# Age Quod Agis makes up quotes in GD, and tells other lies **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 1, 2006, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/age-quod-agis-makes-up-quotes-in-gd-and-tells-other-lies/337949 "2006-01-01T13:36:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![devilsknew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/4da419/32.png) [@devilsknew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/devilsknew)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2006, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/age-quod-agis-makes-up-quotes-in-gd-and-tells-other-lies/337949/41 "2006-01-07T01:54:28Z")
In a time of extreme falsehood and wartime political propaganda, as promulgated by the Republican Regime, it is sometimes effective to match tactics. Fight fire with fire. The Right has stripped us of our Rights with their Propaganda. Power to the People! ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2006, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/age-quod-agis-makes-up-quotes-in-gd-and-tells-other-lies/337949/42 "2006-01-07T02:33:37Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > There’s no way I can show you why. Your head is too thick, your willingness to read everything the way you want it to read, and only that way, is too strong, to persuade. Drum isn’t saying what you say he says. Really? Because I _quoted_ him. So I think he’s saying exactly what I said he was. On the other hand, you haven’t done anything but link him for a point that he disavowed. So maybe “[t]here’s no way [you] can show [me] why” because you’re just making stuff up. > [@RTFirefly](#): > > But if you can’t go to the sources he cites on one single point to show how I’ve distorted a single one of them, then I say you can’t. I’ve already gone to the source – Kevin Drum – and shown that you’ve distorted the point of the whole piece. The fact is that you haven’t provided anything to support your argument (and contradict Drum’s statement about his own article) that Bush lied. I’ve already provided evidence that you’re misusing your cite. It’s now your burden to provide countervailing evidence. > [@RTFirefly](#): > > Since you missed my point the first time, let me bold it: **just because A precedes B, doesn’t mean the actor in B is aware of, or even _should_ be aware of, A.** That’s odd. I guess I did miss your point. But maybe I missed your alleged point because what you actually said was “Absurd on its face, _after everyone’s had three weeks to pick it apart_.” (emphasis added) Somehow, I don’t think you were conceding that the holes in the story came out before Kennedy’s op-ed. To say nothing of the fact that the assertion that something is “absurd on its face” means that it should be approached with suspicion anyways. No matter. Does this standard apply to everyone, or just Democrats? In other words, does **RTFirefly** ’s law – **just because A precedes B, doesn’t mean the actor in B is aware of, or even _should_ be aware of, A.** – apply to Bush? Because if so, you have yet to provide any evidence that Bush himself actually knew about the dissenting evidence. I won’t hold my breath that you’re going to provide that evidence. > [@RTFirefly](#): > > No, just repeated instances, reported during the past couple months, of the Bush Administration’s investigating people and organizations that weren’t violating the law, or likely to. Quakers, gays, vegans investigated as security threats. 30,000 national security letters. That sorta thing. First of all, your description of the investigation(s) is misleading. Second, how does the fact that the FBI supposedly investigated activist groups support your assertion that the DHS agent lied? They’re totally separate agencies, operating under separate laws, under separate circumstances. > [@RTFirefly](#): > > No, it’s just not particularly reliable that they’re telling the truth. So you have no evidence that the DHS agent was lying, but that’s good enough for you to suggest that believing him is absurd. Your logic is flawless. > [@RTFirefly](#): > > I find **your** statement very revealing. You don’t seem to have kept up on the news much lately, but you still want to debate it. By all means, inform me when you think I’ve missed a relevant news story. But since you haven’t linked to any, I’ll assume that this is just more childish bluster. > [@RTFirefly](#): > > Well, _yeah_. Or that it should have been obvious to him that the news account wasn’t true. Or that the news source itself had a reputation for unreliability. Well, at least you’re admitting to changing the discussion when it becomes clear you can’t support your arguments. I suppose that’s a form of honesty. From my original posts (which you quoted in the first post of this thread): > [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > One more example of the noise to fact ratio: > … > And rather than admit that he’d proliferated a false story, thus damaging the credility of law enforcement officials and programs, Kennedy thought that it was more important to “raise awareness” about the corrupt Bushista regime. > … > That’s the noise to fact ratio I was talking about. He could have reduced the noise by admitting that the story was a lie; instead, he said the story was good because it “raised awareness” that made his political opponents look bad. More astute minds may have picked up on the phrase “noise to fact ratio.” I wasn’t saying Kennedy lied; I was saying that he was proliferating false information. Oddly enough, you seem to be shying away from that original discussion. I wonder why? > [@RTFirefly](#): > > What Bush told us was that Saddam had mobile bioweapons labs. Period. Full stop. I consider that a lie. Great. Just so long as you understand that your definition of “lie” and the rest of the world’s is different. > [@RTFirefl](#): > > Kennedy did due diligence; Bush didn’t. Cite please? Because you haven’t provided any evidence that Kennedy did any due diligence. In fact, all the evidence seems to indicate that Kennedy did not due diligence, because any due diligence would have given rise to doubts about the veracity of the report. _See, e.g._ the Boston Globe story (indicating that they did not report the incident because a simple interview of the student gave rise to doubts about the veracity of his story); denials by the DHS; denials by the University; the American Libary Assoc. (publishing a story that cast doubts about the veracity of the students’ claims); etc. You haven’t provided any evidence that Bush didn’t do due diligence. In fact, your own cite seems to suggest that Bush _did_ due diligence. Your argument that Bush knowingly lied to the American people, despite contrary evidence, suggests that he knew about the contrary arguments, and thus that he must have done due diligence to discover that contrary evidence. Not to mention the fact that your cite shows that he cited to evidence, which suggests that he did due diligence. Do your arguments make sense in your head? Because if so, you really need to stop and think before typing them. > [@RTFirefly](#): > > Which is a good for-instance of why you are fundamentally not worth arguing with. Are you arguing with me? Because you just seem to be desperately moving away from the original points of argument to try and talk about more familiar things; namely, that Chimpy McHalliburton is _baaaad_. But by all means, I’m practically begging you, please stop arguing with me. Because I find it exhausting to keep digging for logic in your posts. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2006, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/age-quod-agis-makes-up-quotes-in-gd-and-tells-other-lies/337949/43 "2006-01-08T02:43:18Z")
> [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > I’ve already gone to the source – Kevin Drum – and shown that you’ve distorted the point of the whole piece. The fact is that you haven’t provided anything to support your argument (and contradict Drum’s statement about his own article) that Bush lied. As you surely noted, Drum in turn cited sources on each point. Either those sources support my claim that Bush is lying, or they don’t. You say not. Go for it. Show me which one doesn’t. > [@](#): > > I’ve already provided evidence that you’re misusing your cite. In your fantasies, dude. > [@](#): > > Does this standard apply to everyone, or just Democrats? In other words, does **RTFirefly** ’s law – **just because A precedes B, doesn’t mean the actor in B is aware of, or even _should_ be aware of, A.** – apply to Bush? Because if so, you have yet to provide any evidence that Bush himself actually knew about the dissenting evidence. Evidently you failed to read what I said about due diligence before writing this part of your response. Re-read, please. There are other alternatives - for instance, that Bush was the victim of a massive conspiracy by members of his own administration to hide the truth from him during the run-up to war, and he hasn’t punished any of the participants because he’s so oblivious that he still doesn’t realize his own people gamed him. That’s the less flattering explanation, though, and pretty much any other explanation you can come up with is on that same order, given the responsibilities of the office. > [@](#): > > Second, how does the fact that the FBI supposedly investigated activist groups support your assertion that the DHS agent lied? Didn’t make that assertion. Re-read, please. > [@](#): > > From my original posts (which you quoted in the first post of this thread):More astute minds may have picked up on the phrase “noise to fact ratio.” I wasn’t saying Kennedy lied; I was saying that he was proliferating false information. Either you were blaming Kennedy for a poor noise-to-fact ratio, or you weren’t. If you were, then you are saying he either knew, or should have known, that the piece in question was false when he cited it. If not, then you are doing him an injustice by bringing it up at all. > [@](#): > > Oddly enough, you seem to be shying away from that original discussion. I wonder why? Because I Pitted you over your having made shit up. Remember? I left the original thread because you made shit up rather than debate in a reasonable manner. And here, you have drawn absurd equivalences, as I pointed out in my last post, and have responded to my post as if I never said those things. So your absurd equivalences are still there, and I only have to point them out again if I’m to continue debating with you. Gets kinda boring. > [@](#): > > In fact, all the evidence seems to indicate that Kennedy did not due diligence, because any due diligence would have given rise to doubts about the veracity of the report. _See, e.g._ the Boston Globe story (indicating that they did not report the incident because a simple interview of the student gave rise to doubts about the veracity of his story); denials by the DHS; denials by the University; the American Libary Assoc. (publishing a story that cast doubts about the veracity of the students’ claims); etc. You realize this makes no sense at all. You’re saying that to cite a newspaper story in an op-ed, you’ve got to do all sorts of independent digging first. That standard of due diligence would eliminate op-ed pages. > [@](#): > > You haven’t provided any evidence that Bush didn’t do due diligence. In fact, your own cite seems to suggest that Bush _did_ due diligence. Oh, so you’re saying Bush knew about none of the countervailing evidence, despite the fact that people working for him knew this evidence, but that constitutes due diligence for the President of the United States building a case for war. All I can say is, what a bozo you are portraying Bush as. And yourself, too. > [@](#): > > Do your arguments make sense in your head? They seem to make sense on the page, too. Except to you. I’m not sure what would make sense to you. > [@](#): > > Are you arguing with me? Because you just seem to be desperately moving away from the original points of argument to try and talk about more familiar things; namely, that Chimpy McHalliburton is _baaaad_. No, actually, I _have_ moved away from the original point of argument of this thread - that you made shit up. That’s not in question. But you questioned my response to **Clothahump** , and in a lapse of judgment, I didn’t just tell you to go jump when you essentially took his place in that thread of this discussion. Anyhow, to get back to the original point of argument, you made shit up. End of story. Buh-bye. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/age-quod-agis-makes-up-quotes-in-gd-and-tells-other-lies/337949.md?page=2)