I think it is ridiculous to not deduct Hugo Chavez does not want
to see McCain elected from an article entitled:
"Chavez says U.S. relations could worsen with McCain"
Do you let newspaper and wire service reporters do your thinking for you, or do you not possess the common sense to think for yourself? I could probably find an article stating that GW is a drooling retard, does that mean that it's factual?
IMO it says exactly what can logically be deducted from the article's content.
And I'm saying that your logic doesn't add up. Let's use a hypothetical: we'll call Chavez Hugo, McCain John, Mrs. Clinton Hillary, and Obama Barak. Hugo does not like John. Hillary is in an election against John. So is Barak. Hugo does not say he likes Hillary, or Obama.
How the hell can you pretend to know who he would hypothetically and irrelevantly vote for when he doesn't say it? Oh, I see, you're ASS U ME ing, and I know that you know what that means, because you're always bringing it up when you think someone has misinterpreted your statements. You're reaching a baseline of stupidity.
Thats like saying that because Hillary at no point has endorsed Obama
that she might vote for Ron Paul if she loses the nomination.
Do you know for a fact that she won't? Didn't think so.
If someone says I can't stand the Patriots before the Superbowl and
how it could be bad if the Patriots win,
Chavez didn't say that he couldn't stand McCain. He said that McCain "
seems war like". Or can't you tell two different things apart? Maybe Chavez is demonizing McCain.
then one can logically
deduct that the person is highly likely to be for the Giants.
In other words it's not "some crazy reach".
I've never said it was a crazy reach. Quit demonizing me. What I said was that it was factually incorrect. What you don't know in your hypothetical, is the person's feelings for the Giants. You're pretending that you do, but if that person has made no statement regarding the Giants, then factually you're talking out of your ass. You might want to learn what a logical deduction is, as opposed to a plain deduction.
see above (Patriots/Giants)
See above (reply to why Patriots/Giants hypothetical is flawed).
IMO enemies of the United States prefer the democrats.
I'll bet I can find some allies of the United States that prefer the democrats too. Does that mean that it makes sense to say "No Surprise, the Canadians want Hillary/Obama As President"? It's irrelevant, and the only reason you brought this article up was to somehow link the Democrats with some supposed and hypothetical endorsement by Chavez. It's about as subtle as a bowling ball, and most people, especially in here, aren't dumb enough to fall for it.
Well I suppose I am in good company when the Reuters author deducts
the obvious conclusion that I do. The author is wrong about his own article
and Fatman knows better. LOL
You're supposing. You're supposing that authors don't make mistakes. You're supposing that I'm wrong, though I've pointed out that Chavez never made such a claim within the article. You don't know jack shit, because the article doesn't tell you jack shit, so you suppose. Maybe you should ask Richard Jewell if reporters are always right, or a host of other reporters who have been exposed as liars, frauds, and misinformed. I trust the media about as much as the government, which is to say, not much at all.
I really don't want to bring my Mother into this discussion.
If everyone jumps off a bridge, does that mean you will too?
Yeah all he does is praise the Clinton years that Hillary has made a central part
of her campaign.
Ummm. Okay, he said that he would like relations to be what they were during the Clinton years. He also said that he wanted to work with whoever was elected President to achieve that. Somehow that's supposed to equal some unconditional praise of the Clinton years?
According to Chavez Frias, one defining moment in his movement from protest to alternative proposal was his first meeting with President Castro in Havana in December 1994. This coincided with the Miami Summit of the Americas, at which U.S. President Bill Clinton famously (and fatuously) declared: "Now we can say that the dream of Simon Bolivar has come true in all the Americas." That declaration, Chavez Frias said to today, "was a slap in the face of history, and a slap in the face for all of us who know our history and the ideals to which Bolivar devoted his life."That doesn't sound like praise.
ArticleYeah he liked Clinton, so it would be a real reach to say he would prefer Hillary Clinton now.
See above.
It is not irrelevant to me if enemies of the United States prefer certain candidates
to win us elections.
Why is it relevant? Do you allow the enemies of the United States to determine your voting patterns? That's moronic. And when did Chavez declare war on the US, and sponsor terrorism against the US?
Yeah sure Fatman Hugo Chavez is a huge Ron Paul supporter.
You have evidence that he isn't? Paul is isolationist, I could see his policies meshing well with what Chavez wants. You may want to think before you type sometimes.
Ron Paul isn't even going to be on the ballot.
Now that is what's called a "reach" of any honest logic.
People never vote for candidates who aren't on the ballot? Those votes are never counted? Logic is a system of absolutes, not perceived hypotheticals. I've never referenced what's a reach and what isn't, with the exception of your thread title. The "reach" of my statements aren't the issue. What's at issue is your tendency to make statements that are absolutes, that aren't.
BINGO
Now we finally get the truth about your reaction to this thread.
Thank you.
And what supposed truth would that be, and please stick to what I've said, not what I've supposedly said by your convoluted formula of what is logical and what isn't. I did notice though, that you failed to answer the question, which isn't surprising given the amount of deflection that you seem to fall prey to in your "debates".
As far as better relations?
I don't want "better relations" if the cost is not doing whats best for the United States.
For example, I want to bomb Iran.
Most of the world seems to want to negotiate with the Mullahs.
I don't. I don't think it will work.
So I would do what I think is best for the US and the cost would be "better relations".
In my opinion there are more important things than being "well liked by everyone".
It's a damn good thing that you aren't President or running foreign policy, because it's ideas like these that are more dangerous than anything the Mullah's could come up with. And here's a clue for you, if you find yourself not very well liked, you can expect severe consequences, economic, military, and political. Anyone who knows anything about economics, military history, and politics, especially geopolitics, would tell you that. And you say that XO has his head in the sand. Now that's laughable.
Yes because it is in fact true, she has very little experience running anything.
True
I think she has very little experience.
Chavez like the Clinton years.
Chavez obviously would prefer to return to those policies
There is no contradiction.
There is a major contradiction. On the one hand, you're saying that Clinton is inexperienced. On the other, you're saying that she's experienced enough that Chavez would like to have her for President, because she would re institute those policies (why else would Chavez want her as Pres?). You're saying that she's inexperienced, but then again she's experienced enough to push through what Chavez wants? Which is it?
See above
You don't get it
I'm not the one who's not getting it here. I'm not the one posting thread titles declaring something that the article doesn't state.
Wrong again.
I did read the whole thing
Evidently not, or you wouldn't have posted that thread title.
I did catch it.
Chavez perfers Hillary/Obama but of course (duh) hopes no matter what happens relations improve.
I don't see the duh factor here. Quit demonizing me. If Chavez was such an enemy of the US in general (as opposed to GW in part), why would he wish for normalized relations? He has plenty of oil revenue, it's not like he needs the US to be his buddies. So why would he wish for better relations?
Like most articles the title and data in the article reflects what the author deducts from the information
or aticles would be nothing more than one long huge quote.
Unlike most articles, it's a piss poor summary of the info inside, with no factual basis for the statement on your part that Chavez would prefer Obama or Hillary as President.
This is the game you play:
I don't play games, other than Civilization IV, Europa Universalis II, Medieval Total War II, pinochle, and hearts.
John says: George Bush is dumb
George Bush is lazy
George Bush is corrupt
George Bush is mean
Bill says: John does not like George Bush
Fatman: No No No, John never ever specifally stated "they did not like George Bush".
Two things: First, Chavez never claimed that McCain was dumb, lazy, corrupt, or mean. He said that he "
seemed to like war".
Seemed in this instance is a qualifier, and not a definitive statement. Go back to an English class if you can't understand this. Secondly, I would be correct in my statement. That's why I choose to make qualifying statements and definitive statements, and use qualifiers and definitives in them. But then again, I'm not the one posting thread titles with nothing to do with the thread. People got in an uproar when Lanya posted an interpretation of a thread as its title. But it's okay for you to do so? Use some common sense.
Again, even if Chavez dislikes McCain, that does not equate into Hillary/Obama support.
Yes it does.
No it doesn't. The article never states if he disliked Hillary or Obama more. It never stated that he liked them more. You're drawing your own flawed conclusions. As I said before, the article is conspicuous in the information that it doesn't contain.
Ok so now it's "dishonest" for me to have an opinion that is different from yours?
No, it's dishonest of you to post thread titles having nothing to do with the thread. It's not like this is the first time, you're becoming well noted for it in here. If you want to spew hyperbolic bullshit around, be prepared to back it up. Things like "the author agrees with me", "that's my opinion", "quit demonizing me", etc, aren't backing it up. They're making you come across as someone who can't hold their own. And no, you're not kicking my ass.
I do think I know exactly what Hugo Chavez wants in the US election.
Finally, a qualifier. You may think you know, but you haven't brought forth any information to support your theory.
Imo it is dishonest of you to not admit the obvious and pretend he could be
supporting Ron Paul.
Sometimes what seems obvious isn't. Until I have further information, like a statement endorsing Obama or Clinton, or campaign contributions from Chavez to either of those candidates, I'm not going to "admit the obvious". Doing so would mean that I'd be talking out of my ass, like someone else.
Yeah he could be supporting "the man in the moon".
You have evidence that he isn't? This is what pisses me off about you: you make these statements, then do nothing to back them up. No sourcing, no qualifiers, and then when you're called on it, you deflect into absurdity and claim that people are demonizing you. If I had said that Hugo supports the man in the moon, I would be expected to bring forth evidence of my claim. That's why I said that Chavez may support Ross Perot, Ron Paul, or Ralph Nader. I used the qualifier "may" because
I don't know. No more than you
know that he supports Obama or Hillary. You're drawing an inference that I think is flawed, and you've yet to demonstrate sufficient evidence in support of that inference.
No he just alludes to how terrible it may be if McCain wins?
Saying that a candidate
seems to like war does not equate to
how terrible it would be if that candidate won an election. Just because you say so doesn't make it so.
See above: John/Bill analogy
Another deflection. I've already displayed how your "John Bill analogy" is not relevant to what Chavez said.
It makes it an honest logical deduction just like the "John/Bill" analogy.
The only deduction, based on logic, in that analogy, is the hypothetical answer that I give. You should read up on logic structure and forms before you start talking about honest logical deductions.
No it's not. Enemies opinions are relevant.
You have yet to demonstrate why that's the case.
It's not flawed logic.
Read up on logic, then get back to me.
Yes he has in this article.
Where? Chavez says that McCain seems to like war. You say that because Chavez says that, he must support Democrats. There is no correlation between the statements, and certainly no causative relationship.
Flawed logic? What like Hugo Chavez might just as likely support Rob Paul as he would Hillary?
That's not logic. That's a hypothetical posed to demonstrate how your logic is flawed. You cannot draw a valid inference (in formal logic and deductive reasoning terms) when Chavez has made no statements about Hillary or Obama. Flawed logic in your case being a definitive statement made without valid inference.
Yes he has in this article.
Again, where? Just because you say it's so doesn't make it so. You made the statement, the onus is on you to show me where the article states that.
Only you would know, I don't read it.
You should, it's highly entertaining.
Oh ok, yeah I'll be just like Fatman.
Wow, thanks!
I am not changing anything.
Then why are you here?
And you tend to be wrong about my thread titles, because they are dead on correct.
Uh, okay.
Perhaps not because they are dead on in agreement with the Reuters author.
Why does that mean that you don't need to work on your critical thinking skills? In your statement:
IMO enemies of the United States prefer the democrats, you give the impression that you already believed what the article says what you believe even before you read it. What exactly is critical about that?
Obviously not to myself nor the Reuters author.
And that makes you correct how?
No you just pretend it is not relevant because you don't like the information.
I'm not pretending anything. You've yet to demonstrate the relevance, only that you feel it is relevant. As for not liking the information, what information? There's precious little of it in that article. BTW, do you have a clue as to who I'm probably going to vote for? Evidently not.
As if Bin Laden was campaigning for Obama it "wouldn't be relevant"
because Bin Laden is "unable to vote in the US elections"?
Another deflection into absurdity, but I'll bite. Yes, exactly like that. Are the candidates somehow allowed to pick their supporters? I don't post articles about right wing freaks (and by freaks I mean the far out, faked moon landing, God is destroying America because of homosexuality fringe) voting Republican for precisely that reason.
In other
words being unable to vote does not equate to not being relevant.
Uh, yeah it does. You've failed to demonstrate the relevance of your point. Again.
Don't think so? Well then see if convicted felons endorsing your
candidate would help bring in alot of votes.
Actually, that would be
your point of view, not mine. I don't think that non voters are relevant. You do. A convicted felon who can't vote endorsing someone would fall into your camp, not mine. Most voters realize that a candidate can't pick their supporters. Evidently you haven't reached that realization yet. As an aside, most states have processes that convicted felons can use to restore their voting rights. In some states, inmates can vote from prison. Here in WA, a felon has 5 years after their release, then they can restore their voting rights. Same works for firearms.
It is not a ploy, it's an honest logical deduction that I arrive at
as well it appears the author does.
It's not an honest logical deduction, it's illogical for the reasons stated previously.
Victim?
Yeah. If I "demonize" you, doesn't that make you a "victim"?
Can't handle?
LOL
I relish it.
Yeah? Like you relished the debate with UP so much that you cut it off when he exposed your frauds and deflections? That kind of relish? Like how you turn to deflecting things into absurdity, and how if someone uses a swear word you're supposedly "winning" the argument? Like how anyone who agrees with anyone else is a "cheerleader", worthy of posting obnoxious pictures about, but it's fine for you to do the same to some other members in this forum? Posting any triviality, but refusing to back up your points with any form of sourcing? That's how you handle it, I couldn't tell that you relished it.
Okay.
Because I rebutt it does not mean I am a victim.
You haven't rebutted
one of my points yet.
You couldn't make me a victim of anything here or in person.
Only you can make yourself a victim. That's why I said "playing" the victim. Whenever I say something that you don't like, I'm inevitably either demonizing you or hinting that you're a racist. You need to learn some new tactics, those ones are getting stale.
And another thing, I am not your "pal".
Darn.
No I don't.
Prove it. I'll wait, but I'm not holding my breath.
