|
FirmhandKY -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/27/2009 5:28:12 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DomKen
I'll answer each of your questions as soon as you admit the lie in your first post on this matter. No weasel words and no semantics. You claimed the NYT article had no sources not that it had no sources you found acceptable. That is untrue and until you cease trying to deflect from that fact I will continue making fun of you for getting so worked up because I busted you on it.
Until then keep up the faux outrage. It's truly hilarious.
Where do you get this stuff from anyway? It would be hilarious if it weren't so pathetic.
First ... be clear. Which "first post" of mine are you referring to, exactly? My first post in this thread didn't address anything about sources and the NYT.
If you mean my post (yesterday?) after 8 pages of sometimes interesting, sometimes crap comments about the dastardly Cheney and the "damn with faint praise" Bush?
Since you can't be clear, I'll assume the later. And, since you either did not bother to go back and read it before writing the post of yours I quoted - or you didn't understand it, intentionally or not - let me quote myself on the issue:
The news story, and the OP about it have nothing other than fear and suspicion. Not a single fact that this even occurred. Not even two sources, that any reputable story should have (hell, the National Enquirer requires two sources for UFO stories, even if they have to make them both up!).
You have either misstated my words, or you have a reading comprehension problem. To summarize and rephrase, I said:
1. The news story is meant to dredge up anti-Bush emotions and reactions.
2. There are no facts to discuss.
3. The source is not reputable
4. There were not two sources.
Since I hadn't read the story since the OP posted it, you pointed out my error of the missing "s" in "sources". I acknowledged my error in post 153:
Hmmm, I guess that they met at least the National Enquirer standard ...
I don't know if you have real problem with dyslexia or whether your just gloss over stuff you don't want to acknowledge. Regardless, it's your biggest fault and problem with anyone trying to engage you, and expect any sort of reasonable or rational conversation.
There is a big difference between claiming "no sources" and claiming only a single source.
And you refuse to address the other three points or the other points I've raised since. Which, I suspect, is the intent of your red herring about "no sources".
Your next failing is that you use inflammatory words in an attempt to put your rhetorical opponent off guard, and deflect from your failings to address the issue.
Which is what you have done through out this thread, and are attempting to do here, especially with the use of the word "lie". You are calling me a liar, even after I acknowledged my error in the one "source" versus "sources". And you use these type of "fighting words" to avoid addressing the issues.
Why? Because you have no answer, and aren't man enough to admit you are anything less than omniscient, or sly enough to simply shut up and slink away quietly. Maybe you didn't like it that I didn't fall down on my knees at the radiance of the DomKen, and abase myself with a cat-o-nine tails?
Pfffff!!
Grow up.
No, what I fully expect you to do, is again make specious, BS claims about "what I said", and "what I won't acknowledge" and avoid discussing any of the points I've brought up.
Can you prove me wrong?
Firm
|
|
|
|
