Logic for Limbots (Was: If character isn't an issue)
David E Joslin
construction, so let's try to make this very, very simple.
IF character IS an issue, THEN Clinton's draft story IS an issue.
IF character IS an issue, THEN Iran-Contra IS an issue.
IF character IS NOT an issue, THEN Clinton's draft story IS NOT an issue.
IF character IS NOT an issue, THEN Iran-Contra IS NOT an issue.
You may want to print these out and carry them in your wallet.
Now pay very close attention:
Bush says that Iran-Contra IS NOT an issue. From this we can conclude
(you'll have to trust me on this -- it involves logic) that George Bush
believes that character IS NOT an issue.
But Bush says he believes that character IS an issue.
From these last two we can conclude that George Bush is a hypocrite.
Hope this helps.
(Did I mention that there are only 25 known "Limbots" and this is not
synonymous with "Limbaugh fan"? So nobody should take offense, okay?)
David
"Pols lie" -- sign at Bush rally
Joseph J. Marcheso Jr.
dej...@pitt.edu (David E Joslin) writes:
> Bush says that Iran-Contra IS NOT an issue. From this we can conclude
> (you'll have to trust me on this -- it involves logic) that George Bush
> believes that character IS NOT an issue.
As scintillating and engrossing as this logic 101 course was allow me
to destroy it. George Bush has already given a full and comprehensive
statement on the matter including sworn testimony and, if you read
carefully, (which I hope you do, wouldn't want this brillliant logic to
go to waste) you'll see that this memo was not new! He had already
known of it when he made his statement. Now Clinton's story on the
draft keeps evolving, one day one thing one day another. Therefore lets
wait until CLinton comes clean on many issues before we even BEGIN to
put him in the realm of the integrity of the president.
Here's a logic term for you "False Analogy"
Bye,
Joe Marcheso
f...@iscsvax.uni.edu
> In article <88...@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>
> dej...@pitt.edu (David E Joslin) writes:
>
>> Bush says that Iran-Contra IS NOT an issue. From this we can conclude
>> (you'll have to trust me on this -- it involves logic) that George Bush
>> believes that character IS NOT an issue.
>
> As scintillating and engrossing as this logic 101 course was allow me
> to destroy it. George Bush has already given a full and comprehensive
> statement on the matter including sworn testimony and, if you read
> carefully, (which I hope you do, wouldn't want this brillliant logic to
> go to waste) you'll see that this memo was not new! He had already
> known of it when he made his statement.
Gee, uh, Joe, Weinberger's stuff is new. Sorry if the facts get in your way.
You might also look at how Bush's story has evolved on this.
> Here's a logic term for you "False Analogy"
>
> Bye,
> Joe Marcheso
Joe also has a sig. about how Dukaikis and Clinton have both been voted best
governor. Joe, how nice of you to give us a false analogy right after you
bring up the term!! If you like them so much, how about this one?
Nixon was a vice-president who ran on his experience (esp in foreign policy and
values)....
mister rogers
mz...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu writes:
> Don't worry, Joe, some of the American public still have open eyes and
>functioning brains. We know how to read or listen "carefully", and we
>know Bush lies when he lies.
> And mind you, don't be surprised to find out that MANY americans are not
>that stupid at all as you or Bush hoped we would be.
anyone older than 20 years would have to be pretty thick not to know that
politicians lie, for real, not just in old movies. any one who thinks clinton
is telling the whole truth about his draft record is about as bright as anyone
who EVER thought george bush knew nothing about the iran-contra affair.
clinton will have at least as many things to hide as bush by the time his term
is over.
just wake up. who ever is president is going to have things the public will
not know. don't try to argue that your man is clean as the other is not. if
you have functioning brains, it doesn't make sense.
for the record:
1) bush's knowledge of iran-contra should be an issue as it happened while he
was in a postion of power. and he tried to conceal his knowledge. he has
tried and succeeded (temporarily/partially) in deceiving the public while in a
postion of trust. probably a president should not have to tell the people
everything, but his deception was clearly for political gain. once the scandal
broke he should have come out with what he knew was going on.
2) clinton's draft record is not an issue. he's all growed up now, people. i
suppose you could consider his piecemeal telling of the story as an indicator
of his character. his running of the state of arkansas is an issue, whether
you think well of it or ill of it. his womanizing is not an issue, kennedy was
a womanizer, washington was a womanizer, degrees are debatable. clinton does
strike one rather as a car salesman, but that's a personal opinion. so far as
one can tell, he has not deceived his constituency while in a position of
trust. this is an issue.
if you feel george bush has done an unsatisfactory job as president, this
alone is not sufficient reason to vote for bil. please find another.
-------------
mister rogers
-------------
Andrew J. Lazarus
#to destroy it. George Bush has already given a full and comprehensive
#statement on the matter including sworn testimony ...
>Perhaps, but Bush's sworn testimony has never been made public.
>So everyone will have to read what Shultz and Weinberger have said,
>and read what George Bush has said, and make up their own minds:
Excellent refutation deleted comparing Bush with Weinberger et al.
However, the premise is FALSE. Sorry, Mr. Marcheso, but Bush has never
given SWORN testimony on Iran/contra. Neither the Tower commission nor
the congressional committee (both of which Bush quite obviously lied to)
required him to appear under oath. In general, Congress never swears in
Executive officers, assuming that they are truthful. Elliot Abrams
became an exception. :-(
His statement was not full, and to the extnt it was comprehensive, it
was false.
Bush was in the loop; he knew the details of the arms transactions; he
knew they were to bribe the Iranians into supporting hostage release; he
knew that Weinberger and Schultz were opposed.
andy
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton.alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Logic for Limbots (Was: If character isn't an issue)
Summary:
Expires:
References: <88...@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> <1992Nov1....@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> <88...@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
Keywords:
In article <88...@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> dej...@pitt.edu (David E Joslin) writes:
>Joseph.J.Marcheso.Jr.@dartmouth.edu (Joseph J. Marcheso Jr.) writes:
#As scintillating and engrossing as this logic 101 course was allow me
#to destroy it. George Bush has already given a full and comprehensive
#statement on the matter including sworn testimony ...
>Perhaps, but Bush's sworn testimony has never been made public.
>So everyone will have to read what Shultz and Weinberger have said,
>and read what George Bush has said, and make up their own minds:
Excellent refutation deleted comparing Bush with Weinberger et al.
However, the premise is FALSE. Sorry, Mr. Marcheso, but Bush has never
given SWORN testimony on Iran/contra. Neither the Tower commission nor
the congressional committee (both of which Bush quite obviously lied to)
required him to appear under oath. In general, Congress never swears in
Executive officers, assuming that they are truthful. Elliot Abrams
became an exception. :-(
His statement was not full, and to the extnt it was comprehensive, it
was false.
Bush was in the loop; he knew the details of the arms transactions; he
knew they were to bribe the Iranians into supporting hostage release; he
knew that Weinberger and Schultz were opposed.
andy