I have a suggestion for you, nimh.
Instead of cluttering up your posts with comments that may or may not be true, try to get some evidence. Unless you are a noted political scientist, I just don't accept the veracity of the so-called facts you give. [..]
I can show that the Universe of War Opponents not as similar as your simplistic universe would have it.
(Italgato was responding to this
post by the way).
So show me. You have stated or called "unassailable" the following statements - for example:
- The US has been "uncovering [..] colonies of terrorists", "now that we've taken the country.
- Saddam Hussein was the liberals' "favorite world leader behind Jacques Chirac". That's the "liberals", generally.
- The liberals "said Saddam Hussein [..] was not a threat to America's interests in the region".
Can you give any
evidence, whatsoever, of the kind you require to take someone's post seriously, to back up any
of these statements?
Thus far, you have not offered more than "I vaguely seem to recall some "war opponents" who did", on count three, and nothing on count 1 or 2. Of course you did write, back then, "I will do some research on this question. I do hope that you will not feel aggrieved if you have to wait a while", so perhaps we should wait a little longer still?
I have explained why I
disagree with them or consider them fallacies. You reproach me for not giving sufficient "facts" to dis
prove them - but shouldn't you start out by suggesting any shred of "evidence" to underbuild your case in the first place?
Except for, Ann Coulter said so, so it must be true?
nimh- do you really honestly think I am going to answer your disorganized half-literate screed on Coulter.
In your own words: "Cute but not even in the area of Opinion( see guidelines)--more of a 'non-sequitur'".