On 3/21/2012 3:50 PM, jk wrote:

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.

If he said a dozen then a dozen it must be. That's the way he plays it
so that's the rules. It has to be exactly the way he said it in his
accusation.


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.

He also had a thirty year career as a lawyer so you have to take that
into consideration too. This is simple. It's smearing the author to make
it look like nothing in his book is valid. You don't know that and
neither does he. You are judging without the facts.


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.

What does that mean? It's ambiguous.

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.

That's an arguing technique. You show where someone made a minor mistake
on something and that means he's not to be believed in general. It's a
strawman argument. He knows they are trivial. He can't debate the larger
issue so he's focusing on the trivial.


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.

Since they both are former senators and are both rich what is the
difference and how big is it? Is it minor? How close is it.


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.

It does if the sources are telling the truth. I'm not just talking about
vague rumors I've heard. They came from the newspapers of TV or other
reliable sources. But you don't remember them clearly when they happened
decades ago.


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.

We're not in a courtroom. The level of proof we need isn't what is
demanded in court. FYI, I don't just accept anything I hear as true. I
need proof before I believe anything. I'm a skeptic. So when I say Bob
Dole was crooked it was based on real evidence not just some rumors. But
this was many years ago. So when I saw a book that basically said the
same thing as I already knew it was just more evidence against Dole.

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".

There are some people that act so disagreeable that I won't waste any of
my time trying to please them. Plimpton is one of them. I won't spend
any time trying to "prove" anything to him. He is such a nitpicker that
anything I show him he will deny. So I'm not going to fool around with
that dog and pony show.

You can believe anything he says if you want. I don't care. But have you
not noticed that he keeps claiming that Dole was not using his office to
get ahead? That's what happens when you say I'm wrong. So have you seen
him show anything to make you believe Dole was honest, ethical, and
never made use of his office for financial gain? You know he hasn't. So
why believe him?

Hawke