Pundits escalate attacks against Obama

[lincolnx2]

With countries with names like Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emerates I think your comparison to the N word is invalid and not a widely held sentiment.

Just spreading knowledge so that one is not offended

 

[shagdrum]

Every President is going to make some mistakes, that is human nature. It seems the right would like to point out every minor mistake that Obama may have made and forget every major mistake that his predecessors have made during their administrations.

No, we are not forgetting those mistakes. If you go back through past threads you would see that. However, it is a matter of debate on many of those issues as to what was and was not a mistake.

However, you have to keep in mind that the MSM in this country is intentionally trying to downplay the mistakes that this administration makes. They did the same thing when Clinton was president. The Lewinsky thing had to be broken by the Drudge Report because either ABC, NBC or CBS (I don't remember which) was sitting on the story to protect Clinton.

Basically, the MSM in this country is a quazi-propaganda machine for the DNC, but they dishonestly claim to be unbias and objective. So, many relevant stories about democrats are suppressed and minor things about Republicans are grossly exaguranted. While the Framers gave the media special privileges in the First Amendment so that they could function as a "watchdog" on the government, today, the MSM basically function as propagandists for the DNC and attack dogs against the GOP. The difference in coverage of Obama and Palin during the campaign is a prime example of that.

There is a one sided presentation of Obama in the MSM and these posts help counter that as well as promote debate on these issues. If you don't have that debate and don't get exposed to those more negative stories, you are only presented a one sided, cherry picked presentation of Obama that is not realistic.

I like the term honest debate, frankly this is just another "beat up the the president" thread rather than any attempt at honest debate

Do these threads (as the originally start out) not promote honest debate? There is nothing dishonest about any of these "anti-Obama" threads. They are above board and honest. Is this not a legitimate point of view? What is your problem here? Can you not have an honest debate sparked by a negative story about the president?

In fact, if you look at the article that starts this thread, you will see that it is actually an attempt to counter the negative claims against Obama.

I have to ask, were you as outraged when the MSM was actively working to smear Bush (manufacturing stories, etc)?

After following a few of these threads I am starting to give up on any hope for my neighbours to the south, why don't you try to work together to rebuild your international credibility and stature rather than continue your partisan bickering which diminishes your credibility on the world stage.

There is a profound difference in worldview in the ideologies here, as well as a profound difference in rhetorical techniques and methodology in implementation of agenda's. Should one side sacrifice their core principles to appease the other side and end the "partisan bickering"?

 

[Mr Wiggl3s]

How does that have any relevance to this debate? Ever hear the term "two wrongs don't make a right"? What you are doing is making a fallacious tu quoque argument of sorts. It is a deceitful and dishonest attempt to misdirect. If all you are going to do is come in here and misdirect, then only hinder any honest debate. Seems to be consistent with the history of trollish behavior you have established here.

Also, have any proof that is was a lie? The Clinton administration said that Iraq had WMD's before Bush took office. Where they lying too? If you wanna argue that Bush went in on bad intel, that is one thing, but to claim that he (or his administration) lied is hyperbole to the point of distortion.

SMH.

He's just giving some contrast.

 

[shagdrum]

SMH.

He's just giving some contrast.

SMH?

The "contrast" serves as a distraction to the debate and is irrelevant to it. It is an effective way to avoid any honest debate on the subject that he is supposedly trying to "contrast" from.

 

[fossten]

And how would that compare to the 650,000 to 1.2 million unecessary deaths in Iraq that have resulted from his predecessor's uneccesary war which was based on barefaced lies. Obama's profilic spending almost pales in comparison to the ultimate cost of that debacle.

Your numbers are wrong, as is your claim that the war was based on lies. Both have been thoroughly debunked here in the past. Get current, please.

 

[fossten]

The Arabs raise their children from a very young age to hate Jews by filling their minds with outrageous lies including Jews killing arab children to make blood matzos.

I don't think CNN goes quite this far.

CNN accuses the Jews of being terrorists, both obliquely and directly. It doesn't matter the substance or the degree of the demonization. My statement still stands.

 

[fossten]

I like the term honest debate, frankly this is just another "beat up the the president" thread rather than any attempt at honest debate. After following a few of these threads I am starting to give up on any hope for my neighbours to the south, why don't you try to work together to rebuild your international credibility and stature rather than continue your partisan bickering which diminishes your credibility on the world stage.

And yet you just dishonestly tried to beat up former President Bush by using false data and calling him a liar.

Pot, meet kettle.

Also, you just admitted that you have only followed a few threads. Some of us have been posting for years. So what you're doing is making a snap judgment. That's typical.

And as far as our 'credibility on the world stage,' you worry about you, and we'll worry about us. By all means, give up hope, I personally don't give a crap.

 

[04SCTLS]

...so...when you say this:

Politics being war without bullets historically it has been standard practice to try to demonize one's enemy.​

The Arabs do it to the Jews all the time.​

Are you equating indoctrinating children to negative claims against Obama?

Some clarification might be in order.

At least whispers of Satanic baby eating rituals haven't surfaced (yet) LOL!

I was making a quip and couldn't think of a better example.
Indoctrinating children is despicable but negative claims against Obama range from honest to outrageous.

 

[Mr Wiggl3s]

SMH?

The "contrast" serves as a distraction to the debate and is irrelevant to it. It is an effective way to avoid any honest debate on the subject that he is supposedly trying to "contrast" from.

SMH = Smack my head

He's not derailing it, just offering some contrast to widen the debate.

I can see why you're thinking the way you are, and in a way you're right, but still, grasping at straws.

 

[Mr Wiggl3s]

However, you have to keep in mind that the MSM in this country is intentionally trying to downplay the mistakes that this administration makes. They did the same thing when Clinton was president. The Lewinsky thing had to be broken by the Drudge Report because either ABC, NBC or CBS (I don't remember which) was sitting on the story to protect Clinton.

Basically, the MSM in this country is a quazi-propaganda machine for the DNC, but they dishonestly claim to be unbias and objective.

Excuse me MF? I only see 2 TV shows that are liberal, and 1 network.

Against the president? EVERYONE.

And in any matter, it's the blind leading the blind guy. You should know this.

 

[fossten]

Excuse me MF? I only see 2 TV shows that are liberal, and 1 network.

Against the president? EVERYONE.

And in any matter, it's the blind leading the blind guy. You should know this.

Name callling. Good argument. Not.

I guess this is what Joey was asking people to stop doing.

Oh well.

 

[Mr Wiggl3s]

Lol. In 1985 that was name calling but now n days it's more of a greeting.

But, you're always telling people to do their research, a typical conservative argument, it seems that "hrmwrm" has done more than that and presented what could be a good argument, and instead you dodge that to come after me.

Lets talk about maturity.

 

[fossten]

Lol. In 1985 that was name calling but now n days it's more of a greeting.

But, you're always telling people to do their research, a typical conservative argument, it seems that "hrmwrm" has done more than that and presented what could be a good argument, and instead you dodge that to come after me.

Lets talk about maturity.

I'm not interested in the least in anything that little troll has to say. But if you're going to whine and be a victim, I'll leave you alone. Don't cry.

 

[shagdrum]

Clinton's time was also still with un inspector's within the country.

So what? Something changed between then and when Bush went in?

Here is what Clinton said on December 16, 1998 after ordering military strikes on certian targets in Iraq:

The mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs.....Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors r the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.​

Carl Levin, John Kerry (who served in Vietnam), Tom Daschle and other Democrat senators sent Clinton a letter on October 6, 1998 saying:

[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missle strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction program.​

On the same day as Clinton's statement, Nancy Pelosi said:

Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process​

The head of the team investigating in Iraq during the Clinton years, Richard Butler, said the following:

The fundamental problem with Iraq remains the nature of the regime itself: Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction​

Butler later wrote in a book:

It would be foolish in the extreme not to assume that [Saddam Hussein] is developing long-range missile capabilities, at work again on building nuclear weapons and adding to the chemical and biological warfare weapons he concealed during the UNSCOM inspection period​

So, again, what changed after the Clinton years that would allow for Clinton to be telling the truth, but Bush to be lying? Oh, right, Bush was a Republican!

Colin Powell, February 2001: "[Saddam] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq."

Condoleeza Rice, July 2001: "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.

George W Bush, March 2002: "F___ Saddam. we're taking him out."

Do you have a link or source for those quotes so they can be verified? What was the context, especially of the last two quotes in particular?

there was no WORLD intelligence to prove wmd's.

I already showed what Richard Butler, the head of the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) tasked with weapons inspections in Iraq during said about Hussein's addiction to WMD's. By the way, here is something he said to keep in mind:

Iraq never kept its side of the bargain by: not making honest disclosure statements of its prohibited weapons and weapons capability; unilaterally destroying weapons in order to ensure that the Commission would never know the full nature and scope of what it had held and this, under circumstances where the law required that all destruction be conducted under international supervision; and, through the pursuit of an active policy and practice of concealing weapons and proscribed components from the Commission.​

In addition to the Butler Report there was another British Parliamentary report that concurred with the findings of the Butler Report that "there was credible intelligence" that Iraq had tried to acquire 500 tons of yellowcake from Niger in 1999. As the the idea that these findings were "discredited" through Joseph C Wilson's finds later, the Butler report in 2002 pointed out that had been a disinformation campaign of forged documents in order to make the truth appear to be a lie. That ties back to what Butler, himself said in 1999:

I like to refer to the existence of the "anti-UNSCOM industry." They have an enormous bureaucracy, established for the purpose of defeating UNSCOM, run by a high government committee, with a government ministry, called the National Monitoring Directorate. I mean, Tariq Aziz directs this. And there's no question that for every person we would put into the field, they would have ten. I mean, I wonder whether it's not the second largest industry in Iraq, after the oil industry. I mean, it's a very big show. They have been extremely active in seeking to defeat our work. That's been a big problem for us​

As to the three articles you cite, they all base their claims and findings on the Downing Street Memo. Here is something to keep in mind when reading those articles:

The so-called Downing Street Memo - which was presumed to be authentic when Bush administration critics began touting it last month as evidence the president committed impeachable crimes - is actually a manually recreated copy - with the source of the memo now admitting he retyped the document before destroying the originals.

British reporter Michael Smith, who broke the memo story in the London Times on May 1, revealed to The Associated Press over the weekend that "he protected the identity of the source he had obtained the documents from by typing copies of them on plain paper and destroying the originals."

Smith's admission means there's now no independent way to determine the accuracy of the Downing Street Memo, i.e., whether he made any typos or transcription errors that could have changed the memo's meaning.​

Even ignoring that fact, you need to keep this in mind; the memo was written by and aide to Tony Blair and, as such, is simply one man's analysis of the meeting and interpretation of the info given in that meeting. It is hearsay; anecdotal evidence, at best.

So, all you have provided is lies (no WORLD intelligence), misdirection (Clinton's time was...with UN inspector's within the country) unverified (and possibly out of context) quotes and speculation based in anecdotal evidence that could very well have been forged.

And even then, none of it proves him a liar. It is all tangential to that claim. So when you claim that you will, "use real data and call him a liar [emphasis added]", that is arguably all you have done. You have used evidence (some of which may be real) and called him a liar. None of the evidence logically points to Bush being a liar. How about you try using evidence to prove Bush a liar.

 

[fossten]

So what? Something changed between then and when Bush went in?

Here is what Clinton said on December 16, 1998 after ordering military strikes on certian targets in Iraq:

The mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs.....Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors r the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.​

Carl Levin, John Kerry (who served in Vietnam), Tom Daschle and other Democrat senators sent Clinton a letter on October 6, 1998 saying:

[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missle strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction program.​

On the same day as Clinton's statement, Nancy Pelosi said:

Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process​

The head of the team investigating in Iraq during the Clinton years, Richard Butler, said the following:

The fundamental problem with Iraq remains the nature of the regime itself: Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction​

Butler later wrote in a book:

It would be foolish in the extreme not to assume that [Saddam Hussein] is developing long-range missile capabilities, at work again on building nuclear weapons and adding to the chemical and biological warfare weapons he concealed during the UNSCOM inspection period​

So, again, what changed after the Clinton years that would allow for Clinton to be telling the truth, but Bush to be lying? Oh, right, Bush was a Republican!



Do you have a link or source for those quotes so they can be verified? What was the context, especially of the last two quotes in particular?



I already showed what Richard Butler, the head of the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) tasked with weapons inspections in Iraq during said about Hussein's addiction to WMD's. By the way, here is something he said to keep in mind:

Iraq never kept its side of the bargain by: not making honest disclosure statements of its prohibited weapons and weapons capability; unilaterally destroying weapons in order to ensure that the Commission would never know the full nature and scope of what it had held and this, under circumstances where the law required that all destruction be conducted under international supervision; and, through the pursuit of an active policy and practice of concealing weapons and proscribed components from the Commission.​

In addition to the Butler Report there was another British Parliamentary report that concurred with the findings of the Butler Report that "there was credible intelligence" that Iraq had tried to acquire 500 tons of yellowcake from Niger in 1999. As the the idea that these findings were "discredited" through Joseph C Wilson's finds later, the Butler report in 2002 pointed out that had been a disinformation campaign of forged documents in order to make the truth appear to be a lie. That ties back to what Butler, himself said in 1999:

I like to refer to the existence of the "anti-UNSCOM industry." They have an enormous bureaucracy, established for the purpose of defeating UNSCOM, run by a high government committee, with a government ministry, called the National Monitoring Directorate. I mean, Tariq Aziz directs this. And there's no question that for every person we would put into the field, they would have ten. I mean, I wonder whether it's not the second largest industry in Iraq, after the oil industry. I mean, it's a very big show. They have been extremely active in seeking to defeat our work. That's been a big problem for us​

As to three articles you cite, they all base their claims and findings on the Downing Street Memo. Here is something to keep in mind when reading those articles:

The so-called Downing Street Memo - which was presumed to be authentic when Bush administration critics began touting it last month as evidence the president committed impeachable crimes - is actually a manually recreated copy - with the source of the memo now admitting he retyped the document before destroying the originals.

British reporter Michael Smith, who broke the memo story in the London Times on May 1, revealed to The Associated Press over the weekend that "he protected the identity of the source he had obtained the documents from by typing copies of them on plain paper and destroying the originals."

Smith's admission means there's now no independent way to determine the accuracy of the Downing Street Memo, i.e., whether he made any typos or transcription errors that could have changed the memo's meaning.​

Even ignoring that fact, you need to keep this in mind; the memo was written by and aide to Tony Blair and, as such, is simply one man's analysis of the meeting and interpretation of the info given in that meeting. It is hearsay; anecdotal evidence, at best.

So, all you have provided is lies (no WORLD intelligence), misdirection (Clinton's time was...with UN inspector's within the country) unverified (and possibly out of context) quotes and speculation based in anecdotal evidence that could very well have been forged.

And even then, none of it proves him a liar. It is all tangential to that claim. So when you claim that you will, "use real data and call him a liar [emphasis added]", that is arguably all you have done. You have used evidence (some of which may be real) and called him a liar. None of the evidence logically points to Bush being a liar. How about you try using evidence to prove Bush a liar.

*owned*

 

[shagdrum]

I only see 2 TV shows that are liberal, and 1 network.

What "2 shows" and what "1 network"? What qualifies those shows and/or networks as "liberal" in your view?

What about newspapers? Any of them that you think are leftists?

What about shows, networks and/or newspapers you think are conservative?

 

[Mr Wiggl3s]

I'm not interested in the least in anything that little troll has to say. But if you're going to whine and be a victim, I'll leave you alone. Don't cry.

Yea, that's real mature there lol.

So pretty much your taking the left's way of arguing and just saying shut up? I'm not prepared for this, but i think i'll give it a go.

Are you sure you're not getting that middle age, male PMS thing? Cause, if you are, my woman can offer some newage tampons for you. They work wonders.

 

[shagdrum]

More rude, dishonest and deceptive hrmwrm "wall 'o' text" posts. When you remove signatures and links there are 1522 words over the three posts. Of those 1522 words, only 23 are written by hrmwrm. Only 1.51% of the words in the three posts are written by hrmwrm.

From those three posts, hrmwrm concludes the following...

face it, bush wanted saddam out of power whether he was a terrorist threat or not. and all evidence points to the latter.

The funny thing is, hrmwrm, the evidence does not point to the latter [that Hussein was not a terrorist threat].

While I could go into the context of the articles and find examples that suggested at the time that Hussein was a terrorist threat, that would take too much time and be overwhelming (which I am sure you were counting on to avoid any response). So, for the sake of argument, lets assume that there is nothing in those articles that suggested at the time that Hussein was a terrorist threat. That doesn't prove that he wasn't a terrorist threat. To say that it does is to make a fallacious negative evidence argument:

negative evidence, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or is false only because it has not been proven true.​

All you have shown is an absence of evidence in these articles that Hussein was a terrorist threat. But that doesn't mean he wasn't a terrorist threat. You need to show evidence that specifically suggests that he wasn't a terrorist threat, not a lack of evidence that suggests the opposite. the absence of proof is not the proof of absence.

Here are some facts that, at the time, showed that Hussein was a terrorist threat:

• I have already cited the Butler report which was based in UN inspections conducted during the Clinton year that concluded that Hussein was trying to get yellowcake and was being deceptive and uncooperative with the inspectors.
• Butler himself said, "It would be foolish in the extreme not to assume that [Saddam Hussein] is developing long-range missile capabilities, at work again on building nuclear weapons and adding to the chemical and biological warfare weapons he concealed during the UNSCOM inspection period."
• The Clinon Admin. put Iraq on a list of nations that were supportive of terrorism in 1999
• Senator Clinton said, "[Saddam] has given aid, comfort and sanctuary to the terrorists, including al Qaeda members"
• Hussein had a policy of paying out $25,000 to families of Palestinian homicide bombers
• Hussein harbored Al Queda terrorists
• Hussein had even harbored one of the terrorists who bombed the WTC in 1993
• Hussein was training terrorists from other countries in Salman Pak

I could provide more facts, but you get the point. There was plenty of evidence that Hussein was a "gathering threat" as Bush put it.

And your claim still doesn't prove that Bush lied, which was the original claim you were attempting to prove. You have cherry picked evidence to claim that Hussein wasn't a threat, but Bush was gonna get him anyway. I have provided evidence that counters your claim that Hussein wasn't a threat, and you have yet to provide any verifiable and/or reliable evidence that Bush wanted to get Hussein regardless of the facts. You still haven't backed up the quotes you have in post #36 and the Downing Street Memo is hearsay and a possible forgery; not a reliable source.

 

[shagdrum]

we were working from the stand point iof wmd's. which has been shown to be a lie perpetrated by the bush administration.

It has not been shown to be any such thing. At best, you can say that he had bad intelligence, but a lie is an intentional falsehood. You have yet to show that Bush did such a thing.

All you have offered is proof that Bush was making the case to go into Iraq shortly after 9/11. You cannot prove any intentional deceptions except through hearsay through a document that may well have been forged.

Also, the claim of lies originally comes from Glen in post #19. The lies were never specifically tied to WMD's.

and we are talking about Bush's time in office, not Clinton's, which was a time shortly after the gulf war when Saddam was being stripped of weapons.

You have to evaluate Bush's decision with the info available to him at the time. The info that was available under Clinton was just as valid then as it was in 2001, 2002 and 2003, unless you can give some reason as to why that info was invalidated between the Clinton years and 2001, 2002 and/or 2003. That burden of proof is on you.

I have given enough evidence to prove it was known that there were no wmd's, which was the premise of going into iraq.

You have not given any such info. All you have shown is that Bush was building the case for going into Iraq from shortly after 2001. Then you spin that fact to say that Bush was going into Iraq "come hell or high water" and use hearsay in the form of the downing street memo as "proof".

Also, you are mischaracterizing when you say that WMD's were the premise of going into Iraq. The argument was much more then that. The terrorist ties were a huge part of that argument.

you haven't given information contradicting that fact [that there were no WMD's]

Ahh, you haven't given any info yet that it was known that there were no WMD's in the buildup to Iraq. That burden of proof is still on you.

you've merely tried obfuscating the argument, which is very rude, dishonest, and deceptive of you.

Nice try. But you are the one who is shown a habit (which you are exhibiting in this thread) of typing your rude "wall 'o' text" posts that dishonestly avoid any honest debate. Deception?

And you are trying to claim that the lie originally referred to was in regards to WMD's when it wasn't. Dishonest?

Then there is the "proof" you have offered that Bush lied which doesn't logically prove that Bush lied. All your cherry picked evidence proves, at best, is that he might have lied. I have show evidence that counters that. Obfuscation on your part, maybe?

 

[shagdrum]

if you read, i also put up evidence bush was planning to invade iraq BEFORE 911. or did you miss post #48. i'll re-cap so you don't have to go back.

No, I must have missed that because of your sloppy and evasive posts. It is very hard to distinguish between what you write (which isn't much) and what you cut and paste. You post so much that is unnecessary and irrelevant that it is impractical to read and then counter it all. But that is your typical argument; to make rude and inconsiderate posts that frustrate any attempt to counter them.

Paul O'Neill was the former Treasury Secretary under Bush until Bush forced him to resign in December of 2002. Now you are citing his book that he co-wrote with liberal journalist and author Ron Suskind. When it comes to proving Bush lied in making the case for Iraq, again, all you are citing is ultimately hearsay. It doesn't prove anything. You have yet to give the exact quote of Bush that was a provable lie. Can you even do that?

If hearsay is somehow relevant to you, then you should find what Linda Chavez (who was nominated for Secretary of Labor under Bush) had to say in this article on O'Neill's book when discussing meetings with Bush for then potential cabinet jobs:

O'Neill's description of his first meetings with Bush, when he was still being considered for the job of Cabinet secretary, certainly differs from my experiences at roughly the same time.

Bush and O'Neill met at the Madison Hotel, which was also the venue for my interview with the president as well.

Suskind describes, accurately, the cat-and-mouse game of sneaking potential appointees into the hotel through the underground garage and up service elevators, undetected by the press corps keeping watch outside. But the George W. Bush O'Neill met with seems a very different man than the one I encountered just a few days later. O'Neill's Bush is aloof, uninformed and downright unlikable.

O'Neill's account, as Suskind relates it, has Bush ordering chief of staff Andrew Card around like a servant, more interested in securing a cheeseburger than in asking his prospective Treasury secretary any substantive questions.

"Bush looked impatiently at Card, hard eyed. 'You're the chief of staff. You think you're up to getting us some cheeseburgers?' Card nodded. No one laughed. He all but raced out of the room," Suskind writes.

The scene was certainly nothing like what I encountered. Bush and Card displayed an amiable, almost bantering relationship, and Bush was not only personable but well prepared to talk substance on labor policy with me. He asked good questions and had clearly done his homework on me, reciting some of my more controversial positions on everything from minimum wage laws to affirmative action. It was very much a two-way conversation. ​

So, by your standard of hearsay counting as proof, this article shows that O'Neill's book is likely a dishonest hit piece aimed at revenge against the Bush administration and nothing more.

Either way, it is simply hearsay and doesn't prove anything. You have yet to prove that Bush lied. You haven't even given the specific quote by Bush that was a provable lie. All you have done is provide questionable proof and hearsay that he might have lied. But you put it in a manner that is not very practical to read and counter so as to dishonestly avoid any counter of that evidence. That dishonesty and dodging of an honest debate is a habit you have shown throughout this forum.

You have used that dishonest "wall 'o' text" tactic numerous times in this forum instead of actually making the argument yourself. In this thread you are only able to use other peoples arguments as well. When you actually try to make your own arguments, you can only use rudeness, insults and fallacious reasoning. For instance...

as for intelligence, you expect me to believe intelligence from clinton's administration and time was still the same years later? next you'll be telling me intelligence gained on germany from the 2nd world war is still applicable to them.

The first sentence is nothing more then a rude, insulting and dishonest appeal to ridicule.

Appeal to ridicule, also called the Horse Laugh, is a logical fallacy which presents the opponent's argument in a way that appears ridiculous, often to the extent of creating a straw man of the actual argument​

You continue the appeal to ridicule in the second sentence when you grossly exaggerate my argument to reinforce your straw man mischaracterization.

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position​

You are simply proving, once again, what has been clear for quite a while now. Your arguments (not the cut and pasted arguments of others) hinge on rudeness, insults and dishonesty. When you cut and paste others arguments, it is often irrelevant or, at best, tangential to the debate at hand, and the way you post it makes it hard to read through and refute, let alone distinguish between what you write and what you have cut and pasted. It is a dishonest technique to evade honest criticism and debate. But that is in your best interest because, when you have to actually debate here, as you have habitually shown in this forum, you cannot do it honestly. You can only argue through rudeness, insults, fallacies and lies, as you are doing in this thread.

Even in this thread, you are lying about my actions in another thread. Now, are you gonna do what you did in that thread and call me an @$$hole and a dip$hit as well?

 

[fossten]

Funny how Andy Card was supposedly mistreated by Bush, and yet his last TV appearance recently marked him strongly defending Bush. Something doesn't fit.

 

[04SCTLS]

Hey,
Bush is no longer current and has moved on so maybe we should too.