State of the union address, 2004

[denoir 0]

Anyway, what exactly does the definiton of "majority" have to do with the definition of "internationalized"?  He never said the majority of countries in the world supported the war.  IIRC the majority of countries in the world didn't even support the first gulf war.

This line:

There is a difference, however, between leading a coalition of many nations, and submitting to the objections of a few.

It was not a coalition of many (the term "many" only has a meaning when you measure it against the complete set, in this case 191 countries). And it was certainly not the objections of a few. He seems to have confused the terms "many" and "few".

The truth (as opposed to a lie) would be:

"There is a difference, however, between leading a coalition of few nations, and submitting to the objections of many"

Wow, you -really- hate Bush.  Get over the semantics.

SEMANTICS?

It's not semantics, it changes the whole meaning of the statements.

Let me give you a couple of examples of the same "semantics":

Bush hopes that many teenagers will have sex and that few will commit themselves to abstinence.

Many people in the USA supported the WTC attacks while few thought them to be appaling acts of terrorism.

There are a few stars in the universe but many planets in our solar system.

There are few people living in China while many people are living in Monaco.

Semantics?

[FSPilot 0]

Yes, semantics. You're nitpicking words that don't change the meaning of his statement, especially considering that it was relatively vague.

Would it be better if he sat for you and defined what he meant by "objections" and "coalition"?

[ralphwiggum 6]

Somebody should also explain to Bush that 158 out of 191 constitutes a majority while 33 out of 191 is a minority. It might prevent him from stating things like this:

Quote[/b] ]

Some critics have said our duties in Iraq must be internationalized. This particular criticism is hard to explain to our partners in Britain, Australia, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, Italy, Spain, Poland, Denmark, Hungary, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Romania, the Netherlands, Norway, El Salvador, and the 17 other countries that have committed troops to Iraq. As we debate at home, we must never ignore the vital contributions of our international partners, or dismiss their sacrifices.

From the beginning, America has sought international support for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, and we have gained much support. There is a difference, however, between leading a coalition of many nations, and submitting to the objections of a few. America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our people.

What about 34 of 191?

Anyway, what exactly does the definiton of "majority" have to do with the definition of "internationalized"?  He never said the majority of countries in the world supported the war.  IIRC the majority of countries in the world didn't even support the first gulf war.

read carefully

Bush said:

Quote[/b] ]however, between leading a coalition of many nations, and submitting to the objections of a few.

denoir said:

Quote[/b] ]Somebody should also explain to Bush that 158 out of 191 constitutes a majority while 33 out of 191 is a minority.

you said:

Quote[/b] ]Anyway, what exactly does the definiton of "majority" have to do with the definition of "internationalized"?

you basically started argument between 'international' and 'majority/many'.

[denoir 0]

Is AIDs a religions basis?  Is teen pregnancy a religious basis?  Contraceptives and information aren't working, if anything they're making it worse.  We need something more.

Of course they are working. It's the constant double standards that are ruining the statistics. In Sweden we have a system that has worked flawlessly since the early 60's. Free contraceptives and sex-ed. And we have very very little problems with teen pregnencies and STD. Quite simple, the kids here have through a lot of information in school and by parents learned how to have safe sex.

They are going to have sex either way as it is a natural drive. You tell me what's better - not giving them information about the importance of safe sex, or instructing them how to take care of themselves?

[ralphwiggum 6]

ralph wiggum

Quote[/b] ]so are you a virgin?

And here's the problem with today's society.  Virginity is looked at as a weakness or social ineptitude.  Am I to be looked down on because I don't bang every girl in sight?

did i said i have sex with all 50,000 females around me?

Quote[/b] ]Today when STDs are epidemics and pregnancys are too, I'd say absitinence is a good thing.

it is but, it will fail. some people will go for sex, and there is nothing you can do about that. don't deny that bastards were born throughout history. and where those kids come from? those who decided to forgo abstinence. if they used condomn, there would be greater chance that a kid would not have been born.

and i can guarantee you that some in your class had more sex than playing OFP. are you willing to condemn them? did all of them end up with kids? how many used condomns?

[denoir 0]

Yes, semantics.  You're nitpicking words that don't change the meaning of his statement, especially considering that it was relatively vague.

Would it be better if he sat for you and defined what he meant by "objections" and "coalition"?

Many and few are opposites. If you exchange their position in a sentence, you completely change the meaning of it.

Do you agree that:

A) Bush hopes that many teenagers will have sex and that few will commit themselves to abstinence.

and

B) Bush hopes that few teenagers will have sex and that many will commit themselves to abstinence.

do not mean the same thing?

Do you agree that:

A) There are few people living in China while many people are living in Monaco.

and

B) There are many people living in China while few people are living in Monaco.

do not mean the same thing?

Do you agree that:

A) There is a difference, however, between leading a coalition of many nations, and submitting to the objections of a few.

and

B) There is a difference, however, between leading a coalition of few nations, and submitting to the objections of many.

do not mean the same thing?

[FSPilot 0]

Ralph

Quote[/b] ]you basically started argument between 'international' and 'majority/many'.

BS, just because I argued back doesn't mean I started the argument. He was nitpicking semantics and I called him on it.

denoir

Quote[/b] ]Of course they are working. It's the constant double standards that are ruining the statistics. In Sweden we have a system that has worked flawlessly since the early 60's. Free contraceptives and sex-ed. And we have very very little problems with teen pregnencies and STD. Quite simple, the kids here have through a lot of information in school and by parents learned how to have safe sex.

We've got essentially the same system here, except we have pregnant cheerleaders and 13 year old mothers. Don't tell me it's working.

Quote[/b] ]They are going to have sex either way as it is a natural drive. You tell me what's better - not giving them information about the importance of safe sex, or instructing them how to take care of themselves?

They're not taking care of themselves.

Even though we're instructing them to, even though we give them free condoms, even though they have information on safe sex. It's not working.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

ralph wiggum

Quote[/b] ]so are you a virgin?

And here's the problem with today's society.  Virginity is looked at as a weakness or social ineptitude.  Am I to be looked down on because I don't bang every girl in sight?

did i said i have sex with all 50,000 females around me?

I salute you, Ralph. You are an example to us all.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Ralph

Quote[/b] ]you basically started argument between 'international' and 'majority/many'.

BS, just because I argued back doesn't mean I started the argument.  He was nitpicking semantics and I called him on it.

yes, you argued back using semantics!

denoir was talking about how small number of helps were given from international community, which you tried to counter by saying that it's not the number that matters. however, Bush made speech about how 'many' others were helping

[denoir 0]

Ralph

Quote[/b] ]you basically started argument between 'international' and 'majority/many'.

BS, just because I argued back doesn't mean I started the argument.  He was nitpicking semantics and I called him on it.

FSPilot agrees with many liberal atheists and few conservative Christians.

Well, I'm glad you think the statement above is true, since it's just a question of semantics anyway, according to you.  

Quote[/b] ]Even though we're instructing them to, even though we give them free condoms, even though they have information on safe sex.  It's not working.

Yeah, so not informing them and not giving them free condoms is really going to give you good results, right? If you think your current situation is bad, wait until you don't give them any information - you'll get a ten times worse situation.

But hey, since you think that many pregnent teenagers is a good thing, as opposed to a few pregnent teenagers, I understand your position. Not allowing contraceptives and sex-ed will certainly increase the number of teen pregnencies - and that was what you wanted.

[ralphwiggum 6]

@ Jan. 21 2004,05:07)]

ralph wiggum

Quote[/b] ]so are you a virgin?

And here's the problem with today's society.  Virginity is looked at as a weakness or social ineptitude.  Am I to be looked down on because I don't bang every girl in sight?

did i said i have sex with all 50,000 females around me?

I salute you, Ralph. You are an example to us all.

i'm getting tired with typical californian girls. how are ladies of Texas or Oklahoma? I wouldn't mind Oklahoman ladies, but compared to Texas......(watches out for Hit_sqd_maximus)

back on topic, no, not everyone is having sex with multiple partners, but forcing them to adhere to complete abstinence has more chance of driving sexual activites in to dark shadows. there is nothing wrong with making love. and unfortuntely, it is curiosity to kids. so instead of telling kids not to and drive them to darker side, telling them what it is face to face is better, and if the blood in your body goes to only one of two brains, it's better to remind them that there are ways to prevent unwanted pregnancy from happening.

[Schoeler 0]

@ Jan. 21 2004,04:39)]I notice he didn't mention the Solomon Islands by names during his laundry list of the Coalition.  

Yeah, I was disappointed that Ethiopia, Tonga,  Rwanda, Angola and Nicaragua were not mentioned by name, but just mentioned as part of "17 other nations"  

It's insulting isn't it?

[FSPilot 0]

ralph wiggum

Quote[/b] ]did i said i have sex with all 50,000 females around me?

I never said you did.

Quote[/b] ]it is but, it will fail. some people will go for sex, and there is nothing you can do about that. don't deny that bastards were born throughout history. and where those kids come from? those who decided to forgo abstinence. if they used condomn, there would be greater chance that a kid would not have been born.

Condoms aren't stopping the flood of pregnancies and STDs. We need something more.

Quote[/b] ]are you willing to condemn them? did all of them end up with kids? how many used condomns?

Estimated 1 million teen pregnancies in the US. No I'm not condeming them, I'm saying it's a problem that needs fixing.

Quote[/b] ]back on topic, no, not everyone is having sex with multiple partners, but forcing them to adhere to complete abstinence has more chance of driving sexual activites in to dark shadows. there is nothing wrong with making love. and unfortuntely, it is curiosity to kids. so instead of telling kids not to and drive them to darker side, telling them what it is face to face is better, and if the blood in your body goes to only one of two brains, it's better to remind them that there are ways to prevent unwanted pregnancy from happening.

And obviously it's not working. Your solution to the problem is more of the same?

denoir

Quote[/b] ]Many and few are opposites. If you exchange their position in a sentence, you completely change the meaning of it.

And you're nitpicking the definiton of many and few.

Quote[/b] ]FSPilot agrees with many liberal atheists and few conservative Christians.

Well, I'm glad you think the statement above is true, since it's just a question of semantics anyway, according to you.

It's amazing how you can take semantics that completely alter the content of a sentence and compare it to semantics that don't. Go take another grammar class.

Bush is trying to give a positive glow on who supported us and who didn't, not count votes on it. You're saying that it technically wasn't a majority so technically he shouldn't of said "many". So what? He made his point, it does't matter if he said "many" or "few" or "lots" or "little".

Quote[/b] ]Yeah, so not informing them and not giving them free condoms is really going to give you good results, right? If you think your current situation is bad, wait until you don't give them any information - you'll get a ten times worse situation.

Did I even remotely suggest that!? NO! I'm saying we need to do MORE work to keep STDs and teen pregnancies down.

[ralphwiggum 6]

ralph wiggum

Quote[/b] ]did i said i have sex with all 50,000 females around me?

I never said you did.

talk about not taking jokes - note the smiley

Quote[/b] ]Condoms aren't stopping the flood of pregnancies and STDs. We need something more.

neither is abstinence. it was idea that came before condoms. and yet throughout history people still made out.

Quote[/b] ]Estimated 1 million teen pregnancies in the US. No I'm not condeming them, I'm saying it's a problem that needs fixing.

and i'ms aying focusing on abstinence ONLY is not the solution. combined education of abstienence AND use of contraceptives are needed.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]back on topic, no, not everyone is having sex with multiple partners, but forcing them to adhere to complete abstinence has more chance of driving sexual activites in to dark shadows. there is nothing wrong with making love. and unfortuntely, it is curiosity to kids. so instead of telling kids not to and drive them to darker side, telling them what it is face to face is better, and if the blood in your body goes to only one of two brains, it's better to remind them that there are ways to prevent unwanted pregnancy from happening.

And obviously it's not working. Your solution to the problem is more of the same?

from CDC

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/releases/02facts/teenbirths.htm

in other works, it is working.

[OmniMax 0]

The definitions are clear, while vague.

Many is more then few, now isn't it?

Since more nations disagreed with the war then the ones who've agreed (read: less nations agreed) this would make Bush's official statement incorrect, Mo?

And how insulting... Ah you know, those 17 other nation? Yeah I got a list of em here in my documents here somewhere.... Rummy, you stealing my speech cards again?!?!

edit: UBB code... tastey.

[Baron von Beer 0]

Regardless of who gets pregnant, etc, I wish a few of my teachers had given ME lap dances when I was in hight school.

As an aside, they need birth control for men. (pill, once a day to prevent pregnancy. ) Doesn't solve the STD issues, but I imagine most males would gladly embrace it. (And redundancy in "safety" devices is always a good thing.)

[FSPilot 0]

Quote[/b] ]neither is abstinence. it was idea that came before condoms. and yet throughout history people still made out.

I don't recall teen pregnancies being a problem in the 1960s or 70s (maybe because I wasn't alive, but still).

Quote[/b] ]and i'ms aying focusing on abstinence ONLY is not the solution. combined education of abstienence AND use of contraceptives are needed.

Then we agree.

Quote[/b] ]from CDC

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/releases/02facts/teenbirths.htm

in other works, it is working.

Oh the CDC you know how leftist and biased that organisation is! (two smileys, I'm officially j/k)

Although the rates are going down, they're still too high. Around 1,000,000 girls get pregnant each year. Not women, girls. Girls who cant afford a baby and cant afford to skip school to take care of one.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

A running joke at our school is that "abstinence is what happens when you can't get a date on Friday night". And I take full credit for it

[FSPilot 0]

The definitions are clear, while vague.

Many is more then few, now isn't it?

Since more nations disagreed with the war then the ones who've agreed (read: less nations agreed) this would make Bush's official statement incorrect, Mo?

And how insulting... Ah you know, those 17 other nation? Yeah I got a list of em here in my documents here somewhere.... Rummy, you stealing my speech cards again?!?!

edit: UBB code... tastey.

And this is where we get bogged down in semantics. How do you define agreed and disagreed? The ones who said they didn't like it, the ones who said they supported the ones who said that? We could go on and on for ages trying to count these things, but it doesn't matter.

He made his point that we unified with other countries and got rid of Hussein. There's no point in nitpicking whether he should of said "many" or not.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Quote[/b] ]neither is abstinence. it was idea that came before condoms. and yet throughout history people still made out.

I don't recall teen pregnancies being a problem in the 1960s or 70s (maybe because I wasn't alive, but still).

maybe those damn hippies do not report birth?

back in those days, such incidents were serious taboo, forcing teenage mothers to abandon them in steps of church or ....

i won't be surprised since those decades had more turbulent problems than this.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]and i'ms aying focusing on abstinence ONLY is not the solution. combined education of abstienence AND use of contraceptives are needed.

Then we agree.

unfortunately Bush doesn't.

Quote[/b] ]Although the rates are going down, they're still too high. Around 1,000,000 girls get pregnant each year. Not women, girls. Girls who cant afford a baby and cant afford to skip school to take care of one.

the problem is that in 90s people talked about contraception. what Bush is proposing is abstinence only. this means that the declining trend would be reversed.

[OmniMax 0]

The definitions are clear, while vague.

Many is more then few, now isn't it?

Since more nations disagreed with the war then the ones who've agreed (read: less nations agreed) this would make Bush's official statement incorrect, Mo?

And how insulting... Ah you know, those 17 other nation? Yeah I got a list of em here in my documents here somewhere.... Rummy, you stealing my speech cards again?!?!

edit: UBB code... tastey.

And this is where we get bogged down in semantics.  How do you define agreed and disagreed?  The ones who said they didn't like it, the ones who said they supported the ones who said that?  We could go on and on for ages trying to count these things, but it doesn't matter.

He made his point that we unified with other countries and got rid of Hussein.  There's no point in nitpicking whether he should of said "many" or not.

lol.

[ericz 0]

In the 60's and 70's as well as the 80' and probably any other decade in history, young men have been trying to bang young women.

The problem with the kids in the U.S. today, on some level, is that the ramification for out of wedlock pregnancy is no longer moral but financial and legal. Besides the "hippies", having a child out of wedlock in the 60's and 70's was not a good thing, and carried financial and legal issues as well as a stigma that negatively impacted all involved including the parents.

+Rant+

Now, it seems its okay to have kids out of wedlock as long as you can financially support them. This is just the continuing tumble of our moral values as a nation and it all started with the touchy feely, liberal morons like Dr. Spock (the child psychologist, not Star Trek) back in the 70's.

+Rant over+

How much education do you need to understand that you dont stick your wick in twat without a jimmy unless you want a kid! As far as abstinence, while it is the RIGHT thing to do, let's face it, not too many us WANT to do the right thing in this case. So that leads me to the suggestion of punishment. Since society no longer attaches a stigma to the morons that get each other pregnant, there should be some price to pay besides my tax dollars going to feed and clothe their bastards. How about public caning? Oh I know it wont solve anything, but it will sure give me pleasure to watch them suffer for their bad decisions, afterall their own offspring and our society will suffer because of them, it only seems fair. Better yet, if it happens more than once, how about castrating the male offenders and tying the tubes of the floozies?

I am tired of seeing goverment funds (which are my tax dollars) go to help fuckups who cant keep it in their pants. Bush and the Dems want to spend more money on sex education and welfare for unwed teenage mothers while no one addresses the issue of the jackass fathers who won't get a job to pay for their brood. If any money should be spent, it should be spent on prosecuting these jerks, denying them social benefits and garnishing ANY income they do get until they manage to pay for their kids. Oh, and if they don't want to work voluntarily, restart a chain gang program just for them where they work for the state to pay their child support. Just some suggestions

[Pipski 0]

What about your tax dollars that go to support the children of married unemployed layabouts? Or is that different somehow?

Also, the people most affected by the stigmas relating to out-of-wedlock child-rearing are the children themselves. I see no advantage to perpetuating irrational stigmatisation of kids.

Anyone who thinks that not advising teenagers to use condoms is a good idea because STDs have not been totally eradicated should consider the fact that without condom use STD levels would be exponentially higher. If you want proof look at the epidemiology of HIV in the US or Europe before aggressive safe-sex campaigning compared with afterwards. Then look at the present-day epidemiology as condom use declines over the past ~five years. Condoms are better at preventing STDs than people spouting on about abstinence and being ignored. Unless you can find some method of forcing men and women to commit to abstinence then barrier contraception is absolutely the best way to protect against STDs. Yes, there are still STDs out there, of coure there are, but that doesn't mean that condoms aren't protecting an awful lot of people.

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

Amazing how Bush can get away with straight lies. Amazing how some of his citizens do not consider the difference between "many" and "few" to be important.

I say, we educate Americans about the positive side of using contraceptives, about the merits of taking government statements (such as the union speech) with a pinch of salt, I say we also educate them about their imperial-like empire abroad and the suffering it has brought.

To do this, we will give funding to the democratic party, we will release propaganda painting the republicans in a bad light, we will install radio stations that give Americans the true picture that Fox and NBC are too scared (or too biased) to report, let's also take a few hillbillies and train them in guerilla tactics and give them arms to increase the pressure on the United States. Hey, how about using international trade agreements as another method of attempting to change America's trade, domestic and foreign policy?

What do you say, is this a fair approach that follows UN conventions and is not illegal?

[OmniMax 0]

Amazing how Bush can get away with straight lies. Amazing how some of his citizens do not consider the difference between "many" and "few" to be important.

What do you say, is this a fair approach that follows UN conventions and is not illegal?

Aye mate, the nation is bang out of order...

Also, Hillbillies would make good guerillas.

Haven't you ever seen The Dukes Of Hazzard?