DIYbanter - View Single Post

(Doug Miller) wrote in
:

In article . 201,
Nate Perkins wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in
. com:

In article . 201,
Nate Perkins wrote:
Doug Miller wrote in
.com:

In article . 201,
says...
[...]

Anyone reading the Cincinatti speech reasonably would
come to the conclusion that WMDs and terror links are the main
theme of the speech.

Anyone reading the Cincinnati speech reasonably would come to the
conclusion that the President *did*, in fact, talk about bringing
freedom and democracy to Iraq.

But you claimed that he didn't.

You are right. The president did mention freedom and democracy in
the Cincinatti speech. I was engaging in hyperbole when I said he
didn't "make a peep" about that. There is a peep there.

No, you were not "engaging in hyperbole" and you know it. You were
lying.

Why do I have the impression that anyone who sees things differently
than you must by "lying?"

This isn't a case of "seeing things differently", Nate. This is a case
of someone (specifically you) making a statement that directly
contradicts observable reality. You claimed that the President said
nothing in his speech about bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq.
That claim is utterly false.

Actually I said that according to the speech the primary reasons for
invading were the threat of Iraqi WMDs and terror links. Which is of
course the thesis laid out near the beginning of the speech. On this
point you called me a liar.

Then I said that the reason was not to spread freedom and democracy, and
I made the mistake of using the hyperbole "not a peep." This is of
course hyperbole, because peeping was not literally involved and
figuratively the peep occurs in, what, paragraph 42? Of course on this
point you are eager to again call me a liar.

Amazing to me that you cannot admit the simple truth that WMDs and
terror links were the primary justifications given for the invasion, and
that both are now fairly thoroughly discredited. On this point, you'll
equivocate endlessly, try to divert, split hairs, etc etc.

What hubris.

No, it's an acknowledgment of objective reality. You made a
demonstrably false statement.

Hubris: "An arrogance due to excessive pride and an insolence toward
others." Obviously this is a comment on your style.

And you're lying now: there's more than "a peep" there, as anyone
who reads the speech can see, and you know it.

Criminy. If the shoe were on the other foot you'd be whining at me
about the definition of "peep" so we could quantify whether or not
there's a "peep" there.

Now you're splitting hairs and playing word games, Nate.

Such irony.

The thesis is clearly not the spread of freedom and democracy.

The subject of the discussion right now is your false claim that the
speech said *nothing* about those topics.

Of course that's what you'd like to change the discussion to.

The
thesis is the danger of Iraqi WMDs and Iraqi terror links. You do
know how to spot a thesis? It comes at the beginning of the speech
(not in paragraph 42).

As I said befo if you don't appreciate being called a liar,
refrain from making posts that contain clearly obvious and readily
demonstrable falsehoods.

Yet another insult. Not surprising.

If you tell the truth, no one will have any reason to call you a liar.

More hubris.