Well spoken. I have to research more on this as it is really vital info.

Payday EZ pushes for no hassle approvals for payday loans with positively no no credit report necessary; families renting in in Mississippi can now apply on the Internet.

you give yourself far too much credit if you think that you are making me angry or bitter.

Quite frankly, I enjoy our little exchanges, if only to laugh at your stupidity and be reminded that the world is full of sheep such as yourself.

You do an awful lot of projection though, since your rants clearly show that you are:

- an irrational paranoid
- a bitter little man
- prone to freaking out

You can’t hide from your own posts, and the record is there for all to see. Your reputation preceds you, so you may want to consider posting under another name.

As to your trite “questions”, they are little more than a way for you to collect fodder that you can fling back into someone’s face. A real question is one where you do not know the answer. All your questions are rhetorical, since you have already made up your mind as to what the answers are.

The referenced article clearly states that many members of Iraq’s parliamnent are asking for a timetable for the withdrawal of the U.S.-led forces from the country.

As to your obvious choice to include the term “specific date” in order to change the nature of the question, you know as well as I do that the article does not mention anything about a specific date. But that’s a nice attempt at playing semantics.

As to your original assertion:

No where in the sourced article is there a mention of a specific time table as think progress claims.

Nowhere in TP’s synopsis do they mention that a specific date was demanded. In fact, they don’t even use the term “specific date”. You interjected that into the discussion. So not only are you being false in your hand-wringing over TP’s accuracy, but your own semantical word game has blown up in your face.

Better luck next time.

Comment by The LAW — July 8, 2005 @ 5:17 pm

Illinois is where Stargate.com lists its biz address. I figured there might be a connection. Thanks for the info. not to bright, are we?

You wouldn’t know a valid answer if it slapped you in the face. As I correctly surmised, you are too dense to be swimming in the big boy pool, where your attempts to tread water leave you sinking to the bottom like a stone.

Your effort (a poor one) to engage in semantical wordplay leaves you looking like the hollow shill that you are, which is a shame. I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you were able to think for yourself, but I see that is an impossibility.

Now run along and play in the kiddie pool where you belong, and be careful when you open your mouth not to swallow too much pee-laden water. Perhaps one day you’ll get buy a pair of water wings, and be able to float a reasonable argument.

Until thrn…

“Several Iraqi legislators Sunday demanded the Iraqi government exert pressure for a timetable for the withdrawal of the U.S.-led forces from the country.�

But that demand for a timetable is not in the memo signed by 1/3 (minority) of the Assembly is it John S?

I consider your answers to my questions “classic non-answers”. It took you how many tries – 3 or 4? and you still can’t give me a staright answer.

http://www.occupationwatch.org/headlines/archives/2005/07/103_mps_demand.html

That’s 38%… of mostly Shia and Kurds who supposedly love us…

And it’s not what Bush reads from a teleprompter that counts. It’s the at least 6 permanent or “enduring” bases, possibly even 14 that are being built today. Congress passed the last $82 billion request which included half a billion for permanent bases.

This decision by our government is a DIRECT threat to the lives of the men and women who serve in Iraq.

I am sorry to come off as “mean” to you, but I can’t help but feel that you are purposely being difficult/obtuse/ignorant. Let’s assume you are not, and I will address your latest queries…

No where in the sourced article is there a mention of a specific time table as think progress claims.

It actually is in the very first sentence of the sourced article:

“Several Iraqi legislators Sunday demanded the Iraqi government exert pressure for a timetable for the withdrawal of the U.S.-led forces from the country.”

Just specific steps to be taken towards complete withdrawal not inconsistent with Bush’s position.

Bush has no position on withdrawl. He won’t set a timetable, benchmarks or any other type of metric for a timely withdrawl:

“We will stay in Iraq as long as we are needed, and not a day longer.”

This is a classic non-answer answer.

“As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down.”

Rhetoric is not the same thing as a plan.

I try to keep postings short so as to not confuse or bog down the reader, such as yourself. With that said, READ the second sentence in #30. It may not be to your liking, but that is your answer. #33 will clarify that for you if you READ it.

I’ll play your little game this one time…

Legislators Sunday proposed gradual withdrawal from the cities and towns as a first step towards a complete withdrawal while speeding up preparation of the Iraqi security forces to take control of matters.

Some also demanded the U.S. embassy in Baghdad move out of the presidential palace in the “Green Zone” on the grounds it represented a symbol of the country’s sovereignty.

- Link to article

1. Nowhere in the text of Bush’s speech that you posted does Bush discuss a proposed gradual withdrawal from the cities and towns in Iraq.

2. Nowhere in the text of Bush’s speech that you posted does Bush discuss speeding up preparation of the Iraqi security forces to take control of matters. He talks about training the Iraqi security forces, but leaves us with the impression that how this is being done is satisfactory and requires no changes.

3. Nowhere in the text of Bush’s speech that you posted does Bush discuss moving out of the presidential palace in the “Green Zone” as a symbol of Iraq’s sovereignty.

There are three MAJOR differences between what Bush said and what the Iraqis in the story are saying. Did you really need me to point out these glaringly obvious differences, or are you really this obtuse?

Way to spin around in circles…clearly you have no understanding of how to make a rational argument. Here’s a little primer for you:

Burden of Proof

Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position.

Audiatur et altera pars

Often, people will argue from assumptions which they don’t bother to state. The principle of Audiatur et Altera Pars is that all of the premises of an argument should be stated explicitly.

Given the above two fallacious arguments – and your continual use of them – I not only deem your “quotes” with suspicion, but I consider the conclusions you draw from them to be specious at best.

When you learn how to make a functional argument that an intellegent person can engage in, let me know.

Until then, enjoy the sound of one hand clapping.