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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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):
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?
Great. Just so long as you understand that your definition of “lie” and the rest of the world’s is different.
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.
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.
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.
In your fantasies, dude.
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.
Didn’t make that assertion. Re-read, please.
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.
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.
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.
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.
They seem to make sense on the page, too.
Except to you. I’m not sure what would make sense to you.
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.