1,748 Days since the Declaration Of "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED"

proving intent to create a false impression is obviously unrealistic...
And yet, thats exactly what you need to do to prove your claim, as well as supply exaples of the statemets that supposedly created this supposedly false impression.

If you cannot do this, you're just mouthing off with meaningless partisan rhetoric.
 
And yet, thats exactly what you need to do to prove your claim, as well as supply exaples of the statemets that supposedly created this supposedly false impression.

If you cannot do this, you're just mouthing off with meaningless partisan rhetoric.

Newsflash: I don't NEED to do anything to prove anything to you.

for you to suggest that I am mouthing off with partisan rhetoric while you continue to excuse the misleading done by this administration is pretty funny, young fella.
 
Newsflash: I don't NEED to do anything to prove anything to you.
Well then -- there's no reason for anyone to take you or your statements seriously.

But you really should ask youself;
If you cannot provide the evidence to support what you believe, why do you believe it?

I mean, aside from simple partisan bigotry.
 
Well then -- there's no reason for anyone to take you or your statements seriously.

But you really should ask youself;
If you cannot provide the evidence to support what you believe, why do you believe it?

I mean, aside from simple partisan bigotry.

I could provide the transcripts from several Bush speeches where he repeatedly conflates references to Saddam and 9/11. But then, you can go find them yourself just as easily as I can. I listened to many of them being spoken and I have a fairly good memory. If you chose to believe that those repeated references did not create a false impression that there was a connection between the two, that's fine with me. I don't ask you to take me seriously. I don't even ask you to read anything I write. Please feel free to put me on ignore if you like...
 
I could provide the transcripts from several Bush speeches where he repeatedly conflates references to Saddam and 9/11.
Yes, Skippy, that exactly the sort of thing you should be providing.

Note that you'll have to show how the statements might actually create the impression you've claimed.

If you chose to believe that those repeated references did not create a false impression that there was a connection between the two, that's fine with me.
If these statements did indeed create the 'false impression' you speak of, you would be able to show it.
Otherwise you're arguing that correlation equates to causation, a logical fallacy.
 
like I have said. don't hold your breath.

I heard the speeches. I read the speeches. I was aware, as I was listening, of what Bush was trying to imply.... and I was aware of what good writers he had to craft text taht allowed him to say one thing and repeatedly imply another. I am aware of the fact that 70% of Americans believed that Saddam planned 9/11 a scant three months before the invasion. I chose to believe that there is a correlation. It is not such an outlandish thing to believe. You chose not to. fine with me.

and don't call me skippy. asshole. I was getting my expert rifleman medal with an M1 when you were still in the fucking womb.
 
like I have said. don't hold your breath.
For you to provide evidence that backs your claim, and for you to show how that evidence proves your claim? I'm not.

I have absolutely no expectation that you have the ability to back your claims. Its pretty clear that you're satisfied with basing your positions in simple partisan bigotry.

and don't call me skippy. asshole. I was getting my expert rifleman medal with an M1 when you were still in the fucking womb.
:lol:

Whatever you say, Skippy
 
For you to provide evidence that backs your claim, and for you to show how that evidence proves your claim? I'm not.

I have absolutely no expectation that you have the ability to back your claims. Its pretty clear that you're satisfied with basing your positions in simple partisan bigotry.


:lol:

Whatever you say, Skippy.

I am satisfied in basing my opinions in this instance on my observations. nothing more. nothing less.
 
I am satisfied in basing my opinions in this instance on my observations. nothing more. nothing less.

And you're also satisfied and trying to pass off these "observations" as fact.
Your OPINIONS here are not facts, Skippy, no matter how much you might like to think so.

Edit:

From the reputation feedback you posted:
maineman
bad form.... you should learn to show a
little more respect for your elders, sonny.
Let's not make a habit of this.

Apparently you'd prefer that I refer to you as "asshole".
No problem Skippy...er...Asshole.
 
I am unaware of anything I have written in this thread that attempts to characterize my opinion as FACT, sonny.
 
It is walks, talks and looks like a duck, chances are it's a duck...even if the duck doesn't come out and say its a duck.

So M14, if a duck refuses to confirm whether its a duck or not, does that mean its not a duck (just using your own standards of proof here)?
 
It is walks, talks and looks like a duck, chances are it's a duck...even if the duck doesn't come out and say its a duck.

So M14, if a duck refuses to confirm whether its a duck or not, does that mean its not a duck (just using your own standards of proof here)?

I'm sure all of this, somehow, makes sense to you as an effective response to my challenge.
 
I'm sure all of this, somehow, makes sense to you as an effective response to my challenge.

They have not been able to even make a credible claim anyone lied since to do so means they have to believe Clinton and his entire white house also lied. It is a game they play , they believe if they say the same thing over and over enough people will begin to believe if from the sheer repetitive nature of the claim, standard democratic practice.

You were not here a few months back when Maineman and Larkinn played this sparky dance and were playing with the meaning of lied. The end of it was that because one of the listed definitions of lie in the dictionary is to say something not true even if you do not know it is not true, this was their proof Bush lied.

Of course when it was pointed out that meant everyone lied every day all the time the response became, well we did not really mean THAT. Maineman went off on his tangent like now where he claimed because Bush said saddam Hussein was a threat to the US and had to be dealt with that somehow meant Bush said he planned and executed 9/11.

Democrats and Liberals think if they just keep saying the same thing over and over even if they can not prove a word of it, it will magically become true.
 
They have not been able to even make a credible claim anyone lied since to do so means they have to believe Clinton and his entire white house also lied.
No, that was DIFFERENT, see...

Of course when it was pointed out that meant everyone lied every day all the time the response became, well we did not really mean THAT. Maineman went off on his tangent like now where he claimed because Bush said saddam Hussein was a threat to the US and had to be dealt with that somehow meant Bush said he planned and executed 9/11.
Its pretty clear that maineman is only interested in believing what he wants to believe, regardless if he knows why he believes it.

Democrats and Liberals think if they just keep saying the same thing over and over even if they can not prove a word of it, it will magically become true.
And what is this called?
The Big Lie.
We all know where that came from.
 
No, that was DIFFERENT, see...


Its pretty clear that maineman is only interested in believing what he wants to believe, regardless if he knows why he believes it.


And what is this called?
The Big Lie.
We all know where that came from.

maineman knows what he heard Bush say...over and over again.... Bush made speech after speech where he talked about Saddam, but peppered the discussion with talk of Al Qaeda and 9/11.

It is a FACT that in the nmonths leading up to the invasion of Iraq, nearly 70% of Americans believed that Saddam had planned 9/11.

Since he DIDN'T plan 9/11, how does the right explain the fact that 70% of Americans had come to believe that he HAD?

The right's insistence that such a shift in belief on the part of the public had nothing to do with the speeches of their president is laughable.

But hey.... because George Bush never flat out said that Saddam planned 9/11, you guys can keep on droning on about how he had nothing to do with that change in belief, and how his speeches were not meant to create a false impression..

I cannot argue that technicality. I can point out that the president who had overwhelming public approval ratings that were commensurate with the approval ratings for his war in Iraq, now has ratings in the toilet and so does his war, and you all can hold on to your belief that that is all some bizarre coincidence, but the smart money is elsewhere.
 
No, that was DIFFERENT, see...


Its pretty clear that maineman is only interested in believing what he wants to believe, regardless if he knows why he believes it.


And what is this called?
The Big Lie.
We all know where that came from.



You do have a firm grasp on the obvious
 

Forum List

Back
Top