On 3/30/2012 2:30 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

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?

There was nothing to get. *You* didn't get anything from it except the
libelous title.

Right, but I never claimed I did. I said I didn't read enough of it to
use it to prove anything about Dole. But that is what I said. Maybe now
I will read it. I planned to when I saw it but never had the time. After
I read it and tell you Dole was a crook I can hardly wait to hear you
deny it when you know nothing.



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.

You can't, of course. You have no facts.

I do have facts. You are making a claim again. You say I have no facts?
Where is your proof I don't? Put up or shut up.



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.

Nor are you.

But I am.


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.

You sure are.

You can't take yes for an answer? I've told you I do not consider that
book proof of Dole's greed? What more can I do but tell you I don't
think a book I have not read qualifies as proof of anything.


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 don't have *ANYTHING* as any kind of proof.

Yes I do, you just don't know what it is.


You believe negative
crap about Dole because of your rabid, far-left ideology. It's the
*ONLY* reason you believe it

The only reason I believe Dole used his office to get rich is because of
the evidence I saw against him. It's not because of ideology. If I saw
the same evidence against any other politician I'd think the same thing.



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 have any "proof" of what you claim.

You can say that as often as you like, it'll never make it true.





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'm excellent at it.

No, you're not.


I've told you that I can support
my allegations against Dole.

But you can't, and you don't have any means of doing so. You've admitted
it.

Then why would I tell you the evidence showing Dole was out to get rich
is easy to find?




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.

Because you have none. You've admitted it.

That's not the reason I'm withholding it and you know it. I'm holding it
back because of how you act.



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.

I have it 100% right. It is *ONLY* your extreme, rabid, far-left
political bias; no facts.

All of my political views are backed up with tons of facts. I wouldn't
have them otherwise.



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

I have been right about you, in every way.

So you say but you still have no proof of what you claim. You say you're
right but you can present no proof. Then when I do the same you find
that terrible. If it's good enough for you then it's good enough for me.

Hawke