Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Elphaba
The "form" of discussion that attacks the source, and mysteriously devines the topic author's intentions is so old and overused that it seems unworthy of the time taken to respond to it.
My "intentions" are so foreign to Ustwo and Alansmithee that they must resort to projecting their own intentions. They have no inclination toward intellectual curiousity, and cannot conceive of the possibility that someone else would be so inclined. There must be some sort of comfort in protecting a very narrow world view.
|
Elphaba I find it sort of sad that you can't even see the mistake you made in your original post.
It is one of those dreaded 'logical fallacies'.
This was your question.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Elphaba
The discussion point that I would like to engage is whether or not you believe that Cheney has harmed the Bush presidency in perpetuating what he learned in the Nixon presidency?
|
Well really none of us has a clue what Cheney 'learned' in the Nixon presidency. Thats way to hypothetical and speculative to even dream of answering, but luckily you provided us with a 'article' to lead us along.
Nixon's resignation in the Watergate scandal thwarted his designs for an unchecked imperial presidency. It was in that White House that Cheney gained his formative experience as the assistant to Nixon's counselor, Donald Rumsfeld. When Gerald Ford acceded to the presidency, he summoned Rumsfeld from his posting as NATO ambassador to become his chief of staff. Rumsfeld, in turn, brought back his former deputy, Cheney.
From Nixon, they learned the application of ruthlessness and the harsh lesson of failure. Under Ford, Rumsfeld designated Cheney as his surrogate on intelligence matters.
This is just speculation, and based on the tone of the article and the source, we can assume that objectivity was not high on the authors list. This isn’t a scholarly work, but a hit piece. Yes this is attacking the source but it is the source YOU gave as a starting point for discussion. You were begging the question, you gave us assumptions to accept to begin answering your question.
Do you SEE where you went wrong and why this thread is so utterly pointless?
What your “intentions” were is irrelevant, the road to hell is paved with good intentions and we can not know your intent any more than we can know what Cheney learned 30 odd years ago, we can only know what you gave us, and what you gave us was bankrupt of potential.