parados wrote:No you didn't. No reasonable person would buy your argument Tico that claiming a reason doesn't mean you claimed a reason.
Well, you know what they say .... reasonable minds may differ.
Which does not, BTW, mean I'm calling you reasonable.
When GWB "Mission Accomplished" was not accomplished the message had to be changed. GWB thought it was done - fait accompli - but now he says it could be for years.
Ticomaya wrote:parados wrote:No you didn't. No reasonable person would buy your argument Tico that claiming a reason doesn't mean you claimed a reason.
Well, you know what they say .... reasonable minds may differ.
Which does not, BTW, mean I'm calling you reasonable.
I bet you can't find too many people that would agree with you that "I fought for a cause" means "The cause had nothing to do with why I fought."
parados wrote:Ticomaya wrote:parados wrote:No you didn't. No reasonable person would buy your argument Tico that claiming a reason doesn't mean you claimed a reason.
Well, you know what they say .... reasonable minds may differ.
Which does not, BTW, mean I'm calling you reasonable.
I bet you can't find too many people that would agree with you that "I fought for a cause" means "The cause had nothing to do with why I fought."
Perhaps not ... If that's what I was trying to say. Which it isn't.
I'm not saying the cause had
nothing to do with why you fought. I'm saying it doesn't necessarily have to be a/the reason for why you fought.
Ticomaya wrote:
I'm not saying the cause had nothing to do with why you fought. I'm saying it doesn't necessarily have to be a/the reason for why you fought.
Oh, so you are saying it might have been a reason except when admitting it was a reason would put your argument in jeopardy therefore it probably wasn't a reason but it still might have been except if Bush said it then it probably wasn't. Just because someone said the cause was why they fought doesn't really mean it had anything to do with it even though they said it and the English language means it would tie the two together. There is still some element of doubt because maybe the person saying it wasn't really an English speaker and didn't understand that the wording only has one meaning. So therefore because of the complete confusion about the meaning we can't really make any conclusions about what was said.
I'm saying it is not reasonable to conclude that based upon what Bush said in that quoted speech, that he was offering "fighting for the cause of liberty" as the reason for the war.
But if you have convinced yourself that I'm wrong, I refer you you my response in subsection (b) in ....
THIS POST.
Your reasoning is very circular and weird, Ticobama.
snood wrote:Your reasoning is very circular and weird, Ticobama.
Perhaps you were just unable to follow it, sneed. In any case, I refer you to subsection (b) of my response.
Whatever you say, Chrissee.
snood wrote:Your reasoning is very circular and weird, Ticobama.
Yeah but it is fun to watch the tag team guys spinning out of control.
Crying? Well. The war doesn't affect me, at least for now, I don't have any friends or relatives there, I am making more money than I ever have in my life, I live in an exclusive neighborhood in the most beautiful city in the US, I am even insulated against gasoline prices as all my car expenses are re-imbursed.
But I have a conscience. And a heart.
Do I cry when I hear another five guys got blown up for nothing? Yes, sometimes I do.
There is an emotional void in your life and the lives of most conservatives. That is why you constantly lash out those who can feel real compassion.
