In Reply to: Re: "poor Hitler" Your employment of sarcasm to counter my argument... posted by Gee LP on June 11, 2005 at 18:47:03:
It already pretty much was.Like, "If your statement is true, aren't the Japanese Imperial Navy suckers and Adolph Hitler a good partner who found himself in a poor situation because of this partnership?" That doesn't at all follow from what I said.
"Actually, your original argument (one I have seen you use several times on "Outside") about President Bush being justified in going to war with Iraq because of FDR's naval military orders from February 1941 on..." I don't recall having used that argument. All's I ever said was that he acted on a continuity of intelligence info from the previous administration. And by the way, explaining is not justifying.
"You say one word of sarcasm, which could just as well be read as a God's-honest-truth adjective given the results of the situation..." Huh?! "Poor"?
"Do you think the Japanese were suckers and the Germans were just good partners?" No.
clark
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- "So one word of sarcasm renders my argument specious, eh?" No. - clarkjohnsen 08:57:57 06/13/05 (3)
- Re: I'm surprised you now say "No." - Gee LP 18:45:29 06/13/05 (2)
- "Clark, next time you want to lick Nazi boots and kiss Japanese ass, go right ahead." See what I mean? - clarkjohnsen 10:52:47 06/14/05 (1)
- Re: Yes, the end today. - Gee LP 14:49:25 06/14/05 (0)