Liberalism is Not Conducive to Happiness

old europe wrote:

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?

Statements like: "From that point of view, almost all of the world's population is "available". At least for the United States with their military power." Are you implying the U.S. would attack anybody in the world? Good grief! As for invading Sudan, we were talking about the availability of Bin Laden to Clinton when he was in Sudan. You seem to imply that "availability" would be attained by attacking countries. That is why I made the comment about Clinton not intending to attack Sudan, as kind of a flippant remark in response to yours of like kind. That is obviously not what we are talking about here. I don't know what your angle is concerning this debate? Old Europe, correct me if I am wrong, but by reading your posts, you seem to resent the U.S. going after terrrorists, and have a sympathy for them? My apologies if that is not the case, but on whose side are you here?

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?

I understood WHAT you were trying to say, I was merely pointing out how feeble and stupid this analogy was. It is not parados but YOU who invented this incredibly stupid "analogy."

0 Replies

Uh...Roxxxanne? (doing my best Beavis and Butthead leering laugh)
huhuhh huhuhh...

I like your avatar.....

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Statements like: "From that point of view, almost all of the world's population is "available". At least for the United States with their military power." Are you implying the U.S. would attack anybody in the world? Good grief! As for invading Sudan, we were talking about the availability of Bin Laden to Clinton when he was in Sudan. You seem to imply that "availability" would be attained by attacking countries. That is why I made the comment about Clinton not intending to attack Sudan, as kind of a flippant remark in response to yours of like kind. That is obviously not what we are talking about here. I don't know what your angle is concerning this debate? Old Europe, correct me if I am wrong, but by reading your posts, you seem to resent the U.S. going after terrrorists, and have a sympathy for them? My apologies if that is not the case, but on whose side are you here?

Ad hominum logic fallacy.

Accusing the other person of supporting terrorists to attempt to make your argument stronger.

This argument doesn't change the fact that there is no "offer" in Clinton's statement. As OE has pointed out, there is no requirement of an "offer" to arrest and detain terrorism suspects. One other example is the CIA rendition from Italy which now has 22 CIA agents wanted for kidnapping charges. There was certainly no offer for that to happen.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Accusing the other person of supporting terrorists to attempt to make your argument stronger.

I did not accuse him of supporting terrorists. I simply pointed out that his posts may give that impression, so that he may wish to explain himself better and clarify his support for fighting terrorism if that is his position. I asked him what his position is. Honesty here on this forum is fairly important.

To repeat for the 100th time, the word, "offer" is not physically in the statement, but it is implied. Do we have to go through the definition of "implied" again?

0 Replies

okie: Clinton said he didn't take bin Laden. So bin Laden must have been offered to him.

me: Well, I'd say many people in Guantanamo have been "taken" without having been "offered".

okie: They are in Guantanamo because they became available.

me: What do you mean by "available"?

okie: We've caught them on the battlefield.

me: So they became "available" through an invasion.

okie: Your statements are way over the top! Your accusations don't even dignify an answer!

me: What accusations?

okie: You are implying the U.S. would attack anybody in the world! Your posts sound like you are supporting the terrorists!

0 Replies

okie wrote:

I simply pointed out that his posts may give that impression, ...

.... that his post gave YOU that impression ...

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

okie wrote:
I simply pointed out that his posts may give that impression, ...

.... that his post gave YOU that impression ...

important distinction, that....

0 Replies

Okay, I'm waiting for OE to clear up a possible misinterpretation of his posts. Being open is the key to understanding here.

OE, you are misinterpreting my posts. I pointed out that the battlefield was just one method of obtaining terrorist suspects. Since we know Clinton did not invade Sudan, then it should be obvious to you that the availability of OBL there to Clinton was not via the battlefield.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

parados wrote:

Accusing the other person of supporting terrorists to attempt to make your argument stronger.

I did not accuse him of supporting terrorists. I simply pointed out that his posts may give that impression, so that he may wish to explain himself better and clarify his support for fighting terrorism if that is his position. I asked him what his position is. Honesty here on this forum is fairly important.

It is still an ad hominem. No different from "I am simply pointing out that your posts give the impression that you are an idiot." or "My apologies if you are not, but are you and idiot?" It is addressing the person and not the issue and as such is an ad hominem

Quote:

To repeat for the 100th time, the word, "offer" is not physically in the statement, but it is implied. Do we have to go through the definition of "implied" again?

Your definition of "implied" is different from the dictionary definition or any normal usage I am familiar with. Asking someone if they support terrorism in the manner you did certainly implies you think they do. You used the words "I" and "you" in the post. You only had a thinly veiled attempt to disguise it by turning it into a question instead of making a statement.

If Clinton had said "I didn't accept" then it would imply an offer. But Clinton only said, "I didn't bring him here." As OE mentioned, there is no requirement of an offer in order to bring someone here. There are many ways to do it without an offer.

0 Replies

to get back on topic, just a little bit;

obviously, some conservatives are happier than some liberals.

conservatives are happier when grousing about clinton. and liberals are happier asking conservatives why the don't hold bush to the same standards they are measuring clinton by...

saying that made me HAPPY!!!! Laughing

0 Replies

DTOM: That made me happy too! Laughing

0 Replies

parados wrote:

If Clinton had said "I didn't accept" then it would imply an offer. But Clinton only said, "I didn't bring him here." As OE mentioned, there is no requirement of an offer in order to bring someone here. There are many ways to do it without an offer.

You are correct, Clinton said "I didn't bring him here." The reason he cited was because we had no basis to hold him. That implies he could have brought him here if as he said, he would have had a reason to "hold him." The implied "offer" by the Sudanese can be interpreted to have been brought about in more than one way. They probably knew of his whereabouts, and may have allowed us to take him into custody. Or they may have taken him into custody and then turned him over to us. Or it could have been arranged where we were informed as to how he would leave the country and we could take him at some point in that process. Any way you look at it, as an "offer" or not, he must have been "available" in some manner as Clinton implied. And any assistance to us in terms of allowing us to gain custody of OBL from Sudan, to me, implies an offer of some kind, whether it is outright turning him over to us, helping us capture him, allowing us to capture him, or whatever.

Obviously it was not through the means of invading Sudan, as OE implied we could do anywhere in the world if we wanted to. I had previously pointed out that some Gitmo detainees were obtained on the battlefield, but obviously that scenario does not apply to Sudan, which I pointed out to OE.

See how easy this is to figure out if you only use a little reasoning? No wonder liberals aren't happy, if a simple statement by Clinton is so confusing to figure out.

0 Replies

Vietnamnurse wrote:

DTOM: That made me happy too!

glad i couldn't brighten your day, vn ! :wink:

0 Replies

okie wrote:

<snip>That implies

<snip>would have had

<snip> implied "offer"

<snip>can be interpreted

<snip> They probably

<snip> may have

<snip> Or they may have

<snip> Or it could have been

<snip> must have been "

<snip> to me, implies

<snip> or whatever.

<snip> No wonder liberals aren't happy

not a liberal
not a conservative

but way entertained

0 Replies

ehBeth -

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Okay, I'm waiting for OE to clear up a possible misinterpretation of his posts. Being open is the key to understanding here.

Nope. You accused me of supporting terrorism. You'll have to point out how my posts could possibly be interpreted as support for terrorism. If you can't, I'll accept your apology.

okie wrote:

I pointed out that the battlefield was just one method of obtaining terrorist suspects. Since we know Clinton did not invade Sudan, then it should be obvious to you that the availability of OBL there to Clinton was not via the battlefield.

Or maybe the availabilty of OBL was only via the battlefield and Clinton decided against it. Could be, couldn't it?

okie, as long as you cannot find a statement that says "Sudan offered to hand OBL over to us", you have no base for claiming that Clinton declined such an offer.

You can say he decided against "bringing OBL here". You cannot say he declined an offer.

<this is tedious>

0 Replies

Offer now seems to mean "not interfering with" or "whatever."

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

<this is tedious>

I'll agree with you there.

To review what I said: Europe, correct me if I am wrong, but by reading your posts, you seem to resent the U.S. going after terrorists, and have a sympathy for them? My apologies if that is not the case, but on whose side are you here?

This was in response to: "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."

So I did not accuse you of supporting terrorism. In fact my statement was more a question than an assertion. You still have not volunteered much information to correct a wrong impression. I simply do not detect much sympathy for U.S. efforts to fight the problem. If that is incorrect, I apologize. And I did not care for the suggestion that the U.S. could or might attack virtually any and all countries.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Offer now seems to mean "not interfering with" or "whatever."

I always interpreted it in that manner. Any assistance in any way, as agreed ahead of time, I would view it as an offer. Offering OBL never meant to me that he had to be handcuffed and in ball and chain, then flown to the U.S. on a Sudanese jet to Gitmo to be presented at the gate.

0 Replies

Liberalism is Not Conducive to Happiness

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know