Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well your argument was that because 40% of the people believe somethign to be true, then clearly it must be true...
I wonder what percentage of the population believe a "god" exists.. I guess that means he's real.... Along with big foot, unicorns, and Obama even responsible for cutting the debt and creating millions of jobs..
Well your argument was that because 40% of the people believe somethign to be true, then clearly it must be true...
Ah. No, not at all. Sorry if I was unclear.
No, I am arguing that if a sizable percentage of a population holds a belief that is simply at odds with all verifiable facts, it is exceedingly unlikely that they stumbled onto the same misapprehension independently. It is more probable that it is due to spread of misinformation. Middle-age peasants didn't just all at once decide that Jews killed children to use their blood for religious rituals, the idea was planted in their heads.
No, I am arguing that if a sizable percentage of a population holds a belief that is simply at odds with all verifiable facts, it is exceedingly unlikely that they stumbled onto the same misapprehension independently. It is more probable that it is due to spread of misinformation. Middle-age peasants didn't just all at once decide that Jews killed children to use their blood for religious rituals, the idea was planted in their heads.
Then cite for us an example of Bush saying that Saddam was behind 9/11 because without it, you cant say he said it..
[quote=carterstamp;31082828]We did. The Taliban was ousted in like a month.
No, we didn't, not on the scale of Iraq.[quote]
I don't even know what you are talking about?
You said we should have concentrated on Afghanistan and I replied we did. That was over in about a Month.
[quote] Saddam was also given the very simple choice to allow inspectors have untethered access to his WMD program.
Saddam had no WMDs, they were gone, the chemical and bio weapons were so old as to be unuseable.
Don't you find it the least bit odd that NO WMDs were found?
[/QUOTE[
I'd bet that even YOU believed Saddam had WMD.
And that has nothing to do with what I said......Saddam could have avoided war by simply stating he doesn't have WMD and allowing the inspectors untethered access to confirm it.
If he'd have just fine that simple thing, Bush wouldn't have invaded.
Quote:
And as has been already proven numerous times, the intelligence agencies of every nation on the planet, the UN, and a majority of Democrats (including one you will probably vote for in 2016) all thought they were there.
There was also intell that said there were no WMDs. It's been discussed already multiple times that congress relied on the same flawed or misrepresented evidence we did.
False. Several US investigations and one British investigation all have shown that no one altered, massaged, or influenced the intelligence!
Quote:
Rather tough to say Bush was the only one "lying" (if that's the way you phrase it) when so many others believed the same damned thing
It wasn't just GWB, there was also Rumsfeld and Cheney. And, repeating myself, Congress relied on the same flawed or misrepresented evidence we did.
And Colin Powell. Again......you ONLY say Bush lied. You give Congress a pass for saying the same thing Bush did?
If Bush was given bad intelligence, how do you blame him for acting upon it? Did you expect Bush to personally go to Iraq? No....he believed our intligence agencies and those of every other nation on Earth.
Quote:
.......unless your agenda is partisan only.
And my agenda is over 4,000 dead troops in a war that should have never happened.
No...it's partisan when you only blame Bush for that and give Democrats a pass.
Good thing I didn't say anything of the sort, then.
You didn't say "anything of the sort"?
Hmmmm......then exactly what were you talking about when you said:
No, I am arguing that if a sizable percentage of a population holds a belief that is simply at odds with all verifiable facts, it is exceedingly unlikely that they stumbled onto the same misapprehension independently. It is more probable that it is due to spread of misinformation.
That was right in the middle of the discussion about Bush never saying that Iraq/Saddam was involved in 911.
It certainly looks to me as if you were accusing the Bush Administration of spreading misinformation.
By your own admission now, 40% beleived Saddam was behind 9/11, now once again.
What do you mean by "admission"? It's a regrettable fact. I never denied it.
Quote:
What gave them that impression? WHO SAID HE DID?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bludy-L
It certainly looks to me as if you were accusing the Bush Administration of spreading misinformation.
That's the thing - Bush & Co. went to great lengths to not say that SH was behind 9/11. If you read their speeches and press releases, they never say it. They did, however, waste no time in getting 9/11, Al Q and Sadddam Hussein's name into the same breath any number of times. Stuff like " Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained" is absolutely not a lie. Doesn't do anything to place 9/11 at Saddam's feet. But it does evoke the image of 9/11 in conjunction with Saddam Hussein. This little trick was repeated - a lot. Of course the much-repeated piece of agitprop that Saddam Hussein was in close cooperation with Al Q did its part as well.
But frankly, as much as I despise GWB and Cheney for their part in that war, it is the US media (anyone arguing that GWB had unfriendly media coverage didn't watch TV during the Iraq war run-up) who did most to conflate the issues.
Fox News had a fantastic "Global War on Terror" graphic with the twin towers, used for Iraq War coverage, for instance.
Or this awesome interview, where a tame analyst defends the 9/11 - Saddam Hussein link:
And it's not just Fox, far from it. MSNBC ran a "Showdown with Saddam" graphic during a press conference regarding Al Q. They fired Phil Donahue because he "seems to delight in presenting guests who are antiwar, anti-Bush and skeptical of the administration's motives". Can't have that.
The public was angry and frightened, the media was competing to feed their fears and anger, and the administration just dropped a few hints - nothing to nail them on, no actual lies - and let mass hysteria run its course. It was incredibly skillfully done.
So your own lack of being able to fully grasp the English language caused you to be mistaken and then attempt to club Bush over the head with a falsehood.
Got it!
I love how far left wingers pull this type of thing.....stretch what people say into what they can use against them, not give a pass to people who parse, nuance, and deny the definition of words they really did say.
It depends on what the definition of "is" is.
Posted with TapaTalk
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
