On 3/29/2012 5:50 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
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.

You didn't get anything about the book though, did you? You just assumed
that because of who wrote it that it has nothing in it of value. You
don't know that is true so you made up your own conclusion. Admit it,
for all you know the book could be filled with factual information about
Dole showing him as I said he is. You don't know one way or the other.
Why keep pretending you do? It makes you look stupid.


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.

Of course I can. I wouldn't say things about Dole unless I knew they
were true.


It's well known information.

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

You mean you are not aware of any information showing Dole was lining
his pockets. But I mentioned the deal he got from ADM on an some real
estate he bought for much less than it was worth. Just forgot about that?


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.

You can't read. I did not and am not using a book I've not read as proof
of anything. But any normal person's interest would perk up if they
learned a book had been written about someone alleging they were
crooked, whether it was true or not. Just the fact the book had been
written would have caused a normal person to see a red flag. Stupid
people would not notice.


I gave no proof.

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

I don't have that book as any of my proof. You're so sloppy and
imprecise it's ridiculous.



Exactly means I have proof but I haven't shown it to you.

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

I do have it but you don't know what it is so you are denying it exists.
That's meaningless because what you believe and what is true are usually
different. The proof is there. You just don't know about it.


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.

You really are poor at communication. I've told you that I can support
my allegations against Dole. I just won't show it to you. If you want to
know the truth you find it like I did. I refuse to provide anything to
you and I think even you can understand why.


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.

I agree I haven't given you any proof or evidence of what I say about
Dole, and I'm not going to. Are you saying that means it's not true? I
can find plenty of evidence showing Dole was lining his pockets for as
long as he was a senator. Bias has nothing to do with it. It's totally
about all the evidence that shows what he did. That's on the record. You
just won't believe it due to your bias in favor of conservatives.



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.

You have it backwards. It has nothing to do with bias and everything to
do with the real Dole record in the senate. We both know that record is
out there. You are pretending it won't show how he made himself rich
while in the senate. I know it does.

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.

There is no proof you have been right about anything so until you come
up with some that makes you full of **** and a liar.

Hawke