On 3/29/2012 5:45 PM, Hawke wrote:
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.

I got it from the fact the author is a disgruntled crackpot who had a
vendetta against Dole.


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.

You can't.


It's well known information.

There isn't any "information". It's nothing but unsubstantiated crap.



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.

You're lying.


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.

You don't have any "proof" of what you claim.


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.

You can't. You have basically admitted it.


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.

No facts; only bias.



That is only your opinion.

It's fact.

Not a fact, opinion.

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.

But it's not a day where you're right about anything.

Yes, it sure is.