There are two sides to a discussion but not two sides to objective facts. Sam said that the conclusion that Saddam's Iraq was a threat for weapons of mass destruction was based on a particular report. I pull up the report and show where the report says that Saddam's Iraq was not a threat for weapons of mass destruction. That isn't a discussion, it's reading comprehension.
Judah On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 11:00 AM, Medic <[email protected]> wrote: > > No, there ARE two sides: > > The side that follows blindly and retro-fits justification for attacking a > sovereign nation who hasn't committed an act of war. And my side. > > > > On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 12:11 PM, Sam <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> All these years I thought there was two sides to a discussion, now I >> realize there is only your side. Thanks for setting me straight >> >> . >> >> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 12:08 PM, Medic <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > I didn't miss the point at all. The point, as I understand it, is that >> you >> > are an apologist for the worst scam ever perpetrated by one of the "good >> > guys" in modern times. >> > >> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:342725 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
