On 3/23/2012 10:26 AM, Hawke wrote:
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.

A dozen...more or less.


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.

Was Nixon's long record of public service taken into account in 1974?


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.

Is English not your native tongue, Ptooey?


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.

There's a saying, Ptooey: if you can't get the simple details right,
how do you expect anyone to believe you on the big stuff?


It's a strawman argument.

You don't know what that expression means. Stop using it - now.


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?

You said that Dole was rich as a sitting senator, when you *only* know
about how much money he and his wife had together in 2008, a dozen years
after he was out of the Senate.

You have no evidence whatever that Bob Dole became rich due to any
unethical or illegal conduct while he was a senator.



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.

What sources? You don't even know of any specific allegations; just a
****ing smearing book title.



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.

You have *NO* evidence of Bob Dole's corruption - zero. You have a
smearing book title; that's all.


Dole had a reputation for using
his connections to get ahead financially.

So you keep saying, without a shred of evidence.

We get it, Ptooey, you slimy ****: you don't like Republicans.


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.

You can't support your claim. You never can.