On 3/27/2012 12:56 PM, Hawke wrote:
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?

It's unsubstantiated crap - fiction.


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

You ****ed up and can't support your bull**** claims.


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.

You did.


I gave no proof.

Exactly. You couldn't - you don't have any.



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.

You're admitting you can't support your claim - can't even get started.
Good.


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 *everything* to do with it. It's all you have - no facts, just
blatant bias.



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.

It's fact.


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.

It's a glorious day.