Re: OT: US Presidents and Foreign Policy

docdwarf_at_panix.com
Date: 03/19/05 

Date: 18 Mar 2005 20:22:54 -0500

In article <398a2$423b75d9$45491f85$7833@KNOLOGY.NET>,
LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>> In article <193c3$423a4d39$45491f85$6017@KNOLOGY.NET>,
>> LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Howard
>>>and I have heard it spun this way. If that's not good enough for you,
>>>then we'll have to agree that our experiences have been different.
>>>(Isn't that your normal response?)
>>
>>
>> My normal requests include 'document your assertions'. I've found
>> documentation from the Internal Revenue Service which clearly and
>> unambiguously refers to 'FICA tax'; all that has been brought to bear in
>> support of your assertion seems to be 'someone, someplace, at some time
>> said...'
>
>Yes - it's called "hearsay" and, for my part, I've never claimed it as
>anything else.

I see... so when you say 'they are telling lies' you are, unless you
specifically claim it otherwise, relying on hearsay.

Gives an interesting slant to how you might be interpreted when you say
'they are telling the truth', as well.

[snip]

>>
>> Ummmmm... the original assertion was by Mr Brazee, who stated that 'The
>> state claims that our social security benefits aren't a tax, but are an
>> investment. If they aren't lying to us, then their benefit should be
>> the same any way.'. You interrupted him midsentence; after 'If they
>> aren't lying to us,', you cut in with 'They are.'
>
>yup...
>
>> (again, I am interpreting Mr Brazee's 'benefits' as 'payments')
>
>agreed...
>
>> This makes, in my interpretation, for a reading of your asserting that
>> 'The state lies when it claims that our social security payments aren't a
>> tax, but they are an investment.'
>
>Okay - let's phrase it "Any politician that claims it is an investment
>is lying".

No, let's keep it the way you originally asserted it and have adhered to
up until this point... being held to your words can be difficult, I know,
but I think you can manage it.

[snip]

>> I've asked repeatedly for documentation
>> on where 'the state... claims that our social security payments aren't a
>> tax' and nobody has brought forward anything except for the aforementioned
>> 'somebody, somewhere said...'
>
>It was anecdotal, an "I heard" story - it wasn't meant to change
>anyone's mind, or be proved as a "point".

See above about 'hearsay', 'lies' and 'truth'.

>Really and truly, it was just
>idle grousing - and, with so many articles out there with "Social
>Security" and "investment" in them relating to #43's plan to save the
>beast, I don't really have the time to pour through the results to find
>one that supports the assertion.
>
>(No offense to you intended - I don't want to seem like I'm not putting
>effort into a debate, it's just that I never intended to debate this...)

It is my habit to be *very* careful when I make accusations of lies... but
that might be because I try to hold truth dear. I did not realise that
making accusations was, to you, 'just idle grousing'... it seems that you
might hold truth differently than I.

Now, I *cannot* resist...

... and *that* might be due to your self-professed adherance to
Conservative principles.

DD

Relevant Pages

  • Re: observable language change - "off of" makes it to the NY Times
    ... not" - what I found is just an assertion on the web. ... the play- you are simply saying that you don't care for the truth. ... Like when you scoff, based solely on your own uninformed intuition, at being told usage of "off of" is old; and then you're told that it is, you scoff, based solely on your uninformed intuition that says that the great writers of the centuries must necessarily have agreed with you, at the idea that anyone of literary note would have used it; and then when you're given a list of venerable uses, including some by people of literary note, you scoff at the idea that they really meant it to be taken as good usage. ... As to whether things that used to be said one way are now, whether occasionally or frequently or exclusively, said another way: yeah, languages changes, it always has changed, it isn't always logical, even the most standard features of a language are often based on earlier illogical leaps, that's life, deal with it, move on. ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: New A C Grayling book
    ... So you are saying that 'through our reason, we can see that there is ... humans or other life forms around to identify it and use it. ... Some of these have nodes where we recognise the 'truth' of the logical deduction. ... be made with any degree of confidence, just like any other assertion. ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: Godels theorem is invalid?
    ... > Then his definition of truth simply does not match the classical one. ... I am not saying that I agree with Tennant's arguments (which are based ... What exactly do you mean by the assertion ... > NOT ONE IOTA OF IMPACT on the TRUTH or the MEANING ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Surrogate factoring, room for error?
    ... >>begins with a truth and proceeds by logical steps. ... >>All we need is your assertion that you have started with a truth ... > I actually care about what's true versus talking. ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: Surrogate factoring, room for error?
    ... >>begins with a truth and proceeds by logical steps. ... >>All we need is your assertion that you have started with a truth ... > I actually care about what's true versus talking. ...
    (sci.math)