Liberalism is Not Conducive to Happiness

Roxxxanne wrote:

As anyone can see, the husband would be in considerable hot water for lying to his wife about such a trivial matter, instead in the mind of the okie, it is the wife who is stupid and a liar. This makes absolutely no sense and it reveals a lot as to why okie is so confused about virtually everything.

No, you missed the whole point of the analogy. The wife is stupid and a liar according to the reasoning of Parados, not me. The wife in the analogy is Hannity, who simply drew a conclusion based on logic, as the wife did. Now Hannity is labeled the liar by Parados. HELLO Roxxxanne, do you get it now?

0 Replies

so okie, if you're done complaining, along with sean, about clinton;

perhaps you can explain why, with the all of the info that was supposed to be around, and so well known about obl, bush/cheney swept into the white house and didn't do jack about it ?

hmmmm???

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Parados, you are hilarious. Are you a lawyer? I will try to walk you through it. Trust me, its not that hard. Just try it.
Here's Clinton's quote again:
"He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan. And we'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again. They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America. So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have."

To analyze this statement logicly, I submit the following analogy:
"A homeless man was thrown out of Mr. Saudi's house and taken to Mr. Sudan's house. Mr. Sudan wanted to deal with Mr. Clinton and Mr. Sudan sought to release the homeless man from his house. At the time, Mr. Clinton had no basis to want to take custody of the homeless man and house the homeless man so he called Mr. Saudi and pleaded with Mr. Saudi to take the homeless man back."

The word, "offer" is not included in the statement, but the statement certainly implies that Mr. Sudan "offered" to release custody of the homeless man to Mr. Clinton, but Mr. Clinton indicates he does not have reason to house the homeless man and instead calls Mr. Saudi and pleads for him to take the homeless man back. See how easy that is to analyze with logic, Parados? Try it, its not that hard.

Parados, have you ever encountered the meaning of the word, "implied." If a man goes to the store and comes home with groceries and comments to his wife that the groceries were expensive, and the woman says to him that he should not have bought so much, if the man were you, Parados, you might say, "I never said I bought anything did I?" The woman could obviously point out, "no, but you implied it." At which point, you would probably call the woman stupid and a liar for reading too much into his statements.

P.S. Parados, are you the guy that told Clinton to point out that it depended on what the meaning of the word, "is" is?

And by the way, I am not making up meanings and demanding anybody accept them, I am simply looking at the meanings of what has been said, and suggesting some logic in their interpretation. Where do you have evidence I demanded anything?

I am quite familiar with the word "implied" okie. There is no implication of an offer in the statement by Clinton. Because someone doesn't take custody doesn't imply an offer at all. "They released him" makes it hard for there to be an offer at all.

The police arrested a man that was breaking into my house. They released him. I didn't bring him home with me. I pleaded with the courts to put him away. (no offer that I can see.)

"They released him" is the operating phrase. It negates any implication that there was an offer.

A homeless man was at the shelter. They released him. I didn't have room to keep him at my house. I pleaded with the Saudis to take him.

You have to ADD words to your example okie. "release custody" was NOT in the original. "They released custody" is quite different in meaning from "They released him." "Released custody" means someone else takes control so it might well imply an offer. "Released" means he is free to go so there is no way it can imply an offer..

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Roxxxanne wrote:

As anyone can see, the husband would be in considerable hot water for lying to his wife about such a trivial matter, instead in the mind of the okie, it is the wife who is stupid and a liar. This makes absolutely no sense and it reveals a lot as to why okie is so confused about virtually everything.

No, you missed the whole point of the analogy. The wife is stupid and a liar according to the reasoning of Parados, not me. The wife in the analogy is Hannity, who simply drew a conclusion based on logic, as the wife did. Now Hannity is labeled the liar by Parados. HELLO Roxxxanne, do you get it now?

Your example of the wife in no way relates to Clinton. It certainly has implications because 1. The person has something actually in there possession. 2. the person makes a comment about what was in theire possession.

Hannity is stupid, maybe too stupid to lie.

No reasonable person can take "They released him" to mean an offer to take him. I challenge you to write any scenario where you use the words "They released him" followed by "I didn't take him" that could in any way possible mean the release was an offer to take. No adding other words to change the meaning.

0 Replies

Dont Tread on Me wrote:

so okie, if you're done complaining, along with sean, about clinton;

perhaps you can explain why, with the all of the info that was supposed to be around, and so well known about obl, bush/cheney swept into the white house and didn't do jack about it ?

hmmmm???

By the time Bush took office, OBL was refuged in Afghanistan. I do not think Bush had much opportunity concerning OBL in the months he was in office prior to 911.

This attempts to cover the timeline of events:
http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020812/story8.html

I do not know if Bush did all that he could or placed the terrorism problem as the highest priority that it should have been. However, all the noise from Richard Clarke and other Clinton administration officials that it was top priority with them and not with Bush, we know that is incaccurate by simply remembering what they did when they had the chance. Mostly nothing. I think it is a very concerted effort of CYA in their case. The above article pretty much seeks to vindicate Clinton officials.

Much has been made that Bush, Rice, and others in the Bush administration did not take the threat seriously, and there is plenty of noise on the internet propagating that theory. There is the alternate theory:
http://www.nationalreview.com/document/clarke200403221131.asp

Who do you believe? My personal opinion is Bush and company probably did not take it as seriously as they did after 911, but nobody did, including the Clintonites, contrary to the CYA operation they carry on now. If it had been a higher priority with Clinton, it would have rated more than being a law enforcement problem, and some Democrats continue to advocate the problem to fall under the heading of law enforcement even yet today. There is evidence that Bush was asking for a plan to do something fairly dramatic with the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan even before 911. Does this sound like somebody that did not take the problem seriously? I think not.

If Bush had been president during the Sudan affair and had the chance of obtaining Bin Laden, I think he probably would have taken Bin Laden. We really do not know for sure. What we do know is Bush will take a stand and take action, whereas Clinton was a waffler and pretty much a do nothing president in regard to decisions like that. What we do know is the Clinton administration was impotent and disorganized in regard to terrorists.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

You have to ADD words to your example okie. "release custody" was NOT in the original. "They released custody" is quite different in meaning from "They released him." "Released custody" means someone else takes control so it might well imply an offer. "Released" means he is free to go so there is no way it can imply an offer..

Okay I'll try it again with pretty much the exact Clinton statement with the appropriate example inserted.

"A homeless man was expelled from Mr. Saudi's house in 1991, then he went to Mr. Sudan's house. And we'd been hearing that the the Sudan family wanted the Clinton family to start dealing with them again. They released the homeless man. At the time, 1996, the homeless man had committed no crime against the Clinton family, so I, Mr. Clinton, did not bring him to my house because we had no basis on which to lock him up there, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against our house. So I pleaded with the Saudi household to take him, 'cause they could have."

Parados, I don't understand how your brain works, but in the above statement, it certainly sounds to me like Mr. Sudan had "offered" to release custody of the homeless man to the Clinton household if Mr. Clinton would agree to it, but instead Mr. Clinton called Mr. Saudi and pleaded for him to take him back, because as Mr. Clinton indicated, the Clinton household had no grounds on which to bring him home, house him there, and hold him there.

Are you going to call me a liar for that interpretation? Or is it "I am too stupid to lie?"

0 Replies

I have no idea how you get "custody" from the statement. It isn't there. You insert words not in it and in no way implied. I can only assume you have inserted "custody" so many times in your own mind you see it when it isn't there. I see this statement "At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America." as the "We didn't arrrest him because we had no reason to." It is the simplest explanation for the meaning. Assigning a complex reason when a simpler one will suffice is a logical fallacy. And you love your logical fallacies okie.

Take your pick on the choice. I see no reason to assign either one.

0 Replies

"...so I did not bring him here..."

How does this interpret to the liberal mind? Were Clinton was not offered something, why would he say that?

0 Replies

"Parados, I don't understand how your brain works, but in the above statement, it certainly sounds to me like Mr. Sudan had "offered" to release custody of the homeless man to the Clinton household if Mr. Clinton would agree to it, but instead Mr. Clinton called Mr. Saudi and pleaded for him to take him back, because as Mr. Clinton indicated, the Clinton household had no grounds on which to bring him home, house him there, and hold him there."

Okay take the word custody out of it, it doesn't change the meaning in my opinion.

"Parados, I don't understand how your brain works, but in the above statement, it certainly sounds to me like Mr. Sudan had "offered" to release the homeless man to the Clinton household if Mr. Clinton would agree to it, but instead Mr. Clinton called Mr. Saudi and pleaded for him to take him back, because as Mr. Clinton indicated, the Clinton household had no grounds on which to bring him home, house him there, and hold him there."

Now you add this puzzling statement Parados that you interpret the statement to mean "We didn't arrest him because we had no reason to." It seems to me like you only confirm my argument. Your statement implies we could have arrested him if we thought we had a reason to but we didn't. So Osama was available for arrest but he wasn't offered? Whats the difference in terms of result? This debate, like other ones we've had is getting strange again. You are contadicting yourself. Please be consistent.

0 Replies

Quote:

so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him

That's what you're having problems with? Well, I can't help but think of the detainees in Guantanamo. Obviously, they were brought there. Obviously, they were not offered.

Or did I miss something?

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Quote:
so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him

That's what you're having problems with? Well, I can't help but think of the detainees in Guantanamo. Obviously, they were brought there. Obviously, they were not offered.

Or did I miss something?

Obviously they must have been available and we had the ability to "bring them there," whether they were "offered" or not, or they would not have ended up there.

0 Replies

So you agree that they were not "offered". What do you mean by "they were available"?

0 Replies

Is anyone else getting a migraine?

0 Replies

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
DTOM,
I never said he wasnt questioned,I asked you if he ever testified at the hearings themselves.

You suggested that he did with your original statement.

sorry for the confusion, mystery.

camp david, huh ? pretty impressive. you do get around, doncha? :wink:

No,
I had just finished some training,and hadnt been stationed anywhere yet.
They needed a corpsman at Camp David for temporary duty,and I was available.

I was only there for 3 months,and I dont remember if President Reagan ever visited during that time.
I was replaced by a higher ranking corpsman after those 3 months.
I was just filling the vacancy till a more senior corpsman came along.
I was a HM-1 (e-6),and they wanted a HMC (e-7) there.
Once he showed up,I went back to the 1st marine division.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

So you agree that they were not "offered". What do you mean by "they were available"?

Some were probably captured, and some were probably offered by the countries where they were captured and we took them. Either way, the result was the same, they ended up in Gitmo.

What I mean by "they were available" is that they were readily available for taking them into our custody if we chose to, either on the battlefield or in countries that were cooperating with us. This should not be rocket science here. Do you get it now? Yes, Snood, I am getting a migraine.

It all depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

What I mean by "they were available" is that they were readily available for taking them into our custody if we chose to, either on the battlefield or in countries that were cooperating with us.

Perfectly clear. If you include the option of invading a country in order to capture somebody, then it makes sense. From that point of view, almost all of the world's population is "available". At least for the United States with their military power.

On the other hand, how does that make "being available" into "being offered"?

0 Replies

I wasn't aware that Clinton was planning on invading Sudan for the purpose of making OBL available for capture. Old Europe, I think some of your statements are way over the top. I don't think some of your accusations even dignify an answer.

0 Replies

What accusations?

Why was Clinton planning on invading Sudan? Where did I say that?

We were talking about Guantanamo, right?

What statements are over the top?

0 Replies

snood wrote:

Is anyone else getting a migraine?

hah! yeah.. and it's making me downright unhappy.... Laughing

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

DontTreadOnMe wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
DTOM,
I never said he wasnt questioned,I asked you if he ever testified at the hearings themselves.

You suggested that he did with your original statement.

sorry for the confusion, mystery.

camp david, huh ? pretty impressive. you do get around, doncha? :wink:

No,
I had just finished some training,and hadnt been stationed anywhere yet.
They needed a corpsman at Camp David for temporary duty,and I was available.

I was only there for 3 months,and I dont remember if President Reagan ever visited during that time.
I was replaced by a higher ranking corpsman after those 3 months.
I was just filling the vacancy till a more senior corpsman came along.
I was a HM-1 (e-6),and they wanted a HMC (e-7) there.
Once he showed up,I went back to the 1st marine division.

aw well, i'm still impressed mystery. the only time i've seen camp david is on the news... or the west wing. :wink:

0 Replies

Liberalism is Not Conducive to Happiness

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know