Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Anti War Protests
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="canon" data-source="post: 167915" data-attributes="member: 8423"><p>Hmm, not sure how you could not see your attempt to discredit the source. You say he <em>has</em> a dog in this particular fight, and that he <em>is not</em> a legal scholar. Agreed, he is the press secretary. By your own admission <em>just a messenger and therefore not as reliable</em> as someone who has no dogs in this fight or a legal scholar. When I said it was a logical fallacy, it falls under the fallacy ad hominem (attacking the person):</p><p></p><p>A says X.</p><p>B attacks A.</p><p>X is wrong.</p><p></p><p>Fleischer says "blah blah blah".</p><p>Jones says Fleischer isn't knowledgeable.</p><p>"Blah blah blah" is wrong.</p><p></p><p>To remind you of your original statement: <em>Feel free to quote Ari Fleischer, but let's keep in mind that he's not an independent legal scholar giving an objective analysis.</em></p><p></p><p>Bugs Bunny is neither real nor a scientist, but if he declared the earth orbits the sun it isn't automatically wrong because he isn't an authority. The statement itself receives the scrutiny, not the messenger. And we both know that's a decision for the courts. Admittedly, there aren't many in favor of claiming it was legal. I still stand on the grounds that R.678 provides all the legal grounds necessary for an end to the cease fire. But you already knew that.</p><p></p><p></p><p> </p><p>The post from Fleischer only pointed out the whitehouse take on things in response to slothrops post. Again with the discrediting.. and how dare you discredit me. For all you know I might be teaching international law from the rear bumper of my truck on lunch breaks. <img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/group1/tongue_smilie.gif" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":tongue_sm" title="Tongue Smilie :tongue_sm" data-shortname=":tongue_sm" /> </p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You're right. We should just create them and forget them. It's mighty convenient that only some are deemed worthy of upholding when it supports a particular goal.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Trying to gain international support is backwards? The resolution granted authority and specific definitions for when force was warranted, the UN shouldn't have needed prying. Out of curiosity, how do you see the handling of the resolutions on the part of the UN? It wasn't long after any of the resolutions were drafted that Saddam was thumbing his nose at the world and testing the waters with targeting our aircraft. Do you lay any blame at the feet of the UN for not taking control of the issue way back in Clinton days? Bush sort of inherited quite a mess didn't he?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Cool, we find common ground. The last statement isn't directed at anyone in particular, rather the whole "Bush is a criminal" crowd collectively. </p><p></p><p>To me this whole argument looks like this:</p><p></p><p>*Coalition attacks Iraq based on authority granted in 678.</p><p>*World condemns Coalition and claims there was no authority.</p><p>*UN authority only resides in resolutions and decisions which condemn the actions.</p><p></p><p>For some reason, I tend to see the greatest opponents to the war have always been the biggest proponents for Gore/Kerry. Is this true in your case? It doesn't discredit your statements, so feel free to answer truthfully. Understandably, that number is growing to include those who once supported Bush. Maybe it reflects the release of Gore's movie... you know how easily persuaded America is by celebrity. He's like Obi-Won now: His presidential dreams extinguished by the evil Darth Bush... but now more powerful in his after-political life.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And why is it nobody wants to answer the question: how do we get out?</p><p>Seems the world is full of critics with nothing more useful than signs on sticks. I'd love to hear one response to that.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="canon, post: 167915, member: 8423"] Hmm, not sure how you could not see your attempt to discredit the source. You say he [I]has[/I] a dog in this particular fight, and that he [I]is not[/I] a legal scholar. Agreed, he is the press secretary. By your own admission [I]just a messenger and therefore not as reliable[/I] as someone who has no dogs in this fight or a legal scholar. When I said it was a logical fallacy, it falls under the fallacy ad hominem (attacking the person): A says X. B attacks A. X is wrong. Fleischer says "blah blah blah". Jones says Fleischer isn't knowledgeable. "Blah blah blah" is wrong. To remind you of your original statement: [I]Feel free to quote Ari Fleischer, but let's keep in mind that he's not an independent legal scholar giving an objective analysis.[/I] Bugs Bunny is neither real nor a scientist, but if he declared the earth orbits the sun it isn't automatically wrong because he isn't an authority. The statement itself receives the scrutiny, not the messenger. And we both know that's a decision for the courts. Admittedly, there aren't many in favor of claiming it was legal. I still stand on the grounds that R.678 provides all the legal grounds necessary for an end to the cease fire. But you already knew that. The post from Fleischer only pointed out the whitehouse take on things in response to slothrops post. Again with the discrediting.. and how dare you discredit me. For all you know I might be teaching international law from the rear bumper of my truck on lunch breaks. :tongue_sm You're right. We should just create them and forget them. It's mighty convenient that only some are deemed worthy of upholding when it supports a particular goal. Trying to gain international support is backwards? The resolution granted authority and specific definitions for when force was warranted, the UN shouldn't have needed prying. Out of curiosity, how do you see the handling of the resolutions on the part of the UN? It wasn't long after any of the resolutions were drafted that Saddam was thumbing his nose at the world and testing the waters with targeting our aircraft. Do you lay any blame at the feet of the UN for not taking control of the issue way back in Clinton days? Bush sort of inherited quite a mess didn't he? Cool, we find common ground. The last statement isn't directed at anyone in particular, rather the whole "Bush is a criminal" crowd collectively. To me this whole argument looks like this: *Coalition attacks Iraq based on authority granted in 678. *World condemns Coalition and claims there was no authority. *UN authority only resides in resolutions and decisions which condemn the actions. For some reason, I tend to see the greatest opponents to the war have always been the biggest proponents for Gore/Kerry. Is this true in your case? It doesn't discredit your statements, so feel free to answer truthfully. Understandably, that number is growing to include those who once supported Bush. Maybe it reflects the release of Gore's movie... you know how easily persuaded America is by celebrity. He's like Obi-Won now: His presidential dreams extinguished by the evil Darth Bush... but now more powerful in his after-political life. And why is it nobody wants to answer the question: how do we get out? Seems the world is full of critics with nothing more useful than signs on sticks. I'd love to hear one response to that. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Anti War Protests
Top