I didn't know the full meaning of the word assertion. 
Should I now pretend I'm you and feign outrage at your "snottiness"?
)(Though I kinda liked the Obama song)Setanta wrote:That was Hillary's response, nonetheless... and asking the GIs in Iraq how safe we are is a nonsensical statement.As for being safer than we were in 2001, that is so far out in the Twilight Zone it's incredible.
Ask the GIs in Iraq how safe they are.
How do you miss the Spiderman thing there, McG? (Damn I suck at writing music
Close enough. That's a knockoff too...
You're the one who looks silly, O'Bill. This is what you wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:The FACT still remains that Hillary did indeed say what Okie claimed and there remains no logical reason to ask a random GI whether the nation is safer.
I have nowhere denied that Clinton said what Okie claimed. I don't agree that "we" are safer, but that does not constitute a denial of Okie's claim about what Clinton said. Apparently it is necessary to point out to you that Clinton doesn't do my thinking for me. "We" means all Americans, and that includes the GIs in Iraq. They are certainly not safer, and four years after the clown on Pennsylvania declared "mission accomplished," they are still targets precisely because they are Americans--that's a no-brainer, which makes it problematic that even you cannot understand that.
I repeat, at no time did i deny that Clinton said what Okie claimed she said. You have no case, which is typical.
The problem with this bob and weave tactic is that it doesn't mesh with your other attempts to pretend you didn't step in it. I'll highlight in this color and size to help you find your error. :wink: If you look past my foolish misuse of the word assertion; this is where you've stepped on your own bogus story again:OCCOM BILL wrote:Setanta wrote:I made no such claims. The simple fact is; a random GI, by virtue of being a GI, is no expert on National Security, and tapping him to elucidate whether or not we are safer is an obvious example of Argumentum ad misericordiamSo you claim, O'Bill. Do you contend that they ceased to be Amerians when they went overseas. Do you claim that no one is attacking them because they are Americans and it's easier to get at them there than it is here?
Setanta wrote:I find your post nonsensical, O'Bill.
Your assertions were not factual <-notice the plural, nor was i using argumentum ad misericorciam. I was not appealing to anyone's pity, i was pointing out that those who hate America, and who are willing to take the risk, can go to Iraq to kill Americans. That is good evidence that this war has not lessened the risk to Americans from fanatical Muslim terrorism.
However, i am far more amused by your claim to have made factual "assertions."
[url=http://www.answers.com/topic/assertion][b]Answers-dot-com[/b][/url] wrote:assertion n.
1. The act of asserting.
2. Something declared or stated positively, often with no support or attempt at proof. (Answers-dot-com uses the American Heritage Dictionary for their source.)
There is no such thing of a factual assertion. Certainly you can assert that your claims are factual, but that will not make it so. It only becomes "factual" when you provide incontrovertible proof of your statements. Finally, i did not either claim that a GIs are expert on national security nor did i appeal to pity on behalf of them. So your response was neither factual, nor was it relevant. It was a non sequitur.
