False:

“As for which democrats are calling for re-deployment of troops out of Middle East, insert any name you wish.”

I do hope Crybaby Clay continues to lie. It’s so much easier to discredit him when he is so eager to help with the process.

Now that is a lie. I never said every single democrat held that view point. Every republican is not necessarily in favor of staying the course in Iraq, but the majority are.

“Lying and backpedalling do not qualify as “present[ing] well thought out reaons”.”

Exactly, and that is precisely what meatbrain is good at, along with namecalling.

When Crybaby Clay uses a known logical fallacy, I will call him on it.

“Instead of demonstrating why the democrats are right in their assertion that we cut and run from Iraq…”

Crybaby Clay has yet to demonstrate that ‘the Democrats’ monolithically hold this view. This is the classic ‘straw man’ fallacy, yet again. Crybaby makes a claim (that Democrats uniformly want an immediate withdrawal from Iraq) that is patently untrue, and pretends that since this fabricated viewpoint is indefensible, he has therefore somehow proven his point.

“Even when being provided examples of democrats calling for that very thing.”

Crybaby Clay didn’t assert that there were only examples. Crybaby Clay claimed that this was the view held by all Democrats. He lied.

“He also seems to think that because the republicans called the democrats out on their demand that we pull the troops out of Iraq with HR 571 it’s somehow a political trap.”

Crybaby Clay should learn the skill of reading for comprehension. HR 571 was a direct reaction to Murtha’s letter, but it did not reflect Murtha’s views.

Actually, it is most probable that Crybaby has never read either HR 571 or Murtha’s letter.

“At first I foolishly tried to reason with him…”

False. Crybaby Clay has never attempted reason. He has employed nothing but lies and empty assertions.

“To actually present well thought out reaons to support you viewpoint is quite another.”

And it is a skill that Crybaby should try to learn some day. Lying and backpedalling do not qualify as “present[ing] well thought out reaons”.

Instead of demonstrating why the democrats are right in their assertion that we cut and run from Iraq, meatbrain keeps pretending that they don’t hold that position and that I’m just making it up. Even when being provided examples of democrats calling for that very thing.

He also seems to think that because the republicans called the democrats out on their demand that we pull the troops out of Iraq with HR 571 it’s somehow a political trap. So, I guess democrats can whine all they want but should never be called upon to put their money where there mouths are?

meatbrain spouts:

“Oh, and as for “he… just wants attention”... I would remind Crybaby that he came to my blog and started this comment thread — and he’s been posting to it ever since…”

and meatbrain keeps being strung along with each and every comment. At first I foolishly tried to reason with him, but after he started coming unhinged and resorted to becoming more and more childish it became more amusing to just keep stringing him along.

It’s pretty easy to just put your fingers in your ears and call everyone else liars and all kinds of other names, and then claim that it’s never good enough when provided what you ask for. To actually present well thought out reaons to support you viewpoint is quite another.

But, as we have seen, that is not how meatbrain “thinks”.

False. I have demonstrated that there are facts that contradict Crybaby Clay’s views. He cannot argue the facts, of course… so he declares himself victorious and flounces off.

Oh, and as for “he… just wants attention”... I would remind Crybaby that he came to my blog and started this comment thread — and he’s been posting to it ever since, in spite of making several tearful threats to take his ball and run home. It’s pretty clear who it is that needs the attention, little one.

I do applaud Crybaby Clay for finally taking the time to look up some actual facts. However, it’s a sign of deeply ingrained intellectual dishonesty to make an assertion first, and only later go cherry-picking facts to support the claim. That is exactly what Clay has done here. And he isn’t even a competent cherry-picker.

Clay’s evidence is not consistent with his earlier claim: “As for which democrats are calling for re-deployment of troops out of Middle East, insert any name you wish.” He has named only twelve Democrats — so his implicit claim that all Democrats want the troops immediately withdrawn and returned home remains unsupported.

Do the facts he has cited support his claim that the twelve individual Democrats he has named recommend that the US ”[re-deploy] the troops home and away from the Middle East”?

• Sen John F. Kerry: Yes.
• Howard Dean: No. The quote mentions bringing home only 50,000 National Guard troops.
• Rep. John Murtha: No. None of the quotes from Murtha are consistent with Crybaby’s claim.
• Cynthia McKinney: Yes.
• Jose Serrano: Yes.
• Robert Wexler: Yes.
• Michael Capuano: No. See below.
• William Clay: No. See below.
• Maurice Hinchey: No. See below.
• Jim McDermott: No. See below.
• Jerrold Nadler: No. See below.
• Major Owens: No. See below.

re: Murtha: None of the quotes Crybaby provides is consistent with the claim that Murtha recommends that the US ”[re-deploy] the troops home and away from the Middle East”. All of the quotes that Crybaby cites are, however, consistent with Murtha’s position, as he stated in an open letter to Congress on 12/14/05:

It is time that the over 200,000 Iraqis who have received military and police training over the past three years take over the hard job of providing domestic security themselves and stop using American forces as a crutch to lean on.

It is time for U. S. forces to redeploy out of the country in an orderly but rapid way, soon after the Iraqi government is elected on December 15.

It is time that our military “footprint” in the area is converted from a pervasive presence inside Iraq to a powerful quick reaction force outside of Iraq.

re Capuano, Clay, Hinchey, McDermott, Nadler, Owens: HR 571 was not an honest expression of Murtha’s recommendations. It was, in fact, a Republican sham designed to act solely as a political trap for Democrats. Crybaby Clay knows this — or, if he does not, he is again arguing from ignorance. It is therefore not surprising that many Democrats refused to vote for or against it.

Crybaby Clay would have us believe that those Democrats that did not vote against HR 571, which proposed “the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately”, must therefore have been in favor of immediate withdrawal. This is the classic either/or fallacy, aka the ‘false dilemma’. It is false to claim that those who do not vote ‘no’ have cast a vote equivalent to ‘yes’. The third option of voting ‘present’ exists, and is used by Democrats and Republicans alike.

Note that of the twelve individual Democrats Clay named, only four can be said to be in favor of anything resembling the viewpoint that Clay claimed is universal amongst Democrats. Thirty-three percent is a failing grade in most college courses. And I will note that, since Crybaby Clay could not present these facts when first asked six days ago, it is obvious that at that time Crybaby Clay did not have any facts. Crybaby has thus confirmed that he’ll shoot his mouth off first, and only later go back to find out if reality matches his claims. That’s the mark of dogma, not reason.

Sen John F. Kerry (D-MA), 6 Apr 2006 e-mail to supporters – “I believe that American combat troops should come home from Iraq in 2006 … I believe we must set a May 15th deadline for the Iraqis to form an effective unity government. And, if the Iraqi politicians choose to ignore that deadline, then I believe things will only get worse and we will have no choice but to withdraw immediately.”

Sen John F. Kerry (D-MA), 6 Apr 2006 floor speech – ”...withdrawing U.S.
troops from Iraq is necessary to give democracy a chance to succeed and is vital to America’s national security interests. ... I set a goal of withdrawing most American combat forces by the end of this year. ... I believe most of our forces should be out by the end of the year. ”

DNC Chairman Howard Dean, 8 Dec 2005, “American Morning”, CNN – “We need a strategic redeployment of our troops. We need to bring the 50,000 [National] Guard troops home in the next six months. They don’t belong there in the first place.”

Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), Jan 2006 – “My plan calls for an immediate redeployment of U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces.” ...
“I think the vast majority will be out by the end of the year. And I’m hopeful it’ll be out sooner than that.” ... “Sure, you’re gonna see a plan for withdrawal [before the November elections.]” ... Murtha wants all the troops home within six months, except for a quick reaction force of about 20,000 who would be based nearby in Kuwait. (Bob Anderson, CBS) ... ”...my recommendation, where we redeploy as quickly as possible.”

Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), July 20, 2006 speech – “We can no longer afford to sit and wait. It is too costly to wait for future administrations to resolve. We must act now and adopt a policy of redeployment.”

Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), 17 Nov 2005 statement – I believe before the Iraqi elections, scheduled for mid December, the Iraqi people and the emerging government must be put on notice that the United States will immediately redeploy. ... To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces.

Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), Nov 2005 press conference – The United States will immediately redeploy – immediately redeploy. No schedule which can be changed, nothing that’s controlled by the Iraqis, this is an immediate redeployment of our American forces because they have become the target.

Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-Georgia) Jose Serrano (D-New York) & Robert Wexler
(D-Florida) – All voted in favor of House Resolution 571 (18 Nov 2005) which states “Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.”

Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA) William Clay (D-MO) Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) Jim McDermott (D-WA) Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and Major Owens (D-NY) all voted “Present” on HR 571, thus refusing to vote against an immediate withdrawal.

Crybaby Clay again expects everyone to believe what he says just because he says so. And he still has no presented no evidence for his claims about the Democrats.

“Actually, it would be to my credit if you do respond to this, my last comment…”

And he’s still a liar. He cannot even tell the truth about his own intentions.

It is worth remembering that every statement Crybaby Clay has made in this thread in recent days has been made with the specific intent to avoid answering a simple question:

Who, specifically and by name, has recommended that the US should ”[re-deploy] the troops home and away from the Middle East”?

Ciao

First, let’s be clear on the “well known position” Crybaby Clay claims: He has stated that John Kerry recommended that the US should ”[re-deploy] the troops home and away from the Middle East”. He claims that other Democrats hold this view — although the only other name he can give is Nancy Pelosi, and cites no statement she has made to support this claim. He cites no statement John Kerry has made that supports this claim. He cites no statement any Democrat has made that supports this claim.

This “well known position” is one for which Crybaby Clay cannot provide a single shred of documentary evidence. Why? Because he’s never bothered to find the facts. He relies solely on his own ignorance.

“Just childish name calling and using phrases like “straw man” and “argumentum ad ignorantiam” to fool, I guess, the gullible into believing that you are sharp.”

Crybaby Clay is ignorant of the classic logical fallacies. Gee, that’s not a surprise, is it? Ignorance is his favorite state of mind.

“You have been asked several times to come out of hiding and state why you don’t believe the democrats wish to cut and run…”

Straw man. Crybaby Clay can cite no statement of mine that indicates this is my belief. He again invents a fantasy of his own and expects everyone to believe that this is the truth Because! He! Says! So!

Run away, crybaby. Fantasy and ignorance are your best friends. Go play with them.

It is clear that you are incapable of any sound reasoning. Just childish name calling and using phrases like “straw man” and “argumentum ad ignorantiam” to fool, I guess, the gullible into believing that you are sharp.

You aren’t sharp. You are playing a little game where you take a well known position (i.e. the Democrats are for withdrawing from Iraq ASAP no matter what that might mean) and pretend that I am making some “brand new” claim concerning the Democrat position. You call for names to be dropped. However, no number of names will suffice because you will continue to hide behind “insufficient proof”.

You have been asked several times to come out of hiding and state why you don’t believe the democrats wish to cut and run, yet you don’t. You just keep accusing me of being a “crybaby” or “a liar”. I contend that you are simply unable to defend any position. That is why you sit there and demand proof and call your opponent names. That is apparently all that you are capable of doing

Your blog is replete with examples of you trying to smear your opponents with name calling, sans any real rational argument from you.

I have lingered here far longer than I should have. I fully expect you to follow up my exit with more childish name calling but I frankly don’t care any more. I have wasted my time expecting meaningful debate from you. You are incapable of any reasoned discussion. You apparently live in a fantasy world where name calling means to you reasoned debate.

At least Rhyleh, was able to express herself with dignity.

You can call me crybaby and stomp up and down until you’re red in the face, I could careless. I will not respond any longer.

Actually, it would be to my credit if you do respond to this, my last comment, the way I expect you to. Then it will be broadcast yet again, loud and clear, just what sort of loser you actually are. Completely incapable of reasoned argument, just name callling. The real liar and crybaby is you….crybaby meatbrain.

Cry baby cry…...

“If Kerry doesn’t mean out of Iraq and back home then what does he mean?”

Crybaby Clay confirms what’s been obvious all along: his entire stance on this is one large, malodorous example of the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, the argument from ignorance.

Crybaby Clay has, thus far, provided exactly one example of a Democrat who favors redeployment of the troops currently stationed in Iraq. That one example consists of exactly three words, with no citation for where, when, or in what context they were spoken.

From these three words, Crybaby Clay has fabricated the fantasy that John Kerry, and by extension all Democrats, must all favor the idea that the US should ”[re-deploy] the troops home and away from the Middle East”. Crybaby remains utterly ignorant regarding Kerry’s actual stance — he hasn’t taken the time to go look up a complete sentence, for God’s sake! — and he knows nothing about what any other Democrat may have said on the subject. But ignorance doesn’t bother Crybaby Clay in the least. He has, in fact, come to depend upon ignorance as the foundation of his views.

Straw men, arguments from ignorance, outright lies: Crybaby Clay has become a living paragon of intellectual fraud and dishonesty. The sad thing is that there are so many others like him who willfully pollute the national discourse today.

Rhyleh,

The left is fairly consistent, I will give them that. Kerry is a liberal and he is expressing the sentiments of the left, which is largely anti-war, anti-Iraq War in particular. The poll to check for leftist is simple by visiting leftist blogs i.e. Daily Kos, Listening to Air America, the left’s poster girl, Cindy Sheehan etc.

Of course I wouldn’t refer to a conservative who was against the war in Iraq a liberal. But, just because a few conservatives don’t favor the war doesn’t impact my stance in favor of it at all. I’m not sure what you are getting at there.