The State of the Union: Lies about a Dishonest War

"john" wrote in message
...

So you blindly dismiss any book by Dershowitz because of his
partisanship.


Of course. I'm interested in arguments based on facts and logic.



Can't you handle different viewpoints?

If you read the book then you might have some germane comments to
make.

Maybe you can then tell us where in the book Dershowitz lied or
exaggerated or misled the reader.


I don't see the leopard changing his spots.



If you read the book you might get an understanding as to how the
Supreme Court is supposed to work and how it did work in the Florida
election.


Well, since a post-election analysis of the Florida vote shows that Bush
would have won even if Gore had had his way we know the Supreme Court did no
harm in this election, regardless what Dershowitz has to say about it.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

Of course. I'm interested in arguments based on facts and logic.

Wow! are you ever in the wrong medium if that's what you're after. People
are entitled to their opinions, they shouldn't have to write a novel each
and every time they wish to express it, just so someone can feel like
they've seen some "facts and logic" You want facts and logic, go argue on
an M.I.T. group!

"None" wrote in message
ink.net...

Wow! are you ever in the wrong medium if that's what you're after. People
are entitled to their opinions, they shouldn't have to write a novel each
and every time they wish to express it, just so someone can feel like
they've seen some "facts and logic" You want facts and logic, go argue on
an M.I.T. group!


People are entitled to their opinions, but they aren't entitled to state
them as facts. If you want to say, "I think Bush lied about WMD", that's
fine. If you want to say, "Bush lied about WMD", expect to be challenged.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

People are entitled to their opinions, but they aren't entitled to state
them as facts. If you want to say, "I think Bush lied about WMD", that's
fine. If you want to say, "Bush lied about WMD", expect to be challenged.

They are opinions, dude. That's the assumption in a casual conversation.
No one's writing a book, here. If someone says "for a fact" or "I know
for sure", then you've got a point. Otherwise, lighten up.

--

People who go looking to be offended will rarely be disappointed

The ultimate purpose of humanity is to judge God.

For those who ca it's would HAVE, should HAVE, and could HAVE.

"RogerM" wrote in message
...

They are opinions, dude. That's the assumption in a casual conversation.
No one's writing a book, here. If someone says "for a fact" or "I know
for sure", then you've got a point. Otherwise, lighten up.


Don't want to be challenged? Don't want to support anything you assert?
Then don't express your opinions as if they were facts.

RogerM wrote:
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

People are entitled to their opinions, but they aren't entitled to
state them as facts. If you want to say, "I think Bush lied about
WMD", that's fine. If you want to say, "Bush lied about WMD",
expect to be challenged.

They are opinions, dude. That's the assumption in a casual
conversation.

No one's writing a book, here.

You know this for a fact?


(Sorry, couldn't resist that one.)
--
Later
Kal

--

---------------------------------------------------------
/ /
/ /
/ This space for rent /
/ /
/ /
---------------------------------------------------------

Kal Alexander wrote:

RogerM wrote:
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

People are entitled to their opinions, but they aren't entitled to
state them as facts. If you want to say, "I think Bush lied about
WMD", that's fine. If you want to say, "Bush lied about WMD",
expect to be challenged.

They are opinions, dude. That's the assumption in a casual
conversation.

No one's writing a book, here.

You know this for a fact?

(Sorry, couldn't resist that one.)

Nice one.

--

People who go looking to be offended will rarely be disappointed

The ultimate purpose of humanity is to judge God.

For those who ca it's would HAVE, should HAVE, and could HAVE.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:



People are entitled to their opinions, but they aren't entitled to state
them as facts. If you want to say, "I think Bush lied about WMD", that's
fine. If you want to say, "Bush lied about WMD", expect to be challenged.

Yes, we are entitled to our opinions and we are entitled to express them. Maybe
Bush did not actually lie about WMDs. Maybe he was just plain stupid. There were
lots of other world leaders who were not sucked into the phoney proof. It's
getting close to a year since Bush ordered his troops to invade Iraq because
Saddam's stockpile of WMDs was a threat to the US. I have maintained all along
that if there was enough proof of the existence of those WMDs to justify
invasion, they should have been found long ago.

So is he a liar, or is he a fool who was duped by "intelligence" people who are
still working for him?

"Dave Smith" wrote in message
...

Yes, we are entitled to our opinions and we are entitled to express them.
Maybe
Bush did not actually lie about WMDs. Maybe he was just plain stupid.
There were
lots of other world leaders who were not sucked into the phoney proof.
It's
getting close to a year since Bush ordered his troops to invade Iraq
because
Saddam's stockpile of WMDs was a threat to the US. I have maintained all
along
that if there was enough proof of the existence of those WMDs to justify
invasion, they should have been found long ago.

So is he a liar, or is he a fool who was duped by "intelligence" people
who are
still working for him?


Are those the only possibilities?

"Dave Smith" wrote in message
...

So is he a liar,

Most likely.

or is he a fool who was duped by "intelligence" people who are
still working for him?

.....and most likely still have the same ulterior motives.