Simon W. Moon

You have a to quoque and ad homs for a rebuttal.

I think the ad homs may be the stronger and more practiced of your two techniques.

You seem to be taking this very, very personally.



ETA

oh yeah thanks for showing me what the PotUS said. Wherever did you find that quote?

When you get ready feel free to demonstrate what i said that was actually inaccurate. It would also helo if you backed up your implied claim that the info about the uavs was not available at the time and you claim that I was unaware of the nfo re the uavs @ the time.

Or if you'd rather, you may continue w/ your current tack.

here are some more techniques you may want to practice and apply if you dont already:
Logical Fallacies: The Fallacy Files

you can increase you repertoire of logical fallacies quickly and easily w/ the interwebs

gl

__________________
"That is the problem... [we] fell in love with the idea that politicians-- even the slickest and brightest presidential candidates-- were real heroes and truly exciting people. That is wrong on its face. They are mainly dull people with corrupt instincts and criminal children. -H.S.T"

Truth Detector

Perhaps you need to review the definition of Ad hominem? I haven't attacked your character in the least; I am attacking your gross exaggeration to make your political points.

I take lies and distortions about my party and my President seriously, particularly in a time where the men and women of our military are at risk fighting for the same Democrats and Americans who have decided to commit Jihad against their own.

I find it pathetic and disingenuous to attack the President on his position on Iraq unless you also attack all the Democrats who voted to send our troops in, attack the thugs, terrorists and murderers who are blowing things up in Iraq to prevent the Iraqi's from establishing a Democratic Government, and attack the previous Democrat Administration for the exact SAME rhetoric and intelligence. Otherwise, your rhetoric is nothing more than disingenuous political posturing to support a political view and philosophy that is rejected by a majority of Americans.

You can whine about ad hominems all you wish, but like your arguments, it doesn't make it so and is a poor substitute for honest intellectual debate.


Main Entry: 1ad ho·mi·nem
Function: adjective
Pronunciation: (')ad-'hä-m&-"nem, -n&m
Etymology: New Latin, literally, to the person
1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2 : marked by an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

__________________
Nothing can frighten a Socialist more than the TRUTH; and nothing can frighten Obama more than REALITY

Simon W. Moon

w/e
not worth talking about

AHAHAHHAHAHA
oh my goodness that's where you're coming from then

thanks for letting me know b4 I posted more

carry on dont mind me

Truth Detector

Apparently you don't even bother to read your own sources; that quote came from the White House press release you posted as evidence of your incorrect statement. Again here is my response, perhaps you need to learn some READING comprehension before you attempt to engage in a debate:

Here is your exact quote:

"Liketeh bit in cincinatti where GWB says that he "concerned" about Hussein using flying, poison spraying robots to attack the US. "

Here is what he ACTUALLY stated, and intelligence reports were suggesting it as well:

"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States. "

Again, your RHETORIC is a deliberate exaggeration about an issue that was of GREAT concern in a pathetically weak effort to make the President look bad. But alas, you and your fellow Democrats, Liberals and Leftists have the benefit of HINDSIGHT; something you all exhibit a great propensity for which is also called "second guessing" after the fact.

Truth Detector

As expected, when confronted with the FACTS, you run away from the debate. This is a good thing though, because this way we do not end up wallowing in a never ending circle of stupidity where false statements are shown to be false, a new false statement is made in an effort to evade having to confront the previous false statement...etc etc etc.

Try to come up with your own endings instead of copying mine; it is another example of how those who spend their time distorting the facts cannot even have an original thought or idea. Carry on!

Simon W. Moon

Did you hear a giant whooshing sound?

lol

independent_thinker2002

I wonder what logic fallacy this is.

Oh goodie! More logic fallacies. Ladies and gentlemen, by Truth Detector's decree, from this point forward you must address every ill in the world before you can criticize President Bush (pbuh).

Remember TD, that the inverse of this must be true. Anytime you criticize the Dems you must also criticize President Bush (pbuh). You will be held to this standard.

__________________
==]:{o

Truth Detector

I see that reading comprehension is also not your forte'. Bravo, once more you choose to avoid the issue at hand. Please show me where I typed this: "you must address every ill in the world before you can criticize President Bush"

Oh that's right, you CAN’T because I didn't type this; it is just your way of making up your own arguments because you realize that an HONEST and INTELLECTUAL debate is beyond your capabilities.

Carry on!

Sir Loin

Dude, if I had a dime for every time you claimed someone arguing with you has "reading comprehension" issues, I could afford to have you beat with a bag of cats by a gang of nuns.

Just saying.

__________________
I hate to break this to you but there is no big lie. There is no system, the universe is indifferent.

Simon W. Moon

I just priced that the other day. It really has gone up.