View Single Post
Old 09-19-2007, 04:04 PM   #12
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
Re: In Defence of George W. Bush

Neil Mick wrote: View Post
Wrong. Again, with the misrepresentations, the misquotations. I said,
Neil Mick wrote:
To call him stupid or to belittle him, to mock our President, is to forget how dangerous and destructive these people really are.
"These people," do not =George Bush alone, which is the core thesis of this thread.
Since "not=George Bush alone" means including George Bush, I made no misrepresentation, thanks.
It only takes a second to look at the body-count of my sig, and to realize that, yes: these men ARE personal attacks or emotional appeals, here, sorry (nor even a real need for them. The Administration's record speaks for itself).
Your "figures" have been openly questioned in the past. They're from the same sorts of people that say George Bush is an alcoholic (hope you caught the humour in my "chemical addiction" remarks toward people who were accusing George Bush of a form of chemical addiction). I.e., you're stating an opinion as fact and using it to smear Bush.... again. Ergo, ipso facto et in hoc signo vinces, it is not a "defence" of Bush at all, it's an ad hominem. Quod erat demonstrandum.

Mike Sigman
Hoc nomen meum verum non est.