A Score of Zero...
- Thread starter Cornhog
- Start date
- Status
i·ro·ny1
Pronunciation[ahy-ruh-nee, ahy-er-]
noun, plural -nies. 1. the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning: the irony of her reply, How nice! when I said I had to work all weekend.
2. Literature. a. a technique of indicating, as through character or plot development, an intention or attitude opposite to that which is actually or ostensibly stated.
Yes, I do. The post I quoted was inherently ironic. I think I did a pretty good job of pointing out the irony of Slade19's original post. If it was intentional then I'm explaining the joke to all the people who are arguing with him. If it was unintentional I am showing him the error of his ways.
Maybe I'm not understanding your question.
Silence101
King
I'm sorry, I was just trying to answer Percy's question about who from Slade's list declared war and sent troops to Iraq. The answer is:
Hillary Clinton
Ted Kennedy
John F. Kerry
Robert Byrd
...to name a few. Sorry, I know there's a "few" dems I left out.
Lol Yep and all the Rep's in the Republican controlled house and Senate too. Very few people did not vote against the War. Notably they were predominantly Democrats. However this was after the "evidence" and "intelligence", gathered and put together by the Bush Administration, was presented to them.
but back to the topic at hand. What does Brittany think of the War in Iraq? Do you think she plays Civ?
Dairuka
Prince
lol politix
Silence101
King
Oh, so Hillary Clinton is innocent because she's not responsible for her vote, and Bush is guilty because, even though he didn't cast a vote, he... lied... huh?
Therefore, Bush duped 535 congressmen before even taking office as President, judging by when these statements were made... and people say Bush isn't smart.
Liberalism...
Nah, you're right.
Bush and his administration are absolutely not responsible for the war in Iraq. They didn't forge evidence, lying to your congress, playing on the trauma of the 9/11 to encourage them. Colin Powell didn't lie about drones transporting weapons of mass destruction. The yellowcake intelligence documents were not forged.
Wow, i guess i dreamt all of that. Sorry, you must be right =/
EDIt: btw, according to this article it would seem that the resolution "passed the House on October 10, 2002 by a vote of 296-133, and the Senate on October 11 by a vote of 77-23."
If my calculations are correct, that means only 373 congressmen actually voted for, and 156 against (for a total of not-exactly-535, if i may add).
Bush and his administration are absolutely not responsible for the war in Iraq. They didn't forge evidence, lying to your congress, playing on the trauma of the 9/11 to encourage them. Colin Powell didn't lie about drones transporting weapons of mass destruction. The yellowcake intelligence documents were not forged.
Wow, i guess i dreamt all of that. Sorry, you must be right =/
EDIt: btw, according to this article it would seem that the resolution "passed the House on October 10, 2002 by a vote of 296-133, and the Senate on October 11 by a vote of 77-23."
If my calculations are correct, that means only 373 congressmen actually voted for, and 156 against (for a total of not-exactly-535, if i may add).
While I can't say what you dreamt, most of this post is false, or at least unproven.
If you've got evidence clearly showing any of those allegations, I'd love to see them. (And no, evidence that President Bush said something which later turns out to be factually incorrect is not proof that he lied - you have to prove that he knew it was false when he said it) If you don't - and I think we all know you're just blowing hot air - then kindly shut up about it. You're the one asserting something, you need to prove it.
And in the meantime....man Cornhog, that's some pretty bad luck. Funny story though.
Ah, there's nothing like good old rudeness in a debate, right? At least, if you can't prove a point, you have the satisfaction to act like a 4-year-old and stick your tongue out to the bad guy who doesn't agree with you =)
Now, when you speak decently like a normal human being, i'll consider you like a normal human being and humor you with a constructed answer detailing my claims.
Last thing though: for someone who seems pretty attached to the notion of proving what you say, you seem to make an awful lot of unproved assertion, such as me "blowing hot air". Well, prove it.
EDIT: for the kicks, and for civilized people out there:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowcake_forgery#Iraq_and_WMD
Read the first three paragraphs about it. Thank you, do come again
Silence101
King
Nice Percy, you're finally seeing the light...
Oh, so he only duped 373 congressmen - thanks for clearing that up. Yeah... that's not quite as brilliant. I can see now why people think he's dumb.
Edit: Is there an XML mod so that the first Civ to Liberalism forfeits a tech?
How clever of you, to avoid addressing those points by simply dodging it =)
You know, i know that you're acting like that on purpose, and yet, i can only answer as if you were not.
So, can you understand that it's not "Bush" who did anything alone, but his administration? Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, the CIA...
And using a dramatic event to play on people's fear and use it to suit your needs is something that is very well known, and not that hard to do. Proof is, even while the American people is very attached to its freedom, it accepted the Patriot Act =)
EDIT: nah, you mean that they should make it so that "Mass Media" allows the "brainwashed sheep" civics, in which you can feed whatever lie you want en masse to your people, so that they're ready to go to war for false reasons, and still hold to that belief more than 4 years after proof was released.
Rude? I'm not being particularly rude - I think it is perfectly legitimate and fair to ask for evidence when someone alleges that a high elected official of another nation has committed serious crimes.
Why should I prove something when you're doing it for me?
All I'm asking you do is prove your own assertions - do so, and I'll gladly retract my statements saying that you are "blowing hot air". But until you provide solid evidence, I'm afraid that is a fairly accurate representation. If that bothers you, well, you have two options: back up your statements with factual evidence, or retract them, and don't make serious accusations without proof in the future.I think you should read your own sources:
President Bush's statement effectively was "The British government says xyz". The British government stood by that at the time, so it was a true statement, whether the British government was mistaken or not. Similar statements by other government officials were later retracted.
I'm still waiting for evidence that President Bush has lied about in any public way related to the Iraq War.
It is perfectly legitimate and fair to ask for evidence. It is rude to ask someone to "shut up". Can you make the difference?
There's the problem.Why should I prove something when you're doing it for me?
You are perfectly welcome to say "i'll be waiting for you to provide evidence before i believe you". When you start accusing me to "blow hot air", you're making an assertion yourself. An assertion that, following your own standards, you should either prove or keep for yourself.
You're entitled to your opinion. But you can't come and tell me "your opinion is not true unless you prove it", and later state your opinion and not prove it and feel perfectly fine about it.
Are you lecturing me? that's so... touching =)
Oh, btw... You said that "most of this post is false or at least unproven". Would you kindly point out what part are, as you stated, "false", and prove this statement using evidence, please? I'm sure you wouldn't dream of lecturing someone about refraining from posting without evidence, and doing the very same thing yourself, right?
I did:
"The administration later conceded that evidence in support of the claim was inconclusive and stated "these 16 words should never have been included" (referring to Bush's State of the Union address), attributing the error to the CIA.[1]"
"The classified documents appearing to depict an Iraqi attempt to purchase yellowcake uranium from Niger had allegedly been suspected to be fraudulent by some individuals in U.S. intelligence, according to news reports. According to further news accounts of the situation, by early 2002 investigations by both the CIA and the State Department had found the documents to be inaccurate. Days before the Iraq invasion, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) voiced doubt on the authenticity of the documents to the U.N. Security Council."
"French intelligence also had informed the United States a year before President Bush's State of the Union address that the allegation could not be supported with hard evidence."
"Previously, in February 2002, three different American officials had made efforts to verify the reports. The deputy commander of U.S. Armed Forces Europe, Marine General Carlton W. Fulford, Jr., went to Niger and met with the country's president, Tandja Mamadou. He concluded that, given the controls on Niger's uranium supply, there was little chance any of it could have been diverted to Iraq."
Ad lib.
azzaman333
meh
Ironically, a lot of the dislike for Bush is his rampant stupidity and ignorance.
Silence101
King
Dodging what? The burden of proof is on you. You don't walk into a court room making allogations without proof. And the fact is, as Elrohir stated most elequently, that it's not proven.
There was an arguement to take Saddam out of power well before the Bush administration took office. Slade posted quotes earlier of Democrats who were all for taking Saddam out of power, many of whom made these statements during the Clinton administration. That was my original point.
And I don't know that most Americans are attached to their freedom... it seems that most Americans want the government to run everything anymore.
You know that most all of present day media is Liberal slanted, right?
Silence101
King
I can tell that this is going to end as an "agree to disagree", and I'm sure that this topic isn't appriciated by those who came to read a thread about something else. I did my share of dragging this topic on too, so I'm not dismissing myself, but I do apologize.
I don't think it is particularly rude to tell someone to shut up if they don't know what they are talking about, but keep insisting that they do - however, I apologize if I offended you.
The proof is in this thread - it took you until your sixth post (On a political issue) to give a single source, and it wasn't until your seventh that you provided one about something the Bush amdministration has said. (The one in the sixth post was about the number of Congressmen who voted for the Iraq War) My post where I issued the apparently offensive "hot air" comment was before your seventh post - so when I said that, you had made seven posts in the thread, six on politics, none with any evidence that President Bush lied.
I proved my opinion above, even though I didn't have to, because it is an irrelevant point. If I suggested that Jacques Chirac (Or Sarkozy now, if we're speaking about current French leaders, although I doubt you're a fan of his) intentionally filed his income taxes wrong in order to use that money to buy himself a new watch, would you take my word for it, or would you demand evidence? You would demand evidence, of course, which would be perfectly right and proper. Why, then, is it so outrageous when I demand evidence when you allege a much more serious crime in regards to my nations leader?
So there were conflicting reports - the British government said it had happened, as did some American sources, while the French and other American sources said it was bogus. That is hardly proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the standard used for determining guilt in an American court of law. I'm still waiting for solid evidence that President Bush issued a statement which he knew beforehand was false.
Look, if you have such evidence, please post it in your next post. We're very much off-topic, and I would really like you to finally post some actual evidence, if you have any. It really isn't worth either of our time to continue this conversation if you don't plan on offering actual, verifiable evidence.
It is rude both to say "shut up" to someone, and to imply or state that he "doesn't know what he's talking about".
Look, i can do the same, and tell you "you don't know what you're talking about", "you have no clue", and a lot of other typical reactions from people like you. I believe in discussion and logic, not about who's the best at throwing mud. Especially when i debate in a language that is not my own.
In that case, the attitude of a gentleman, someone genuinely concerned with getting evidence, and not scoring e-points in a debate, is to ask for the evidence. Not to say "If you don't - and I think we all know you're just blowing hot air". Look, i may not be as proficient in your language as you are, but i can hold my own in rhetoric. I can see when someone's using a device like "we all know that...". Well, it seems that you want proof for everything. So don't give me no "we all know that". Give me hard proof or nothing at all. Prove that i'm blowing hot air, or don't accuse me of blowing hot air and wait for me to provide evidence.
I would demand evidence. I would not tell you "you're full of crap" before asking you to show evidence. And i would certainly not tell you to "shut up or prove it" so rudely if it had been a notorious opinion for 4 years.
There are plenty of documents proving (yes, proving) that the war in Iraq was launched on false grounds, on evidence that not only turned out to be wrong, but was thought to be wrong from the start, which was deliberately ignored.
Once again, i'm not outraged when you ask for evidence, so don't put words in my mouth. I'm outraged of 1) you being borderline insulting 2) you making unproven statements while attacking me because i did not prove my statements right away.
Solid evidence that he knew it was utterly false? There cannot be. You can always argue that he thought the proofs were genuine. Hell, a thief in a mall can always argue that he wasn't the one who put the watch in his pocket. He can always argue that he was not sure whether or not the watch on the ground was someone else's or belonged to the shop, but hey, since he wasn't too sure, he just took it.
I know that every single piece of argument and "evidence" used by the Bush administration turned out to be false, deliberately or not. I know that a number of officials raised concerns about those "proofs". I know that these concerns were ignored. I think it makes a pretty strong case for arguing Bush and his administration lied. I think that if you want to stand by your point, you have to bring on the table at least as much as this (all backed by a number of documents that you'll have access to usinf the wikipedia links i provided earlier).
- Status
Similar threads
