[B]He provided some...others are well known. Five is weak? you provided zero and commented on one. Great job, masterful!!
And yes five of thirty is weak. Not a hard concept to grasp.
I provided zero what? I didn't start a thread about flip flops it wasn't up to me to provide anything. Like I said I'm not going to waste my time disproving anything that doesn't have some kind of reference to prove it true in the first place. Hence the five of thirty comment.
You make no sense. You seem to think that because you say something its true until proven wrong? Well thats backwards, try you logic in a court of law sometime.
Oh and I guess I did post some flip flops with references... in a link above. At least there you have somethign to make a decision on.
And yes five of thirty is weak. Not a hard concept to grasp.
Zero is worse than 5...in the real world anyways.
Quote:
I provided zero what? I didn't start a thread about flip flops it wasn't up to me to provide anything.
You attempted to "disproved" them without proof. That's even weaker. At that point, you had contributed nothing to your case. Nothing. If 5 is weak, then zero is just plain lame.
Quote:
You make no sense. You seem to think that because you say something its true until proven wrong? Well thats backwards, try you logic in a court of law sometime.
Brilliant logic there mate. So, using your example above...it's guilty until proven innocent? I thought people were innocent until proven guilty. I seem to think that if you are going to disprove something, while at the same criticizing a perceived lack of sources, you should at least provide some yourself...which you hadn't done. In fact I'm not sure you have yet by providing a GOP website bashing ...Kerry.
It's not like you can't look it up. One of the few that isn't well known and stood out to me:
Bush-"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. Bush-"I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care."
It turns out this is a paraphrase, but it is entirely accurate. Here is what he said:
Quote:
QUESTION: Mr. President, in your speeches now, you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden. Why is that?
Also, can you can tell the American people if you have any more information -- if you know if he is dead or alive. Deep in your heart, don't you truly believe that until you find out if he is dead or alive, you won't really want to make...
BUSH: Well, deep in my heart, I know the man's on the run if he's alive at all. And I -- you know, who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not? We hadn't heard from him in a long time.
And the idea of focusing on one person is really -- indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission. Terror's bigger than one person. And he's just -- he's a person who has now been marginalized. His network is -- his host government has been destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match.
He is -- you know, as I mention in my speeches -- I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death. And he, himself, tries to hide, if, in fact, he's hiding at all.
So I don't know where he is. Nor -- you know, I just don't spend that much time on him really, to be honest with you. I'm more worried about making sure that our soldiers are well supplied, that the strategy is clear, that the coalition is strong, that when we find enemy bunched up, like we did in Shah-e-Kot mountains, that the military has all the support it needs to go in and do the job, which they did.
...
QUESTION: Do you believe the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead of alive?
BUSH: As I say, we hadn't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, you know, again, I don't know where he is.
I'll repeat what I said: I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.
But, you know, once we set out the policy and started executing the plan, he became -- we shoved him out more and more on the margins.
Comments
Originally posted by Gilsch
[B]He provided some...others are well known. Five is weak? you provided zero and commented on one. Great job, masterful!!
And yes five of thirty is weak. Not a hard concept to grasp.
I provided zero what? I didn't start a thread about flip flops it wasn't up to me to provide anything. Like I said I'm not going to waste my time disproving anything that doesn't have some kind of reference to prove it true in the first place. Hence the five of thirty comment.
You make no sense. You seem to think that because you say something its true until proven wrong? Well thats backwards, try you logic in a court of law sometime.
Oh and I guess I did post some flip flops with references... in a link above. At least there you have somethign to make a decision on.
Originally posted by Gilsch
Eh? So sue me... trying to reply to posts before lunch. :P Here I'll fix em...
Originally posted by SwitchingSoon
[B]You're taking what I said out of context. I was obviously using that as an example. Get your facts straight.
Ummm. What exactly does that mean? Get my facts straight on what?
(I'm going to lunch to now... mmm left-over corned beef)
Originally posted by dviant
And yes five of thirty is weak. Not a hard concept to grasp.
Zero is worse than 5...in the real world anyways.
I provided zero what? I didn't start a thread about flip flops it wasn't up to me to provide anything.
You attempted to "disproved" them without proof. That's even weaker. At that point, you had contributed nothing to your case. Nothing. If 5 is weak, then zero is just plain lame.
You make no sense. You seem to think that because you say something its true until proven wrong? Well thats backwards, try you logic in a court of law sometime.
Brilliant logic there mate. So, using your example above...it's guilty until proven innocent? I thought people were innocent until proven guilty.
Originally posted by dviant
And yes five of thirty is weak.
It's not like you can't look it up. One of the few that isn't well known and stood out to me:
Bush-"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. Bush-"I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care."
It turns out this is a paraphrase, but it is entirely accurate. Here is what he said:
QUESTION: Mr. President, in your speeches now, you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden. Why is that?
Also, can you can tell the American people if you have any more information -- if you know if he is dead or alive. Deep in your heart, don't you truly believe that until you find out if he is dead or alive, you won't really want to make...
BUSH: Well, deep in my heart, I know the man's on the run if he's alive at all. And I -- you know, who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not? We hadn't heard from him in a long time.
And the idea of focusing on one person is really -- indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission. Terror's bigger than one person. And he's just -- he's a person who has now been marginalized. His network is -- his host government has been destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match.
He is -- you know, as I mention in my speeches -- I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death. And he, himself, tries to hide, if, in fact, he's hiding at all.
So I don't know where he is. Nor -- you know, I just don't spend that much time on him really, to be honest with you. I'm more worried about making sure that our soldiers are well supplied, that the strategy is clear, that the coalition is strong, that when we find enemy bunched up, like we did in Shah-e-Kot mountains, that the military has all the support it needs to go in and do the job, which they did.
...
QUESTION: Do you believe the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead of alive?
BUSH: As I say, we hadn't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, you know, again, I don't know where he is.
I'll repeat what I said: I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.
But, you know, once we set out the policy and started executing the plan, he became -- we shoved him out more and more on the margins.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/...sh.transcript/