quote:
I thought I gave a detailed response to pretty much every you've said, boorite. If you want to bring up a specific point to which I did not respond, bring it up in your post.
I did, several times, with emphasis.
I think the nuance of my poo-flinging has escaped you. When I go ad hominem, the thought I intend is more like, "You do not seem very familiar with this topic you are trying to espouse steadfast opinions on, and you do not seem interested in learning." You've never contradicted me on that point, no matter the subject, and there have been many. Instead you berate me for having made the observation. Well, if it's a crime to point out that you sound just like a person who has no idea what he's talking about, then I plead guilty. Slap the cuffs on me.
That's awfully close. It's more like: Kerry described how he witnessed and even participated in war crimes in Vietnam. We know war crimes were committed in Vietnam. We know Kerry saw combat action in Vietnam. Therefore, it is not hard to believe that Kerry saw war crimes. (In fact, it would be hard to believe he didn't notice war crimes, as committing them was basically US policy at the time, as is widely acknowledged.)
And your charge that he now denies his earlier account is false. He just chickened out about the language he used. He says he stands by what he said, but wishes he had used "less abrasive" words. Again, I know you hate it when I point this out, but you do not seem to have taken the time to inform yourself on this topic.
quote:
I don't really care about arguing with that. I do care about pointing out that you constantly need to obscure ever single argument on here with paragraph after paragraph of flawed logic and assumptions you could drive a tank through.
"We must assume one would not lie if that lie hurt people the person making the statement once knew"
You're right, I would say that's a flawed assumption. It is also one I didn't make. I talked about "suspicions" and leaning toward one or the other argument, just on the face of it. Not "must assume" anything. Then I went on to test the suspicions by reference to the actual record. To you, this is obscure logic, but I think any reasonably bright person could follow it.
As you always argue with insupportable things that were not said. There's a name for that technique. Do you know what it is? Would you like to? It's called "straw man," and you've done it at one time or another to all of us, and it doesn't fool anybody here.
quote:
"We must assume that if you want to impress people socially that that group of people is the entire population of a region"
Yes MikeyG, I'm going to argue with that.
I'm sure MikeyG is devastated that you have refuted a position that he never stated.
quote:
I notice you don't approach any of my points (which you say are not legitimate). Are you saying there was NO gain to attaching oneself to a political movement against the Vietnam War? Or that such a movement wouldn't hurt the sitting popular Republican president Nixon? Or that people didn't join in on anti-war rantings because it made them more friends than enemies? All those points are not legitimate? I can't believe you think that.
Good, because I don't. I acknowledged that those were possible motives, but they looked like rather weak motives for getting up in front of the whole country and saying "I committed war crimes." The real money for a Skull-and-Bones old-money Yalie like Kerry would have been elsewhere.
Indeed, Kerry lost his 1970 bid for Congress.
As you should, if I said that, but I didn't. So you shouldn't. I said one might lean, with some confidence, toward one account or the other, based on facts and reason. Ideas like "100% infallible" never appear anywhere in any argument I ever make, unless I happen to be smoking PCP on top of a fifth of bathtub Tequila, which I never do anymore.
Sure, I look like an idiot.
BTW, I remember you licking your chops over Kerry's war record coming out in the press. Couldn't wait, you said. Well, it has now. Front page of the Washington Post has a feature piece on that very topic today. I wonder if you will read it.
In the paper version, the jump page for that story has a piece about how Congressional Republicans are spewing all over Kerry's 1971 opposition to the Vietnam war. Again, they are not contesting anything he said. They are denouncing him just for saying it. And so it goes, just like I said.
---
What others say about boorite!
