart. A full about face happened then....

I hope you realize the immense difference between invading Afghanistan/overthrowing the Taliban and invading Iraq.

[Looger]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Mar 8 2005, 04:08 PM
More benefits of the Iraq invasion, and this is just the tip of the iceberg.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4312547.stm

A Princess of Darkness, a time-travelling pharaoh and an ancient Arabian swordsman are among the superheroes of a new comic book - the first to be designed specifically for the Middle East.

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/03...n.ap/index.html

CAIRO, Egypt (AP) -- The results of a CT scan done on King Tut's mummy indicate the boy king was not murdered,

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/Movies...h.ap/index.html

LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- Shannon Elizabeth, who starred in "American Pie," and husband Joseph Reitman have decided to split,

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/TRAVEL/03/06/s...reut/index.html

SANLUCAR DE BARRAMEDA, Spain (Reuters) -- Amid the rows of musty oak barrels piled high in the cellar of La Guita sherry, a dusty wooden statue of a saint stretches out his arms in blessing.

add in the tooth fairy, a new year-round base for santy claus, and anything else you want.

i and much of the world with me don't care.

IT WAS NOT WORTH IT

[Looger]

oops, sorry guys, i didn't keep the spirit of the thread going...

this read reminds me of bill maher's picture book, one caption in particular:

"putting a flag on your car: it's literally the least you can do."

that being said i absolutely adore slogans like "hail satan" on cars, i mean, how many religious slogans have you seen, what better way to put people in their place?

i should go to houses of certain religious denominations and peddle atheism!

[Mike F]

"The Right Side of History"

Given that hundreds of thousands came out in Lebanon to demonstrate for Syria (a rally that greatly outnumbered recent demonstrations against Syria's presence in Lebanon), and given that the best trained, best lead, most technologically advanced army in the world can't get a handle on the insurgency, never mind the Iraqis stabalizing the country themselves, for this guy to come out and claim that the Iraq war (even under it's most recent justification) is a sure success is so premature he might as well have written it in a flight suit with a "Mission Accomplished" banner on his wall.

Edit: And why does he feel he can waive Afghanistan in the leftist's faces when that war had both bipartisan and widespread international support?

[Sammie]

Originally posted by Agamemnon+Mar 8 2005, 09:41 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agamemnon @ Mar 8 2005, 09:41 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-HOZ@Mar 8 2005, 11:33 AM
But for those of us on the arrogant unilateralist side of things, that’s not how it works. ‘FREE AFGHANISTAN’. Done. ‘FREE IRAQ’. Done. Given the paintwork I pull off every time I have to change the sticker, it might be easier for the remainder of the Bush presidency just to go around with ‘FREE [INSERT YOUR FETID TOTALITARIAN BASKET-CASE HERE]’. Not in your name? Don’t worry, it’s not.

I don't recall seeing many Free Afghanistan and Free Iraq bumber stickers.

China will give Tibet independence when the US gives Texas back to Mexico... in other word's, in ain't gonna happen. [/b][/quote]
Don't forget to add Canada giving Quebec back to France to your list. (Although I wish France would give us an offer to consider.)

[Sammie]

Originally posted by HOZ@Mar 8 2005, 10:01 AM
Way to miss the point completely bub.

Sorry, I don't have time to explain it to you. Read again.

He's VERY good at that! I think he has a real problem logically following logic. He keeps getting lost.

[Hakan]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@Mar 8 2005, 09:24 AM

Don't have the time? Since when did time become a euphamism for brains?

This post deserves props.

[tjinaz]

Well....

I guess the point of the article is this... The left trumpets their intentions, holds meetings, makes cool t-shirts, bumper stickers, has concerts and creates websites to illustrate how very much they care about the rights of the downtrodden and want to right all the evils of the world then they get in their SUVs head down to Starbucks get a half-caffe venti 2 pump vanilla Latte, do a group hug, complement each others tie-dye, and congradulate each other on how they are so very intellectually superior to those ignorant rednecks that won the last election and go home.

Where Bush and the right, roll up their sleeves and join the fight. Like him or hate him, he makes a short list and does something about it. Go ahead and say that somehow democracy was going to come to the middle east anyway, it was just a matter of time. Bush got lucky, what ever. Bash all you want. In the end, 10 years from now, history will record that it was the invasion of Iraq that planted the seed of democracy in the middle east. I am sure Dubya will chuckle when they put up his statue in Bagdad. Sure there are many issues that still need to be worked out but the paradigm has changed after hundreds (in Egypts case thousands) of years. The people will no longer accept a dictator ruling on their behalf. They want a say in what happens in their lives. That is the difference. Granted the WMDs likely will not have been found by then but I don't think the Arab woman in the voting booth will really care.

Funny part is the left is all about democracy and human rights but only for themselves, the rest of the world is just fine without them. Don't get involved, keep the status quo. Don't push your crazy western ideas of self rule on them. The Arabs have a cultural affinity for dictatorships, I have a study from Berkley that proves it. Iraq was a socialist paradise before all this happened. They used to dance across the mass graves under the watchful eye of the devoted secret police.

Liberals cry and moan about everything but do not have the will to make the changes necessary to fix things. They do make one hell of a bumper sticker though.

[Sammie]

Originally posted by octothorp+Mar 8 2005, 10:22 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (octothorp @ Mar 8 2005, 10:22 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

I think that was the point.... and you missed it. Go figure. The Lefties are simply on the WRONG SIDE OF HISTORY.

Well, that's just it. Freeing Iraq and Afghanistan was never about liberating people--at least, not until the WoMD theory was demonstrated to be false. All you'd see from supporters of the war was a 'Go USA!' bumper sticker--a nice, simple message that we would be unpatriotic to criticize (were we American), and which contains no note of morality. Of course, it might go hand-in-hand with a message about 'spreading democracy', which is simply a justification for why living in a perpetual war zone isn't really so bad.

History is ultimately a centralizing force. Fring elements on either side (left or right) will be proven wrong. The only way Tibet will be freed is with a complete collapse of China, which doesn't seem particularly likely. I think most FreeTibeters would be satisfied for Tibetans to be given freedom to practice their religion--not something that will happen very soon, but it is possible. Of course, sporting a bumper-sticker won't further that along, either. But the idea that the resolution in Iraq would be swift and painless, or that Iraqis would welcome american involvement in their lives was a popular idea at the beginning of the war, and those ideas were proven to be disasterously wrong. Realists on both the left and the right realized that the US would ultimately win with the Baathist party destroyed, but that the last elements of resistance would be extremely difficult to squash, and that an ongoing democratic Iraq would always be a difficult proposition.[/b][/quote]
I hate to be picky, but this is a pet peeve of mine. You, like many people, have got it all backwards once again. . .

A "theory" is just a premise of a possible result or conclusion that has yet to be proven to be fact. You have to prove a theory to be a fact of life. It's impossible to prove a theory to be false because there are no facts to back up a theory. When a theory has been proven to be true, then it becomes a law (the law of relativity) or a fact. If a theory is proved wrong, it becomes a false assumption.

As it says in the dictionary: A theory is a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle, or body of principles, offered to explain a phenomena, a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation, an unproven assumption (conjecture).

Unfortunately, today we've accepted far too many theories to be fact while fact and reality are largely being ignored. For example, evolution is still a theory because it has yet to be scientifically proven yet in schools we're teaching it like it's a fact. Global warming is a theory yet Kyoto proponents would have us believe it's a fact, and so on, and so on. . .

So, let me repeat it once again: You cannot prove a theory to be false!!!

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by tjinaz@Mar 8 2005, 07:09 PM
Well....

I guess the point of the article is this... The left trumpets their intentions, holds meetings, makes cool t-shirts, bumper stickers, has concerts and creates websites to illustrate how very much they care about the rights of the downtrodden and want to right all the evils of the world then they get in their SUVs head down to Starbucks get a half-caffe venti 2 pump vanilla Latte, do a group hug, complement each others tie-dye, and congradulate each other on how they are so very intellectually superior to those ignorant rednecks that won the last election and go home.

Where Bush and the right, roll up their sleeves and join the fight. Like him or hate him, he makes a short list and does something about it. Go ahead and say that somehow democracy was going to come to the middle east anyway, it was just a matter of time. Bush got lucky, what ever. Bash all you want. In the end, 10 years from now, history will record that it was the invasion of Iraq that planted the seed of democracy in the middle east. I am sure Dubya will chuckle when they put up his statue in Bagdad. Sure there are many issues that still need to be worked out but the paradigm has changed after hundreds (in Egypts case thousands) of years. The people will no longer accept a dictator ruling on their behalf. They want a say in what happens in their lives. That is the difference. Granted the WMDs likely will not have been found by then but I don't think the Arab woman in the voting booth will really care.

Funny part is the left is all about democracy and human rights but only for themselves, the rest of the world is just fine without them. Don't get involved, keep the status quo. Don't push your crazy western ideas of self rule on them. The Arabs have a cultural affinity for dictatorships, I have a study from Berkley that proves it. Iraq was a socialist paradise before all this happened. They used to dance across the mass graves under the watchful eye of the devoted secret police.

Liberals cry and moan about everything but do not have the will to make the changes necessary to fix things. They do make one hell of a bumper sticker though.

Have you ever actually seen this coffee-sipping, tie-dye wearing, SUV driving bunch or are you just making it up out of thin air?

I'm not sure Bush will chuckle when they put his statue up in Baghdad but it gives me a chuckle to think that some people actually have it in their head that that's how he is/will be received over there.


I hope you are right about "the people won't accept a dictator", but that won't help the cause in the "War on Terror" because his staunchest allies in the "War on Terror" are in fact dictators.

So who is next on the Democracy Parade? Pakistan or Saudi Arabia?

[Mike F]

Originally posted by tjinaz@Mar 8 2005, 06:09 PM
Well....

I guess the point of the article is this... The left trumpets their intentions, holds meetings, makes cool t-shirts, bumper stickers, has concerts and creates websites to illustrate how very much they care about the rights of the downtrodden and want to right all the evils of the world then they get in their SUVs head down to Starbucks get a half-caffe venti 2 pump vanilla Latte, do a group hug, complement each others tie-dye, and congradulate each other on how they are so very intellectually superior to those ignorant rednecks that won the last election and go home.

Where Bush and the right, roll up their sleeves and join the fight. Like him or hate him, he makes a short list and does something about it. Go ahead and say that somehow democracy was going to come to the middle east anyway, it was just a matter of time. Bush got lucky, what ever. Bash all you want. In the end, 10 years from now, history will record that it was the invasion of Iraq that planted the seed of democracy in the middle east. I am sure Dubya will chuckle when they put up his statue in Bagdad. Sure there are many issues that still need to be worked out but the paradigm has changed after hundreds (in Egypts case thousands) of years. The people will no longer accept a dictator ruling on their behalf. They want a say in what happens in their lives. That is the difference. Granted the WMDs likely will not have been found by then but I don't think the Arab woman in the voting booth will really care.

Funny part is the left is all about democracy and human rights but only for themselves, the rest of the world is just fine without them. Don't get involved, keep the status quo. Don't push your crazy western ideas of self rule on them. The Arabs have a cultural affinity for dictatorships, I have a study from Berkley that proves it. Iraq was a socialist paradise before all this happened. They used to dance across the mass graves under the watchful eye of the devoted secret police.

Liberals cry and moan about everything but do not have the will to make the changes necessary to fix things. They do make one hell of a bumper sticker though.

What a load

How many armed conflicts have the "right" engaged in that the "left" opposed? I count one -- Iraq, and that one was fought over suppose weapons of mass destruction not to spread democracy or enforce human rights no matter what the spinners try to say afterwards. As I said earlier, Bush's other big conflict (Afghanistan) was supported by both sides.

And on the topic of Afghanistan, I hate to burst your "George Bush is the champion of democracy" bubble, but remember that that war only started after negotiations with the Taliban to hand over Bin Laden fell trough. Had they just handed him over, your hero would have happily left the Taliban in charge and gone on his way.

The left only cares about democracy and human rights for themselves? You're clearly just talking out you ass now. The Free Tibet movement you bring up in your own rant is a perfect example of that. And there are numerous other examples; from raising awareness of female circumcision in Africa to the use of children in armed conflict in virtually all non-western conflicts.

[tjinaz]

Dude - I went to School at Northern Arizona... The hemp wearing, latte drinking, tree hugging, parents pay for my school and I drive a giant SUV but still care about the environment liberal still exists in force. My second favorite compared to the "free those oppressed by the greedy global corporations, but let me get those sweet Nikes on sale" Liberal. Next time you go to a Dave Matthews show count the SUVs. It's the original do as I say, not as I do crowd.

Bush will be as popular in the middle east as Reagan is in eastern Europe. Go figure.
I would guess that is pretty popular.

Funny you mention Saudi, they just had their first elections as well. Pakistan can't be far behind. When one Arab looks accross the fence at what is going on in the rest of the Arab world they will want if for themselves. It will take time but the ball is already rolling. PBS had a really cool episode of Frontline called "the Roots of Muslim Rage" the basic reason for the majority of the muslim rage against the US is because of frustration that their culture has lagged so far behind the rest of the world, a percieved bias towards Israel and the US support for the dictators that keep them oppressed. This is why I have real hope for the region now.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by tjinaz@Mar 8 2005, 08:09 PM
Dude - I went to School at Northern Arizona... The hemp wearing, latte drinking, tree hugging, parents pay for my school and I drive a giant SUV but still care about the environment liberal still exists in force. My second favorite compared to the "free those oppressed by the greedy global corporations, but let me get those sweet Nikes on sale" Liberal. Next time you go to a Dave Matthews show count the SUVs. It's the original do as I say, not as I do crowd.

Bush will be as popular in the middle east as Reagan is in eastern Europe. Go figure.
I would guess that is pretty popular.

Funny you mention Saudi, they just had their first elections as well. Pakistan can't be far behind. When one Arab looks accross the fence at what is going on in the rest of the Arab world they will want if for themselves. It will take time but the ball is already rolling. PBS had a really cool episode of Frontline called "the Roots of Muslim Rage" the basic reason for the majority of the muslim rage against the US is because of frustration that their culture has lagged so far behind the rest of the world, a percieved bias towards Israel and the US support for the dictators that keep them oppressed. This is why I have real hope for the region now.

"The Left" is nothing more than a bunch of spoiled undergrads? I wouldn't be caught at a Dave Matthews concert if my life depended on it. I don't drink coffee, wear Nikes or drive an SUV.

Do you really believe in that stereotype? If so then no wonder you feel the way you do.

Just to turn the tables a bit -- I went to a rodeo in southern Alberta once. 90% of the people had cowboy hats on, were hardcore religious types, chewed tobacco, had shinguard on their boots and while I don't associate with that type of person, I know that they don't mind when a bunch of Ay-rabs get killed. The whiteness of the crowd wasn't a coincidence, considering they are all racists.

In other words, it was a typical conservative crowd. Right?

a percieved bias towards Israel and the US support for the dictators that keep them oppressed.

How can you say this and also say "they'll erect a statue for him"?

[tjinaz]

How many armed conflicts have the "right" engaged in that the "left" opposed? I count one -- Iraq, and that one was fought over suppose weapons of mass destruction not to spread democracy or enforce human rights no matter what the spinners try to say afterwards. As I said earlier, Bush's other big conflict (Afghanistan) was supported by both sides.

Um Gulf war I. Vote in US Senate was 52 for 47 against. Kerry was one of the 47 as was Kennedy. They were against it they just lost the vote. It was much closer than people remember now.

[/QUOTE]The left only cares about democracy and human rights for themselves? You're clearly just talking out you ass now. The Free Tibet movement you bring up in your own rant is a perfect example of that. And there are numerous other examples; from raising awareness of female circumcision in Africa to the use of children in armed conflict in virtually all non-western conflicts[QUOTE]

As with the majority of the posters on this board, I have to ask "what has the free tibet movement really done? except take up space on bumpers and t-shirts" Basically you are selling a warm fuzzy feeling and accomplishing nothing. When is tibet going to be free again? How are these bumper stickers helping to free them and how many bumper stickers will it take to accomplish your goal?

[Mike F]

Originally posted by tjinaz@Mar 8 2005, 08:00 PM
Um Gulf war I.# Vote in US Senate was 52 for 47 against.# Kerry was one of the 47 as was Kennedy.# They were against it they just lost the vote.# It was much closer than people remember now.

Well if the US Senate vote is a measurement of how the left and right felt then the fact that the Senate voted 77-23 (including a majority of democrats) to approve Iraq II kind of blows your whole theory away.

And don't think I failed to notice that you totally ignored both Afghanistan points: Everyone on the left was for it, and Bush was fully prepared to let the totalitarian regime stay in power. I'm just dying to see how that fits in your little model.

As with the majority of the posters on this board, I have to ask "what has the free tibet movement really done? except take up space on bumpers and t-shirts"# Basically you are selling a warm fuzzy feeling and accomplishing nothing.# When is tibet going to be free again?# How are these bumper stickers helping to free them and how many bumper stickers will it take to accomplish your goal?

First of all, your statement was "the left is all about democracy and human rights but only for themselves, the rest of the world is just fine without them", and I gave you three separate issues where the left was all about championing the human rights of others.

Either admit that was just a bunch of hot air, or try to defend what you said in light of the facts I provided.

As for the "what has the Free Tibet movement accomplished?" argument: it's raised awareness, kept the issue in the public consciousness and is the only thing putting pressure on China via the US government.

Looking at the Tibet issue, there are 3 possible courses of action:

1. Raise public awareness and pressure;
2. Invade China and free the country; or
3. Write it off as unsolvable and ignore it.

Since you so deride option 1, which of 2 or 3 do you support?

[CaramonLS]

Originally posted by tjinaz@Mar 9 2005, 04:00 AM


As with the majority of the posters on this board, I have to ask "what has the free tibet movement really done? except take up space on bumpers and t-shirts" Basically you are selling a warm fuzzy feeling and accomplishing nothing. When is tibet going to be free again? How are these bumper stickers helping to free them and how many bumper stickers will it take to accomplish your goal?

Got another suggestion?

[tjinaz]

Well if the US Senate vote is a measurement of how the left and right felt then the fact that the Senate voted 77-23 (including a majority of democrats) to approve Iraq II kind of blows your whole theory away.

And don't think I failed to notice that you totally ignored both Afghanistan points: Everyone on the left was for it, and Bush was fully prepared to let the totalitarian regime stay in power. I'm just dying to see how that fits in your little model.

Actually it fits quite well. They voted for the war in the beginning because it was politically expedient to do so. Back then everyone believed there were WMDs. Once the wind changed they came out against it they back pedalled as fast as they could. It was just like Somalia. Lets go in... wait the polls changed, drop everything and leave, it is not worth it. Never mind the principle and the reason for going in the first place, the polls are dropping. Rangers wounded in Somalia, recovering at Walter Reed refused to shake hands with Clinton after that. OR Vietnam.. yea go to war but the president has final authority on all bombing targets, we can bomb them but don't make them mad. The left will go to war they just tie one hand behind their back.

When did Bush negotiate with the Taleban? He gave them an ultimatum.

WASHINGTON, Sept 21: In a hardline speech in which he described Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda organization as being to terrorism "what the Mafia is to crime", US President George Bush demanded on Thursday night that the Taliban deliver all leaders of the Al Qaeda to the US authorities and immediately close all "terrorist training camps" in Afghanistan.

In what was seen as the final ultimatum to the Taliban leadership, the president also asked that the US should be given full access to such camps, that the Taliban should hand over every terrorist and every person and their support structure to appropriate authorities, and release all foreign nationals, including Americans, detained in Afghanistan.

These demands, he said, were not open to negotiation or discussion, and if the Taliban did not act immediately, "they will share in the fate" of the "terrorists.

I see a stick ... no carrot. He never says he will leave them alone if they comply and also they were fighting a civil war with the northern Alliance at that time, with largely foreign (read arab) fighters. So basically Bush would have removed a large portion of their army and their support.

As for the "what has the Free Tibet movement accomplished?" argument: it's raised awareness, kept the issue in the public consciousness and is the only thing putting pressure on China via the US government.

Looking at the Tibet issue, there are 3 possible courses of action:

1. Raise public awareness and pressure;
2. Invade China and free the country; or
3. Write it off as unsolvable and ignore it.

Since you so deride option 1, which of 2 or 3 do you support?

How about you get a bunch of your causes together and fight a fight you can win instead of wasting resouces on 300 causes. I guess I choose option 3. No amount of public awareness will get that done. so why Tibet? Why not Lebanon? Lebanon can actually be helped. Are the Tibetans more deserving or is it that certain Actors and Musicians hold the Dalai Lama in high regard and give this cause special coolness?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by tjinaz@Mar 8 2005, 10:34 PM
When did Bush negotiate with the Taleban? He gave them an ultimatum.

Remember his first ultimatum to the Taliban? The one that said "cash this 43 million dollar cheque before it bounces"?

[HOZ]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos+Mar 9 2005, 06:15 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RougeUnderoos @ Mar 9 2005, 06:15 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-tjinaz@Mar 8 2005, 10:34 PM
When did Bush negotiate with the Taleban? He gave them an ultimatum.

Remember his first ultimatum to the Taliban? The one that said "cash this 43 million dollar cheque before it bounces"? [/b][/quote]
I am guessing they are having regrets

[Mike F]

Originally posted by tjinaz+Mar 8 2005, 09:34 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (tjinaz @ Mar 8 2005, 09:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Actually it fits quite well.# They voted for the war in the beginning because it was politically expedient to do so.# Back then everyone believed there were WMDs. Once the wind changed they came out against it they back pedalled as fast as they could.##
[/b]

So they had the audacity to support a war when Bush told them it was necessary to protect the country, and then changed their minds when they realized that justification was ficticious? Outrageous!

That aside, if you want to use support after the fact as a measure of the right and left's respective positions then show me that the left remained opposed to the war after it started.

You can't just cherry-pick examples to fit your belief: "Well the left (as represented by US democrats) were against Iraq I before the war, and they were against Iraq II after the war..." Be consistant in your measure.

Originally posted by tjinaz@Mar 8 2005, 09:34 PM
When did Bush negotiate with the Taleban?# He gave them an ultimatum.

These demands, he said, were not open to negotiation or discussion, and if the Taliban did not act immediately, "they will share in the fate" of the "terrorists.

I see a stick ... no carrot.

Split hairs if you want, but negotiation or ultimatum the message is clear: the Taliban only gets bombed if they don't comply. If they had complied they wouldn't have gotten bombed and Bush would have left Afghanistan in the hands of a totalitarian regime. Would the Taliban have been ousted later by the Northern Alliance? Maybe, but that still wouldn't help you because the Northern Alliance wasn't going to set up a warm, fuzzy democracy.

Either way it doesn't help the picture you're trying to paint of Bush and the right as tireless champions of democracy and the downtrodden

<!--QuoteBegin-tjinaz@Mar 8 2005, 09:34 PM
How about you get a bunch of your causes together and fight a fight you can win instead of wasting resouces on 300 causes. I guess I choose option 3.[/quote]

Ah, I see... So as passionately as some people feel about Tibet, they should give it up because it's too hard? And as we all know, you can only support one cause at a time. Boy the pathetic left sure can learn a lot about being compassionate world citizens from the right.

Oh, and you forgot this:

First of all, your statement was "the left is all about democracy and human rights but only for themselves, the rest of the world is just fine without them", and I gave you three separate issues where the left was all about championing the human rights of others.

Either admit that was just a bunch of hot air, or try to defend what you said in light of the facts I provided