Bush Plays the Hitler Card

[PLC1]

This only makes sense if

(a) Buchanan were liberal (he isn't);

(b) Liberals were the only ones who don't like Bush (they aren't); or

(c) I had said one or both of the above (I didn't).

So you, sir, are wrong.

I had no idea that there were so many sarcasmically challenged people posting on this bord. Hereafter, whenever I make a statement that is the polar opposite of the obvious meaning, I will lable it as such.

Statements like:

That darned liberal (enter name of arch conservative)
That great man (enter name of rogue or scoundrel)

will no longer be considered obvious sarcasm while posting here.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

I'm tracking with him completely. Not sure how you are missing it.

More than one person can have an irrational belief, or can be duped by a fallacy. If both of you believe that 2+2=5, should I stop believing 2+2=4 because you guys are a 2 to 1 majority?

The statements by Pat B. suggest that somehow the Polish should have negotiated with Hitler. That they should have discussed things (which they did) and have agreed to Hitler's ultimatum.

I think you need to work on your reading comprehension skills. You missed the whole point.

SW85 is saying that this is not a legit argument, and he is right.

Anyone can "say" an argument is not legit all day long, but its meaningless. You have to PROVE it.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

Pats statements are a rewrite of known established history on a number of fronts.

Prove it.

Pat may or may not be considered by many to be a conservative. Not sure I care,

Then stop blabbering about it. If you claim he's not a conservative, then list all the positions he holds and compare him to other liberals and conservatives and see who he shares the most in common with.

However, one thing I know that Pat is without question, he's a politician.

Really? What office is he currently holding? What office is he currently running for?

This was to score political points, and media attention.

Prove it.

 

[SW85]

No native american has claimed that I am on conquered property. Regardless, all property was not taken by conquest. Some of it was purchased. Some traded for. Some negotiated for. What piece of land am I on? I don't know. Someone would have to provide evidence that it was indeed taken by conquest. Someone would also need to submit a legal claim to it.

Sometimes I wonder if you know just how silly you sound.

Let me try to explain this another way: if Poland's claim to Danzig is invalid because it was based on conquest, so is Germany's claim to broad swaths of the land it occupies.

You cannot deny the right of conquest, because there are virtually no nations throughout history whose borders have not been fixed by it -- including our own.

I had no idea that there were so many sarcasmically challenged people posting on this bord. Hereafter, whenever I make a statement that is the polar opposite of the obvious meaning, I will lable it as such.

Statements like:

That darned liberal (enter name of arch conservative)
That great man (enter name of rogue or scoundrel)

will no longer be considered obvious sarcasm while posting here.

No, I get what you were going for.

But see, when sarcasm is used, it generally has some relevance to that to which it is responding.