George W. Bush



In article <[email protected]>,
"Ken [NY]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 10:59:36 -0500, "Ian St. John"
><[email protected]> claims:
>
>>>> i won't deny that Bush had more "reasons" up his sleeve.... but the
>>>> possibility of the usage of WMDs was the ONLY reason given to go to
>>>> war to the public, AT THE TIME IT WAS FIRST STARTED.
>>>
>>> Well, why not see what President Bush said on the eve of the
>>> invasion of Iraq - to the people of Iraq? Let's see if his speech
>>> overwhelmingly was about WMD:
>>
>>Then you admit that Bush invaded Iraq illegally with no justification
from a
>>threat to the U.S. as required by the authority granted to him by
Congress
>>to defend the nation? And in direct violation of international law?
>
> Silly. Of course we don't need to be attacked in order to
>defend ourselves. Mr. Bush made it plain before the invasion that he
>was taking action to free the population of Iraq from the dictator.

That's not allowed under international law. If so, a country could decide
Bush is a dictator and be justified in attacking the US.

>And it was done in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution
>1441.

No, it never authorized military force.

>
>
>Cordially,
>Ken (NY)
>
>email: http://www.geocities.com/bluesguy68/email.htm
>spammers can send mail to [email protected]
>
>http://www.flowgo.com/funpages/view.cfm/6402
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>> "Ian St. John" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>Mark Hickey wrote:
>>>> [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Ken [NY]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> no assertions are
>>>>>> being made that Saddam Hussein was directly involved in September
>>>>>> 11th.
>>>>>
>>>>> Except by Cheney.
>>>>
>>>> I'll bet you can't back that up.
>>>
>>>So? Proving a negative is hard. That does not mean it is true or false.
>>The
>>>only proof would be if YOU could come up with a quote by Cheney directly
>>>claiming that Saddam was involved in 9/11. Be my guest.
>>>
>>>Or exit, stage right, whining and whimpering as usual.
>>
>>Cheney on the Iraq war: "We will have struck a major blow right at the
>>heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists
>>who've had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on
>>9/11."
>
>This is the keystone of the left's "proof" that the administration was
>linking the two. Google on "geographic base of the terrorists who've
>had us under assault" and you get 4,510 hits. Google on that AND
>"careful not to say that" (Cheney's response) and you get only 58
>(yes, FIFTY EIGHT) hits. So it's not at all surprising that you don't
>know that the "quote" directly proves I'm right - here's the actual
>transcript from that 'Meet the Press' Segment (directly follows the
>quote above)...
>
> VICE PRES. CHENEY: <snip>...They understand what’s at stake here.
> That’s one of the reasons they’re putting up as much of a struggle
> as they have, is because they know if we succeed here, that that’s
> going to strike a major blow at their capabilities.
>
> MR. RUSSERT: So the resistance in Iraq is coming from those who
> were responsible for 9/11?
>
> VICE PRES. CHENEY: No, I was careful not to say that. With respect
> to 9/11, 9/11, as I said at the beginning of the show, changed
> everything. And one of the things it changed is we recognized that
> time was not on our side, that in this part of the world, in
> particular, given the problems we’ve encountered in Afghanistan,
> which forced us to go in and take action there, as well as in
> Iraq, that we, in fact, had to move on it. The relevance for 9/11
> is that what 9/11 marked was the beginning of a struggle in which
> the terrorists come at us and strike us here on our home
> territory.
>
>.... and on and on. So rather than linking the two, he goes to great
>lengths to NOT link them, but to explain (to anyone who's actually
>willing to listen to more than a 10 second sound bite to get their
>"news") why 9/11 is significant above and beyond just apprehending or
>killing those directly responsible for the attack itself.
>
>>And Bush: In his May 1 speech announcing the end of major combat in Iraq,
>>Bush said, "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that
began
>>on September the 11th, 2001." He added: "With those attacks, the
terrorists
>>and their supporters declared war on the United States. And war is what
>>they got."
>
>And that's absolutely true.
>
>>Now if you continue to link those 2 in the same breath...
>>
>>And this from Wesley Clark: "It came from the White House, it came from
>>other people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call
on
>>9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, 'you got to say
>>this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be
>>connected to Saddam Hussein.'"
>
>So you take the word of a Democratic candidate for President... yeah,
>no bias at all there. Even then, I'm not quite sure WHAT he's saying
>anyway ("it came from all over"???).
>
>Mark Hickey
>Habanero Cycles
>http://www.habcycles.com
>Home of the $695 ti frame

That was before Gen. Clark became a candidate. And yes, I'd take the word
of a former commander of NATO over chickenhawks Bush and Cheney.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>
>>>"It's correct to say that the IAEA was fooled by the Iraqis. But the
>>>lesson was learned. ... Not seeing an indication of something does not
>>>lead automatically to the conclusion there is nothing."
>>> --Hans Blix, UN Chief Weapons Inspector Sept. 2002
>>
>>But since then we've had many more inspections, and they've concluded
there
>>were no WMD. What does it take to convince you neocons?
>
>What we know NOW isn't what we're talking about...


You keep claiming there still are WMD buried in the desert, shipped to
Syria, teleported to Mars...

>it's what we knew
>BEFORE the war. Imagine how easy government would be if we knew the
>outcome of every issue months or years in advance!

So why didn't we wait until we did know? The inspectors were there, doing
their job.

>
>Mark Hickey
>Habanero Cycles
>http://www.habcycles.com
>Home of the $695 ti frame
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>
>> Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>>> By the UN weapons inspection organization (UNMOVIC)
>>>>
>>>>Lie. http://www.unmovic.org/
>>>
>>>LOL. You post a link to UNMOVIC's home page, yet don't bother reading
>>>the actual report you're saying is a lie. LOL.
>>
>>OK, there were quarterly reports. I looked at Nov. 02 and Feb. 03 (the
>>most recent before the invasion); none mention any evidence of WMD. Have
>>you looked at them?
>
>The report I posted a link to:
>
>http://www.nti.org/db/profiles/iraq/fulltext/unmovic_jan6.pdf
>
>Contrary to the "Jan6" suffix was from MARCH 2003. You really haven't
>read a word of it, so there's nothing to talk about.
>
>Mark Hickey
>Habanero Cycles
>http://www.habcycles.com
>Home of the $695 ti frame

Yes, they said Iraq's POTENTIAL production could be...

They found none, and now we know there was none. The "mobile labs" were
not weapons labs, there were no "underground" weapons labs, there were no
UAVs, etc. This is as much vapor as the uranium, the tubes for
centrifuges, all the other false information we (and the UN) were given by
Bush.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>> Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>[email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>>>
>>>> "rick etter" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Do you really belive that the people he had already used them on
>>>>>died from the "lie" that he had them?
>>>>
>>>>Bush didn't claim Saddam had had WMD in the past; he claimed Saddam had
>>>>them in 2003.
>>>
>>>So did the UNMOVIC weapons inspectors. Were they lying? Why else
>>>would the UN keep the sanctions in place?
>>
>>The inspectors never said Saddam had WMD in 2003.
>
>Yawn... http://www.nti.org/db/profiles/iraq/fulltext/unmovic_jan6.pdf
>
>Contrary to the "Jan6" suffix was from MARCH 2003. You really haven't
>read a word of it, so there's nothing to talk about.
>
>Mark Hickey
>Habanero Cycles
>http://www.habcycles.com
>Home of the $695 ti frame
Yes I have. Show me where they say Saddam had WMD in 2003.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Ken [NY]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 23:18:54 -0500, "V.Simkins"
><[email protected]> claims:
>
>>> Before 9/11, I never thought that there could possibly be a
>>> successful aircraft attack on America, given our "superior aircraft
>>> and somewhat superior firepower". But somehow, it did happen,
>>> including an attack on our miltary headquarters and the destruction of
>>> a complex of buildings harboring a population larger than many cities.
>>>
>>
>>i'm sorry, i wasn't clear in my earlier statement. you DO have all the
>>Superior firepower to hide behind, and use, if neccesary..... the problem
>>was, as i recall, that you were caught off your guard BECAUSE you didn't
>>believe that anyone could do it.Apparently, everyone else in your country
>>shared the same belief, otherwise, a thing like this would never have
>>happened your security would have been much tighter.
>
> Well, that's true. What bothers me is the Monday morning
>quarterbacking - on Monday morning, I can tell you exactly what plays
>my NY Jets should have called on Sunday afternoon, just as so many can
>see with 20-20 hindsight what should have been done on September 10th
>to avoid the attacks. And anyone who did not forsee the attacks is
>labled an idiot by those QBs.
>
>
>Cordially,
>Ken (NY)
>
>email: http://www.geocities.com/bluesguy68/email.htm
>spammers can send mail to [email protected]
>
>http://www.flowgo.com/funpages/view.cfm/6402
But you're arguing we should stop the game at the first quarter because
Bush knows what plays they're going to call and thinks they're wrong.
We're saying let the game play out and see what plays are called.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Ken [NY]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 23:26:25 -0500, "V.Simkins"
><[email protected]> claims:
>
>>> Like it or not, you will just have to face the situation - the
>>> US no longer will wait for our enemies to take the first shot at us
>>> before doing something to defend ourselves.
>>
>>like it or not, people make mistakes all the time.... you americans are
no
>>different in this rule. Are you willing to go to war with a country just
>>because you so paranoidly "suspect" that it's going to attack you? maybe
it
>>will, maybe it won't. but what happens to the other country if you attack
>>it, and you're wrong? you think that they would just forgive you, and be
all
>>smiles, and say, "oh that's okay, we only lost a couple thousand
soldiers,
>>and a few thousand of our own civilians, but we forgive you because it
was
>>an honest mistake"?
>
> The US, the UN and the rest of the free world suspected that
>Saddam Hussein was running rape rooms, torture chambers and killing
>people and putting them in mass graves. The world also suspected that
>Iraq had WMD. Everyone thought so.


No, everyone did not think so. If so, invading wouldn't have been such a
tough sell the world over.

>
>>do you really think that countries allied to the one you attacked, and
>>others watching, would act the same way?
>
> What countries allied to the Iraqi dictator am I supposed to
>get upset about? All those countries in the area support terrorists
>and none of them are democracies. If you care what those rich monarchs
>and warlords think about you, that's fine. Just don't expect me to
>weep alongside you every time a dictator falls.
>
>
>Cordially,
>Ken (NY)
>
>email: http://www.geocities.com/bluesguy68/email.htm
>spammers can send mail to [email protected]
>
>http://www.flowgo.com/funpages/view.cfm/6402
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Ken [NY]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 20:42:43 -0500, "Ian St. John"
><[email protected]> claims:
>
>>Ken [NY] wrote:
>>> On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 10:59:36 -0500, "Ian St. John"
>>> <[email protected]> claims:
>>>
>>>>>> i won't deny that Bush had more "reasons" up his sleeve.... but the
>>>>>> possibility of the usage of WMDs was the ONLY reason given to go to
>>>>>> war to the public, AT THE TIME IT WAS FIRST STARTED.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, why not see what President Bush said on the eve of the
>>>>> invasion of Iraq - to the people of Iraq? Let's see if his speech
>>>>> overwhelmingly was about WMD:
>>>>
>>>> Then you admit that Bush invaded Iraq illegally with no
>>>> justification from a threat to the U.S. as required by the authority
>>>> granted to him by Congress to defend the nation? And in direct
>>>> violation of international law?
>>>
>>> Silly. Of course we don't need to be attacked in order to
>>> defend ourselves.
>>
>>With that non-sequitor, I give you Ken[NY], the stupidest troll on the
>>planet. Incapable of understanding even the dictionary definition of
>>'defend'.
>
> Pull a weapon on a cop and watch as he defends himself,
>without waiting to be fired upon.

But that isn't what happened. Person A pulled a weapon on a cop, so the
cop shot person B.

>
>>< Mr. Bush made it plain before the invasion that he
>>> was taking action to free the population of Iraq from the dictator.
>>
>>Which was not a legal justification and thus not the basis that he
presented
>>to the Senate to gain the authority. He is now in violation, not only of
>>International law, but of U.S. law and really has given the entire
Congress
>>the bird..
>
> It certainly was one of the reasons given for the invasion.
>
>>> And it was done in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution
>>> 1441.
>>
>>No. The U.S. 'went alone' without any authority from the U.N. There are
no
>>U.N. resolutions authorizing member states to attack Iraq. The actions
were
>>solely by the U.S. and without sanction.
>
> 1441 promised "serious consequences", which is what Mr. Bush
>delivered.
>
>
>Cordially,
>Ken (NY)
>
>email: http://www.geocities.com/bluesguy68/email.htm
>spammers can send mail to [email protected]
>
>http://www.flowgo.com/funpages/view.cfm/6402
 
>Err, V.... His stupidity has nothing to do with Martians. >He's arguing
>against his OWN (lack of) logic.

>Read through the thread yourself; he's got more fallacies >than a Michael
>Moore film archive.


on the contrary, i don't see him doing that at all..... what i do see,
however, is him poking fun at YOUR logic, which obviously you aren't taking
too well. or, perhaps you haven't seen a certain sentence from one of his
earlier posts, while reading through them:

>So? Proving a negative is hard. That does not mean it is >true or false. .


Now, take a look at his Martian statement:


> So, because I cannot prove that Martians were behind the Bush
> election win, you KNOW that martians were behind the election win??

as you can see in this statement, he really isn't defying his own logic.
he's not specifing weither or not he "believes" a connection to exist, he's
just asking if you have made the connection yourself, in three different
ways so far.

for example: while he says that "there is no evidence to link Iraq with
9/11", all he is just stating is that, no more no less. Notice how he is not
giving a definate "yes there is a connection", or "no there never was"
(except for one or two posts, where he was just stating his own opinoins,
which we are all entitled to.







"B i l l S o r n s o n" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> V.Simkins wrote:
> >>> So, because I cannot prove that Martians were behind the Bush
> >>> election win, you KNOW that martians were behind the election win??
> >>
> >> Sigh. You can't really be this stupid.
> >>
> >
> > Err, Bill.... he was making an anology.
>
> Err, V.... His stupidity has nothing to do with Martians. He's arguing
> against his OWN (lack of) logic.
>
> Read through the thread yourself; he's got more fallacies than a Michael
> Moore film archive.
>
> --
> BS (no, really)
>
>
 
"rick etter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:%[email protected]...
>
> "V.Simkins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >> You're more than welcome to your stupidity. The re-writing is by you
> > fools
> >> and loons. Try to keep up. WMD was not "the" reason given. ou can
> >> pretend otherwise, but it won't change that fact.
> >>
> >
> > Rick, you keep repeating that "WMDs were not the reason that America
went
> > to war" over and over, and yet i haven't seen you give a single credible
> > reference to support your statement, all i see is you saying "i'm right,
> > your wrong" to just about everyone.If you have a point to make, PROVE
it.
> > the rest of us, at least, seem to be trying to. Otherwise, kindly be
> > considerate, and don't reply, because it's just making people download
> > useless junk to read on thier computers.
> ====================
> ROTFLMAO You make the ignorant statement first fool.
>
>
> >
> > i trust you will make the "right" decision.
> =================
> Always do, unlike you...
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "rick etter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >>
> >> "Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]...
> >> > In article <[email protected]>,
> >> > "rick etter" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>"V.Simkins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> >>news:[email protected]...
> >> >>>> >
> >> >>>> >>You really are that stupid too,
> >> >>>> >>aren't you? Besides, WMD wasn't given as THE reason to go to
war.
> >> >>>> >
> >> >>>> > Then you just fell off the turnip truck. That's all we were
told.
> >> >>>> ==================
> >> >>>> No, your hate has blinded you, but that's typical. that wasn't
THE
> >> >>>> reason
> >> >>>> given.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> do you know how to read, Rick?
> >> >>=========
> >> >>Yes, I do. Apparently better than you. WMD was not THE reason for
the
> >> > war.
> >> >
> >> > Welcome to 1984, where neocons think they can rewrite history.
> >> ==================
> >> You're more than welcome to your stupidity. The re-writing is by you
> > fools
> >> and loons. Try to keep up. WMD was not "the" reason given. ou can
> >> pretend otherwise, but it won't change that fact.
> >>

Please delete rec.backcountry from this flame thread.

Thank you
 
"Ian St. John" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> B i l l S o r n s o n wrote:
> > Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> >> "B i l l S o r n s o n" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> LOL even harder. Now to prove my assertion that Cheney never
> >>>>> linked 9/11 and Iraq, I have to prove that he DID link 9/11 and
> >>>>> Iraq?
> >>>>
> >>>> Even after the 9/11 commission's report, Cheney was saying "Was
> >>>> there a link? We don't know." Those who read the commission's
> >>>> report did know, however.
> >>>
> >>> You're an idiot, Lloyd -- as is anyone with two 'Ls' in their name.
> >>> (Wait a minute...DOH!)
> >>>
> >>> The commission concluded that a definitive link could not be proven;
> >>> that's NOT the same as saying one didn't exist.
> >>>
> >>> I know your head hurts now, so I'll stop...
> >
> >> You can't prove a negative (can you prove you've never talked with al
> >> Qaida?).
> >
> > That's right, you can't prove a negative. So why do you say "Those
> > who read the commission's report /did know/ (that there was no
> > link)"??? (Italics added; original quote intact above.)
> >
> > You've been hosed by your own...um, hose.
>
> So, because I cannot prove that Martians were behind the Bush election
win,
> you KNOW that martians were behind the election win??
>
> Try going back to school. Your deficiencies CAN be corrected. Given the
> random chance factor that tends to make secrets leak, the lack of evidence
> IS evidence of lack, by common sense. Something you lack, of course, in
your
> desperate attempt to convert an unproven fantasy into some sort of
> unfounded assertion.
>
>

Please delete rec.backcountry from this flame thread.

Thank you.
 
"Mark Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:eek:[email protected]...
> [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>,
> > Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>[email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
> >>
> >>> "rick etter" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>>>Do you really belive that the people he had already used them on
> >>>>died from the "lie" that he had them?
> >>>
> >>>Bush didn't claim Saddam had had WMD in the past; he claimed Saddam had
> >>>them in 2003.
> >>
> >>So did the UNMOVIC weapons inspectors. Were they lying? Why else
> >>would the UN keep the sanctions in place?
> >
> >The inspectors never said Saddam had WMD in 2003.
>
> Yawn... http://www.nti.org/db/profiles/iraq/fulltext/unmovic_jan6.pdf
>
> Contrary to the "Jan6" suffix was from MARCH 2003. You really haven't
> read a word of it, so there's nothing to talk about.
>
> Mark Hickey
> Habanero Cycles
> http://www.habcycles.com
> Home of the $695 ti frame

Please delete rec.backcountry from this flam thread.

Thank you.
 
Cool part about the boards are the filters. This way we don't have to even see
these posts anymore......besides that, the election is over....geeezzzzzeeee
Blonk
 
V.Simkins wrote:
>> Err, V.... His stupidity has nothing to do with Martians. >He's
>> arguing against his OWN (lack of) logic.
>
>> Read through the thread yourself; he's got more fallacies >than a
>> Michael Moore film archive.
>
>
> on the contrary, i don't see him doing that at all..... what i do
> see, however, is him poking fun at YOUR logic, which obviously you
> aren't taking too well.

Sigh. One last time and I'm done with this thread. Just TWO examples of
Lloyd's keen logical thinking are the following:

1) Iraq and AQ are linked. AQ is responsible for 9/11. Therefore Iraq
took part in 9/11 (he says this over and over).

2) The 9/11 Commission did not find definitive proof of a connection
between Iraq and 9/11. Therefore its memebers and readers KNOW there wasn't
one. (Again, he didn't just say this once.)


> or, perhaps you haven't seen a certain
> sentence from one of his earlier posts, while reading through them:
>
>> So? Proving a negative is hard. That does not mean it is >true or
>> false. .
>
>
> Now, take a look at his Martian statement:
>
>
>> So, because I cannot prove that Martians were behind the Bush
>> election win, you KNOW that martians were behind the election win??
>
> as you can see in this statement, he really isn't defying his own
> logic. he's not specifing weither or not he "believes" a connection
> to exist, he's just asking if you have made the connection yourself,
> in three different ways so far.

Wrong. It's the exact same logical fallacy that he's using re. Iraq and
9/11. FAULTY REASONING, period.

> for example: while he says that "there is no evidence to link Iraq
> with 9/11", all he is just stating is that, no more no less. Notice
> how he is not giving a definate "yes there is a connection", or "no
> there never was" (except for one or two posts, where he was just
> stating his own opinoins, which we are all entitled to.

He never did it...except the few times he did?!? Gotcha.

Regardless of what side of the political debate you're on, Lloyd (and Ian
before him) argues with blatant flaws in his logic. I'm simply calling him
on it, because it's just about as pathetic as it gets.

OK, later.
--
BS (no, really)
 
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "B i l l S o r n s o n" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>> "B i l l S o r n s o n" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> LOL even harder. Now to prove my assertion that Cheney never
>>>>>> linked 9/11 and Iraq, I have to prove that he DID link 9/11 and
>>>>>> Iraq?
>>>>>
>>>>> Even after the 9/11 commission's report, Cheney was saying "Was
>>>>> there a link? We don't know." Those who read the commission's
>>>>> report did know, however.
>>>>
>>>> You're an idiot, Lloyd -- as is anyone with two 'Ls' in their name.
>>>> (Wait a minute...DOH!)
>>>>
>>>> The commission concluded that a definitive link could not be
>>>> proven; that's NOT the same as saying one didn't exist.
>>>>
>>>> I know your head hurts now, so I'll stop...
>>
>>> You can't prove a negative (can you prove you've never talked with
>>> al Qaida?).
>>
>> That's right, you can't prove a negative. So why do you say "Those
>> who read the commission's report /did know/ (that there was no
>> link)"??? (Italics added; original quote intact above.)
>>
>> You've been hosed by your own...um, hose.
>
> The commission said there was no evidence of a link. That's factual.
> For Cheney to keep saying "we don't know" after this was not. We
> knew there was no evidence of a link.

So why did you write, "Those who read the commission's report did know,
however."???
 
>Regardless of what side of the political debate you're on, >Lloyd (and Ian
>before him) argues with blatant flaws in his logic. I'm >simply calling
him
>on it, because it's just about as pathetic as it gets.

if everyone's logic was flawless, i doubt we would be arguing over things
such as these, since everyone would see it the same way, and be in agreement
with one another. Since nobody is perfect (yourself included), your logic
could very well be just as flawed as ours.... think about that.



"B i l l S o r n s o n" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:eek:[email protected]...
> V.Simkins wrote:
> >> Err, V.... His stupidity has nothing to do with Martians. >He's
> >> arguing against his OWN (lack of) logic.
> >
> >> Read through the thread yourself; he's got more fallacies >than a
> >> Michael Moore film archive.
> >
> >
> > on the contrary, i don't see him doing that at all..... what i do
> > see, however, is him poking fun at YOUR logic, which obviously you
> > aren't taking too well.
>
> Sigh. One last time and I'm done with this thread. Just TWO examples of
> Lloyd's keen logical thinking are the following:
>
> 1) Iraq and AQ are linked. AQ is responsible for 9/11. Therefore Iraq
> took part in 9/11 (he says this over and over).
>
> 2) The 9/11 Commission did not find definitive proof of a connection
> between Iraq and 9/11. Therefore its memebers and readers KNOW there
wasn't
> one. (Again, he didn't just say this once.)
>
>
> > or, perhaps you haven't seen a certain
> > sentence from one of his earlier posts, while reading through them:
> >
> >> So? Proving a negative is hard. That does not mean it is >true or
> >> false. .
> >
> >
> > Now, take a look at his Martian statement:
> >
> >
> >> So, because I cannot prove that Martians were behind the Bush
> >> election win, you KNOW that martians were behind the election win??
> >
> > as you can see in this statement, he really isn't defying his own
> > logic. he's not specifing weither or not he "believes" a connection
> > to exist, he's just asking if you have made the connection yourself,
> > in three different ways so far.
>
> Wrong. It's the exact same logical fallacy that he's using re. Iraq and
> 9/11. FAULTY REASONING, period.
>
> > for example: while he says that "there is no evidence to link Iraq
> > with 9/11", all he is just stating is that, no more no less. Notice
> > how he is not giving a definate "yes there is a connection", or "no
> > there never was" (except for one or two posts, where he was just
> > stating his own opinoins, which we are all entitled to.
>
> He never did it...except the few times he did?!? Gotcha.
>
> Regardless of what side of the political debate you're on, Lloyd (and Ian
> before him) argues with blatant flaws in his logic. I'm simply calling
him
> on it, because it's just about as pathetic as it gets.
>
> OK, later.
> --
> BS (no, really)
>
>
 
> <sigh> Here is another link, this time from the White House,
> but some on the left here might not feel that that site is as
> "reliable" as an anti-Bush site. <grin>:
>

not what you think..... ever hear about the "telephone" effect? the more
times a message is passed down from person to person, the more of a chance
there is for the message to be changed somehow. I'd rather hear, word for
word, the same message delivered to the public, as close to the original as
possible, not from some third-party, no matter who's side of the debate
they're on.




"Ken [NY]" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 23:30:13 -0500, "V.Simkins"
> <[email protected]> claims:
>
>
> >
> >
> >"Ken [NY]" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 10:20:46 -0500, "V.Simkins"
> >> <[email protected]> claims:
> >>
> >> >first of all, ken, would you mind supplying a link proving what you
just
> >> >wrote, to humour me?
> >>
> >> Sorry, but it was broadcasted all over the world, so I assumed
> >> everybody knew about it.
> >> Here's one of the transcripts, curiously from an anti-Bush web
> >> site: http://nuclearfree.lynx.co.nz/bushspeech18-3-03.htm
>
> >ok, thanks, ken, but i would have preferred it to be from a more
*reliable*
> >site than this, like say, an NBC or CNN report.... oh well...
>
> <sigh> Here is another link, this time from the White House,
> but some on the left here might not feel that that site is as
> "reliable" as an anti-Bush site. <grin>:
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html
>
>
> Cordially,
> Ken (NY)
>
> email: http://www.geocities.com/bluesguy68/email.htm
> spammers can send mail to [email protected]
>
> http://www.flowgo.com/funpages/view.cfm/6402
 
Lloyd Parker wrote:

> No, everyone did not think so. If so, invading wouldn't have been
> such a tough sell the world over.

You conveniently leave out millions and millions of dollars in bribe---
errr, extenuating factors.

Talk about a coalition of the corrupt...
--
BS (no, really)
 
V.Simkins wrote:
>> Regardless of what side of the political debate you're on, >Lloyd
>> (and Ian before him) argues with blatant flaws in his logic. I'm
>> >simply calling him on it, because it's just about as pathetic as it
>> gets.
>
> if everyone's logic was flawless, i doubt we would be arguing over
> things such as these, since everyone would see it the same way, and
> be in agreement with one another. Since nobody is perfect (yourself
> included), your logic could very well be just as flawed as ours....
> think about that.


Bzzt. Wrong. Political opinion and nationalistic bias are /completely
separate/ from logical argument. Lloyd's "if a knows b and b knows c, then
a must know c" statements are patently false, no matter HOW one feels about
a, b, or c.

Eh?

See?

B
 
"V.Simkins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> >> You're more than welcome to your stupidity. The re-writing is by you
>> > fools
>> >> and loons. Try to keep up. WMD was not "the" reason given. ou can
>> >> pretend otherwise, but it won't change that fact.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Rick, you keep repeating that "WMDs were not the reason that America
> went
>> > to war" over and over, and yet i haven't seen you give a single
>> > credible
>> > reference to support your statement, all i see is you saying "i'm
>> > right,
>> > your wrong" to just about everyone.If you have a point to make, PROVE
> it.
>> > the rest of us, at least, seem to be trying to. Otherwise, kindly be
>> > considerate, and don't reply, because it's just making people download
>> > useless junk to read on thier computers.
>> ====================
>> ROTFLMAO You make the ignorant statement first fool.
>>
>
> must i repeat myself over and over, to get a point across?
> =====================
Repating your ly over and over doesn't make it true....



>
>
>
>
> "rick etter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:%[email protected]...
>>
>> "V.Simkins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> >> You're more than welcome to your stupidity. The re-writing is by you
>> > fools
>> >> and loons. Try to keep up. WMD was not "the" reason given. ou can
>> >> pretend otherwise, but it won't change that fact.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Rick, you keep repeating that "WMDs were not the reason that America
> went
>> > to war" over and over, and yet i haven't seen you give a single
>> > credible
>> > reference to support your statement, all i see is you saying "i'm
>> > right,
>> > your wrong" to just about everyone.If you have a point to make, PROVE
> it.
>> > the rest of us, at least, seem to be trying to. Otherwise, kindly be
>> > considerate, and don't reply, because it's just making people download
>> > useless junk to read on thier computers.
>> ====================
>> ROTFLMAO You make the ignorant statement first fool.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > i trust you will make the "right" decision.
>> =================
>> Always do, unlike you...
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > "rick etter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > news:[email protected]...
>> >>
>> >> "Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >> news:[email protected]...
>> >> > In article <[email protected]>,
>> >> > "rick etter" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>"V.Simkins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >> >>news:[email protected]...
>> >> >>>> >
>> >> >>>> >>You really are that stupid too,
>> >> >>>> >>aren't you? Besides, WMD wasn't given as THE reason to go to
> war.
>> >> >>>> >
>> >> >>>> > Then you just fell off the turnip truck. That's all we were
> told.
>> >> >>>> ==================
>> >> >>>> No, your hate has blinded you, but that's typical. that wasn't
> THE
>> >> >>>> reason
>> >> >>>> given.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> do you know how to read, Rick?
>> >> >>=========
>> >> >>Yes, I do. Apparently better than you. WMD was not THE reason for
> the
>> >> > war.
>> >> >
>> >> > Welcome to 1984, where neocons think they can rewrite history.
>> >> ==================
>> >> You're more than welcome to your stupidity. The re-writing is by you
>> > fools
>> >> and loons. Try to keep up. WMD was not "the" reason given. ou can
>> >> pretend otherwise, but it won't change that fact.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
St George, Utah ?
Replies
2
Views
361
Mountain Bikes
JD
J
M
riding at lake george , NY?
Replies
6
Views
479
Mountain Bikes
Josh
J
G
  • Locked
Prince George, BC
Replies
2
Views
1K
Mountain Bikes
Garp
G
G
  • Locked
Photos: St. George
Replies
3
Views
842
Mountain Bikes
Jd
J
A
Re: Bush Really IS Getting "Victory" In Iraq
Replies
64
Views
1K
Mountain Bikes
Chicago Paddling-Fishing
C
Top Bottom Back