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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Noel de Leon who wrote (144196)	8/27/2004 8:49:59 AM
From: Ish	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

<<Did he have "pull" to avoid problems with his lack of performance in the N.G.? Yes>> Problems?? A person is required to get 50 performance points a year while in TANG. That's 300 over 6 years. Bush racked up 954 points.

To: Noel de Leon who wrote (144196)	8/27/2004 10:55:01 AM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

"You still have not defined "mendacious logic". Sure I did. You dismissed it as a matter of convenience, which is no surprise. Here, I'll pretty it up for you, so its easier to see: From JOWL's unabashed dictionary: Main Entry: Mendacious logic 1) Such posts on a topic that are dismissive of reasonable points of view and information that does not bolster a position. 2) Posts that are vitriolic in unsubstantiated and ubiquitous allegation, backed only by convoluted judgements of events and circumstances. Example: Yours Synonyms: Deceitful, deceptive, malicious, dishonest Hope that helps. Best regards, jewel

To: Noel de Leon who wrote (144196)	8/27/2004 12:32:49 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

"...demonstrate where in lies the falsity of the logic...show where the logic is deceptive or false. " You drew what you termed some "logical" conclusions regarding Bush II's opinions about things and conclusions about his character. For Example: "So it is logical that Bush II was pro Viet Nam war until it can be demonstrated that he said he wasn't(in such a way that it could be heard). Claiming that Bush II was not pro Viet Nam war is equivalent to claiming that Bush II was a hypocrite in that he took the chicken way out." Bush has delivered numerous speeches regarding his views on war and foriegn affairs. His speeches are provided in support of his conduct as president. His word and his actions are in line with the position he has taken on these things. Reaching to alternative and negative characterisations and conclusions that are based on your suppositions and not supported either by his stated view point or his conduct is mendacious. If there were no information other than the talking points you provided, then we would all be left to speculate as we please one way or the other. However, if there is information that clarifies the Bush outlook and character and you choose to ignor it, to drive a particular perspective that is not supported by substance; then you are engaging in more than idle speculation... "Just telling it as I see it." You have dismissed information from more than one poster here that contradicts your 'telling of it' and have convoluted information you have by taking it out of context of the whole picture. "Demonstrate that Bush II is NOT a chicken hawk." No one can demonstrate what they are not. We can only model or represent what we are. There is plenty of information coming directly from Bush that demonstrates what he stands for. If you don't like his view of things it is quite fair to say so. If you declare a view of things and attribute, attitudes, intentions, or outlooks to him with out substance, and in contradiction to his declared position on things and his behavior regarding things, you are engaging in mendacious logic. "So mendacious logic ..." Yes. His outlook on VietNam has been discussed by him and people who know him well. It seems reasonable to a person like me who lived through the period in question that your attributions to Bush boil down to, calculated, mean spirited, and unfounded. "Moi?, ...politically agendized character assassination" Yes. That seems to explain it. Thanks, Jewel