Download A Book Get Arrested, Call For Terror Attacks - No Problem!

But what did he mean by it? Was he giving his own view? Or was he employing a rhetorical device such as irony? You haven't bothered to interact with the substance of it.

The PNACer's, Brzezinski, Gingrich and a host of other neocons and their supporters, even the 2005 memo says the same thing. They have consensus.[/quote]I don't know who "they" are, and I don't really care.

I am not denying anything. You seem to have a very difficult time following the issue here. I said nothing about the PNACer's or Brzezinski. I did not say anything about any other comment Gingrich may have made. How should you know that? By looking at what I actually did say. It's right here on the page in front of you and it is inexcusable for you to miss it.

I made a comment on a very specific remark made by Gingrich. You trying to bring other stuff into it is silly, although all too typical of your arguments when you run out of substance.

Prove me wrong about what? All I said was that it seems clear that Gingrich was using a rhetorical device. "Their own words policy papers and history" are irrelevant to that. They would only be relevant if I had said something about "Their own words policy papers and history." But as you can see from reading my words, I did not say anything about "Their own words policy papers and history." So read more closely and don't embarrass yourself by getting this far off topic.

This is pure nonsense. I have said nothing about anything that anyone has said save one comment. You are desperately trying to avoid the issue by confusing it with other things.

I don't have any faith in our state. I think it is corrupt. If you remember, I have been the odd man out here for a long time saying you guys care too much about the state.

I do, but that wasn't the topic.

That's not saying much since it appears just about everything is beyond your comprehension.

Informed people spell "woefully" correctly. Informed people understand the use of rhetoric. Informed people do not attribute arguments to others that they didn't make. Informed people do not leave much beyond their comprehension. You fail on all four counts.

Your blind defense of everything anti-Bush is just as bad as the pro-Bush people. You need to get a little objectivity ... and a little comprehension wouldn't hurt you.


But I will have to applaud you. At least you came back and tried to defend your position. Ivon and Ken didn't bother to do that. Of course may be they have the good sense to run and hide because they have seen how silly and foolish their comments were and do not wish to continue to defend the indefensible.

 

"British cops," RATS. I was looking forward to downloading a book and getting arrested.

 

Yes. (And laughing about it won't change it.) If you honestly think you are not anti-Bush, you are loopier than the Bushies are.

You may be that as well.

I am not interesetd in your spin. My concern, as always, is about honesty and integrity dealing with other people's words.

I rarely comment in this threads because they are inane, and quite frankly, most of them are dumb. But in this particular one, it seems pretty obvious that you have demonstrated a lack of integrity in dealing with people's words. That is shameful. I don't think many, if any, here believe you to be interested in the truth. This is yet another example.

I have a clue what I am talking about. The fact that you dont' recognize it says more about you than me.

I dont' find it amusing when you misuse the words of others. I find it demonstrates a lack of integrity that only politicians can appreciate.

I don't know the story, and I don't comment on things I know nothing about. As I said from the beginning, I was commenting on one particular issue.

You seem to have no integrity. You do not deal with people's words fairly, and your handling of my words is evidence of that. You want to pretend you are truthful and objective, but I am telling you what my words are about and you won't even accept it "straight from the horse's mouth." You have decided what you want to believe and nothign will persuade you otherwise. And if that is so when I am sitting right here tellign you what the truth is about my words, how much more true is it when you are commenting on the words of others who are not here to correct you.

When you using people's words, you have the obligation to use them as they were intended. They are not your toys to play with and make them say whatever you want them to say. You should know better. And truth is you probably do ... but if you started using people's words fairliy, many of your arguments would no longer exist.

When you can't make your arguments without the misuse of people's words, you have nothing to say that anyone should listen to. The problem is that you keep talking.

You really, for the sake of your own integrity, should cease your ways. You can be anti-Bush and anti-Bush's policies (as I am in many cases) without misusing people's words to support it. There are plenty of legitimate reasons. You dont' need this other stuff.

 

It is already that way, and even you agree it is appropriate. There are certain documents that are illegal to have and will have you ending up in prison.

 

FWIW, just-want-peace, I don't believe that Newt was wanting more Americans to die. I believe he chose a callous way to make a (perhaps) valid point. In similar fashion, it would be like my saying that, "Democrats are destroying morality in America. It's as if we'd all be better off if they just died and went to Hell," and then used the "it's as if" clause to justify my rhetoric as simply rhetoric. Gingrich could have and certainly should have been more sensitive in his word choice. Again, if you look at my initial complaint:

I never accused him of bloodlust, but rather "loose dialogue" and surely you would concede that that isn't preferable.

 

Thanks for answering my question. It's too bad the others here don't see this as well.

 

Which sound like you got caught and can't defend it so you bail out.

Are you under the impression that I don't have a life?

I don't know what thread you are talking about, I don't know what "consistant" means, and I am probably so far out the mainstream I make you look like a Washington Beltway Politicans. So once again you aren't making much sense ...