WilliamK

Interesting assertion. But where's the supporting argument? You'll need something better than "Obviously so.", or merely rewording the assertion. Hmm.. So, the existence of an escape hatch clearly indicates the existence of an escape hatch? Are you really, truly, trying to convince us that this is what you were arguing, and that this is what Twizzler was arguing against? I thought you were presenting the existence of the escape hatch as evidence of insincerity in Obama's plan for withdrawal from Iraq. I still think that, so, I will proceed on that basis and write off the above nonsense as just another bungled attempt to steer the debate back to something that you merely wish that Twizzler and I were attacking because it would be easier to defend than your actual claim. Now, back to the real point of contention. Unless you're prepared to argue that any plan other than a completely inflexible one is inherently insincere, you're all wet. For anyone who is not completely unwilling to adapt to changes or correct errors, there's always an "escape hatch", whether stated or not. And because it's always there independent of one's sincerity, it indicates nothing at all about one's sincerity. If you want to back up your claim that Obama is making promises he doesn't intend to keep, you'll need to cite something that is different between those who do that vs. those who don't. Just as if you were to accuse him of kicking puppies, you'd need something better than the fact that he has legs.

The evidence, o man without honor, was provided in the very same post to which you replied. Is your question meant to imply that I did not provide any? If you contend that this deceit was not your purpose, then I challenge you to explain why else you would make a demand for evidence that has already been submitted. And before you respond, I'd like to point out that whether you agree with the conclusion drawn from said evidence, and whether you think the volume of evidence provided is sufficient, are separate questions from whether any evidence exists or whether I've provided any.

You're making yourself look like an idiot. 2Smart DID post that opinion. You've caught no one. http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=66263 These accusations of sock puppetry are getting ridiculous. There MAY be some cases of it, and I certainly have some suspicions, but flinging all these accusations around without any ability to back them up accomplishes nothing other than adding more foolishness on top of what already exists.

Fallacy of the complex question. http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/complex.html From your own link: Notice that part about "assuming without evidence"? This was no more a "fallacy of the complex question" than asking someone with a lit cigarette hanging out of his mouth when he's going to stop smoking. Nice wordplay, Bryan. That was not your primary point at all, but was merely something you offered as supporting evidence. Your point was, and this is in your own words: "They're both stringing you along. They both realize that a sudden withdrawal would be practically impossible as well as disastrous[...]. They talk against the war because they know that you love it that way." You presented the "escape hatch" as though it supports your contention that Obama is making promises that he doesn't really intend to follow through with. Twizzler did not propose that the "escape hatch" doesn't exist. His point was that it indicates only that the man is sane, not that his stated intent is untrue. Twizzler did address your point, Bryan. Your accusation to the contrary is dishonest. And your attempt to move the focus to some minor ancillary point in order to make that accusation happens to be a great illustration of your "playing with words".

2Smart also made that prediction. http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=66528

The best thing about this election is that any of the four most likely candidates will be an improvement.

Maybe it's a regional and/or period thing. I'm not at all familiar with either "DP" or "Displaced Person" as a derogatory term, nor would I have associated "DP" with "Displaced Person" if no one had commented on it.

Dr. Pepper is the only thing that comes to mind. The previous poster probably was thinking of something else, since Dr. Pepper doesn't seem particularly offensive, or particularly likely to have been an intended connection. More likely the intent was simply what it appeared to be: a shorthand to save having to type out "David Paszkiewicz" in full, over and over.

Mea culpa. He doesn't. The quote appears in an excerpt from a letter from the Assembly, but Jackson does not name the author of that letter. It was a faulty assumption and poor fact checking on my part. As to the rest, we'll just have to agree to disagree, as I do not wish to reopen this now dead topic other than to set straight the above error. I actually had a much longer point-by-point reply partly written a couple of weeks ago, but decided not to post it as the topic was already pretty worn out at that point.

Look D**bA**, if you want to nitpick I said he portrays himself as a hero. 81148[/snapback] Ok then, show us an example where Matthew "portrays" himself as a hero.

No. Perhaps it was only audible to imbeciles.

(emphasis mine) Bingo. That is what Guest doesn't like about the means.

Why not direct this to the one who actually reopened the topic? Could it be that your actual desire is not that everyone stop talking about it, but only the side you disagree with?

Yes. It's called "intelligence". A phenomenon with which you appear to be unacquainted. Really, 2smart, do you propose that the WTC attack wasn't an attack on the US as a whole? That the people killed were specifically targeted? That the terrorists would have cared if an entirely different 3000 people had died in the attack?

Your pretense of innocence is transparent. Your implication was quite clear. Once again we see the implication that you pretend not to have made. You know, Bryan, appealing to ambiguity on the mere chance that I might be guilty of one of the possible interpretations doesn't help your case much. It suggests that you're just slinging baseless accusations and hoping something will stick. And that second interpretation (the one about being pointless) is disingenuous anyway. "Brain-dead analysis" rather strongly suggests the presence of a point, even if it's one you think is wrong. It would be an utterly bizarre way to accuse someone of pointless babble. But aside from that, there was a point. One that I strongly suspect you recognized, though you feign ignorance of it now. The point, which really should have been obvious, was simply to back up my assertion about the chart not supporting your claim. Need I remind you that it was you who brought up the topic of "real wages" during Bush's terms in office? Are you surprised then that I commented on the "real wages" numbers in the charts rather than the unadjusted ones? Do you actually think that was some sort of misunderstanding or deception, or are you just pretending to think that in hopes of painting me in a negative light? If not meant to imply that I misunderstood or misrepresented the effect or significance of inflation, what, then, is this "brain-dead analysis" that you've accused me of? I see little point in continuing to lob that same denial/accusation back and forth, so I'll just agree to disagree and leave it to the readers (if any) to decide for themselves.

Franklin denied writing the book. He did not deny the quote. The book cites the letter. The book was authored anonymously, but it was published by, and in at least one case personally distributed by Ben Franklin himself. Which to some extent puts it on Franklin's own honor that the words attributed to him in the book are legitimate. That this is inconvenient for you, does not make it untrue or irrelevant. Nor does the later misattribution of the authorship of the book, or the even later faulty paraphrases of the quote, in any way alter the fact or significance of what transpired earlier. Very dishonest, Bryan, but not at all unexpected. A randomly made-up quote with no indication at all about who authored it is an extremely poor analogy for one that is attributed to Ben Franklin in a book published by Ben Franklin. Am I? Somehow, I don't think you really mean that. I don't find you funny, Bryan. In suggesting that you hadn't, I was being quite charitable. You'd have done yourself a favor by not claiming otherwise. Indeed. And according to Richard Jackson, the quote was from a letter written by Ben Franklin. Your point? Really, Bryan. You've gone on at great length trying to belittle someone and accuse them of dishonesty over a bit of uncertainty in a quote attribution that is still probably correct. This is casual conversation, not a scholarly publication. But even so, I'm sure any of the parties involved would be perfectly happy to acknowledge the uncertainty now that it has been pointed out. But if you're hoping to cow them into an admission of some kind of big lie or heinous error, it just isn't going to work. There is no big lie to admit to. No apology is owed. Not to you, anyway. Do you have enough decency to be ashamed of yourself?

You say that as if refuting something I said. But exactly where did I suggest anything to the contrary? Oh, that's right, I didn't! It's just Bryan making stuff up. My supposed "brain-dead analysis" is, in reality, entirely your own invention. Your dishonesty is truly stunning.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Pa3J-L29iT8 Wow, 2smart, you may be on to something there. Watching George Bush speak does leave me feeling a bit confounded.

You seem to have developed a habit of citing references that don't actually support your claims. The charts you linked to show only the real minimum wage, not real wages in general. And they actually show a decline in the real minimum wage through all of Bush's time prior to the minimum wage increase that was passed just this year.

Most sources are wrong in this case. 78705[/snapback] How do you figure? Neither of the web links that you've cited have argued that the statement itself was not from Franklin, but only that it is often paraphrased badly, and that the book that is sometimes cited as a source was not written by Franklin. But it appears from your second link that the book itself cites the quote in an excerpt of the previously mentioned letter. So, regardless of who the author of the book is, the book was citing (or at least, claimed to be citing) Ben Franklin. That the historian cited in your second link can not find a copy of this letter or other documentation to check the validity of that, does leave some room for uncertainty. The author of that book could have been lying or in error. But considering that, though not the author, Ben Franklin was the publisher of that book, it seems unlikely that such a thing would have gone unnoticed and uncorrected. The most severe criticisms you can honestly make against those who've used the quote here is that the citation was a paraphrase, and that the attribution to Franklin, though very likely correct, is not proven beyond reasonable doubt. Despite all your protestations, Bryan, the finger still points to Ben Franklin as the most likely source. Your own citations do nothing to contradict that. Perhaps you should have read them more carefully.

Guest's logic bore no resemblance to that. That stunning leap of illogic is, as usual, entirely your own.

The latter greetings are also used by Christians when they want to extend their good wishes to everyone. It is also not uncommon for non-Christians, including atheists, to wish a "Merry Christmas" to those who celebrate it, and even to those who don't. After all, there's no reason I can't wish you good cheer during the time of the Christmas holiday, regardless of whether you celebrate or believe in the religious aspects of it, and regardless even of whether I celebrate or believe in it. Anyway, Happy Holidays and Merry Christmas to all. Please don't let the bigotry that has appeared in this forum poison your enjoyment of this holiday, or the time you spend with your friends and families.

http://www.fordlibrarymuseum.gov/grf/quotes.asp Search for the words "big enough".

By what leap of profound illogic did you go from "illegal wiretapping" to "listening in on all of them"? No one other than you has suggested such a ridiculous thing. But, since you brought it up, do you believe that all conversations have to be tapped in order for illegal wiretapping to be a problem? If not, then what, exactly, were you trying to imply?

Of course. Many people position their Christmas trees next to a front window for the express purpose of having them visible from outside. Noticing them does not make you a peeping tom.