| Do you believe that bush has lied to the people during his presidency on one or more issues to the public | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Total Votes : 11 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 1337
Location: The Collective
| Posted: Fri Mar 05, 2004 8:30 am Post subject: | |||||||||||
I think the subject that you violate your own rules should be discussed in the open. If not in this thread then we should start another one. I feel like you are ducking the subject in order to hide your own behavior. If you did not call me a coward just what did you mean, sleK? Don't be coy!
Nothing to respond too? I was raising the point and definition of the word imminence. You have raised the point of imminent over and over.......lets talk about it......GWB said Iraq was an imminent threat not just to the US (duh) but to our allies and the rest of the world. So your point of the missles having the range to reach the US is invalid. [/quote]Quote: Quote: So, we have intelligence agencies not saying that Iraq is an imminent threat, and we have the administration saying that Iraq is an imminent threat. How is that not deception? Easy...it is called a dis-agreement. You are telling me the threat was not there.....are you decieving me? Are you lying to me about the threat? Intelligence is always open to interpertation.....so your argument that one branch of government did not come to the same conclusion as another is evidence of a lie is not logical. You have not proven a thing. The only thing you have proven is that there were parts of the government that dis agreed about the evidence presented them. Note that I had to ask you twice to address this and it also happens to be the last point made before your so-called "exit" from the discussion. Coincidence? I think not. Regardless, calling it a "disagreement" is folly. As is your "interpretation" charge. Agencies like the CIA don't gather information then simply pass it off to the administration. They also act as advisories; the interpretation happens via the same agencies. As evidence, I offer a small section of Kays report:
Quote: They allowed inspectors back only under threat of force.....they delayed and distracted the inspectors....they were asked over and over either to give proof as to the WMDs destruction OR to hand over what they had. Iraqs response was to stonewall and evade. So? That's not proof of WmD's nor is it proof of an "imminent threat" to the US. If I don't answer the door when you knock, does it automatically mean that I have buckets of ebola in the basement and I intend to empty them into the water supply?
The above proves my point...you do have a pre-concieved notion of GWBs motives. No. It only proves that you haven't the faintest clue what a preconception is. I urge you to look it up then explain to me how observation of GwB's campaign, actions, and the consequences of those actions, falls under the definition. Good luck.
Perhaps you'd like to explain how the only way to avoid detection is by burying yourself in a hole in the ground? I see you've also conveniently ignored the equipment and facilities required to produce WmD's. Serving as further detriment to your poorly thought-out argument is the fact, as you state it, that "a footlocker sized box" doesn't move. Nor can it think. Nor can it seek additional cover, change its appearance, cross borders, mingle with the locals, or assume identities. Even further, perhaps you'd care to explain how a "box buried in the desert" gets there? Does digging a hole not leave evidence "to a humans nature"?
Edit....software is acting strangely (no its not Bombay again) sorry for the misplaced quotes. |
|||||||||||
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 1337
Location: The Collective
| Posted: Fri Mar 05, 2004 8:48 am Post subject: | |||
Every person bases his or her feelings based on his or prior experiences or base of knowledge. Hence if you were raised in a household or went to a school that held vastly different views on the world than GWB then you would not be disposed to agree with such views. I have the evidence of your prior posting over the last year to base my conclusions on. Oh and BTW can you provide any evidence about the drug use charge you just made? That was quite a drive by of a statement....comparable to my "pawn of the cong" statement dont you think? I will watch in facination your efforts to show some real evidence of that statement. Edit "Then tell us, oh wise one" not nice BTW......I have been on my best behavior the past week.......I would appreciate the same courtesy. |
|||
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1017
Location: over yonder
| Posted: Fri Mar 05, 2004 12:26 pm Post subject: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
:yawn:
This is getting ridiculous.
Making a statement like that requires that you understand the rules BG. To date you've demonstrated no such understanding. And I strongly doubt that yet another thread on your pet cause will help you much more in this regard.
How about; as speculative potential ability to build WmD's doesn't qualify as an imminent threat, there's even less to respond to.
False. I said, and I quote "Agencies like the CIA". Note the s on "agencies"... plural. Note also the comparitive term "like" which clearly suggests others. Regardless, that doesn't dispute, nor even address, my point. Once again (as constantly repeating myself seems to be necessary): Calling it a "disagreement" is folly. As is your "interpretation" charge. Agencies like the CIA don't gather information then simply pass it off to the administration. They also act as advisories; the interpretation happens via the same agencies. As evidence, I offer a small section of Kays report:
In this example we have the information collected:
And a summary:
Doesn't leave much room for "interpretation" now does it? Nor does it leave much for two parties to disagree over.
It certainly is. You presented Iraqs stalling tactics as evidence of their guilt on page 2. You've been asked three times now to demonstrate that "stonewalling" and "evading" proves the existence of WmD's or an imminent threat by answering a dead-simple question:
Talk about "stonewalling"! :roll: The answer is clearly no, however I'll accept your refusal to address the question as a concession and trust that you won't use such a absurd argument again.
One big straw man. Once again, please explain to me how observation of GwB's campaign, actions, and the consequences of those actions, falls under the definition of preconception.
And this proves what? Oh, that's right. Nothing!
Rubbish. Please quote where I asserted any such thing. If you can't, I'd suggest that you stop making up imaginary arguments and address exactly what I say instead.
False. How does a "small inert stationary object" end up buried in a desert? Perhaps you should explain how transporting scores of WmD's in tiny little boxes into the desert for burial, whilst under constant surveillance, leaves them undetectable? You still haven't addressed the equipment and facilities required to produce WmD's either. Did they break those up and put them into little boxes too?
Yet another straw man that in no way, shape or form addresses the question. Making fallacy a habit again BG? Certainly seems that way. To re-iterate: If not their history, their action, and their implicit future, what should I be basing my feelings about GwB's administration on? And as before: please explain to me how observation of GwB's campaign, actions, and the consequences of those actions, falls under the definition of preconception. If you can't, or refuse to support your original claim(s), simply concede.
:roll: It was a rhetorical question BG. Keep grasping. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 1037
Location: Formerly 3333
| Posted: Sat Mar 06, 2004 3:18 pm Post subject: | |
|
Well now....
Are we checking into Presidential lies??? How about this one. "I did not have sexual relations with that woman.... Ms. Lewinsky". "Footie" |
|
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 2110
| Posted: Sat Mar 06, 2004 8:16 pm Post subject: | |||
Well, welcome to the life of the democraps!!! 
|
|||
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 1337
Location: The Collective
| Posted: Sun Mar 07, 2004 4:43 am Post subject: | |||
|
Since this is obviously going nowhere.....I will offer this article from one of the men involved in this discussion...It is by Tony Blair.....not quite on topic but it does relate.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004783 Here is one written about Hans Blix and his new book on the subject of Bush, Blair and the Iraq war. http://news.myway.com/top/article/id/257892|top|03-06-2004::09:50|reuters.html Here is a sample......
Here is what I think is the final arguement against your statements that the President lied. I am sure you will never believe anything but your own ideas in spite of the lack of convincing proof that Bush delberatly lied in order to take us to war. I predict you will fall back on "well he decieved us if he did not mean to lie" BS. I concede the intellgence might have been wrong but who can really know? You scoff at that point over and over but it only shows how you will not even consider that the facts in the public domain are far less that what is available to the President. Since you fail to even acknowldge such a simple fact, you are not being reasonable. You are fixated on the reports that have been released....and you argue that he is a liar based on a prima facia case. He is not a liar untill a court of law proves him so. Innocent untill proven guilty........Calling someone a liar based on his interpetation of facts and his own judgement (and many others BTW) is not reasonable. |
|||
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 1337
Location: The Collective
| Posted: Sun Mar 07, 2004 5:13 am Post subject: | |||||||||||||||||
How insulting....I do understand the rules quit well.
Your opinion that it does not qualify......what is your background in bio weapons? Or mabybe some evidence?
It is folly to think there is only one intepretation given to the President. Do you know what the DIA (Defense Itellegence Agencys) reccomendation was? Of couse you dont because it has not been realeased. What about DARPA or the NSC? Have you seen what the said about it?
Stonewalling was just one piece of evidence used in making a judgement. That was based in the prior acts of Saddam and Iraq. It was not the ONLY reason....it was just one more piece of the puzzle. Now do you get it?
Please explain this statement. I sure sounds like an ad hom to me. Just tell me if it is an ad hom, yes or no. As you implied above I am not smart enough to understand you rules....so keep it simple for one such as I.
First of all I never said they were "undetectable". I disputed your point that they would be relativley easy to find since we found Saddam. A totally rediculas argument. Some equipment and some facilities have been found. As have some artillery shells with chemical residue and the fact that the Iraqi army was issued bio-chem suits right before the war began. Since the Allied forces do not use chemical weapons what could they have been for? Not one single arguement or fact that I have stated would support such a case....but taken as a whole the case can be made for action. The President and Prime Minister state the facts clearly over and over........oh and BTW a tiny vial of say anthrax (by tiny I mean testube size) contains enough contagion to infect thousands of people. So, yes, they could have put them in little boxes too......
My point was (again) that your interpretation of such observed action is affected by your preconception of the US and its President. Why don't you concede? The more you post the more you insult me. |
|||||||||||||||||
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 1337
Location: The Collective
| Posted: Sun Mar 07, 2004 5:19 am Post subject: | |||
Now that was a lie that was PROVEN! |
|||
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1017
Location: over yonder
| Posted: Sun Mar 07, 2004 8:34 am Post subject: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
You seriously put your ability to read in question when you continually post such rubbish. Please show where I "scoffed" at the idea of the intelligence being wrong. As I've already stated, any intelligence they had access to, that said anything even remotely related to "imminent" would be demonstrably inaccurate.
LOL! Yes. As this differs considerably from your fallacious fixation on speculation, I apologize for basing my opinion on actual information. :roll:
Sorry BG. Very few liars end up in court. Nevertheless, thanks for providing even further evidence of your double-standards.
This statement assumes his innocence.
If it makes you feel better to think that, by all means. Keep the faith!
My opinion? Hah! Let's have another look at what I dismissed. I'll break it into bite-sized chunks so it's easier for you to digest.
Obvious. Thus nothing to respond to.
Sure. Makes no difference. Thus nothing to respond to.
(emphasis added) Do you understand what the term "speculation" means? How about "if"? Is it only my "opinion" that that your paraphrase is only speculation? Hardly. As such, I was obligated to dismiss your statement out of hand.
Here BG, "interpret" this fact for me: "when water freezes it turns to ice". Don't hurt yourself.
No. But you'll notice that I've not been foolish enough to base my argument upon it nor desperately cling to it in when the MAMMOTH holes in my argument are made apparent.
Learn to read. I never said that "all reports are that clear". I offered it as an example. Perhaps you should put your money where your mouth is and provide evidence of related intelligence reports that aren't that clear.
Stonewalling is evidence of nothing save "stonewalling". Nevertheless, I'll accept your refusal to answer the question, for the third time, as a concession on that point. Intellectual dishonesty at its finest folks.
You've heard of Google right? You should try using it once in a while.
Ok.
Uh huh.
Sure.
Irrelevant but, ok.
And... the... wheels on the bus go round and round. Round and round. Round and round... There's that pesky speculation again! Damn that unverifiable information getting in the way of my blind allegiance to the pubbies!
What facts?
That's nice. Did they find any?
No. The applicable question was about the facilities and equipment used to produce WmD's.
I know what your point was BG. You've been asked to qualify it a number of times now and you've refused. This is yet another example of intellectual dishonesty. To be blunt, put up or shut up. Here it is again for... what?... the fourth time?  For easy reference, I've bolded it for you.
Explain to me how observation of GwB's campaign, actions, and the consequences of those actions, falls under the definition of preconception. If you fail to address it again, any further attempts to use this bogus preconception argument will be met with a small army of .
You reap what you sow. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 1337
Location: The Collective
| Posted: Mon Mar 08, 2004 6:02 am Post subject: | |
|
You have proved all of my points in your last post. When confronted with opinions that differ with your own and when the person that confronts you refuses to back down you violate your own rules by being personally insulting. You told me the posting guidelines....I followed them. You use the classic line "If you dont agree with me you are unreasonable or stupid" in your arguements. So I assume now that if I become insulting you will not ban me? Dont get your hopes up......I try my absolute best not to violate the rules. Oh and if I indeed have been violating them (you keep saying I dont understand them) you would have banned me in a second. So that arguement is on its face invalid...is it not? :thumb:
Oh and I am done posting on this subject....go ahead and insult me for not posting anymore. I frankly dont give a sh**t. 
|
|
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1017
Location: over yonder
| Posted: Mon Mar 08, 2004 7:05 am Post subject: | |||||||||||||||
|
Typical.
For all the folks out in TV land, BG has once again commited a number of logical fallacies.
Subverted Support: BG has provided no evidence to support the assertion that his points have been proven.
Ad Hominem: Instead of disputing what I've said (more likely being unable to dispute what I've said) BG resorts to the tired, but common in his case, fallacy of attacking me personally.
Straw Man: Here BG attacks an argument that doesn't exist as I've never stated such a thing.
Slippery Slope and another Straw Man: Here BG assumes what my action would be (SS) should his behaviour be in violation of the PG. Unfortunately for BG (or fortunately for BG, depending how you look at it), I've made no statements regarding his behaviour as it relates to the PG in this thread (SM).
Non Sequitor: Specifically Affirming the Consequent. Here BG incorrectly assumes that his posts actually have something to do with the subject. Which, as his latest post proves (as the seal on a jar of increasingly off-topic and irrelevant nonsense), is patently false.
Straw Man: Like preconception previously, here BG demonstrates his sub-par understanding of the term insult. He appears to have it mistaken with observation.
Irrelevant Conclusion: The ferocity with which BG regularly throws his poorly thought out and generally fallacious arguments at opposing point of views clearly betray his claim of "not giving a shit". Yes folks. Don't be fooled by the BG's of the world. Their bark is much more ferocious than their bite. When confronted with an even remotely logical argument and/or finding that their own arguments don't stand up to even mild scrutiny, it's inevitable that they will use every fallacy in the book in an effort to save face before running for the hills... still barking, of course.
|
|||||||||||||||