On 3/23/2012 4:38 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/23/2012 11:41 AM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/22/2012 6:00 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

If you don't want your posts used to make you look like an idiot, quit
posting idiotic things.

So let me understand this, you're saying that saying the title of a
book
tells you what the book is about is idiotic?

Saying that the title of the book makes the case is idiotic, you ****ing
cheeselog.

You're the first to say the title of a book makes the case. I never said
that.

You did say it. You've been saying it for days.

Tell you what, why don't you tell me what the title Senator for Sale is
saying about senator Dole? They we can talk about that.


You mean like Cranston, DeConcini, Glenn and Riegle?

Now if I were you I'd say something like, you only heard things about
them. You don't know anything about them. You have no proof they used
their office to get rich. But we all know all those guys probably
cashed
in, don't we. But when I say Dole did and was a king at it somehow
it's
all different.

I don't recall him ever saying Dole was honest. All he did that I can
recall, is attack your basis for saying otherwise.

Do you ever remember him giving you a good reason why what I said was
not true?

Because it's not established. It's nothing but an allegation.

What the **** is wrong with you, bitch? You think when you make some
wild, irresponsible and essentially slanderous charge, that it is
considered true until someone disproves it? Not the way it works, bitch.
*YOU* have to make the case that it's true, with verifiable evidence,
and until you do, it's considered "not proved."


You're taking the other side of the question.

There isn't any question. I'm pointing out that you are committing
debate errors, demanding that others disprove your claims when you
haven't done anything to try to prove them.

This is a recreational discussion group. It's not a formal debate so the
rules of debate are not applicable here. I'm not making a formal debate
statement. I'm telling you that from my personal knowledge of Bob Dole
that he's been lining his pockets from using his position in congress
for many years. It's what I believe to be true and I have seen many
facts over the years that convinced me it's true.

We're not in a debate and you are in no position to demand anything. The
normal way it's done is if you don't believe me then you state your
reasons why; not that you demand proof from me. You don't seem to
understand the setting. If you think I'm wrong then you tell me why. You
don't merely say, "not proven". Where exactly do you think you are? Oxford?


When you deny an
allegation is true you're taking a position.

I didn't deny any allegation was true. I said you haven't offered
anything but a ****ing smearing book title as "support" for your
allegation, and that's bull**** - an invalid technique.

I didn't offer any book as proof of my statement. I gave no proof. As of
now it's my opinion I've stated. You say it's not proven, okay fine. I
agree. I haven't shown evidence it is. Normally if you disagree you do
so for a reason, which is you are aware of evidence to the contrary. Do
you have any evidence of Dole being squeaky clean? I demand it if you do.

With your emphatic, and forceful denials of my allegation against Dole
if you don't think they are true you should have a reason why you think
that. You say I didn't offer proof. I didn't. But you denied it as if
you know it's untrue not just that proof wasn't offered. That's all you
had to say. But you rabidly denied what I said as if you had proof
showing the opposite. So how come you can make such a fuss about me not
having the proof when you don't know a damn thing about Dole. Why the
fuss when for all you know what I said is perfectly true? Just being an
asshole?



If I say Dole was out to
use his position to gain financially and you deny it then you are saying
he did not do that.

I didn't deny anything. I said that you didn't support your claim, and
you didn't.

There's no rule stating I have to. Don't you know that?



Are you saying that Dole did not use his position to gain financially?

I'm saying you haven't supported your claim, in *any* way, that he did.
I'm saying that you're stupidly willing to *believe* the allegation
because of your filthy political bias.

Bias has nothing to do with it. It has to do with all the things I've
learned about Dole over the years. Tons of evidence exists that shows
Dole used his office to make himself rich. It's not my fault you are
ignorant of those facts. I don't have any obligation to share them with
you either. I made you aware of What Dole was. That alone is more than I
needed to do.

You can make all the noise you want about me not proving anything to
your satisfaction. I don't have to. You are free to think anything you
want no matter how stupid. You admitted you don't know if Dole was using
his office to make himself rich but you deny I have proved it. So what?
That doesn't mean it isn't true. It only means you don't know anything.

You claim that I believe Dole was for sale because of political bias.
Now that is a claim that I would expect you can prove because if you
can't then you are just as guilty of making claims without any proof as
you say I am. Where is your proof I say Dole was for sale because of
bias and not because I have seen facts that prove it? You have none do
you? So quit your holier than though crap about debating rules. You
don't follow them either you dumb Pollock hypocrite.



The same way any author know about the subject he's writing the book
about. They do research. In this case not only did the writer do
research on Dole but he had personal experience with him too. Who
better
to write about someone?


In fact the title merely imply's he was for sale, NOT that he was
bought and paid for.

Right, and when you drive down the street and see a car parked
there
with a sign on it that says "for sale" that doesn't mean that car
is for
sale.

It doesn't mean a sale has happened, you stupid ****.

Nobody said that it meant that.

It is the equivalent of what you have said about Dole.

That is only your opinion. Nothing more. I don't agree with it, by the way.



A car out on the street with a for sale sign on it has been bought at
least once. Don't bother pretending you see new cars on the street
with
for sale signs on them.

Irrelevant, and I can think of at least 3 ways that a car that had
never been sold, could end up with a for sale sign on it.

Now you're getting the same disease that Pimpleton has, exceptionitis.

Now he's simply pointing out that you're full of **** - illogical,
irrational and full of ****.

No he's not,

Yes, that's exactly what he's doing, and he's right.

That'll be the day. You've been up a creek without a paddle ever since
you tried this stupid tactic of yours. You're full of ****, not me. You
have made a giant mountain out of the most trivial nonsense I've ever
seen. All this from someone who admits they don't know anything about
whether Bob Dole was using his office to get rich or not. If you were
that ignorant of Dole and his record you had no business making such a
big deal about proof. You wouldn't have known if the proof was even
valid if it was shown to you. You're like a dumb housewife. You wouldn't
know what the proof was if you saw it. Yet you just went on and on
because you thought you could use the opportunity to show I didn't
present the proper proof for your satisfaction.

You accomplished nothing except to prove what a silly, inane, nit picker
you are and that, unlike me, you have an exceptionally small amount of
knowledge about Bob Dole. You did prove that you can argue with someone
who does know about Dole even when you admittedly don't. All you have
done is to have shown what an abject loser you are.

Hawke