- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 75,623
- Reaction score
- 39,896
- Location
- USofA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Semi-official being key word here.
.....unpack what you mean by that?
Semi-official being key word here.
Not sure it is dumb. Some might think by these actions that the administration is actively working to have a Jewish homeland a thing of the past.
No, it's not true. I do not quite understand why it was at war with Iraq, when we have not received any benefits of this war.LOL No war is convenient, especially one against a country like Iran. You seem to enjoy invading sovereign nations. Do you think we are like the Nazi's?
Nah. That approach would ascribe a much higher degree of coordination and purpose to the Obama foreign policy than they are demonstrating. You have to have a plan in order for it to be an evil plan. As near as most can tell, this administration doesn't have a plan to begin with.
So no, in fact, you can't demonstrate that occurring in any of the posts you are deriding in this thread?
.....unpack what you mean by that?
Not so.
Iranians react to nuclear deal - Features - Al Jazeera English
I had to change my i.p. address to get that article. Ridiculous.
:lamo Well, that lasted about slightly less 72 hours.
Not sure it is dumb. Some might think by these actions that the administration is actively working to have a Jewish homeland a thing of the past.
I believe the Iranians more than our President, who is a big fat liar. And Kerry is a nincompoop.
I don't recall limiting it to this thread.
Oh, that's very clever.
You were pretty implicitly suggesting it was true of the OP. Feel free to demonstrate it, or accept that you used an ad sourcinem in place of an actual argument.
Ad "Sourcinem" is not a fallacy when you are attempting to establish credible facts. The source isn't really making an argument, as much as asserting facts. Ad "Sourcinem" is a fallacy when the person disregards an argument because of its source.
If I find a source that says the Iranians have said they will abide by the agreement, will you just believe it, or will you assess the credibility of the source? HINT: Choose the latter, or you are a dumbass.
Why did you have to change your ip address?
Has the administration responded?
It wouldn't have been a fallacy at all for you to say that. It is perfectly valid to be skeptical of presenters of information when the information being presented is a point or points of fact, and to attack if the presenter is found wanting. I would have responded "You don't need to believe me, believe what such and such credible source says about the nature of that fallacy".Ad Sourcinem is a fallacy when you refuse to detail why the presentation of facts are incorrect.
For example, if my response to this had been "oh well Dezaad is an idiot", that would be me choosing to attack the presenter of information rather than the information itself - it would have been a fallacy.
No, it is not.Had anyone bothered to check the facts of the case, they would have seen that the facts as reported were indeed very real. But they didn't do that. They chose to scoff at the source in order to avoid having to deal with the facts. That is indeed a fallacy.
You were pretty implicitly suggesting it was true of the OP.
Feel free to demonstrate it, or accept that you used an ad sourcinem in place of an actual argument.
Conservatives may be celebrating a wee bit on the early side. I clicked the link to the original story, and that News site, "Fars News" (never heard of 'em) had Iran's version of the deal, which you can see here.
The meat of the deal as seen in the White House's release still appears to be there. However, the article says that the Iranians were particular sticklers for details, and the informality of the White House's agreement is what's irking them.
So based on this story, at least, everyone seems to have lost their **** prematurely. Neither the White House nor Iran can be said to be dirty rotten liars quite yet (at least, not because of this story).
And even so, Cardinal pointed this out before in post 19.
I find it amazing that the hatred some people have for Obama exceeds their disdain for Iran. They would side with Iran over Obama.
They seem to have forgotten. It seems just like yesterday that these folks were saying we can't trust a lying Iran. (Which, I do believe is true.) No wait. That WAS yesterday!
That speaks volumes in and of itself.
That was earlier in the thread when the difference between the Iranian and White House versions of the deal wasn't clear. Now it is: the White House's release states that all 20% enriched uranium is to be taken down to 5%, the Iranian version says it's keeping half its 20% stock, and then to really confuse matters Kerry is on record saying that enrichment isn't even on the table. So the only thing that is clear at this point is that the deal hasn't been fully worked out, let alone signed.
Not that I'm defending the conservatives in this thread for using crap sources, because citing crap sources is bad, mkay?
Not exactly the real point.
The real point is, if this deal will really end the threat of a nuke-armed Iran, why is Iran saying the deal means one thing and the Prez says another?
So either the prez is lying, or Iran is lying, and/or Iran never had any intention of keeping to any deal that prevents them from making nukes.
IN short, it is evidence that this deal was going down the flush before it was even made.
If you live in the United States and try to go to aljazeera.com then you'll be rerouted to america.aljazeera.com, the edition of the newspaper without that article.
Oh. Okay. That is not the government but the company. I get rerouted or blocked for regulatory reasons a lot because I live in Germany, when I want to get music or books. Also there are problems getting Google information out of the US, because they have different search profiles or something. It is a drag, but with a small effort....
PS: I watch the international Al Jazeera program relatively regularly and find them complementary to other international views. Each country has its own slant and it is interesting to compare differences.
That was earlier in the thread when the difference between the Iranian and White House versions of the deal wasn't clear. Now it is: the White House's release states that all 20% enriched uranium is to be taken down to 5%, the Iranian version says it's keeping half its 20% stock, and then to really confuse matters Kerry is on record saying that enrichment isn't even on the table. So the only thing that is clear at this point is that the deal hasn't been fully worked out, let alone signed.
Not that I'm defending the conservatives in this thread for using crap sources, because citing crap sources is bad, mkay?