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: tejek who wrote (186993)	4/26/2004 1:46:05 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573096

No, they never said "massive".......now you're changing my text. Blowing up American cities would be beyond massive. They speculated that Saddam would attack the US. Its what people who have an agenda do to create fear in other people. Having heard what Cheney et al said, its human nature to take that info and embellish upon it. If Cheney says that something is possible or might happen in the future, and he believes that is indeed possible, but someone else misinterprets the statement and embellishes it that doesn't mean Cheney lied, let alone that Bush lied. Tonite, I stayed in and watched Dateline. They were discussing a missing person, a teenage girl in TX. During the ensuing investigation, some state appointed officials [an attorney, social workers, etc] got involved and by the time they got done, they had a satanic cult kidnapping the girl, torturing her and then killing her. How they did that was by taking the flimiest of evidence and releasing bits and pieces out to the press over a period of months......within a couple of years the whole town was turned upside down and the townspeople were believing that Satan himself had been involved in the girl's kidnapping. Eventually, the truth won out and people learned that the state appointed investigation team secretly believed they were God's messenger on earth and that they had uncovered a Satanic cult. The fact they couldn't find any evidence of the cult's operation did not deter them.......in fact, that convinced them that Satan was involved.......he caused all the evidence to disappear. I believe Bush and company did a more sophisticated version of what this TX investigation team did. I believe he mixed lies with a little truth like they did and frankly, I believe he and his collaborators are as evil as the people on this investigation team. If the TX investigation team did what you say they did then they where not lying they where deluded. They the investigation team would only be liars if they did not believe that there was any satanic cult involved. Of course liars or not they wouldn't be people that you would want to continue on as investigators, and if you think Bush's actions where like the investigation teams actions then I can understand why you would not want Bush to continue as president. I wouldn't agree but I would understand where you are coming from. Tim, I have given you so much detail on this issue, its incredible. You've given detail but you haven't laid out your argument with all the assumed premises. Maybe I'll take a stab at it. (the quotes are not to indicate an exact quote from you but rather that I am not making the argument myself) __________ "If people in the Bush administration talked about how Iraq could develop ways to attack the US, and hinted the some form of attack (even if not directly against the US) was possible in the near future. and Iraq is not capable of making such attacks and would not be able to do so in the near term future Then People in the Bush administration made false and misleading statements about the WMD situation in Iraq" ____________ People in the Bush administration made false and misleading statements about Iraq. If people make false and misleading statements then they are lying. People in the Bush administration lied about Iraq. _____________________ Bush is responsible for the statements of the people in his administration. People in the Bush administration lied about Iraq Also Bush himself stated that Iraq had dangerous WMD Iraq does not have significant amounts (or doesn't have any) WMD Therefore Bush lied about WMD in Iraq. _________________________________________________ I won't critique this yet because it might not be an accurate summation of your argument. It is only a summation of my opinion of what you are trying to argue and I don't want to assume my opinion is correct when you can instead make the actual argument. One thing I will say is that even if all the premises are agreed to (and I think I would challenge some of them) it would show Bush as a liar about Iraq but would not come close to making what was said here about Bush basically saying that Iraq would blow up American cities within months a true statement. Every time I present something, you discount it. You haven't presented me with much in the way of coherent argument. You have presented me with 1 - Facts, which are useful to support an argument but are not an argument themselves. 2 - Incoherent, half developed arguments for your case 3 - Insults against Bush - which are useless for the purpose of making a logical argument for your case 4 - Ad hominem attacks against me and against conservatives in general. 5 - Good arguments for one statement that you then twist around and treat as if they where arguments for a different statement that has a different meaning. You all are so sure you are right that even when you are not, you won't admit. I don't think I am quite as sure that I am right as you are that you are right. My arguments have mostly been very solid but I am open to reconsidering them if I am presented with a good reason to do so. I also do not assume that anyone who disagrees with me has something wrong with them, or that they know that they are really wrong but won't admit it. Such attitudes are the ultimate in inflexible bias. As for my bias, it wasn't bias that determined that Bush was lying about the WMDs et al...........I could tell just by his body language and the way he presented it. The problem with that argument is that it is highly subjective. It is convincing for people who have the same opinion about someone's body language but it doesn't really prove anything, or show that the people with different opinions about Bush's body language are incorrect, or unreasonable. That's your bias again.....not only is it a disaster, worse.........they don't know how to resolve the matter. Your default position seems to be that anyone who disagrees with you on something that you are highly certain of is not only wrong but biased or deluded. That is one of the most rigid and unreasonable attitude that I've ever had to deal with in debates either on SI, or in other venues. Also you make the attack of bias or the other negative comments with little evidence or argument to support your claim. Even if they are wrong (and you have not really even established that) they could just be mistaken. But most important such ad-hominem statements are irrelevant to the original point you are trying to prove. If you could prove that I am strongly biased it still would not prove that my statements are wrong or that yours are correct. There is nothing that can happen in Iraq that will convince me that it was worth it........even if there is democracy eventually which I strongly doubt. Even if the outcome was better then what seems possible? For example if peace and stability and democracy came to Iraq tomorrow (which we both know will not happen) and these things would not have happened without the invasion then the invasion still would not have been worth it? What if we find a large WMD stash tomorrow? Tim