2
   

OMG! CONDI (and BUSH & Now SCOTT) Still Thinks IRAQ = 9/11

Forums: Politics, Bush, Iraq, Condi, Condoleezza Rice
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 May, 2005 06:17 am
dlowan wrote:
I think Lash has decided that, since there is, and can be, no PROOF that there WASN'T any co-operation at all, this is the same as proving there WAS.

If you look back on the thread there is a quite fascinating progression towards this taking place.


Kind of like the liberal outlook on this latest Newsweek debacle.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 May, 2005 06:20 am
Oh come on, McG, that's totally off-topic on this thread.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 May, 2005 06:24 am
obfuscate \OB-fuh-skayt\, transitive verb:
1. To darken or render indistinct or dim.
2. To make obscure or difficult to understand or make sense of.
3. To confuse or bewilder.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 May, 2005 06:46 am
Off topic? Perhaps. True none the less.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 May, 2005 06:49 am
McGentrix wrote:
Off topic? Perhaps. True none the less.


Last night at my gig this cute little 22 year old waitress kept walking past me and I found myself wondering what her really hot ass would look like out of her pants and then berated myself for thinking such a thing when I'm happily married. It was distracting.

Off topic? Perhaps. True none the less. :wink:
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 May, 2005 06:49 am
McG, if you were ever actually in possession of the truth, your devoted little pate would explode.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 May, 2005 06:53 am
So back to Lash's claim that OBL and Saddam were working together: I believe the fallacy is callled argumentum ad ignorantiam, right?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 May, 2005 06:55 am
heeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheehee . . .


okbye
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 May, 2005 07:06 am
McGentrix wrote:
dlowan wrote:
I think Lash has decided that, since there is, and can be, no PROOF that there WASN'T any co-operation at all, this is the same as proving there WAS.

If you look back on the thread there is a quite fascinating progression towards this taking place.


Kind of like the liberal outlook on this latest Newsweek debacle.


Lol! Nah.

Good try.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 May, 2005 08:55 am
McGentrix wrote:
dlowan wrote:
I think Lash has decided that, since there is, and can be, no PROOF that there WASN'T any co-operation at all, this is the same as proving there WAS.

If you look back on the thread there is a quite fascinating progression towards this taking place.


Kind of like the liberal outlook on this latest Newsweek debacle.


I am curious as to what my outlook is suposed to be on Newsweek. I guess I should ask McG what I am supposed to be thinking.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 May, 2005 09:12 am
parados wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
dlowan wrote:
I think Lash has decided that, since there is, and can be, no PROOF that there WASN'T any co-operation at all, this is the same as proving there WAS.

If you look back on the thread there is a quite fascinating progression towards this taking place.


Kind of like the liberal outlook on this latest Newsweek debacle.


I am curious as to what my outlook is suposed to be on Newsweek. I guess I should ask McG what I am supposed to be thinking.


Wiser words have never been spoken. I just wish more people would follow your lead here.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 May, 2005 12:01 pm
McGentrix wrote:
parados wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
dlowan wrote:
I think Lash has decided that, since there is, and can be, no PROOF that there WASN'T any co-operation at all, this is the same as proving there WAS.

If you look back on the thread there is a quite fascinating progression towards this taking place.


Kind of like the liberal outlook on this latest Newsweek debacle.


I am curious as to what my outlook is suposed to be on Newsweek. I guess I should ask McG what I am supposed to be thinking.


Wiser words have never been spoken. I just wish more people would follow your lead here.


I was curious as to what my outlook is McG, since you seem to know it better than I do. Or is this painting liberals with a broad brush without bothering to check what they think first.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 May, 2005 12:10 pm
parados wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
parados wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
dlowan wrote:
I think Lash has decided that, since there is, and can be, no PROOF that there WASN'T any co-operation at all, this is the same as proving there WAS.

If you look back on the thread there is a quite fascinating progression towards this taking place.


Kind of like the liberal outlook on this latest Newsweek debacle.


I am curious as to what my outlook is suposed to be on Newsweek. I guess I should ask McG what I am supposed to be thinking.


Wiser words have never been spoken. I just wish more people would follow your lead here.


I was curious as to what my outlook is McG, since you seem to know it better than I do. Or is this painting liberals with a broad brush without bothering to check what they think first.


I am sure you would like me to provide this for you, but then you wouldn't be educating yourself. Please read the pertinent information and respond with an appropriate response explaining your opinion on what you have read. Include a bibliography of what you research please.

When you are done, I will tell you if you got it correct or not.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 May, 2005 12:49 pm
I always thought Newsweek was a weekly news magazine, similar to Time. Is that correct McG?

Gosh, I feel so enlightened already just waiting for your response.

But this is hijacking the thread.

Why don't you start a "McG explains Newsweek thread", McG.. I am sure it will be enlightening to all.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 May, 2005 01:16 pm
that would be a sub-chapter in McG explains the Universe in an upcoming edition of Reader's Digest.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 May, 2005 01:59 pm
I'm saving that one for a post script in my autobiography Dys.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 May, 2005 02:00 pm
yeah? who's going to write it?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 May, 2005 02:03 pm
I am still in process of assembling a crack staff of ghost writers. You are not inquiring about a job are you?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 May, 2005 03:22 pm
Speaking of Ghosts, I hope Lash hasn't become one. I haven't seen much of her since she accused others of running from the facts.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 May, 2005 03:30 pm
Parados--

I'm surprised you want to continue considering how little you know about the run up to the war.

Ask one of your liberal buds, if one hasn't informed you yet.

Or Google it. It's common knowledge.

Why don't you give a straight answer, parados?

old europe wrote:
So back to Lash's claim that OBL and Saddam were working together: I believe the fallacy is callled argumentum ad ignorantiam, right?

You're so cute. Suffering from a super sized dose of ignorance yourself, obviously, and in denial, but cute.

The fact is-- when OBL agreed to stop assisting the Kurds in their continuing insurrection against Saddam--he is working with Saddam toward an aim.

When Saddam agrees to give OBL safe haven against prosecution for terrorism, he is working in concert with OBL-- they are working toward the same goal.

I'm not concerned about convincing anyone, because it is easy to see you will deny anything you don't like.

The offers by both men are recorded in the 911 Commission Report. Those offers of assistance are working together.

And, dlowan, you almost had it right.

Since they communicated three times through intermediaries--(what was that about again...?) and since they offered one another assistance that we know of-- and it can definitely not be proven that they did not work together--

Then acting like a bunch of hyenas when one submits their collusion IS possible is stupid.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND - Discussion by Foxfyre
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Fellow Bostonians: How many of us wished we had an assault weapon last night? - Question by maxdancona
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
What should be first on the agenda of the winner in November? - Discussion by Frank Apisa
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » OMG! CONDI (and BUSH & Now SCOTT) Still Thinks IRAQ = 9/11
  3. » Page 10
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 05/15/2025 at 07:06:53
▲ ▼