On 3/27/2012 11:47 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

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.

And you got that information from your imagination. This is what I mean.
You make a statement about that book as if you are an expert on it when
in fact you're never laid your eyes on it. So the only way for you to
make your statement is for you to have made it up. That's being kind.
Other would say you're just an outright liar.


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.

No I didn't. I can support what I said about Dole. It's well known
information. You are ignorant. You know nothing about Dole's senate
career. That's all that matters is how dumb you are to even question
something you don't know anything about. That's irrationally
argumentative. You know nothing about a subject but argue about it
anyway. Okay we get it you're Monty Python but not funny.



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'm telling you I didn't. What does it take to get it through your thick
skull? How many times do I have to repeat it? I'm not offering that book
as proof of anything other than a book exists that is critical of Dole.


I gave no proof.

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

Exactly means I have proof but I haven't shown it to you. Can't you tell
the difference?


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.

You want to talk about a lack of reading comprehension? You exhibit it
here. Saying there is no rule saying I have to support my claim is not
the same as saying I can't. How can you be so dumb?



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.

Bias isn't involved. It's a matter of facts. It's like if I said Mickey
Mantle had a great record with the Yankees and you said I haven't proved
it and I'm just biased in his favor. Well, Mickey Mantle does have a
reputation and a record that can be checked for accuracy. So does Bob
Dole. I happen to know about Bob Dole's record and apparently you don't
know the first thing about him. So it's really just a matter of you
getting the facts about Bob Dole. You want me to give them to you. You
are such a prick that I am not going to do it. It's not because I can't
prove what I said about Bob Dole. It's because I won't give you the
satisfaction of me having to prove it to your satisfaction. That's not
going to happen. But bias has nothing to do with it.



That is only your opinion.

It's fact.

Not a fact, opinion.


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.

But it's not a day where you're right about anything. So it's just like
every other day where you make all kings of claims and assertions and
have nothing to back them up with.

Hawke