Obama On Health Care: A Comprehensive Betrayal – Where Do We Go From Here?

Taichiliberal said:
Yeah, we already know that about you Southie....you prove it with nearly every one of your posts/responses....just like you did here. You're finished.
Click to expand...
I gave you too much credit and assumed that you knew that I was referring to a logical fallacy.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument to ignorance). This is the fallacy of assuming something is true simply because it hasn't been proven false.
Click to expand...

Taichiliberal said:
... If there was some concession in favor of N. Korea...Kim Jong Il is sure as hell going to brag about it a controlled press release.

To date: nothing. All we've got is the rabid anti-Obama supposition and conjecture...
Click to expand...



*shrug*
 
bravo said:
But I tire of the game.....what was quoted by Clinton and his Administration and other Democrats well into 2003 is what they thought was the true....thats just the sad fact of the matter....but I'll not continue arguing with narrow-minded pinheads about it.....history will get it right as the 9/11 Commission got most of it right and its there for interested folks to read and analyze.....pinheads need only continue to suck up the Koolade and get your facts from far-left, Bush hating blogs.....
You are dismissed
Click to expand...



And then, you regurgitate all the folks carrying on about what they believe. Of course they believed it you moron.....We sold the stuff to them! (do some honest homework on that, bunky. It'll scare the pants of you.) But their beliefs were not supported by the ALL the facts, as the Shrub & company withheld information:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/15/AR2005121501813.html

And Cheney's OSP was less than honest in it's review:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Office_of_Special_Plans



They were WRONG in their beliefs. And remember, Cheney, Rumsfeld, the Shrub & company were NOT stating BELIEFS, THEY WERE CLAIMING FACTS.......AND THEY WERE LYING WHEN THEY DID SO.



Only a complete fool prints a whole lot of quotes from a month before the official reports and then bray like an ass like it clears the Shrub & company.

Yet, in Sept. or 2002 Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002, Democratic Sen. Levin is claiming this....go figure....
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."


In October 2002, the State Department’s Intelligence and Research Department told the White House that its WMD conclusions were inaccurate, reporting that “the activities we have detected do not . . .add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing . . . an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquiring nuclear weapons.” (CAP Daily Progress Report 01.28.04)



And Stop acting silly about Cheney's contradiction.....he said it, it's recorded, a matter of history and fact. The FACTS show that Cheney was NOT reporting what he was being told (he lied).

On the Sunday before the war, Vice President Cheney claimed “we believe [Hussein] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."

Cheney reiterated his contention that Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear weapons program.
--------------------------------

In February 2001, the CIA warned the White House “we do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since [the first Gulf War] to reconstitute its Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs.” The report was so definitive that it led Colin Powell to state in a subsequent press conference that Iraq had “not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction.” (Sirota & Harvey – In These Times 08.03.04)


In October 2002, the State Department’s Intelligence and Research Department told the White House that its WMD conclusions were inaccurate, reporting that “the activities we have detected do not . . .add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing . . . an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquiring nuclear weapons.” (CAP Daily Progress Report 01.28.04)

Cheney’s claim also is contradicted by the IAEA’s findings and Cheney’s statement moments later that it was “only a matter of time before he acquires nuclear weapons.”

Six months later Cheney said that this was an incorrect statement as “[w]e never had any evidence that he had acquired a nuclear weapon.” (Pincus & Milbank – Washington Post 03.18.03; Independent 01.25.04)

Cheney’s reliance on the National Intelligence Estimate is misleading since he quoted conclusions which the report conceded were based on “inadequate” evidence or were disputed by intelligence sources. (Waxman – FindLaw.com 08.19.03)


Bottom line: Our intellectually impotent neocon barking dog simple waste a lot of space regurgitating moot points....He CANNOT refute or disprove the FACTS and the Chronology of those documented, valid facts. So he blows a lot of smoke about beliefs! He "tired" because his little brain cannot accept facts that contradict his slogans and mantras...so he runs away.

So long chump.....go play in the minors!
 
PostmodernProphet said:
nothing I haven't seen for the last six years....if you think you can prove some of it this time, feel free....
Click to expand...

Take it up with the sources listed, my PostModernFool. If you can prove all of them to be inaccurate or liars, then you may be doing something more than stubbornly blowing neocon smoke to the point of insipidness!
 
bravo said:
In conclusion, your silly little far left website is but a fools paradise for "willfully ignorant, left-wing parrots like yourself....mis-characterizes facts, cherry picks quotes, and spins the truth to present its hate filled crap as fact...
In truth, its nothing but character assassination of patriots .....
Click to expand...

Repeat your BS all you want, toodles. You can't logically or factually refute or disprove ONE item. All you can do is repeat what people BELIEVED...and as I demonstrated, either those beliefs precede the official report date that dispells those beliefs, or were based on partial/incorrect information. http://www.justplainpolitics.com/reputation.php?p=500466

The website uses the words of the Shrub in company recorded in such medium as the Wall St. Journal, NY Times, the Washington Post, (not to mention State of the Union addresses and press conferences) and sources as the NIE report, the IAEA that catcht them in bald faced lies.

www.bushlies.net

The only one lying here is YOU...and all the other deluded neocons who think ignoring the facts and dancing around them to repeat Shrub mantras will rewrite history. But hey, the Shrub & company got away with murder, so that should make you happy...your side won!:rolleyes:

Don't mess with your betters, bunky. I'm tired of embarassing you and then watching you bark like an angrey intellectual chihuahua. Run along!
 
Southern Man said:
I gave you too much credit and assumed that you knew that I was referring to a logical fallacy.


*shrug*
Click to expand...

The post clearly demonstrates your desperate attempt to apply a phrase to a situation that logically does not warrant it. All you've got is repetition of speculation, suppostiton and conjecture...yet you keep insisting it's more than that.

Keep flailing away, my willfully ignorant little neocon parrot. The last word is so important to you, you don't even realize how embarassingly ignorant you look.
 
Taichiliberal said:
The post clearly demonstrates your desperate attempt to apply a phrase to a situation that logically does not warrant it. All you've got is repetition of speculation, suppostiton and conjecture...yet you keep insisting it's more than that.

Keep flailing away, my willfully ignorant little neocon parrot. The last word is so important to you, you don't even realize how embarassingly ignorant you look.
Click to expand...

Doooood, from the link provided earlier:
Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument to ignorance). This is the fallacy of assuming something is true simply because it hasn't been proven false. For example, someone might argue that global warming is certainly occurring because nobody has demonstrated conclusively that it is not. But failing to prove the global warming theory false is not the same as proving it true.

Whether or not an argumentum ad ignorantiam is really fallacious depends crucially upon the burden of proof. In an American courtroom, where the burden of proof rests with the prosecution, it would be fallacious for the prosecution to argue, "The defendant has no alibi, therefore he must have committed the crime." But it would be perfectly valid for the defense to argue, "The prosecution has not proven the defendant committed the crime, therefore you should declare him not guilty." Both statements have the form of an argumentum ad ignorantiam; the difference is the burden of proof.

In debate, the proposing team in a debate round is usually (but not always) assumed to have the burden of proof, which means that if the team fails to prove the proposition to the satisfaction of the judge, the opposition wins. In a sense, the opposition team's case is assumed true until proven false. But the burden of proof can sometimes be shifted; for example, in some forms of debate, the proposing team can shift the burden of proof to the opposing team by presenting a prima facie case that would, in the absence of refutation, be sufficient to affirm the proposition. Still, the higher burden generally rests with the proposing team, which means that only the opposition is in a position to make an accusation of argumentum ad ignorantiam with respect to proving the proposition.
Click to expand...
 
Taichiliberal said:
Take it up with the sources listed, my PostModernFool. If you can prove all of them to be inaccurate or liars, then you may be doing something more than stubbornly blowing neocon smoke to the point of insipidness!
Click to expand...
I'm taking it up with you.....claiming something to be "fact" is a far cry from proving something to be "fact"....as I have seen so far in your argument with bravo, you don't grasp that....he seems to have you well in hand on this thread and doesn't need any help......
 
Southern Man said:
Doooood, from the link provided earlier:
Click to expand...

Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument to ignorance). This is the fallacy of assuming something is true simply because it hasn't been proven false. For example, someone might argue that global warming is certainly occurring because nobody has demonstrated conclusively that it is not. But failing to prove the global warming theory false is not the same as proving it true.

Whether or not an argumentum ad ignorantiam is really fallacious depends crucially upon the burden of proof. In an American courtroom, where the burden of proof rests with the prosecution, it would be fallacious for the prosecution to argue, "The defendant has no alibi, therefore he must have committed the crime." But it would be perfectly valid for the defense to argue, "The prosecution has not proven the defendant committed the crime, therefore you should declare him not guilty." Both statements have the form of an argumentum ad ignorantiam; the difference is the burden of proof.

In debate, the proposing team in a debate round is usually (but not always) assumed to have the burden of proof, which means that if the team fails to prove the proposition to the satisfaction of the judge, the opposition wins. In a sense, the opposition team's case is assumed true until proven false. But the burden of proof can sometimes be shifted; for example, in some forms of debate, the proposing team can shift the burden of proof to the opposing team by presenting a prima facie case that would, in the absence of refutation, be sufficient to affirm the proposition. Still, the higher burden generally rests with the proposing team, which means that only the opposition is in a position to make an accusation of argumentum ad ignorantiam with respect to proving the proposition.
Click to expand...


You've just described your own SOP on these boards.
Check the chronology of the posts on every thread that you engage me on, including this one. If I make a statement or assertion, I back it up with facts and then debate the discuss the whole package. If I challenge someone else's statement, I damn sure bring something to the table other than my opinion and speculation when necessary.

YOU, on the other hand, have displayed a penchant for ignoring what you don't like, repeating your statements and then lying about/ignoring other's responses....and then either diverting to another subject of personally attacking your challenger.

In other words, you've just given us all a window as to how your mind works, and why it's so easy for me to prove you wrong...and humiliate you when you get all flustered and vindictive. Thanks. Now, continue to lie, deny and repeat your false allegations all you want. I'm done with you here.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Take it up with the sources listed, my PostModernFool. If you can prove all of them to be inaccurate or liars, then you may be doing something more than stubbornly blowing neocon smoke to the point of insipidness!
Click to expand...

PostmodernProphet said:
I'm taking it up with you.....claiming something to be "fact" is a far cry from proving something to be "fact"....as I have seen so far in your argument with bravo, you don't grasp that....he seems to have you well in hand on this thread and doesn't need any help......
Click to expand...

This is why I have such fun making fools out of you neocon parrots....because you keep insisting that your version of reality supercedes all else.

The link I provide uses quotations from Press Conferences, State of the Union addresses, and interviews given by the Shrub & company. These statements are recorded in reputable news services and official White House records. They are then compared to FACTS from the very organizations involved, compared to the before and after statements of those involved, and to the historical record as events unfold.
All sources are DOCUMENTED.

So for either you or that other jackass to cast doubt on what I say, you have to first PROVE that the information I sourced is AT FAULT. Bravo tried to smokescreen his inability to do so by posting PARTS of information that was chronological rendered useless or incorrect when compared to what I provided. Whether he realizes this or not is moot, as his insipid stubborness and prideful ignorance provents him from ever acknowledging such.

If you can't or won't understand/accept this, that's your problem. All your repetitive clap-rap won't alter what I've put forth. Carry on.
 
How desperate must you be to present your lying source....((CAP Daily Progress Report 01.28.04)....as a legitimate source .....

Its like saying, "If you don't believe me, just ask me".....

TC...I'm sorry for you...you're simply a koolade drinker...ignorant but no more on the stupid side than many Democrats.....thats Democrats, not liberals...some liberals I know are actually quite smart and intelligent...Democrats, on the other hand, are usually assholes, biased, gullible, greedy, jealous, and always in need of someone to hate....

you....you're a Democrat and you're a gullible fool....you come to your biased conclusion or have some loony blog suggest one to you, then you search the web for like minded fools to bolster your inane crap....everything you post has been posted before, on hundreds of blogs and political debate sites.... you're the parrot you label everyone else....
 
Last edited:
bravo said:
How desperate must you be to present your lying source....((CAP Daily Progress Report 01.28.04)....as a legitimate source .....

Its like saying, "If you don't believe me, just ask me".....

TC...I'm sorry for you...you're simply a koolade drinker...ignorant but no more on the stupid side than many Democrats.....thats Democrats, not liberals...some liberals I know are actually quite smart and intelligent...Democrats, on the other hand, are usually assholes, biased, gullible, greedy, jealous, and always in need of someone to hate....

you....you're a Democrat and you're a gullible fool....you come to your biased conclusion or have some loony blog suggest one to you, then you search the web for like minded fools to bolster your inane crap....
Click to expand...


You cannot logically or factually disprove the CAP source, because all you keep doing is posting what Kerry and others stated BEFORE the information I sourced came forth....or you ignore the information that explained their stance. That's what chronology is all about, you nit. And as I've tried to school you numerous times, your OPINION means nothing if you can't logically and factually prove it.

I know I've (once again) kicked your sorry ass when all you can do is parrot your long disproved contentions, assertions, supposition and conjecture....and then spew all types of nasty personal attacks.

You're fininished, my intellectually impotent neocon clown. Spew forth then
 
Taichiliberal said:
You've just described your own SOP on these boards.
Check the chronology of the posts on every thread that you engage me on, including this one. If I make a statement or assertion, I back it up with facts and then debate the discuss the whole package. If I challenge someone else's statement, I damn sure bring something to the table other than my opinion and speculation when necessary.

YOU, on the other hand, have displayed a penchant for ignoring what you don't like, repeating your statements and then lying about/ignoring other's responses....and then either diverting to another subject of personally attacking your challenger.

In other words, you've just given us all a window as to how your mind works, and why it's so easy for me to prove you wrong...and humiliate you when you get all flustered and vindictive. Thanks. Now, continue to lie, deny and repeat your false allegations all you want. I'm done with you here.
Click to expand...

Hey you made a simple logical fallacy. No reason to get all hissy about it. Be a man and fess up.*shrug*
 
Taichiliberal said:
You cannot logically or factually disprove the CAP source, because all you keep doing is posting what Kerry and others stated BEFORE the information I sourced came forth....or you ignore the information that explained their stance. That's what chronology is all about, you nit. And as I've tried to school you numerous times, your OPINION means nothing if you can't logically and factually prove it.

I know I've (once again) kicked your sorry ass when all you can do is parrot your long disproved contentions, assertions, supposition and conjecture....and then spew all types of nasty personal attacks.

You're fininished, my intellectually impotent neocon clown. Spew forth then
Click to expand...

The NIE is there for all to read....and to understand that intelligence is not a list of confirmed facts....its educated guesses and likely conclusions drawn from what is thought to be reality at the time.....its what we THINK....

If I claim the distance from A to B is definitely 6 miles, confirmed through numerous intelligence sources from the US, Russia, and France...only an imbecile would call it a lie if at some future time its determined to distance is 60 miles....and you, sllimball, are pretty much an imbecile....
We believe what we believe and make claims every day that might at some future date be proved wrong....

If the conclusions are found to be inaccurate months or years later, its only relevant for history's sake...a lie is a conscious effort to deceive, not an inaccurate claim, no matter how vigorous the claim is made....

See Clinton Lewinsky deposition...thats a lie....
as opposed to Al Gore's claims about Iraq WMD... not a lie...

But then, I don't really give a good shit what you believe or perceive in your world...you're quite irrelevant too....its beyond my capacity to improve your IQ....I can't force you to understand what is obvious logical reasoning to the rest of us....its just beyond you grade level....or maybe "brain lock"
 
Taichiliberal said:
This is why I have such fun making fools out of you neocon parrots....because you keep insisting that your version of reality supercedes all else.

The link I provide uses quotations from Press Conferences, State of the Union addresses, and interviews given by the Shrub & company. These statements are recorded in reputable news services and official White House records. They are then compared to FACTS from the very organizations involved, compared to the before and after statements of those involved, and to the historical record as events unfold.
All sources are DOCUMENTED.

So for either you or that other jackass to cast doubt on what I say, you have to first PROVE that the information I sourced is AT FAULT. Bravo tried to smokescreen his inability to do so by posting PARTS of information that was chronological rendered useless or incorrect when compared to what I provided. Whether he realizes this or not is moot, as his insipid stubborness and prideful ignorance provents him from ever acknowledging such.

If you can't or won't understand/accept this, that's your problem. All your repetitive clap-rap won't alter what I've put forth. Carry on.
Click to expand...
the problem isn't in the statements, Touchie....it's in the idiotic application of them to the typical liberal argument.....you need to prove more than a snapshot of time.....you need to show the application of that snapshot to your argument......liberals never bother with that important step.....I will give you time....
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
This is why I have such fun making fools out of you neocon parrots....because you keep insisting that your version of reality supercedes all else.

The link I provide uses quotations from Press Conferences, State of the Union addresses, and interviews given by the Shrub & company. These statements are recorded in reputable news services and official White House records. They are then compared to FACTS from the very organizations involved, compared to the before and after statements of those involved, and to the historical record as events unfold.
All sources are DOCUMENTED.

So for either you or that other jackass to cast doubt on what I say, you have to first PROVE that the information I sourced is AT FAULT. Bravo tried to smokescreen his inability to do so by posting PARTS of information that was chronological rendered useless or incorrect when compared to what I provided. Whether he realizes this or not is moot, as his insipid stubborness and prideful ignorance provents him from ever acknowledging such.

If you can't or won't understand/accept this, that's your problem. All your repetitive clap-rap won't alter what I've put forth. Carry on.
Click to expand...

PostmodernProphet said:
the problem isn't in the statements, Touchie....it's in the idiotic application of them to the typical liberal argument.....you need to prove more than a snapshot of time.....you need to show the application of that snapshot to your argument......liberals never bother with that important step.....I will give you time....
Click to expand...

And there you have it folks......the Postmodernfool opted for his repetitive clap-trap. The Postmodernfool WON'T take any one item from the sight and subject it to his attempt to disprove it using facts and logic, as per challenged....because if he does, he has to contend with the FACTS that show the Shrub & company were caught lying. So instead, we get a dose of the PostModernFool's philosophy of denial and avoidance.

Repeat your BS ad naseum, clown. You don't even have the cojones to honestly meet a simple challenge.....you're done.
 
Last edited:
PostmodernProphet said:
the problem isn't in the statements, Touchie....it's in the idiotic application of them to the typical liberal argument.....you need to prove more than a snapshot of time.....you need to show the application of that snapshot to your argument......liberals never bother with that important step.....I will give you time....
Click to expand...

You pretty much PWNed him several times, hes just a mite too slo-witted to realize it....the "logical fallacy" went completely over his head or maybe he just doesn't read what others post....
Either way, its like a bad sit-com trying to converse with an obvious rabid, left wing partisan ...even further left than his messiah....in the end:gives:

If you don't believe him just ask him...thats his method of proving a point....perfectly sensible to him...
 
Last edited:
Bravo wrote: The NIE is there for all to read....and to understand that intelligence is not a list of confirmed facts....its educated guesses and likely conclusions drawn from what is thought to be reality at the time.....its what we THINK....
Click to expand...

Bottom line: the Shrub & company made statesment referring to NIE information that was AT THE TIME OF THEIR STATEMENTS different from what the NIE was stating, as my source showed. THEY LIED. The facts are there and no matter how much BS or wishful thinking you pile on you can't change the dates or the information present at the time.

But being the insipidly stubborn neocon parrot that you are, you'll just keep repeating all the points I deconstructed six ways to Sunday. So be it. Adios, my intellectually impotent neocon clown. "Bravo" indeed!
 
Taichiliberal said:
And there you have it folks......the Postmodernfool opted for his repetitive clap-trap. The Postmodernfool WON'T take any one item from the sight and subject it to his attempt to disprove it using facts and logic, as per challenged....because if he does, he has to contend with the FACTS that show the Shrub & company were caught lying. So instead, we get a dose of the PostModernFool's philosophy of denial and avoidance.

Repeat your BS ad naseum, clown. You don't even have the cojones to honestly meet a simple challenge.....you're done.
Click to expand...

by failing to make any effort to support any of your claims, it appears you have acknowledged either that the claims were false or that you are unable to construct an argument you can't paste.....perhaps both....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top