BernardR wrote:When I get a question directed to me, I will answer it.
Dear Bernard,
When did you become too stupid for words?
Sincerely,
Drewdad.
Drew Dad-sir: I am sure that you are aware of the meaning of Ad Hominem. If you are not sure of what it means, I will be happy to define it for you.
You replicated my post which said:
When I get a question directed to me, I will answer it.
Apparently you felt that my comment was cause for an ad hominem attack.
I will repeat-
When I get a question directed to me, I will answer it.
I trust that statement does not cause any consternation. If it does, please inform me as to the reason why it does.
Thank you, sir!!!
Since you seem to have missed Setanta's post for the obvious question it was, Bernard, let me rephrase it: What is your source for your post 2039525?
BernardR wrote:DrewDad- I am very much afraid that you l. did not read my entry about the British Intelligence Uranium report and 2. You did not read Ticomaya's post. Would you be so good to go back to read those entries? Thank you?
You do know, of course, that the Wikipedia source has been criticized for innaccuracies.
Please provide a list of innaccuracies in the article I cited.
Thank you very much.
Even the White House admits that the words should not have been included in the State of the Union. There is no doubt that the inclusion was basically a lie, which should be an impeachable offense.
Advocate wrote:Even the White House admits that the words should not have been included in the State of the Union. There is no doubt that the inclusion was basically a lie, which should be an impeachable offense.
Ahh, a new category ... "
Basically a Lie" --------> an impeachable offense.
BernardR wrote:Drew Dad-sir: I am sure that you are aware of the meaning of Ad Hominem. If you are not sure of what it means, I will be happy to define it for you.
You replicated my post which said:
When I get a question directed to me, I will answer it.
Apparently you felt that my comment was cause for an ad hominem attack.
I will repeat-
When I get a question directed to me, I will answer it.
I trust that statement does not cause any consternation. If it does, please inform me as to the reason why it does.
Thank you, sir!!!
I have a question foryou. Haver you considered changing your screen name to Eddie Haskell?
No, but I am toying with the idea of changing it to Redheat.
Ticomaya wrote:Advocate wrote:Even the White House admits that the words should not have been included in the State of the Union. There is no doubt that the inclusion was basically a lie, which should be an impeachable offense.
Ahh, a new category ... "
Basically a Lie" --------> an impeachable offense.
In reality, an impeacahble offense is anything the House deems it to be. Impeachment is a political act, not a legal one.
Roxxxanne wrote:Ticomaya wrote:Advocate wrote:Even the White House admits that the words should not have been included in the State of the Union. There is no doubt that the inclusion was basically a lie, which should be an impeachable offense.
Ahh, a new category ... "
Basically a Lie" --------> an impeachable offense.
In reality, an impeacahble offense is anything the House deems it to be. Impeachment is a political act, not a legal one.
Actually,according to article 2,section 4 of the constitution...
Quote:The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Once again, Massagato, you have failed to provide a source for your copy and paste job.
Roxxxanne wrote:FreeDuck wrote:Actually, the Kerry analogy is much tamer than the wiretap claim. Kerry could have had a faulty memory -- I believe it was shown that they had been in Cambodia, just not on Christmas eve. In Bush's case, he was reauthorizing the wiretaps every 90 days or so, and he clearly knew that what he was saying was not true.
I really wish that Fox and/or Brandon would either acknowledge the wiretap lie or provide some argument as to why it isn't a lie.
Many times, old memories are fused with other ones and are remembered inaccurately. That is how human memory works. I wonder what the motivation was for Kerry to purposely lie about this. Of course, there is none. This is similar to the claim that Al Gore said he invented the internet. Of course, he never even said that and what he did say was acftually true.
Here is the truth about Al Gores claim about the internet.
No,he did NOT claim to have "invented" the internet,but...
Quote:many of the components of today's Internet came into being well before Gore's first term in Congress began in 1977.
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
It seems that Mysteryman laid it out for us.
The phrase, "Treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors" from article 2, section 4 of the Constitution is right on target. Those who would call "impeachment" ONLY a political act, apparently have not read the Constitution.
You noticed that too, did you, Setanta?
Notice how Bernard in his many incarnations always rails at people who use citations from what he considers ideologically-biased sources, and then does exactly the same thing from the other side of the spectrum when he posts (when he identifies his sources at all, that is), e.g that "suspicious deaths in the Clinton administration" bit which keeps cropping up on the right-wing-loon conspiracy sites?
Thing about the internet is, falsehoods never die. They can be disproved again and again, and somebody always fails to keep up with the debate and goes back to an old page and brings it back again as if it were new and factual.
This is quite a revelation! There are people here who think Bush is not a liar? Amazing.
Hi Giner212, WELCOME to A2K. Isn't it amazing? With all the evidence out there that Bush is a liar, they still refuse to admit it.
