Hawke wrote:
That isn't what he said.

He said "over a dozen" which would require 13+ posts to prove,
not exactly 12.

He mentioned a dozen several times. The point is the ridiculous way he
acts over every little thing I do applies to him too. Whatever he said a
dozen or over a dozen requires that he show exactly that if not he's
wrong the same way he says I am. Do you think he read all my posts and
counted them before he said that? So he knows exactly how many time I
said him instead of her? You know he was just guessing. In other words
he did what he accuses me of. The difference is it doesn't matter
"exactly" what he said as long as it was close. But he expects it to be
perfect if it comes from me so I'm only asking for him to be perfect too.


If you are going to TRY to hoist him by his own petard, at LEAST get
it right.

Why does it matter? He didn't get it right either. He said a dozen on
several occasions. So it has to be exactly 12 or he's wrong.
No,
All he has to do is show that you did it 12 times to satisfy his
statement, he doesn't have to show that it was ONLY 12.

I perused it. So **** yourself. I looked at the thing in the library.
You haven't. It's an expose of a crooked politician.
By a crooked lawyer.


See, he's calling the author a crooked lawyer.
NO, I called him a crooked lawyer, which he is. He has even admitted
it in court documents.

But when I say Dole was
crooked and have a book that also says so it's wrong?
I never said it was wrong. I said that Saying "a senator is for
sale", is a little redundant.

If it is so minor why argue it.

Because that is what he's been doing every day.
IF you think it is wrong of him to do so, then it is equally wrong of
you to do so.

Making a big deal out of
the most trivial points. He's trying to imply that if you make errors on
trivial or insignificant things then that somehow invalidates everything
else you say.
He doesn't agree with you that they are trivial. So get over it.

It doesn't work that way. Trivial means it is not
important. Is it important whether a senator is a senator for as long as
he lives or just while in office? No to me. But then I don't think
saying Elizabeth Dole is one of the 50 richest senators is any different
than saying Bob is too.

And I agree with him, that it is NOT the same thing.

To him that's of major importance. So that's the
game we're playing.

Yes I do. You are just so ill informed that you thing that only thing I
have ever heard about Dole being venal is from one book. The problem
with that is I had heard things about Dole for years.

Doesn't make them true or false just because you heard them.

Right, and just because Rob Blagovich went to jail for corruption that
doesn't mean he did anything wrong. That makes as much sense as your
statement. I've been a political junky since 1970 at least. Just the way
I have heard lots of things about John McCain over the years the same is
true for Dole. If you pay attention you pick things up. Politicians get
reputations for how they act in office.
Which STILL proves nothing. You could have been fed a pack of lies.
People in the public eye get lied about all the time.

Dole had a reputation for using
his connections to get ahead financially. Someone actually wrote a book
about it as well. It was not news to me that Dole profited handsomely
from being a senator because that is what he was always trying to do. In
this case he got to be a millionaire during his time in office. He made
lots of money afterwords too but I have seen reports of him making a lot
of money on the side while he was in the senate. I'm not going to bother
researching it to give some numbnuts twerp a cite for that.
To make the claim, and then say that implies to me that you "can not",
not just "will not".


jk