Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (186840)	4/20/2004 10:54:41 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573908

You've succeeded only by playing the word game again. Your the one playing the word game again. A false statements was made, you make a different statement that has a different meaning and imply that you have successfully defended the false statement. I am not playing the word game........that's your game. The distinction that you claim is so significant is not. If someone says that Hamas has WMDs and is a threat to the United States.......implicit in that statement is that Hamas may aim its WMD against this country, its cities and its people at any time. What is also implicit is that its likely to happen sooner rather than later. Up until Powell spoke in front of the UN, there was still a majority of Americans who wanted the approval of the UN before going to war. After Powell showed truck and trailers that he claimed were being used to make chemical weapons [which they were not], the number of Americans wanting UN approval of an Iraqi war dropped below 50%. At the time, interviewed Americans said they changed their position because they feared an attack by Saddam against the US was imminent. It took Bush roughly 6 months to turn public opinion around and convince Americans that Iraq presented a clear and present danger to their well being. I remember all this because I was pssed.......I knew then as I know now......that Bush and company had lied to the American people. Now you can go on and on about this issue and nitpick and nitpick, but you will only look like an sshole. I don't care about the words but rather the meaning of the statement. If the meaning it true then the exact words really don't matter much, but the meaning of the statement that I contested (and you supported at least indirectly) is false. By replacing "clear and present danger" with "blowing up American cities", you've added a level of specificity that can be contested. I didn't replace "clear and present danger" with "blowing up American cities", nor did I initiate the statement about "blowing up American cities". The discussion was about a statement concerning "blowing up American cities". You are the one who made the replacement to "clear and present danger". Your changing the subject, which is fine as long as you stop pretending that you are not. For an example............Joe went to the store. Did Joe go to the store? Did Joe drive to the store? Did Joe walk to the store? Did Joe bike to the store? These are all varying levels of specificity for which I can answer yes only to the first one based on the amount of info I have been provided. Does the meaning change dramatically among the 4 questions? No, of course not. But it does change enough so that you can't answer the next three questions affirmatively. Its an issue that pollsters have to watch very closely. That's a false analogy. The meaning did change when YOU changed "blowing up American cities" to "clear and present danger". I didn't change the general to something specific, the specific statement was made and refuted, then you changed it to a more general statement in order to attack the refutation. No it did not. The threat is the operative word, not "blowing up cities" vs "clear and present danger".......they describe what the threat is or potentially could be. To use your examples its the equivalent of someone claiming that Joe biked to the store, and then I refute the claim by saying "that's not true I saw Joe drive to the store", and then you accuse me of word games because Joe did go to the store. Your replacing of the specific with the general is the actual word game here. If we can get past that issue and you want to discuss the general that's fine but it seems you'd rather blast me for word games. In the real world, it doesn't matter to the general public how he got to the store.....only that he went. Likewise, people were concerned that Saddam was threat and not how that threat would be translated into reality......at least not in the context Bush presented it. The point of Powell's dog and pony show was not to show the way Saddam's chemicals could be made and transported but to convince Americans [and the UN] that Saddam presented a real threat to the US and the rest of the world....if he has chemicals, then he must have the rockets that Bush or Cheney claimed. And if he has chemicals and rockets and he bought weapon grade uranium, then he could nuke us. Did Bush, Cheney and Powell say all that......no! But it was implicit in what they said.......they expected people to follow that line of reasoning. That's how they sold this war. In other words, THEY LIED TO US. And I find it disgusting that you still try to defend them even as more American soldiers are killed......needlessly......and as many more are coming back missing an arm or a leg. Its pathetic! ted