Chirstianity

[Bryan]

You sure do know your way around meaningless internet links.

Well, give yourself some credit. You sure know your way around the contentless reply.

We hardly need your help to know the cowboy has vacation down pat, if only he'd do something to earn a vacation.............................

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Didn't read the article, eh?

Just skimmed it to confirm what you thought you already knew.

[Guest Guest]

Well, give yourself some credit.  You sure know your way around the contentless reply.

I've read some of your tripe, I learned from a MASTER. Or was that a m*******tor?

KOTW Note: The above post was edited for content.

[Guest Guest]

It is not reasonable to hold Bush to the statement that major combat operations in Iraq have concluded when no additional operations were planned at the time.

What PURE, unadulterated BULLSH*T!

It's NOT reasonable to hold the man to his statement? Talk about SPIN!

He DID NOT SAY that no more major combat operations were planned but that they were over and there is NO REASON why he shouldn't be held responsible for his statements.

Maybe he should keep his arrogant mouth shut until he is sure of FACTS instead of speaking his dreams as truth.

And you don't trust Woodward? You certrainly place trust in some non deserving places.

[Guest Guest]

It is not reasonable to hold Bush to the statement that major combat operations in Iraq have concluded when no additional operations were planned at the time.

  Your reasoning, unfortunately, is typical of the far left Bush-bashers who make such claims.

It's "not reasonable to hold Bush to a statement" that he made?

Whom would it be reasonable to hold to that statement?

Karl Rove?

Judge Crater?

Saddam Hussein?

Howdy Doody?

The Dick?

Laurel & Hardy?

Rummy?

Abbot & Costello?

Jerry Falwell?

Prince Charles?

Satan?

Your reasoning, unfortunately, is typical of neo-Nazi-cons attempting to defend the indefensible with illogical thinking such as not holding a man responsible for his own statements.

You can try and sell all the fertilizer you'd like but more and more people are wising up and ain't buying your type of BS.

[Bryan]

What PURE, unadulterated BULLSH*T!

What a marvelous job you did of shearing away the context! I am impressed!

It's NOT reasonable to hold the man to his statement?  Talk about SPIN!

The spin is all yours.

The accusation is that Bush lied. Normally, "lie" means intentional deceit, but it can mean a statement that is untrue regardless of whether it was believed at the time. When a proposition is made that Bush lied (inaccurate statement) and it is implied that Bush was dishonest as a result of that statement (intentional deceit), a fallacy of equivocation is taking place. Or you could call it spin. And that's exactly what the charges against Bush tend to amount to.

He DID NOT SAY that no more major combat operations were planned but that they were over and there is NO REASON why he shouldn't be held responsible for his statements.

So, when the Martians invade Tikrit in 3007 you'll still be calling up the spectre of Bush to call him out for lying since the Martians are clearly conducting major combat operations?

Seriously, what is the evidence that Bush at that time expected further major combat operations to take place in Iraq?

Maybe he should keep his arrogant mouth shut until he is sure of FACTS instead of speaking his dreams as truth.

As commander-in-chief, it is safe to assume that he had the facts: No further major military operations were planned, and no more were thought necessary.

Unless you know better somehow?

And you don't trust Woodward?

No, I don't. His colleague of decades suggested that his reporting was dubious in specific instances, and the people he has interviewed have criticized his reporting. The bigger issue, however, is that those who will not interview come off badly while those who do interview tend to come off well.

That was Edsall's central observation about Woodward.

As for allegations of Bush lying, that doesn't tend to come from, say, Condi Rice or Ari Fleischer. It tends to come from liberals in various degrees of unhingedness. Their claims tend to be incoherent, especially as to the fallacy of equivocation.

That's why it's so helpful to ask for examples where Bush lied. The examples are nearly uniformly hilariously constructed, and seem to spring more from personal contempt than from the evidence.

You certrainly place trust in some non deserving places.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Have you got a real example of Bush lying, so that you can back up your suggestion? An example based on evidence instead of animus?

[Bryan]

It's "not reasonable to hold Bush to a statement" that he made?

You're quite the magician! Just look at the context disappear!

Maybe you could open for Penn & Teller one day.

Whom would it be reasonable to hold to that statement?

Karl Rove?

Judge Crater?

Saddam Hussein?

Howdy Doody?

The Dick?

Laurel & Hardy?

Rummy?

Abbot & Costello?

Jerry Falwell?

Prince Charles?

Satan?

Your reasoning, unfortunately, is typical of neo-Nazi-cons attempting to defend the indefensible with illogical thinking such as not holding a man responsible for his own statements.

Your irony is overpowering.

Just answer one question (if you can get through this ordeal we can resolve the issue with just one additional question, potentially):

Do you believe that when Bush stood on the deck of the USS Lincoln addressing the troop returning from Iraq he believed that more major combat operations would occur in Iraq?

Good luck!

You can try and sell all the fertilizer you'd like but more and more people are wising up and ain't buying your type of BS.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Do you realize that your post amounts to a straw man fallacy plus a poisoning the well fallacy?

You're making left-wing loons look bad.

[Guest Guest]

Do you realize that your post amounts to a straw man fallacy plus a poisoning the well fallacy?

You're making left-wing loons look bad.

Do you realize that the majority of your posts amount to nothing more than spin? You're making neo-Nazi-cons look like the defenders of the indefensible that they are.

[Guest Guest]

Just answer one question (if you can get through this ordeal we can resolve the issue with just one additional question, potentially):

Do you believe that when Bush stood on the deck of the USS Lincoln addressing the troop returning from Iraq he believed that more major combat operations would occur in Iraq?

Bush has said he believes in family values while he openly campaigns for an adulterous PA Congressman. He has said we were winning in Iraq when that was clearly not the case. I wouldn't presume to know what the man believes.

I KNOW what he said was WRONG! I KNOW that putting on a dog and pony show like his carrier antics may serve to lull people into a false sense of security and accomplishment but is otherwise meaningless.

I have no idea what he believes but I don't believe in him.

[Guest Guest]

Seriously, what is the evidence that Bush at that time expected further major combat operations to take place in Iraq?

As commander-in-chief, it is safe to assume that he had the facts:  No further major military operations were planned, and no more were thought necessary.

That's why it's so helpful to ask for examples where Bush lied.  The examples are nearly uniformly hilariously constructed, and seem to spring more from personal contempt than from the evidence.

Have you got a real example of Bush lying, so that you can back up your suggestion?  An example based on evidence instead of animus?

Supplying an example is impossible when you would just defend a lie by claiming that he believed it to be true. Apparently in your world of a child believes in Santa Claus then w'd better clean the chimney because he's on the way. I suppose you would also make Reagan innocent of selling weapons to an enemy state because he couldn't remember.

YOU should supply an example. Just WHEN does believing in something make it true? For quite some time the cowboy refused to acknowledge overwhelming evidence of global warming, his beliefs didn't change the evidence. Have a seat, you must be awfully dizzy from the spin.

[Guest Guest]

Well, no, unless you unreasonably expand "lie" to mean any utterance of an untruth whether or not it is sincerely believed.

So you of course were a staunch defender and supporter of Bill Clinton because he sincerely believe that getting a BJ wasn't "having sex"?

Or does your value system flip-flop like the wind direction?

[Guest Guest]

Well, no, unless you unreasonably expand "lie" to mean any utterance of an untruth whether or not it is sincerely believed.

Wouldn't you be quite the liar using that definition?

Not at all. I don't forth my beliefs as being fact, If it's a belief, I say that it's what I believe, not imply it as fact. And I don't put ona dog & pony show at the time.

[Guest Guest]

Some thought that more troops would help, some thought more troops would be worse.  And that's still the case.

And some just shot from the hip and apparently didn't think at all.

[Guest Keith-Marshall,Mo]

What a marvelous job you did of shearing away the context!  I am impressed!

The spin is all yours.

The accusation is that Bush lied.  Normally, "lie" means intentional deceit, but it can mean a statement that is untrue regardless of whether it was believed at the time.  When a proposition is made that Bush lied (inaccurate statement) and it is implied that Bush was dishonest as a result of that statement (intentional deceit), a fallacy of equivocation is taking place.  Or you could call it spin.  And that's exactly what the charges against Bush tend to amount to.

So, when the Martians invade Tikrit in 3007 you'll still be calling up the spectre of Bush to call him out for lying since the Martians are clearly conducting major combat operations?

Seriously, what is the evidence that Bush at that time expected further major combat operations to take place in Iraq?

As commander-in-chief, it is safe to assume that he had the facts:  No further major military operations were planned, and no more were thought necessary.

Unless you know better somehow?

No, I don't.  His colleague of decades suggested that his reporting was dubious in specific instances, and the people he has interviewed have criticized his reporting.  The bigger issue, however, is that those who will not interview come off badly while those who do interview tend to come off well.

That was Edsall's central observation about Woodward.

As for allegations of Bush lying, that doesn't tend to come from, say, Condi Rice or Ari Fleischer.  It tends to come from liberals in various degrees of unhingedness.  Their claims tend to be incoherent, especially as to the fallacy of equivocation.

That's why it's so helpful to ask for examples where Bush lied.  The examples are nearly uniformly hilariously constructed, and seem to spring more from personal contempt than from the evidence.

Have you got a real example of Bush lying, so that you can back up your suggestion?  An example based on evidence instead of animus?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sounds to me like what the definition of "is" is. Bush is one of two things, he is either a liar or if he did in fact "believe" what he was saying then he is just a garden variety dumbshit. Either way we all lose.

[Bryan]

So you of course were a staunch defender and supporter of Bill Clinton because he sincerely believe that getting a BJ wasn't "having sex"?

Or does your value system flip-flop like the wind direction?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, because Clinton surely knew that he was deceiving people with his careful parsing of words.

He did that habitually, by the way. I saw that type of thing from him before he was ever elected president, which is why I've never respected him apart from the office he held.

[Bryan]

Bush has said he believes in family values while he openly campaigns for an adulterous PA Congressman.  He has said we were winning in Iraq when that was clearly not the case.  I wouldn't presume to know what the man believes.

You can't call him a liar in that sense if you don't have case that he believed what he was saying was untrue. Period. Unless you choose to lie about it knowing that you don't know, of course.

I KNOW what he said was WRONG!

And you can explain why it's a big deal that he was wrong if he wasn't trying to deceive people?

I KNOW that putting on a dog and pony show like his carrier antics may serve to lull people into a false sense of security and accomplishment but is otherwise meaningless.

The troops loved it. But who cares what they think? An anonymous poster at KOTW doesn't think that Bush should risk lulling people into a false sense of security, so Bush just shouldn't have done it (did anonymous Guest even listen to the speech, I wonder?).

"Our mission continues. Al Qaeda is wounded, not destroyed. The scattered cells of the terrorist network still operate in many nations, and we know from daily intelligence that they continue to plot against free people. The proliferation of deadly weapons remains a serious danger. The enemies of freedom are not idle, and neither are we."

http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display....11ssor0.4553644

You felt more secure after that?

***

"Guest" in post 157 had nothing.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ic=3589&st=140#

***

Supplying an example is impossible when you would just defend a lie by claiming that he believed it to be true.

That's not a very good excuse for your not having any affirmative argument.

Apparently in your world of a child believes in Santa Claus then w'd better clean the chimney because he's on the way.

Straw man.

I'm simply suggesting that you don't call your child a liar if he suggests that Santa is on his way, believing that it is the truth.

If you were consistent in your thinking, you'd probably take a strap to your kid for lying about Santa.

I suppose you would also make Reagan innocent of selling weapons to an enemy state because he couldn't remember.

No, I'd simply suggest that he wasn't lying when he says he doesn't remember if he sincerely doesn't remember.

You kids love your straw men.

YOU should supply an example.  Just WHEN does believing in something make it true?

lol

Believing in something just makes your statement affirming your belief an honest statement. Can you squeeze in an entire regiment of straw men in one post?

For quite some time the cowboy refused to acknowledge overwhelming evidence of global warming, his beliefs didn't change the evidence.  Have a seat, you must be awfully dizzy from the spin.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're trying like crazy to change the subject (from the issue of moral integrity to the relationship between belief and truth) and you're accusing me of spin?

Hilarious.

Who's next?

***

Not at all.  I don't forth my beliefs as being fact,  If it's a belief, I say that it's what I believe, not imply it as fact.  And I don't put ona dog & pony show at the time.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is the epitome of a dog and pony show to stake your argument on your personal reputation while posting as an anonymous guest.

Think about it, and you'll find that you have contradicted yourself in nearly record time.

***

In summary, we have nobody thus far willing and/or able to make the case that Bush knowingly provided inaccurate information.

Instead, we saw some attacks on me (suggesting that I spin the facts), and attempts to change the subject.

[Bryan]

Sounds to me like what the definition of "is" is. Bush is one of two things, he is either a liar or if he did in fact "believe" what he was saying then he is just a garden variety dumbshit. Either way we all lose.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Keith, of course, would have been the special sort of president who could have heard the NIE summary and the assessments of our allies that Iraq almost certainly had WMD ("Slam dunk," Tenet reportedly told Bush), but would have intelligently concluded that the experts summaries were wrong, instead favoring the minority views from within the US intelligence community.

Somehow I doubt it.

It's just not realistic to suppose that any president would fail to trust the findings as the intelligence agencies presented them.

The mainstream media spin, combined with water-cooler echo chambers somehow convinced a horde of folks otherwise, it seems.

It's an incredibly unrealistic view.

[Guest Guest]

 

In summary, we have nobody thus far willing and/or able to make the case that Bush knowingly provided inaccurate information.

Instead, we saw some attacks on me (suggesting that I spin the facts), and attempts to change the subject.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The real summary is that you talk in circles.

And as beliefs go,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,I believe you're full of crap

[Guest Guest]

No, because Clinton surely knew that he was deceiving people with his careful parsing of words.

He did that habitually, by the way.  I saw that type of thing from him before he was ever elected president, which is why I've never respected him apart from the office he held.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's amazing that someone like you who believes he knows what thers think and believe is wasting so much tim on a local board. Why aren't you in Iraq telling our leaders what the enemy is thinking?

And just as predicted your values change like the weather.

No wonder you love the cowboy flip=flopper. Thirty years ago he thoyught the National Guard was where you hid from an ill-advisd war, now he thinks you use it to foght one.

[Guest Guest]

***

It is the epitome of a dog and pony show to stake your argument on your personal reputation while posting as an anonymous guest.

Think about it, and you'll find that you have contradicted yourself in nearly record time.

Th epitome of a dog and pony show? I could NEVER top the cowboy's antics. If he wants to play macho=man let him ride a HumVee through Baghdad. Oh, excuse me, he thinks war is something other people do.

Being that we have an arrogant, sel-serving MIS leader with no respect for the law who thinks the unwarranted opening of private mail and his previous wire-tap activities I wouldn'y make it any easier.

And for all we know YOUR real name might be Shirley or you could be PatRat's alter-ego.

[Guest Guest]

No, because Clinton surely knew that he was deceiving people with his careful parsing of words.

He did that habitually, by the way.  I saw that type of thing from him before he was ever elected president, which is why I've never respected him apart from the office he held.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you want to see the work of a habitual scam artist you might want to check into some of the cowboy's creative accounting in the oil business, one of the many reason's I have no respect for the man.

[Guest Guest]

And that's not just showboat fluff!

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/12/...in2356734.shtml

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And just what the hell does a link about Bush's time at Camp David have to do with with his showboat fluff carrier antics?

[Guest Guest]

Believing in something just makes your statement affirming your belief an honest statement. 

Yes, when it makes a statement affirming your BELIEF and is presented as such it's an honest statement. When it's presented as a fact it looks, smells, and sounds like BULLSH*T to me.

[Bryan]

Yes, when it makes a statement affirming your BELIEF and is presented as such it's an honest statement.  When it's presented as a fact it looks, smells, and sounds like BULLSH*T to me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are you saying that you had some reason for doubting that Bush was correct that the US had finished with major military operations in Iraq other than via retrospective wisdom months later after a military operation was actually conducted?

If not, then perhaps the BS you're detecting is self-produced.

[Bryan]

The anonymous guests lined up ...

The real summary is that you talk in circles.

And as beliefs go,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,I believe you're full of crap

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Repetition is sometimes necessary when confronted by thickheaded replies such as yours.

You did not address a single relevant issue.

***

Th epitome of a dog and pony show?  I could NEVER top the cowboy's antics.

You just expressed your belief in terms of certain fact.

You post anonymously and base your argument on personal integrity.

That's ridiculous. You've topped Bush, and you're a perfect hypocrite.

If he wants to play macho=man let him ride a HumVee through Baghdad.  Oh, excuse me, he thinks war is something other people do.

Being that we have an arrogant, sel-serving MIS leader with no respect for the law who thinks the unwarranted opening of private mail and his previous wire-tap activities I wouldn'y make it any easier.

And for all we know YOUR real name might be Shirley or you could be PatRat's alter-ego.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And your real name is "guest"?

You can at least look up all of my posts on this board by using the one identity I've used (and I don't base my arguments on personal integrity other than what I demonstrate in my posts).

Next?

***

It's amazing that someone like you who believes he knows what thers think and believe is wasting so much tim on a local board.

The evidence is overwhelming in Clinton's case.

He's a lawyer. He knew the lay of the land, and he distinctly avoided telling the whole truth according to his oath.

Why aren't you in Iraq telling our leaders what the enemy is thinking?

They have people that are better at that then I am.

And just as predicted your values change like the weather.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Baloney. There's overwhelming evidence that Clinton knew he was deceiving people, and I have see none to reasonably suggest that Bush knew that further major combat operations would continue in Iraq.

You're patting yourself on the back over nothing.

QUESTION: Do you remember in the deposition that Mr. Bennett asked you about that? This is at the end of the -- of the -- toward the end of the deposition. And you indicated -- he asked you whether the statement that Ms. Lewinsky made in her affidavit was true. And you indicated that it was absolutely correct.

CLINTON: I did. And at the time that she made the statement --and indeed, to the present day, because as far as I know she was never deposed since the judge ruled she would not be permitted to testify in a case the judge ruled had no merit -- that is this case we're talking about -- I believe at the time that she filled out this affidavit, if she believed that the definition of sexual relationship was two people having intercourse, then this is accurate. And I believe that is the definition that most ordinary Americans would give it.

(earlier during same testimony)

QUESTION: Mr. President, I'd like to read for you a portion of federal ...(ph) 603, which discusses the important function the oath has in our judicial system.

It says that the purpose of the oath is 1) quote, "calculated to awaken the witness' conscience and impress the witness' mind with the duty" end quote -- to tell the truth.

Could you please tell the grand jury what that oath means to you for today's testimony?

CLINTON: I have sworn an oath to tell the grand jury the truth and that's what I intend to do.

QUESTION: You understand it requires you to give the whole truth, that is a complete answer to each question, sir?

CLINTON: I will answer each question as accurately and fully as I can. [/b]

But Clinton will keep himself to the definition he thinks most Americans would understand instead of another one he knows is relevant to making Paula Jones' case.

Clinton wouldn't even affirm that it was wrong to mislead others with the "truth" as he described his responsibility in keeping the oath.

So much for the whole truth.

***

If you want to see the work of a habitual scam artist you might want to check into some of the cowboy's creative accounting in the oil business, one of the many reason's I have no respect for the man.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I've looked into the issue of Bush's sale of interest in a company that he partly owned, if that's what you're talking about, and there's nothing there.

If you're talking about something else, then feel free to offer details.

I'm not impressed with arguments that you refuse to present, FWIW.

Next.

***

And just what the hell does a link about Bush's time at Camp David have to do with with his showboat fluff carrier antics?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"That was proof that the person who accused Bush of engaging in showboat fluff was engaging in his own showboat fluff."

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...t=100&p=43445

It's not hard to see why this crowd posts anonymously.

[Guest Guest]

Keith, of course, would have been the special sort of president who could have heard the NIE summary and the assessments of our allies that Iraq almost certainly had WMD ("Slam dunk," Tenet reportedly told Bush), but would have intelligently concluded that the experts summaries were wrong, instead favoring the minority views from within the US intelligence community.

Somehow I doubt it.

It's just not realistic to suppose that any president would fail to trust the findings as the intelligence agencies presented them.

The mainstream media spin, combined with water-cooler echo chambers somehow convinced a horde of folks otherwise, it seems.

 

It's an incredibly unrealistic view.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have absolutely no qualifications to be President and I'm still more qualified than GW to be president. As far as the intelligence goes I believe they cherry picked that which would better make thier case. Say what you want this is a war of choice just as it appears it may be with Iran. Furthermore I think GW has been the perfect patsy for the likes of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Big Oil and of course that most prolific of war profiteers Haliburton. When the shit hits the fan, GW will be the fall guy only he's too stupid to know it. Good grief, man! Open your eyes and ears. What has come out of this war other than more death, global animosity towards the U.S. and Billions upon Billions of dollars that are un-accounted for? Meanwhile we stay the course while our soldiers still don't have the proper equipment to do the job and a privately funded hospital for wounded soldiers had to be built in Texas because the Feds continue to cut veteran benefits and and VA funding. Yet, we thrown more into harms way.I guess it would be unrealistic to expect to see GW's daughters in uniform anytime soon. So, please tell me why it is that I'm supposed to support this President and his flawed policies?