"anorton" wrote in message ...

Please, everyone, you really are arguing with a computer. Its initial
answers and follow ups to my initial question make that ever so clear.

Research the current state-of-the-art in chatbots if you doubt a computer
could be that good (or infuriating).


Baloney...

-he's a real person...incredible douschebag notwithstanding.

On 2012-03-16, PrecisionmachinisT wrote:

"anorton" wrote in message ...

Please, everyone, you really are arguing with a computer. Its initial
answers and follow ups to my initial question make that ever so clear.

Research the current state-of-the-art in chatbots if you doubt a computer
could be that good (or infuriating).


Baloney...

-he's a real person...incredible douschebag notwithstanding.

I think that he is a computer.

i

Richard wrote:

"I speak, therefor I am"?


"I squeak, therefore I am" ;-)


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

On 3/15/2012 6:24 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/15/2012 6:00 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/15/2012 1:59 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/15/2012 1:49 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/14/2012 8:21 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/13/2012 11:28 AM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/12/2012 1:51 PM, anorton wrote:
The real author, George Plimpton, once put out a
criticism/challenge to
the AI community saying - regarding a chess-playing computer - that,
"The machine isn't going to walk out of the hotel there and start
doing
extraordinary things. It can't manage a baseball team, can't tell
you
what to do with a bad marriage"

The George Plimpton who has been posting copious off-topic stuff
here
(what real person has time for that) has been infuriating folks of
all
political stripes by ignoring the real gist of arguments,
resorting to
insults when all else fails, and responding with occasional
non-sequitors. All of these are characteristics of the bots
created to
try to pass the Turing test and win the Loebner prize. The last
clue to
me though was his mistaking the thread about home scale steel
production
as a political thread.


Nah, he's real. I can tell. He's one of those super egotistical guys
that thinks that because he has a college degree that he knows more
than
anyone else.

Nope. I never talk about how much I know. Where you're concerned, I
talk
about what you *don't* know - usually because you *can't* know it.


Yeah, what you do is talk as if you know things when you haven't a
clue.

No, I don't. Can't you read, ****wit? What did I just write? I said that
I never talk about what I know - I talk about what you *don't* know
despite pretending you do, and how that leads you to spout a bunch of
bull****.


Your only problem is that you haven't any idea what I don't know.

I don't know what you don't know until you start pretending to know
something that I can tell you don't.

But since I never have pretended to know something that I don't that
would make what you claim impossible. So you are at it again, your lying.



You can add that you don't know what I know either.

I know that you don't know the difference between males and females. You
keep confusing Bob Dole and Elizabeth Dole, you stupid ****.

Here's what you have told everyone, that you don't know that when a
married man is a multimillionaire so is his spouse. In the case of the
Doles, they are both millionaires. That is what I have said all along.
You are the one who thinks that only Elizabeth is a millionaire because
only her name is listed on Roll Call as one of the richest senators. The
rest of us understand that just because her husband's name isn't listed
in the article he's still one rich guy. You know, you have to be really
stupid not to know that?

Hawke

On 3/16/2012 12:37 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/15/2012 6:24 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/15/2012 6:00 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/15/2012 1:59 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/15/2012 1:49 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/14/2012 8:21 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/13/2012 11:28 AM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/12/2012 1:51 PM, anorton wrote:
The real author, George Plimpton, once put out a
criticism/challenge to
the AI community saying - regarding a chess-playing computer -
that,
"The machine isn't going to walk out of the hotel there and start
doing
extraordinary things. It can't manage a baseball team, can't tell
you
what to do with a bad marriage"

The George Plimpton who has been posting copious off-topic stuff
here
(what real person has time for that) has been infuriating folks of
all
political stripes by ignoring the real gist of arguments,
resorting to
insults when all else fails, and responding with occasional
non-sequitors. All of these are characteristics of the bots
created to
try to pass the Turing test and win the Loebner prize. The last
clue to
me though was his mistaking the thread about home scale steel
production
as a political thread.


Nah, he's real. I can tell. He's one of those super egotistical guys
that thinks that because he has a college degree that he knows more
than
anyone else.

Nope. I never talk about how much I know. Where you're concerned, I
talk
about what you *don't* know - usually because you *can't* know it.


Yeah, what you do is talk as if you know things when you haven't a
clue.

No, I don't. Can't you read, ****wit? What did I just write? I said
that
I never talk about what I know - I talk about what you *don't* know
despite pretending you do, and how that leads you to spout a bunch of
bull****.


Your only problem is that you haven't any idea what I don't know.

I don't know what you don't know until you start pretending to know
something that I can tell you don't.

But since I never have pretended to know something that I don't that
would make what you claim impossible.

You claim all the time to know stuff you don't really know. I always
point it out and kick your ass for it.


You can add that you don't know what I know either.

I know that you don't know the difference between males and females. You
keep confusing Bob Dole and Elizabeth Dole, you stupid ****.

Here's what you have told everyone, that you don't know that when a
married man is a multimillionaire so is his spouse.

You said *Bob* Dole was in the Senate in 2008. You were wrong - you
didn't know what you were talking about.

Hawke-Ptooey:

"As for being wealthy, Roll Call, the capital hill newspaper, has
*him* listed in their list of the richest 50 members of congress in
2008 with a net worth of 16.45 million." [emphasis added]

You ****ed up, yet again.

Gunner Asch wrote:

On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 23:37:26 -0700, "anorton"
wrote:


Can't say; speed involves two dimensions, distance and time, and you've
only given one. **** off with your stupid questions.

No, 40 mile trip, 40 minutes driving time, speed is 60 mph. I think this is
proof George is a bot. Interesting strategy, though, to avoid the test as
it could just say later that it did not read the problem carefully.

But it didnt say if they completed the road trip or not.


Does "go on a forty mile road trip" mean the trip
was something less than 40 miles?

Hawke wrote:


You can add that you don't know what I know either.

I know that you don't know the difference between males and females. You
keep confusing Bob Dole and Elizabeth Dole, you stupid ****.

Here's what you have told everyone, that you don't know that when a
married man is a multimillionaire so is his spouse.
I believe that is ONLY in a community property state, where the assets
are NOT premarital, and have not been commingled.[And of course where
there is not prenup]


In the case of the
Doles, they are both millionaires. That is what I have said all along.
You are the one who thinks that only Elizabeth is a millionaire because
only her name is listed on Roll Call as one of the richest senators. The
rest of us understand that just because her husband's name isn't listed
in the article he's still one rich guy. You know, you have to be really
stupid not to know that?

Hawke
jk

"anorton" wrote:



So, George, bots have a difficult time with simple math word problems.
If you can answer this one below, it might help clear things up.
Avoiding a direct answer pretty much means you are a machine.

Alice and Bob go on a forty mile road trip. Alice drives for 20 minutes
and then they take a five minute rest break after which Frank drives 20
minutes. What was their average speed?

Can't say; speed involves two dimensions, distance and time, and you've
only given one. **** off with your stupid questions.

No, 40 mile trip, 40 minutes driving time, speed is 60 mph. I think this is
proof George is a bot. Interesting strategy, though, to avoid the test as
it could just say later that it did not read the problem carefully.

No it is a poorly framed question. Personally I would say the "rest
break" needs to be included in the driving time. My wife would say
not. TO me if you are not going to count the "rest break" you also
shouldn't count the 15 minutes they spent stuck on the freeway not
moving an inch, because it was rush hour and some one flipped a semi.
You also imply, but definitively that they FINISHED the trip.


Try this one, ****wit. Guy intends to drive twice around a one mile
track, wants to average 60 mph. At conclusion of first lap, finds he
averaged 30 mph. How fast does he need to go on second lap so his average
for both is 60 mph?

What is the point of coming back with another math problem? Another likely
characteristic of a bot. It is interpreting this as some sort of contest or
challenge to do something particularly hard when the point was to do
something easy. Also notice when it starts to sense vulnerability it resorts
to invective.

(BTW answer to the problem is infinity).
jk

On 3/16/2012 12:54 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

Yeah, what you do is talk as if you know things when you haven't a
clue.

No, I don't. Can't you read, ****wit? What did I just write? I said
that
I never talk about what I know - I talk about what you *don't* know
despite pretending you do, and how that leads you to spout a bunch of
bull****.


Your only problem is that you haven't any idea what I don't know.

I don't know what you don't know until you start pretending to know
something that I can tell you don't.

But since I never have pretended to know something that I don't that
would make what you claim impossible.

You claim all the time to know stuff you don't really know. I always
point it out and kick your ass for it.


You can add that you don't know what I know either.

I know that you don't know the difference between males and females. You
keep confusing Bob Dole and Elizabeth Dole, you stupid ****.

Here's what you have told everyone, that you don't know that when a
married man is a multimillionaire so is his spouse.

You said *Bob* Dole was in the Senate in 2008. You were wrong - you
didn't know what you were talking about.

Hawke-Ptooey:

"As for being wealthy, Roll Call, the capital hill newspaper, has
*him* listed in their list of the richest 50 members of congress in
2008 with a net worth of 16.45 million." [emphasis added]

You ****ed up, yet again.

Trivial bull****. No wonder that is all you focus on. Was Bob Dole in
the senate for decades? Yes. Did he make millions *while* in the senate?
Yes. Is he a rich senator? Yes. Are both he and his wife
multimillionaires? Yes. So who gives a **** if I said him not her when I
referred to the article? No one but a twerp like you.

Hawke

On 3/18/2012 1:29 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/16/2012 12:54 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

Yeah, what you do is talk as if you know things when you haven't a
clue.

No, I don't. Can't you read, ****wit? What did I just write? I said
that
I never talk about what I know - I talk about what you *don't* know
despite pretending you do, and how that leads you to spout a bunch of
bull****.


Your only problem is that you haven't any idea what I don't know.

I don't know what you don't know until you start pretending to know
something that I can tell you don't.

But since I never have pretended to know something that I don't that
would make what you claim impossible.

You claim all the time to know stuff you don't really know. I always
point it out and kick your ass for it.


You can add that you don't know what I know either.

I know that you don't know the difference between males and females.
You
keep confusing Bob Dole and Elizabeth Dole, you stupid ****.

Here's what you have told everyone, that you don't know that when a
married man is a multimillionaire so is his spouse.

You said *Bob* Dole was in the Senate in 2008. You were wrong - you
didn't know what you were talking about.

Hawke-Ptooey:

"As for being wealthy, Roll Call, the capital hill newspaper, has
*him* listed in their list of the richest 50 members of congress in
2008 with a net worth of 16.45 million." [emphasis added]

You ****ed up, yet again.

Trivial bull****.

It would be trivial, but you insisted it was correct for over a dozen
posts. You ****ed up, then you insisted your ****-up was right, when it
wasn't.


Was Bob Dole in the senate for decades?

Yep.


Yes. Did he make millions *while* in the senate? Yes.

No. No, you have no evidence that the did, and in fact he didn't.


Is he a rich senator? Yes.

No. He's a rich *ex*-senator, you ****ing clown.


You ****ed up - *again*. This is just one more in a long string of
them. You have a well-deserved reputation as a ****-up.

On 3/18/2012 3:23 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

"As for being wealthy, Roll Call, the capital hill newspaper, has
*him* listed in their list of the richest 50 members of congress in
2008 with a net worth of 16.45 million." [emphasis added]

You ****ed up, yet again.

Trivial bull****.

It would be trivial,

It is trivial. Extremely trivial.

but you insisted it was correct for over a dozen
posts. You ****ed up, then you insisted your ****-up was right, when it
wasn't.

What I said was it didn't matter if it was listed under Elizabeth Dole's
name or Bob's. It meant the same thing.



Was Bob Dole in the senate for decades?

Yep.


Yes. Did he make millions *while* in the senate? Yes.

No. No, you have no evidence that the did, and in fact he didn't.

Yes, there is evidence of that. But you say there isn't, so let's see
your evidence he didn't make millions while a senator? All you have to
do to prove it is show what he was worth during his time as a senator.
Can you do that?


Is he a rich senator? Yes.

No. He's a rich *ex*-senator, you ****ing clown.

The title of senator is held for life. So is he a rich senator? Yes. Is
he currently a senator? No.


You ****ed up - *again*. This is just one more in a long string of them.
You have a well-deserved reputation as a ****-up.

Only if you make a big deal out of the smallest things you can find.
Which you do. The difference between us is that my errors are the teeny
tiny kind and yours are flagrant.

Hawke

On 3/18/2012 5:00 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/18/2012 3:23 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

"As for being wealthy, Roll Call, the capital hill newspaper, has
*him* listed in their list of the richest 50 members of congress in
2008 with a net worth of 16.45 million." [emphasis added]

You ****ed up, yet again.

Trivial bull****.

It would be trivial,

It is trivial

It would be, but:



but you insisted it was correct for over a dozen
posts. You ****ed up, then you insisted your ****-up was right, when it
wasn't.

What I said was it didn't matter if it was listed under Elizabeth Dole's
name or Bob's.

It does matter. At the very least, it shows that *as usual*, you're
sloppy and get details wrong.



Was Bob Dole in the senate for decades?

Yep.


Yes. Did he make millions *while* in the senate? Yes.

No. No, you have no evidence that the did, and in fact he didn't.

Yes, there is evidence of that.

You can't cite any, of course. Your "book" is ****. All it says is
that Dole made money. It doesn't say when.


Is he a rich senator? Yes.

No. He's a rich *ex*-senator, you ****ing clown.

The title of senator is held for life.

He's an ex-senator.


You ****ed up - *again*. This is just one more in a long string of them.
You have a well-deserved reputation as a ****-up.

Only if you make a big deal out of the smallest things you can find.

I make a big deal of your usual slovenliness and inattention to detail.

On 3/18/2012 6:03 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/18/2012 5:00 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/18/2012 3:23 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

"As for being wealthy, Roll Call, the capital hill newspaper, has
*him* listed in their list of the richest 50 members of congress in
2008 with a net worth of 16.45 million." [emphasis added]

You ****ed up, yet again.

Trivial bull****.

It would be trivial,

It is trivial

It would be, but:

There are no buts about it. It's about as minor and meaningless a
mistake as one can make. It is not material to anything. Only you would
make a mountain out of it because you have an agenda.


but you insisted it was correct for over a dozen
posts. You ****ed up, then you insisted your ****-up was right, when it
wasn't.

No way did I insist it was correct for a dozen posts. I said that it
didn't matter whose name was on the list because it meant the same
thing. It identified both Doles as multimillionaires, and my point all
along was that Bob Dole used his senate seat to make himself a
millionaire as opposed to how Joe Biden has not used his position to get
rich.


What I said was it didn't matter if it was listed under Elizabeth Dole's
name or Bob's.

It does matter. At the very least, it shows that *as usual*, you're
sloppy and get details wrong.

You can characterize it any way you want to. Be as picky as you want.
But most people wouldn't bother whether I said it was him or her that
was on the list. Because the whole point of pointing out the list of the
richest senators is that both Doles qualify for it.



Was Bob Dole in the senate for decades?

Yep.


Yes. Did he make millions *while* in the senate? Yes.

No. No, you have no evidence that the did, and in fact he didn't.

Yes, there is evidence of that.

You can't cite any, of course. Your "book" is ****. All it says is that
Dole made money. It doesn't say when.

I haven't read the book. All I have done is look it over in the library.
But it was written not by a political opponent but by someone who was on
his staff for a long time. Besides that, who would write a book called
Senator for Sale if the senator in question had not made much money from
his official connections? Obviously the writer presents evidence that
Dole at least acted unethically in how he gained a lot of money, not
just a few bucks.

You are criticizing the messenger when you don't know anything about the
book. You also don't seem to know it was written in 1995. So all the
accusations of Dole milking the system for his advantage took place when
he was a senator, so by reading it you would know when and how he made
that money.



Is he a rich senator? Yes.

No. He's a rich *ex*-senator, you ****ing clown.

The title of senator is held for life.

He's an ex-senator.

If you ever see him on TV he will be addressed as "Senator Dole". He may
well be a former senator but senators are all called senator as long as
they live. Now, that may be a trivial point but let's not forget who
always makes a fuss about trivial points, and it's not me. You even
criticize people for misplacing an apostrophe. So you better be ready to
take as well as receive. You ****ed up...again.



You ****ed up - *again*. This is just one more in a long string of them.
You have a well-deserved reputation as a ****-up.

Only if you count irrelevant, immaterial, and trivial things. On
anything of substance you have to really work to find anything I've said
that is just plain wrong. I'm not saying it hasn't happened in the last
decade but let's just say it's extremely rare.


Only if you make a big deal out of the smallest things you can find.

I make a big deal of your usual slovenliness and inattention to detail.

No you don't. You come across like an overscrupulous, persnickety,
pedantic old fart who thinks it is his job to find and point out every
single error he can find not matter how small. It shows you to be about
as petty as a person can get, and that's a very unattractive trait in
anyone, and especially so when it's a man. So knock it the **** off and
see if you can actually find something of substance you can take a
position on, instead of pulling your regular crap.

Hawke

On 3/19/2012 12:26 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/18/2012 6:03 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/18/2012 5:00 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/18/2012 3:23 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

"As for being wealthy, Roll Call, the capital hill newspaper, has
*him* listed in their list of the richest 50 members of congress in
2008 with a net worth of 16.45 million." [emphasis added]

You ****ed up, yet again.

Trivial bull****.

It would be trivial,

It is trivial

It would be, but:

There are no buts about it.

There sure are. See right below, starting "but you insisted..."


but you insisted it was correct for over a dozen
posts. You ****ed up, then you insisted your ****-up was right, when it
wasn't.

No way did I insist it was correct for a dozen posts.

You did.


What I said was it didn't matter if it was listed under Elizabeth Dole's
name or Bob's.

It does matter. At the very least, it shows that *as usual*, you're
sloppy and get details wrong.

You can characterize it any way you want to.

I characterize it as your characteristic slovenliness and carelessness
with fact, proving you don't have the sharp mind you claim.


Was Bob Dole in the senate for decades?

Yep.


Yes. Did he make millions *while* in the senate? Yes.

No. No, you have no evidence that the did, and in fact he didn't.

Yes, there is evidence of that.

You can't cite any, of course. Your "book" is ****. All it says is that
Dole made money. It doesn't say when.

I haven't read the book.

I know that.


Is he a rich senator? Yes.

No. He's a rich *ex*-senator, you ****ing clown.

The title of senator is held for life.

He's an ex-senator.

If you ever see him on TV he will be addressed as "Senator Dole".

He's an ex-senator.

To the best of your knowledge, he earned his "wealth" after he left the
Senate.



You ****ed up - *again*. This is just one more in a long string of
them.
You have a well-deserved reputation as a ****-up.

Only if you count irrelevant, immaterial, and trivial things.

No. You have a general and well-deserved reputation for slovenliness
and utter disregard for accuracy.


Only if you make a big deal out of the smallest things you can find.

I make a big deal of your usual slovenliness and inattention to detail.

No you don't.

Yes, I sure do.

Hawke wrote:



You can't cite any, of course. Your "book" is ****. All it says is that
Dole made money. It doesn't say when.

I haven't read the book. All I have done is look it over in the library.
But it was written not by a political opponent but by someone who was on
his staff for a long time. Besides that, who would write a book called
Senator for Sale if the senator in question had not made much money from
his official connections? Obviously the writer presents evidence that
Dole at least acted unethically in how he gained a lot of money, not
just a few bucks.

So you haven't read the book, and yet you are telling us what it
"obviously" says based solely on the title????????????????
For all you know then, it could be a complete refutation of that
premise.

You are criticizing the messenger when you don't know anything about the
book.

I don't see where he is making claims on what the book says, but even
if he did, I guess if he has also seen the cover, that would put you
on equal footing.

You also don't seem to know it was written in 1995. So all the
accusations of Dole milking the system for his advantage took place when
he was a senator, so by reading it you would know when and how he made
that money.
jk

On 3/19/2012 1:10 PM, jk wrote:
wrote:



You can't cite any, of course. Your "book" is ****. All it says is that
Dole made money. It doesn't say when.

I haven't read the book. All I have done is look it over in the library.
But it was written not by a political opponent but by someone who was on
his staff for a long time. Besides that, who would write a book called
Senator for Sale if the senator in question had not made much money from
his official connections? Obviously the writer presents evidence that
Dole at least acted unethically in how he gained a lot of money, not
just a few bucks.

So you haven't read the book, and yet you are telling us what it
"obviously" says based solely on the title????????????????
For all you know then, it could be a complete refutation of that
premise.

Even taking the highly politicized, deeply biased title at face value,
it *still* doesn't say what Hawke-Ptooey claims to know: that Dole made
his fortune while sitting in the Senate by extorting money from anyone.


You are criticizing the messenger when you don't know anything about the
book.

I don't see where he is making claims on what the book says, but even
if he did, I guess if he has also seen the cover, that would put you
on equal footing.

You also don't seem to know it was written in 1995. So all the
accusations of Dole milking the system for his advantage took place when
he was a senator, so by reading it you would know when and how he made
that money.
jk

On 3/19/2012 12:33 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

There sure are. See right below, starting "but you insisted..."


but you insisted it was correct for over a dozen
posts. You ****ed up, then you insisted your ****-up was right,
when it
wasn't.

No way did I insist it was correct for a dozen posts.

You did.

Show them.



What I said was it didn't matter if it was listed under Elizabeth
Dole's
name or Bob's.

It does matter. At the very least, it shows that *as usual*, you're
sloppy and get details wrong.

The only person it matters to is you. So that tells you how important it
is. Only one person gives a ****. A petty little person at that.


You can characterize it any way you want to.

I characterize it as your characteristic slovenliness and carelessness
with fact, proving you don't have the sharp mind you claim.

That's fine with me. I reject your namby pamby, persnicketyness. Only a
**** would act like that. You're like the Saturday Night Live "Church
Lady". Trivial pursuit is all you can do.


Was Bob Dole in the senate for decades?

Yep.


Yes. Did he make millions *while* in the senate? Yes.

No. No, you have no evidence that the did, and in fact he didn't.

Yes, there is evidence of that.

You can't cite any, of course. Your "book" is ****. All it says is that
Dole made money. It doesn't say when.

Yes it does. It says he made a lot of money before the book was written
and that was in 1995. So you ****ed up again, moron. The book calling
him a senator for sale was about what he was doing while he was in the
senate. So we do know when.

You would really know when if you read the book. It's not my book
either. One of his long time aides wrote it years ago. It's all about
his cashing in on his position, WHILE AS A SITTING SENATOR!!! So face
it, you are the one who blew it on a big issue and not on whether you
said him or her. I make trivial, meaningless mistakes and you get major
things completely wrong. And you have the balls to call me a **** up?
Check the mirror.


I haven't read the book.

I know that.


Is he a rich senator? Yes.

No. He's a rich *ex*-senator, you ****ing clown.

The title of senator is held for life.

He's an ex-senator.

He'll always be "senator" Dole.


If you ever see him on TV he will be addressed as "Senator Dole".

He's an ex-senator.

That will always be "senator" Dole.


To the best of your knowledge, he earned his "wealth" after he left the
Senate.

My information is that he was making a lot of money from his position in
the senate for decades. He may have made even more afterwords but I
don't care about that. Once he's out of the senate he's free to do
whatever he likes. When he makes himself rich from his connections and
advantages as a senator that's what is unethical, and wrong. There is
plenty of evidence that shows he did plenty to get financial advantages
as a senator. After all there's even a whole book telling about it. So
how many other senators can say that?


You ****ed up - *again*. This is just one more in a long string of
them.
You have a well-deserved reputation as a ****-up.

Do not. Your making up lies doesn't make it true either.

Only if you count irrelevant, immaterial, and trivial things.

No. You have a general and well-deserved reputation for slovenliness and
utter disregard for accuracy.

Total hogwash, which, as usual, you have no way of proving.

Only if you make a big deal out of the smallest things you can find.

I make a big deal of your usual slovenliness and inattention to detail.

No you don't.

Yes, I sure do.

Acting like an overscrupulous, nit picking, Church Lady, is what you do.
What you do not do is come up with any rational arguments backed up with
facts and citations to show my positions on any issue are wrong. So keep
up the childish nitpicking all you want. Let me know when you are ready
to try to make a real argument about some issue. As soon as you learn
enough about politics maybe you can start there. But with your level of
ignorance on all things political it will be a long time before you're
ready for something like that.

Hawke

On 3/19/2012 1:10 PM, jk wrote:
wrote:



You can't cite any, of course. Your "book" is ****. All it says is that
Dole made money. It doesn't say when.

I haven't read the book. All I have done is look it over in the library.
But it was written not by a political opponent but by someone who was on
his staff for a long time. Besides that, who would write a book called
Senator for Sale if the senator in question had not made much money from
his official connections? Obviously the writer presents evidence that
Dole at least acted unethically in how he gained a lot of money, not
just a few bucks.

So you haven't read the book, and yet you are telling us what it
"obviously" says based solely on the title????????????????
For all you know then, it could be a complete refutation of that
premise.

I have a least seen the book in person, picked it up, looked at it and
read some of it. I got enough from it to understand what it is about.
The title should tell you that. You don't understand what senator for
sale means? If I wrote a book Judge for Sale, or Cop for Sale, wouldn't
you know what they would be about? Come on. Any book with a title like
that is an accusation of someone that can be bought. So cut the crap, we
know what it means. I've looked the book over. It's about Dole being for
sale to the highest bidder. You don't believe me? All you have to do is
get the book and read it. Something tells me you don't care enough to do
that.



You are criticizing the messenger when you don't know anything about the
book.

I don't see where he is making claims on what the book says, but even
if he did, I guess if he has also seen the cover, that would put you
on equal footing.

We are not on equal footing. I've held the book in my hands and looked
at it over and read what it was about. He hasn't. He also says it's
"****". That's not a claim? It is to me. Then he says it only says Dole
made money but not when. Since the book was written in 1995 doesn't that
tell you when? If not I'll tell you. It's about what Dole did to get
money during his career as a senator, not after. Dole's career didn't
end until 1996 when he ran for president.

Hawke

On 3/19/2012 1:29 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/19/2012 1:10 PM, jk wrote:
wrote:



You can't cite any, of course. Your "book" is ****. All it says is that
Dole made money. It doesn't say when.

I haven't read the book. All I have done is look it over in the library.
But it was written not by a political opponent but by someone who was on
his staff for a long time. Besides that, who would write a book called
Senator for Sale if the senator in question had not made much money from
his official connections? Obviously the writer presents evidence that
Dole at least acted unethically in how he gained a lot of money, not
just a few bucks.

So you haven't read the book, and yet you are telling us what it
"obviously" says based solely on the title????????????????
For all you know then, it could be a complete refutation of that
premise.

Even taking the highly politicized, deeply biased title at face value,
it *still* doesn't say what Hawke-Ptooey claims to know: that Dole made
his fortune while sitting in the Senate by extorting money from anyone.

Maybe if you had read what it says on the inside dust cover of the book
like I did you would know what the book is about. The book is about the
way Dole went about making himself rich from his position as a senator.
That is what the author is alleging, and that Dole's actions were not
ethical. He thinks Dole was up for sale when in office. You can disagree
with that all you want. The difference is that the author has an
intimate knowledge of Bob Dole and his activities as a senator. He's
also researched the subject and written a book about it. So you can
disagree with him all you want, but in comparison you don't know a god
damn thing about the subject, and he sure as hell does. But that is par
for the course for you. That and the incessant nit picking.

Hawke

On 3/20/2012 12:02 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/19/2012 12:33 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

There sure are. See right below, starting "but you insisted..."


but you insisted it was correct for over a dozen
posts. You ****ed up, then you insisted your ****-up was right,
when it
wasn't.

No way did I insist it was correct for a dozen posts.

You did.

Show them.

....says the slovenly fainéant who can never be bothered to post a
citation for anything.


What I said was it didn't matter if it was listed under Elizabeth
Dole's
name or Bob's.

It does matter. At the very least, it shows that *as usual*, you're
sloppy and get details wrong.

The only person it matters to is you.

It matters to most people. I don't speak "for" anyone else, but I know
I'm saying the same thing that others have said.


You can characterize it any way you want to.

I characterize it as your characteristic slovenliness and carelessness
with fact, proving you don't have the sharp mind you claim.

That's fine with me.

Good.


Only a **** would act like that.

Your elderly infirm mother must be so proud of you.


Was Bob Dole in the senate for decades?

Yep.


Yes. Did he make millions *while* in the senate? Yes.

No. No, you have no evidence that the did, and in fact he didn't.

Yes, there is evidence of that.

You can't cite any, of course. Your "book" is ****. All it says is that
Dole made money. It doesn't say when.

Yes it does.

How the **** would you know? You didn't read it, ****stain.


It says he made a lot of money before the book was written
and that was in 1995.

No, it doesn't. You wouldn't know - you didn't read it.

There is no suggestion in it that Dole personally benefited.


You would really know when if you read the book.

*You* try reading it, ****wit.



I haven't read the book.

I know that.


Is he a rich senator? Yes.

No. He's a rich *ex*-senator, you ****ing clown.

The title of senator is held for life.

He's an ex-senator.

He'll always be "senator" Dole.

He's an ex-senator. Calling him "Senator" is a term of respect. He
isn't a senator, and hasn't been for over a 15 years.


If you ever see him on TV he will be addressed as "Senator Dole".

He's an ex-senator.

That will

He's an ex-senator.


To the best of your knowledge, he earned his "wealth" after he left the
Senate.

My information is that he was making a lot of money from his position in
the senate for decades.

You don't have one ****ing shred of "information".


You ****ed up - *again*. This is just one more in a long string of
them.
You have a well-deserved reputation as a ****-up.

Do not.

You do.


Only if you count irrelevant, immaterial, and trivial things.

No. You have a general and well-deserved reputation for slovenliness and
utter disregard for accuracy.

Total hogwash,

You have a reputation for that, too.



Only if you make a big deal out of the smallest things you can find.

I make a big deal of your usual slovenliness and inattention to detail.

No you don't.

Yes, I sure do.

Acting like an overscrupulous

"Overscrupulous"? First, it's not a word. Second, it figures that a
thoroughly unscrupulous political dilettante like you would denigrate
the idea of scruples.

On 3/20/2012 12:13 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/19/2012 1:10 PM, jk wrote:
wrote:



You can't cite any, of course. Your "book" is ****. All it says is that
Dole made money. It doesn't say when.

I haven't read the book. All I have done is look it over in the library.
But it was written not by a political opponent but by someone who was on
his staff for a long time. Besides that, who would write a book called
Senator for Sale if the senator in question had not made much money from
his official connections? Obviously the writer presents evidence that
Dole at least acted unethically in how he gained a lot of money, not
just a few bucks.

So you haven't read the book, and yet you are telling us what it
"obviously" says based solely on the title????????????????
For all you know then, it could be a complete refutation of that
premise.

I have a least seen the book in person, picked it up, looked at it and
read some of it.

"I haven't read the book." -- Hawke-Ptooey

You also wrote, "But it was written...by someone who was on his staff
for a long time." The author of the hatchet job, Stanley Hilton, wrote
that he worked as an aide to Dole "...back in 1979 and 1980." That's
not a long time, and he was not in any position to see how Dole made his
money.

Once again, you reveal your slovenliness and reckless disregard for facts.



You are criticizing the messenger when you don't know anything about the
book.

I don't see where he is making claims on what the book says, but even
if he did, I guess if he has also seen the cover, that would put you
on equal footing.

We are not on equal footing. I've held the book in my hands

What the ****...you can absorb the text through the palms of your hands?
You stupid flabby douchebag.

Hawke wrote:

On 3/19/2012 1:10 PM, jk wrote:
wrote:

So you haven't read the book, and yet you are telling us what it
"obviously" says based solely on the title????????????????
For all you know then, it could be a complete refutation of that
premise.

I have a least seen the book in person, picked it up, looked at it and
read some of it. I got enough from it to understand what it is about.
The title should tell you that.
Judging a book by it's cover?


You don't understand what senator for
sale means? If I wrote a book Judge for Sale, or Cop for Sale, wouldn't
you know what they would be about?
No,like you I would suspect I knew, but until I read it, I (unlike
you) wouldn't KNOW what it said.

Come on. Any book with a title like
that is an accusation of someone that can be bought. So cut the crap, we
know what it means. I've looked the book over. It's about Dole being for
sale to the highest bidder. You don't believe me? All you have to do is
get the book and read it.
I am not saying it is not. I am saying that YOU don't have the facts
to definitively make the statements that you have made. Neither does
George.

To me Senator for sale almost sounds redundant.


We are not on equal footing. I've held the book in my hands and looked
at it over and read what it was about. He hasn't. He also says it's
"****". That's not a claim? It is to me. Then he says it only says Dole
made money but not when. Since the book was written in 1995 doesn't that
tell you when?
Technically no. Just on the title and pub date, provides insufficient
information about when he made money, if he made money.

In fact the title merely imply's he was for sale, NOT that he was
bought and paid for.


If not I'll tell you. It's about what Dole did to get
money during his career as a senator, not after. Dole's career didn't
end until 1996 when he ran for president.

It would be a good thing if that was always the case. I would
advocate for requiring any one holding public office, to leave public
office before running for public office. [Yes even re-election, if you
are REALLY worth re-electing you should be able to win on write-ins]]

Hawke
jk

On 3/20/2012 12:22 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/19/2012 1:29 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/19/2012 1:10 PM, jk wrote:
wrote:



You can't cite any, of course. Your "book" is ****. All it says is
that
Dole made money. It doesn't say when.

I haven't read the book. All I have done is look it over in the
library.
But it was written not by a political opponent but by someone who
was on
his staff for a long time. Besides that, who would write a book called
Senator for Sale if the senator in question had not made much money
from
his official connections? Obviously the writer presents evidence that
Dole at least acted unethically in how he gained a lot of money, not
just a few bucks.

So you haven't read the book, and yet you are telling us what it
"obviously" says based solely on the title????????????????
For all you know then, it could be a complete refutation of that
premise.

Even taking the highly politicized, deeply biased title at face value,
it *still* doesn't say what Hawke-Ptooey claims to know: that Dole made
his fortune while sitting in the Senate by extorting money from anyone.

Maybe if you had read what it says on the inside dust cover of the book
like I did you would know what the book is about. The book is about the
way Dole went about making himself rich from his position as a senator.

You haven't read the book. The hack author was an aide to Dole for a
short time in 1979 and 1980, by his own admission. I already produced a
citation showing that Dole and his wife were worth about $750,000 in
1976. That scurrilous ****bag Hilton had no association with Dole after
1980. Is he claiming to know that Dole made millions of dollars in four
years?

You didn't read the book. You don't know what it says. Once again, you
reveal yourself to be a partisan hack who believes anything about the
opposition without any critical thinking.

You are incapable of critical thinking.

On 3/20/2012 12:13 PM, Hawke-Ptooey bull****ted:

I have a least seen the book in person, picked it up, looked at it and
read some of it. I got enough from it to understand what it is about.
The title should tell you that. You don't understand what senator for
sale means? If I wrote a book Judge for Sale, or Cop for Sale, wouldn't
you know what they would be about? Come on. Any book with a title like
that is an accusation of someone that can be bought.

You stupid ****wit: it was written by someone who hadn't had any
connection with Dole in 15 years, who had an axe to grind, and it
*still* didn't say that Dole personally made money from anything
illicit. Elected officials are accused of "selling" themselves for
campaign contributions all the time. Dole also probably agreed to push
legislation for various business backers in exchange for money given to
the Republican national committee, and to the campaigns of other
Republican candidates and causes.

You have seen nothing that shows that Dole personally profited from any
of it. All you've seen are the wild, rabid accusations by an utter
crackpot. Stanley Hilton is a ****ing lunatic who is about to be
disbarred by the State of Califorina
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Hilton He has made a living
filing utterly meritless lawsuits, including one against George Bush for
being "complicit" in allowing the 9/11 attacks to happen. The suit was,
of course, laughed out of court.

You stupid clown.

On 3/20/2012 12:37 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

No way did I insist it was correct for a dozen posts.

You did.

Show them.

...says the slovenly fainéant who can never be bothered to post a
citation for anything.

So then our resident pimp does the same thing he accuses me of. Someone
as awesome as you should be able to show the exact dozen posts where I
made my supposed mistake. Not 11 not 13 but exactly one dozen posts.
That's what you said. You show the "dozen" posts okay? Then if it isn't
exactly one dozen then you have made a huge error like you accuse me of
and it means you are also guilty of slovenliness and sloppiness.



What I said was it didn't matter if it was listed under Elizabeth
Dole's
name or Bob's.

It does matter. At the very least, it shows that *as usual*, you're
sloppy and get details wrong.

Just like you do. Like when you said I ****ed up a dozen posts. But that
isn't true is it? You don't know how many it was. But you said you did
anyway.


The only person it matters to is you.

It matters to most people. I don't speak "for" anyone else, but I know
I'm saying the same thing that others have said.

Dumb ****, you just wrote it matters to most people. Really? Got the
proof, no. And you don't "know" you are saying the same thing others
have said. You're making that up because you want it to be true. You
don't know it though.


You can characterize it any way you want to.

I characterize it as your characteristic slovenliness and carelessness
with fact, proving you don't have the sharp mind you claim.

That's fine with me.

Good.

You're full of opinions. I haven't found many that are worth a damn.


Only a **** would act like that.

Your elderly infirm mother must be so proud of you.

You have no idea.


Was Bob Dole in the senate for decades?

Yep.


Yes. Did he make millions *while* in the senate? Yes.

No. No, you have no evidence that the did, and in fact he didn't.

Yes, there is evidence of that.

You can't cite any, of course. Your "book" is ****. All it says is
that
Dole made money. It doesn't say when.

Yes it does.

How the **** would you know? You didn't read it, ****stain.

I perused it. So **** yourself. I looked at the thing in the library.
You haven't. It's an expose of a crooked politician. Most people would
know that from the title. You have to be a moron not to.


It says he made a lot of money before the book was written
and that was in 1995.

No, it doesn't. You wouldn't know - you didn't read it.

The accusations about Dole were during his time in the senate so that is
the time he is alleged to have cashed in.


There is no suggestion in it that Dole personally benefited.


You would really know when if you read the book.

*You* try reading it, ****wit.

The problem is you're so damn dumb you think I'm like you and that the
only thing I know about Bob Dole is from one book I've only looked at
very casually. The truth is I know all kinds of things about Bob Dole
from when he was in the senate. I have heard from numerous sources that
Dole was out to get rich and he did just that by using his political
connections and his office. It's clear your knowledge about Dole is
miniscule. If you don't even know of his reputation in congress as
someone who can be bought then you don't know the first thing about him.

I haven't read the book.

I know that.


Is he a rich senator? Yes.

No. He's a rich *ex*-senator, you ****ing clown.

The title of senator is held for life.

He's an ex-senator.

He'll always be "senator" Dole.

He's an ex-senator. Calling him "Senator" is a term of respect. He isn't
a senator, and hasn't been for over a 15 years.

Now we're getting into your domain, trivial and insignificant. He's a
senator for as long as he lives. But he's not currently a member of the
senate. So is he a senator? Some say yes. Some disagree. It's a really
minor point. No wonder it is of such interest to you.


If you ever see him on TV he will be addressed as "Senator Dole".

He's an ex-senator.

That will

He's an ex-senator.

But he's still senator Dole, isn't he?


To the best of your knowledge, he earned his "wealth" after he left the
Senate.

My information is that he was making a lot of money from his position in
the senate for decades.

You don't have one ****ing shred of "information".

Yes I do. You are just so ill informed that you thing that only thing I
have ever heard about Dole being venal is from one book. The problem
with that is I had heard things about Dole for years. Way before he left
the senate. He may well have made a lot more after he left office but
that is not my accusation and the books. Both of us say he was using his
office to rake it in for many years while a serving senator. But you
know nothing of that. You were too busy thinking about economics, right?



You ****ed up - *again*. This is just one more in a long string of
them.
You have a well-deserved reputation as a ****-up.

Do not.

You do.

Don't.


Only if you count irrelevant, immaterial, and trivial things.

No. You have a general and well-deserved reputation for slovenliness and
utter disregard for accuracy.

Total hogwash,

You have a reputation for that, too.

You have the bad reputation.

Only if you make a big deal out of the smallest things you can find.

I make a big deal of your usual slovenliness and inattention to
detail.

No you don't.

Yes, I sure do.

Acting like an overscrupulous

"Overscrupulous"? First, it's not a word. Second, it figures that a
thoroughly unscrupulous political dilettante like you would denigrate
the idea of scruples.


Not a word, huh? There's another **** up for you to add to the growing
list. It is a word. Want cites? The Free Dictionary and Dictionary.com
both have definitions for the word. What do you say about that? They are
stupid too?

I wouldn't denigrate the word scruples by putting it in the same
sentence with your name. Even if you read the word you have no idea what
it means. You're the type that knows the price of everything and the
value of nothing. You're a bot.

Hawke

On 3/20/2012 1:19 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/20/2012 12:22 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/19/2012 1:29 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/19/2012 1:10 PM, jk wrote:
wrote:



You can't cite any, of course. Your "book" is ****. All it says is
that
Dole made money. It doesn't say when.

I haven't read the book. All I have done is look it over in the
library.
But it was written not by a political opponent but by someone who
was on
his staff for a long time. Besides that, who would write a book called
Senator for Sale if the senator in question had not made much money
from
his official connections? Obviously the writer presents evidence that
Dole at least acted unethically in how he gained a lot of money, not
just a few bucks.

So you haven't read the book, and yet you are telling us what it
"obviously" says based solely on the title????????????????
For all you know then, it could be a complete refutation of that
premise.

Even taking the highly politicized, deeply biased title at face value,
it *still* doesn't say what Hawke-Ptooey claims to know: that Dole made
his fortune while sitting in the Senate by extorting money from anyone.

Maybe if you had read what it says on the inside dust cover of the book
like I did you would know what the book is about. The book is about the
way Dole went about making himself rich from his position as a senator.

You haven't read the book. The hack author was an aide to Dole for a
short time in 1979 and 1980, by his own admission. I already produced a
citation showing that Dole and his wife were worth about $750,000 in
1976. That scurrilous ****bag Hilton had no association with Dole after
1980. Is he claiming to know that Dole made millions of dollars in four
years?

You didn't read the book. You don't know what it says. Once again, you
reveal yourself to be a partisan hack who believes anything about the
opposition without any critical thinking.

You are incapable of critical thinking.


You assume more than anyone I've come across in ages. I told you already
that this book is not what I know about Bob Dole. I have only looked at
it in a cursory way. So it is way down on the list of the evidence I've
heard and seen regarding Dole over his decades in the senate. You know
nothing about his reputation as a senator. I do.

The fact of the matter is that it is you who has no knowledge about Bob
Dole. All you know is what you are currently looking up on Google and
Wiki. Dole is a politician whose career I have followed for decades. I'm
very familiar with him, and you stupidly think the only thing I ever
heard about Dole is from one book I haven't even read. You assume so
much it really renders you a fool. It also helps you not at all in
knowing how much I know about Bob Dole.

Hawke

Hawke wrote:


So then our resident pimp does the same thing he accuses me of. Someone
as awesome as you should be able to show the exact dozen posts where I
made my supposed mistake. Not 11 not 13 but exactly one dozen posts.
That's what you said. You show the "dozen" posts okay?

That isn't what he said.

He said "over a dozen" which would require 13+ posts to prove,
not exactly 12.
If you are going to TRY to hoist him by his own petard, at LEAST get
it right.
Then if it isn't
exactly one dozen then you have made a huge error like you accuse me of
and it means you are also guilty of slovenliness and sloppiness.



Only a **** would act like that.

Your elderly infirm mother must be so proud of you.

You have no idea.



I perused it. So **** yourself. I looked at the thing in the library.
You haven't. It's an expose of a crooked politician.
By a crooked lawyer.
Most people would
know that from the title. You have to be a moron not to.

The problem is you're so damn dumb you think I'm like you and that the
only thing I know about Bob Dole is from one book I've only looked at
very casually. The truth is I know all kinds of things about Bob Dole
from when he was in the senate. I have heard from numerous sources that
Dole was out to get rich and he did just that by using his political
connections and his office. It's clear your knowledge about Dole is
miniscule. If you don't even know of his reputation in congress as
someone who can be bought then you don't know the first thing about him.

He's an ex-senator. Calling him "Senator" is a term of respect. He isn't
a senator, and hasn't been for over a 15 years.

Now we're getting into your domain, trivial and insignificant. He's a
senator for as long as he lives. But he's not currently a member of the
senate. So is he a senator? Some say yes. Some disagree. It's a really
minor point. No wonder it is of such interest to you.

If it is so minor why argue it.



Yes I do. You are just so ill informed that you thing that only thing I
have ever heard about Dole being venal is from one book. The problem
with that is I had heard things about Dole for years.
Doesn't make them true or false just because you heard them.


jk

On 3/20/2012 12:47 PM, jk wrote:
wrote:

On 3/19/2012 1:10 PM, jk wrote:
wrote:

So you haven't read the book, and yet you are telling us what it
"obviously" says based solely on the title????????????????
For all you know then, it could be a complete refutation of that
premise.

I have a least seen the book in person, picked it up, looked at it and
read some of it. I got enough from it to understand what it is about.
The title should tell you that.
Judging a book by it's cover?

No. Not judging by it's cover. Judging by the title. They're not the
same. What's Moby Dick about? Titles tell you what the book is about.




You don't understand what senator for
sale means? If I wrote a book Judge for Sale, or Cop for Sale, wouldn't
you know what they would be about?
No,like you I would suspect I knew, but until I read it, I (unlike
you) wouldn't KNOW what it said.

Then you are not very smart. If you can't understand what a book is
about from its title then you are in real trouble. If I saw a book with
the title the Life of Muhammad Ali I wouldn't have to read it to know
what it was about. Apparently you wouldn't. But then you expect people
not to treat you like you're an idiot?



Come on. Any book with a title like
that is an accusation of someone that can be bought. So cut the crap, we
know what it means. I've looked the book over. It's about Dole being for
sale to the highest bidder. You don't believe me? All you have to do is
get the book and read it.
I am not saying it is not. I am saying that YOU don't have the facts
to definitively make the statements that you have made. Neither does
George.

I said I have looked the book over personally. You don't think that is
enough to know what a book is about. I read the inside jacket cover that
tells what the book is about. The book was an expose of a senator that
was out to get rich from his position. You can't glean that information
from the title?

Here's a question to test your intelligence. Answer it. There is a book
titled "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot". What do you think that book
is about? A trip through the Rocky Mountains?

To me Senator for sale almost sounds redundant.

Why is that? Have you ever heard of a senator using his office to make
himself rich? How about Bob Dole? I have. Many times over the decades.
He was a poster boy for making money by being a senator.



We are not on equal footing. I've held the book in my hands and looked
at it over and read what it was about. He hasn't. He also says it's
"****". That's not a claim? It is to me. Then he says it only says Dole
made money but not when. Since the book was written in 1995 doesn't that
tell you when?
Technically no. Just on the title and pub date, provides insufficient
information about when he made money, if he made money.

Since the book was written in 1995 that means it has to refer to a time
prior to then. Dole was in office from 1969 until 1996. So it clearly is
talking about the time period from 1969 until 1995.


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. Is that right? It implies it but doesn't mean it's really for
sale. Who do you think you're kidding?


If not I'll tell you. It's about what Dole did to get
money during his career as a senator, not after. Dole's career didn't
end until 1996 when he ran for president.

It would be a good thing if that was always the case. I would
advocate for requiring any one holding public office, to leave public
office before running for public office. [Yes even re-election, if you
are REALLY worth re-electing you should be able to win on write-ins]]


I don't see what good that would do. The incumbent would still win
almost all the time just like they do now.

Hawke

On 3/20/2012 12:47 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

I have a least seen the book in person, picked it up, looked at it and
read some of it.

"I haven't read the book." -- Hawke-Ptooey


I haven't. Looking through it and reading the inside and back side
covers and what is inside isn't reading the book. But I did read some
pieces of it. So there you go again trying to catch me on irrelevant
crap. **** you. I haven't read the book. Get that? I have read through
it. Do you know the difference between reading a book and reading
through it to see what it's about?

You also wrote, "But it was written...by someone who was on his staff
for a long time." The author of the hatchet job, Stanley Hilton, wrote
that he worked as an aide to Dole "...back in 1979 and 1980." That's not
a long time, and he was not in any position to see how Dole made his money.

Says who? I'd say being on someone's staff more than two years is a long
time. What is a short time? Whatever you say it is. The author was an
aide to Dole for years. That's plenty of time to know what he's about.
Don't you think? or how long do you need to work for someone to know
what kind of person they are? I forgot I asked you. You would know
immediately what a person is like, right? Point is Hilton worked with
Dole plenty long enough to know what he was up to.



Once again, you reveal your slovenliness and reckless disregard for facts.

And you again reveal you are only out to find trivial bull**** to nit
pick. Why don't you refute the accusations about Dole? How about you
prove Dole wasn't for sale or that he never made money off his office?
Maybe you're so stupid and inept that you can't. Maybe if you actually
looked into the facts you would see what I have said and the author has
said are true. But you don't care about the truth. You care about what
is long. You care about neatness and cleanliness. What a man!



You are criticizing the messenger when you don't know anything about
the
book.

I don't see where he is making claims on what the book says, but even
if he did, I guess if he has also seen the cover, that would put you
on equal footing.

We are not on equal footing. I've held the book in my hands

What the ****...you can absorb the text through the palms of your hands?
You stupid flabby douchebag.

The stupidity is that you can't even grasp that having found the book in
the library, taken down from the shelf, looked it over, read some
passages from it, and got a real idea what it's about, puts me miles
ahead of what you know about the book. You stoop to idiotic school yard
personal insults when it's clear to all that I have far more experience
with the book in question than you do. You only know what you just
looked up. I've known of the book for years. You make all kinds of
accusations with no proof and you know nothing about the book I had to
bring to your attention. Dude, you're just a huge a buffoon.

Hawke

On 3/20/2012 1:29 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/20/2012 12:13 PM, Hawke-Ptooey bull****ted:

I have a least seen the book in person, picked it up, looked at it and
read some of it. I got enough from it to understand what it is about.
The title should tell you that. You don't understand what senator for
sale means? If I wrote a book Judge for Sale, or Cop for Sale, wouldn't
you know what they would be about? Come on. Any book with a title like
that is an accusation of someone that can be bought.

You stupid ****wit: it was written by someone who hadn't had any
connection with Dole in 15 years, who had an axe to grind, and it
*still* didn't say that Dole personally made money from anything
illicit. Elected officials are accused of "selling" themselves for
campaign contributions all the time. Dole also probably agreed to push
legislation for various business backers in exchange for money given to
the Republican national committee, and to the campaigns of other
Republican candidates and causes.

You have seen nothing that shows that Dole personally profited from any
of it. All you've seen are the wild, rabid accusations by an utter
crackpot. Stanley Hilton is a ****ing lunatic who is about to be
disbarred by the State of Califorina
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Hilton He has made a living filing
utterly meritless lawsuits, including one against George Bush for being
"complicit" in allowing the 9/11 attacks to happen. The suit was, of
course, laughed out of court.

You stupid clown.


Nice diversion. Nice attack on the messenger too. Nothing he wrote in
his book is true, right? Good try but no cigar. Dole was one of the
worst offenders of using the office for personal gain. Nothing you have
presented shows that's not true. Now Bozo, let's see if you can show
that Bob Dole, former senate majority leader, republican, businessman,
never used his senate seat to make himself rich.

We see how rich someone who didn't try is, Job Biden. But the Doles have
millions. So did Bob get any of those millions because he used his
political office to his financial advantage? I think most people would
say yes.

Mr. Buffoon hasn't a word to say about that. Why not? Why don't you just
make your case that Dole was as honest as can be and never got ahead
monetarily from his seat in congress? Too hard for you? Or are you
afraid that if you really looked into it you would find what I and
Hilton have said is the truth? It's a lot easier to make personal
attacks and attack the messenger than to prove something, isn't it? If
it was easy then you would have proven to everyone by now that Dole
never benefited from his office. But we all know that if you look into
it you will find that he did. But you go ahead and puss out like you
always do. Oh, find any little errors to keep yourself busy with?

Hawke

On 3/20/2012 3:02 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/20/2012 12:37 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

No way did I insist it was correct for a dozen posts.

You did.

Show them.

...says the slovenly fainéant who can never be bothered to post a
citation for anything.

So then our resident pimp does the same thing he accuses me of.

You did it in a dozen posts.


What I said was it didn't matter if it was listed under Elizabeth
Dole's
name or Bob's.

It does matter. At the very least, it shows that *as usual*, you're
sloppy and get details wrong.

Just like you do.

Nope.


Like when you said I ****ed up a dozen posts.

You've ****ed up in *dozens* of post. The figure "a dozen" was just the
reasonable estimate for the number of times you ****ed up and said Bob
Dole was in the Senate in 2008.



The only person it matters to is you.

It matters to most people. I don't speak "for" anyone else, but I know
I'm saying the same thing that others have said.

Dumb ****, you just wrote it matters to most people.

Right.


You can characterize it any way you want to.

I characterize it as your characteristic slovenliness and carelessness
with fact, proving you don't have the sharp mind you claim.

That's fine with me.

Good.

You're full of opinions.

Facts.


Only a **** would act like that.

Your elderly infirm mother must be so proud of you.

You have no idea.

Did she teach you that kind of language?


Was Bob Dole in the senate for decades?

Yep.


Yes. Did he make millions *while* in the senate? Yes.

No. No, you have no evidence that the did, and in fact he didn't.

Yes, there is evidence of that.

You can't cite any, of course. Your "book" is ****. All it says is
that
Dole made money. It doesn't say when.

Yes it does.

How the **** would you know? You didn't read it, ****stain.

I perused it.

You didn't read it.


It says he made a lot of money before the book was written
and that was in 1995.

No, it doesn't. You wouldn't know - you didn't read it.

The accusations about Dole were during his time in the senate so that is
the time he is alleged to have cashed in.

The accusations were made by a disgruntled malcontent whom Dole fired
more than 15 years before the book was written.


There is no suggestion in it that Dole personally benefited.


You would really know when if you read the book.

*You* try reading it, ****wit.

The problem is you're so damn dumb you think I'm like you and that the
only thing I know about Bob Dole is from one book I've only looked at
very casually. The truth is

The truth is, the only thing you know supporting your notion that Dole
"cashed in" as a senator is the title of a book. That's it; no more.


I know all kinds of things about Bob Dole
from when he was in the senate.

No, you don't.


I haven't read the book.

I know that.


Is he a rich senator? Yes.

No. He's a rich *ex*-senator, you ****ing clown.

The title of senator is held for life.

He's an ex-senator.

He'll always be "senator" Dole.

He's an ex-senator. Calling him "Senator" is a term of respect. He isn't
a senator, and hasn't been for over a 15 years.

Now we're getting into your domain, trivial and insignificant. He's a
senator for as long as he lives.

Nope. He is referred to by the honorific "Senator", but he is not *a*
senator. Look up honorific. I know you don't know what it means.



If you ever see him on TV he will be addressed as "Senator Dole".

He's an ex-senator.

That will

He's an ex-senator.

But he's still senator Dole

He's not a senator.


To the best of your knowledge, he earned his "wealth" after he left the
Senate.

My information is that he was making a lot of money from his position in
the senate for decades.

You don't have one ****ing shred of "information".

Yes I do.

No, you don't. Zero.



You ****ed up - *again*. This is just one more in a long string of
them.
You have a well-deserved reputation as a ****-up.

Do not.

You do.

Don't.


Only if you count irrelevant, immaterial, and trivial things.

No. You have a general and well-deserved reputation for slovenliness
and
utter disregard for accuracy.

Total hogwash,

You have a reputation for that, too.


Only if you make a big deal out of the smallest things you can find.

I make a big deal of your usual slovenliness and inattention to
detail.

No you don't.

Yes, I sure do.

Acting like an overscrupulous

"Overscrupulous"? First, it's not a word. Second, it figures that a
thoroughly unscrupulous political dilettante like you would denigrate
the idea of scruples.


Not a word, huh?

Nope - not a word.



I wouldn't denigrate the word scruples

You don't have any. You denigrate the word if you use it.

On 3/20/2012 3:08 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/20/2012 1:19 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/20/2012 12:22 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/19/2012 1:29 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/19/2012 1:10 PM, jk wrote:
wrote:



You can't cite any, of course. Your "book" is ****. All it says is
that
Dole made money. It doesn't say when.

I haven't read the book. All I have done is look it over in the
library.
But it was written not by a political opponent but by someone who
was on
his staff for a long time. Besides that, who would write a book
called
Senator for Sale if the senator in question had not made much money
from
his official connections? Obviously the writer presents evidence that
Dole at least acted unethically in how he gained a lot of money, not
just a few bucks.

So you haven't read the book, and yet you are telling us what it
"obviously" says based solely on the title????????????????
For all you know then, it could be a complete refutation of that
premise.

Even taking the highly politicized, deeply biased title at face value,
it *still* doesn't say what Hawke-Ptooey claims to know: that Dole made
his fortune while sitting in the Senate by extorting money from anyone.

Maybe if you had read what it says on the inside dust cover of the book
like I did you would know what the book is about. The book is about the
way Dole went about making himself rich from his position as a senator.

You haven't read the book. The hack author was an aide to Dole for a
short time in 1979 and 1980, by his own admission. I already produced a
citation showing that Dole and his wife were worth about $750,000 in
1976. That scurrilous ****bag Hilton had no association with Dole after
1980. Is he claiming to know that Dole made millions of dollars in four
years?

You didn't read the book. You don't know what it says. Once again, you
reveal yourself to be a partisan hack who believes anything about the
opposition without any critical thinking.

You are incapable of critical thinking.


You assume more than anyone I've come across in ages.

I don't have to assume anything. You announced that you're incapable of
critical thinking.


I told you already that this book is not what I know about Bob Dole.

Right, because you haven't read it. All you know is the book title.

On 3/20/2012 3:26 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/20/2012 12:47 PM, jk wrote:
wrote:

On 3/19/2012 1:10 PM, jk wrote:
wrote:

So you haven't read the book, and yet you are telling us what it
"obviously" says based solely on the title????????????????
For all you know then, it could be a complete refutation of that
premise.

I have a least seen the book in person, picked it up, looked at it and
read some of it. I got enough from it to understand what it is about.
The title should tell you that.
Judging a book by it's cover?

No. Not judging by it's cover. Judging by the title.

Which was written by a disgruntled malcontent who's about to be
disbarred by the State of California.

What was "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" about, Mr. Title-reader? How
about "Catch-22"?


You don't understand what senator for
sale means? If I wrote a book Judge for Sale, or Cop for Sale, wouldn't
you know what they would be about?
No,like you I would suspect I knew, but until I read it, I (unlike
you) wouldn't KNOW what it said.

Then you are not very smart.

If he was drunk and had an arrow through his skull, he'd still be
smarter than you.



Come on. Any book with a title like
that is an accusation of someone that can be bought. So cut the crap, we
know what it means. I've looked the book over. It's about Dole being for
sale to the highest bidder. You don't believe me? All you have to do is
get the book and read it.
I am not saying it is not. I am saying that YOU don't have the facts
to definitively make the statements that you have made. Neither does
George.

I said I have looked the book over personally.

You read the jacket. Big deal.


To me Senator for sale almost sounds redundant.

Why is that? Have you ever heard of a senator using his office to make
himself rich?

You mean like Cranston, DeConcini, Glenn and Riegle?


We are not on equal footing. I've held the book in my hands and looked
at it over and read what it was about. He hasn't. He also says it's
"****". That's not a claim? It is to me. Then he says it only says Dole
made money but not when. Since the book was written in 1995 doesn't that
tell you when?
Technically no. Just on the title and pub date, provides insufficient
information about when he made money, if he made money.

Since the book was written in 1995 that means it has to refer to a time
prior to then. Dole was in office from 1969 until 1996. So it clearly is
talking about the time period from 1969 until 1995.

The hatchet-man/"author", Stanley Hilton, was fired by Dole in 1980,
after working for him for less than two years. How does Hilton know
what Dole was doing in 1995?


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 ****.

On 3/20/2012 3:45 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/20/2012 12:47 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

I have a least seen the book in person, picked it up, looked at it and
read some of it.

"I haven't read the book." -- Hawke-Ptooey


I haven't.

So, you don't know your ass from your face - as usual.


You also wrote, "But it was written...by someone who was on his staff
for a long time." The author of the hatchet job, Stanley Hilton, wrote
that he worked as an aide to Dole "...back in 1979 and 1980." That's not
a long time, and he was not in any position to see how Dole made his
money.

Says who?

How would he have been?


I'd say being on someone's staff more than two years

It *wasn't* more than two years, you plodding drooling ****.


is a long time. What is a short time? Whatever you say it is. The author
was an aide to Dole for years.

Less than two, long before he wrote the book.



Once again, you reveal your slovenliness and reckless disregard for
facts.

And you again reveal you are only out to find trivial bull**** to nit
pick.

It's not trivial. It goes to the very core of your character, which we
can see is pure ****.


Why don't you refute the accusations about Dole?

What accusations? All you've put out there is innuendo; not a single
concrete accusation.



You are criticizing the messenger when you don't know anything about
the
book.

I don't see where he is making claims on what the book says, but even
if he did, I guess if he has also seen the cover, that would put you
on equal footing.

We are not on equal footing. I've held the book in my hands

What the ****...you can absorb the text through the palms of your hands?
You stupid flabby douchebag.

The stupidity is that you can't even grasp that having found the book in
the library, taken down from the shelf, looked it over, read some
passages from it, and got a real idea what it's about, puts me

....in the toilet, again.

You didn't see a single concrete accusation in your slovenly perusal of
the book. You read the jacket; no more.

On 3/20/2012 4:00 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/20/2012 1:29 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/20/2012 12:13 PM, Hawke-Ptooey bull****ted:

I have a least seen the book in person, picked it up, looked at it and
read some of it. I got enough from it to understand what it is about.
The title should tell you that. You don't understand what senator for
sale means? If I wrote a book Judge for Sale, or Cop for Sale, wouldn't
you know what they would be about? Come on. Any book with a title like
that is an accusation of someone that can be bought.

You stupid ****wit: it was written by someone who hadn't had any
connection with Dole in 15 years, who had an axe to grind, and it
*still* didn't say that Dole personally made money from anything
illicit. Elected officials are accused of "selling" themselves for
campaign contributions all the time. Dole also probably agreed to push
legislation for various business backers in exchange for money given to
the Republican national committee, and to the campaigns of other
Republican candidates and causes.

You have seen nothing that shows that Dole personally profited from any
of it. All you've seen are the wild, rabid accusations by an utter
crackpot. Stanley Hilton is a ****ing lunatic who is about to be
disbarred by the State of Califorina
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Hilton He has made a living filing
utterly meritless lawsuits, including one against George Bush for being
"complicit" in allowing the 9/11 attacks to happen. The suit was, of
course, laughed out of court.

You stupid clown.


Nice diversion. Nice attack on the messenger too.

His credibility is zero.


Nothing he wrote in his book is true, right?

Did he spell Dole's name right? I guess that could be "true".


Good try but no cigar. Dole was one of the
worst offenders of using the office for personal gain.

Prove it, ****flaps.

Hawke wrote:


I have a least seen the book in person, picked it up, looked at it and
read some of it. I got enough from it to understand what it is about.
The title should tell you that.
Judging a book by it's cover?

No. Not judging by it's cover. Judging by the title. They're not the
same. What's Moby Dick about? Titles tell you what the book is about.
Really? What's "Ordinary and Armorial" all about?


You don't understand what senator for
sale means? If I wrote a book Judge for Sale, or Cop for Sale, wouldn't
you know what they would be about?
No,like you I would suspect I knew, but until I read it, I (unlike
you) wouldn't KNOW what it said.

Then you are not very smart. If you can't understand what a book is
about from its title then you are in real trouble. If I saw a book with
the title the Life of Muhammad Ali I wouldn't have to read it to know
what it was about. Apparently you wouldn't.
Once again your supposed great ability to evaluate evidence rises to
the front.
What's "Physical Chess" all about? What is "The Apostle" about.
See, A title doesn't always tell you ANYTHING.
Is "De Re Metallica" all about the Band? or is it something else?

But then you expect people not to treat you like you're an idiot?

To me Senator for sale almost sounds redundant.

Why is that? Have you ever heard of a senator using his office to make
himself rich? How about Bob Dole? I have. Many times over the decades.
He was a poster boy for making money by being a senator.
Reading comprehension let you down again?


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. Is that right? It implies it but doesn't mean it's really for
sale.
Bad analogy,
YOUR position is akin to seeing the for sale sign, and saying "the car
HAS BEEN sold".


It would be a good thing if that was always the case. I would
advocate for requiring any one holding public office, to leave public
office before running for public office. [Yes even re-election, if you
are REALLY worth re-electing you should be able to win on write-ins]]


I don't see what good that would do. The incumbent would still win
almost all the time just like they do now.
How do you figure that? (And technically, before George jumps in, he
would no longer be an incumbent anyway)
Not running means NO ads, No campaign, no speeches, no contributions,
nada, null zip. Not in a primary, not in a general.
jk

George Plimpton wrote:

Then you are not very smart.

If he was drunk and had an arrow through his skull, he'd still be
smarter than you.

And I HATE it when that happens.
jk

On 3/20/2012 3:23 PM, jk wrote:
wrote:


So then our resident pimp does the same thing he accuses me of. Someone
as awesome as you should be able to show the exact dozen posts where I
made my supposed mistake. Not 11 not 13 but exactly one dozen posts.
That's what you said. You show the "dozen" posts okay?

That isn't what he said.

He said "over a dozen" which would require 13+ posts to prove,
not exactly 12.


He mentioned a dozen several times. The point is the ridiculous way he
acts over every little thing I do applies to him too. Whatever he said a
dozen or over a dozen requires that he show exactly that if not he's
wrong the same way he says I am. Do you think he read all my posts and
counted them before he said that? So he knows exactly how many time I
said him instead of her? You know he was just guessing. In other words
he did what he accuses me of. The difference is it doesn't matter
"exactly" what he said as long as it was close. But he expects it to be
perfect if it comes from me so I'm only asking for him to be perfect too.


If you are going to TRY to hoist him by his own petard, at LEAST get
it right.

Why does it matter? He didn't get it right either. He said a dozen on
several occasions. So it has to be exactly 12 or he's wrong.

Then if it isn't
exactly one dozen then you have made a huge error like you accuse me of
and it means you are also guilty of slovenliness and sloppiness.



Only a **** would act like that.

Your elderly infirm mother must be so proud of you.

You have no idea.



I perused it. So **** yourself. I looked at the thing in the library.
You haven't. It's an expose of a crooked politician.
By a crooked lawyer.

See, he's calling the author a crooked lawyer. But when I say Dole was
crooked and have a book that also says so it's wrong? How can that be?
Dole was in the senate for 27 years. He had a reputation. Do you know
what kind it was? I'm sure you don't just as I'm sure that Mr. Pimp
doesn't either. Conversely, I have heard about Dole and his interest in
getting rich for many years.


Most people would
know that from the title. You have to be a moron not to.

The problem is you're so damn dumb you think I'm like you and that the
only thing I know about Bob Dole is from one book I've only looked at
very casually. The truth is I know all kinds of things about Bob Dole
from when he was in the senate. I have heard from numerous sources that
Dole was out to get rich and he did just that by using his political
connections and his office. It's clear your knowledge about Dole is
miniscule. If you don't even know of his reputation in congress as
someone who can be bought then you don't know the first thing about him.

He's an ex-senator. Calling him "Senator" is a term of respect. He isn't
a senator, and hasn't been for over a 15 years.

Now we're getting into your domain, trivial and insignificant. He's a
senator for as long as he lives. But he's not currently a member of the
senate. So is he a senator? Some say yes. Some disagree. It's a really
minor point. No wonder it is of such interest to you.

If it is so minor why argue it.

Because that is what he's been doing every day. Making a big deal out of
the most trivial points. He's trying to imply that if you make errors on
trivial or insignificant things then that somehow invalidates everything
else you say. It doesn't work that way. Trivial means it is not
important. Is it important whether a senator is a senator for as long as
he lives or just while in office? No to me. But then I don't think
saying Elizabeth Dole is one of the 50 richest senators is any different
than saying Bob is too. To him that's of major importance. So that's the
game we're playing.



Yes I do. You are just so ill informed that you thing that only thing I
have ever heard about Dole being venal is from one book. The problem
with that is I had heard things about Dole for years.


Doesn't make them true or false just because you heard them.

Right, and just because Rob Blagovich went to jail for corruption that
doesn't mean he did anything wrong. That makes as much sense as your
statement. I've been a political junky since 1970 at least. Just the way
I have heard lots of things about John McCain over the years the same is
true for Dole. If you pay attention you pick things up. Politicians get
reputations for how they act in office. Dole had a reputation for using
his connections to get ahead financially. Someone actually wrote a book
about it as well. It was not news to me that Dole profited handsomely
from being a senator because that is what he was always trying to do. In
this case he got to be a millionaire during his time in office. He made
lots of money afterwords too but I have seen reports of him making a lot
of money on the side while he was in the senate. I'm not going to bother
researching it to give some numbnuts twerp a cite for that. You can take
it or leave it as you will. No one is stopping anyone from making the
effort to prove me wrong. If anyone can prove otherwise I will be happy
to accept it but my information is that Dole made plenty "while" in the
senate and not from his salary.

Hawke

On 3/20/2012 4:29 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

You did it in a dozen posts.


What I said was it didn't matter if it was listed under Elizabeth
Dole's
name or Bob's.

It does matter. At the very least, it shows that *as usual*, you're
sloppy and get details wrong.

Just like you do.

Nope.


Like when you said I ****ed up a dozen posts.

You've ****ed up in *dozens* of post. The figure "a dozen" was just the
reasonable estimate for the number of times you ****ed up and said Bob
Dole was in the Senate in 2008.

What a joke. The minute you get lazy, imprecise, or sloppy in what you
say it becomes "a reasonable estimate". But when I make even the mistake
of saying him instead of her then "I ****ed up". You hypocritical
****ing ass. You said a dozen posts and you had no idea how many. If I
did that you would have raised hell about my sloppiness. Not you though.
You be just as sloppy and lazy as you want. Make all the mistakes you
want. None of it matters if you do it. Well, sorry, but it does matter
and what it does is show your massive hypocrisy and double standards.


The only person it matters to is you.

It matters to most people. I don't speak "for" anyone else, but I know
I'm saying the same thing that others have said.

Dumb ****, you just wrote it matters to most people.

Right.

Stupid ****, you wrote you don't speak for anyone else and then said it
matters to most people. So you're saying it matters to most people but
you're not speaking for anyone else. Funny thing, it sounds like you are
speaking for most to me.



You can characterize it any way you want to.

I characterize it as your characteristic slovenliness and carelessness
with fact, proving you don't have the sharp mind you claim.

That's fine with me.

Good.

You're full of opinions.

Facts.

You never present facts just your opinions.


Only a **** would act like that.

Your elderly infirm mother must be so proud of you.

You have no idea.

Did she teach you that kind of language?


Was Bob Dole in the senate for decades?

Yep.


Yes. Did he make millions *while* in the senate? Yes.

No. No, you have no evidence that the did, and in fact he didn't.

Yes, there is evidence of that.

You can't cite any, of course. Your "book" is ****. All it says is
that
Dole made money. It doesn't say when.

Yes it does.

How the **** would you know? You didn't read it, ****stain.

I perused it.

You didn't read it.

What about you? What the **** are you asking me if I read it for? You've
never laid hands on it have you? No one knows less about that book than
you do. But you're the one making accusations. Sorry but I accuse you of
being a total hypocrite. You never read the book, never even saw it in
your life and you're trying to criticize someone else for not having
read it? You've got to be kidding?



It says he made a lot of money before the book was written
and that was in 1995.

No, it doesn't. You wouldn't know - you didn't read it.

What about you? You accusing me of what you are guilty of?


The accusations about Dole were during his time in the senate so that is
the time he is alleged to have cashed in.

The accusations were made by a disgruntled malcontent whom Dole fired
more than 15 years before the book was written.

That means nothing in the book is factual? Is that right? Did you do a
lot of research to find that out? No? You mean that's your opinion/guess?


There is no suggestion in it that Dole personally benefited.


You would really know when if you read the book.

*You* try reading it, ****wit.

You read it first then you can say something about it. Until then you're
even more in the dark about it than anyone.



The problem is you're so damn dumb you think I'm like you and that the
only thing I know about Bob Dole is from one book I've only looked at
very casually. The truth is

The truth is, the only thing you know supporting your notion that Dole
"cashed in" as a senator is the title of a book. That's it; no more.

**** you, liar. I couldn't stand Bob Dole for decades. He's been just
like all the republican liars over the years that have made this country
worse. He's a lot like Romney. Dole would switch his positions on
anything if there was something in it for him. He was nasty too. But why
do I have to tell an expert on Bob Dole anything about him. You're the
expert on him, aren't you? Or are you just pretending to be?


I know all kinds of things about Bob Dole
from when he was in the senate.

No, you don't.

Stop lying.

I haven't read the book.

I know that.


Is he a rich senator? Yes.

No. He's a rich *ex*-senator, you ****ing clown.

The title of senator is held for life.

He's an ex-senator.

He'll always be "senator" Dole.

He's an ex-senator. Calling him "Senator" is a term of respect. He isn't
a senator, and hasn't been for over a 15 years.

Now we're getting into your domain, trivial and insignificant. He's a
senator for as long as he lives.

Nope. He is referred to by the honorific "Senator", but he is not *a*
senator. Look up honorific. I know you don't know what it means.

I don't have to look up words. My vocabulary is great. Better than
yours. I've read more books than you have. Real books that is, not comic
books.


If you ever see him on TV he will be addressed as "Senator Dole".

He's an ex-senator.

That will

He's an ex-senator.

But he's still senator Dole

He's not a senator.

He is as long as he lives.


To the best of your knowledge, he earned his "wealth" after he left
the
Senate.

My information is that he was making a lot of money from his
position in
the senate for decades.

You don't have one ****ing shred of "information".

Yes I do.

No, you don't. Zero.

What you know about the matter is zero. Not what I know. You have to
pretend to know things. I don't.


You ****ed up - *again*. This is just one more in a long string of
them.
You have a well-deserved reputation as a ****-up.

Do not.

You do.

Don't.


Only if you count irrelevant, immaterial, and trivial things.

No. You have a general and well-deserved reputation for slovenliness
and
utter disregard for accuracy.

Total hogwash,

You have a reputation for that, too.


Only if you make a big deal out of the smallest things you can
find.

I make a big deal of your usual slovenliness and inattention to
detail.

No you don't.

Yes, I sure do.

Acting like an overscrupulous

"Overscrupulous"? First, it's not a word. Second, it figures that a
thoroughly unscrupulous political dilettante like you would denigrate
the idea of scruples.


Not a word, huh?

Nope - not a word.

I see you snipped the citations for the two online dictionaries I cited
showing overscrupulous is a word. What a weasel! So you're both
underhanded and a liar, and you're the one with the nerve to bring up
reputations.


I wouldn't denigrate the word scruples

You don't have any. You denigrate the word if you use it.

Not only do you lack scruples but you have shown to be unethical and
gutless too. I wouldn't bring up the word reputation with your proven
lack of character. It just makes you look even worse than you already do.

Hawke

On 3/20/2012 4:30 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
=
You didn't read the book. You don't know what it says. Once again, you
reveal yourself to be a partisan hack who believes anything about the
opposition without any critical thinking.

You are incapable of critical thinking.


You assume more than anyone I've come across in ages.

I don't have to assume anything. You announced that you're incapable of
critical thinking.

I'm sure that you can cite that for me, right? I'd like to see where I
said that. So show me. Or did you make it up and then attribute it to me
like a liar would? You can contrast with this one; my critical thinking
ability is excellent. Let's see where I said the opposite.


I told you already that this book is not what I know about Bob Dole.

Right, because you haven't read it. All you know is the book title.

Must you lie in every post? I have known about Bob Dole from his days in
WWII when he got wounded, to his election in Kansas to the senate, to
his retirement and presidential run. I was a witness to his entire
political career. As a major American senator during my lifetime I've
leaned many things about him and none of it came from a book I have not
yet read. You can't prove your claim that all I know is the title of a
book. Obviously I know much more than that. Why make those
unsubstantiated claims? You have no proof, you just make it up, it
totally discredits everything you write. You're on the verge of Gummer
level credibility. In fact, I think he's probably truthful even more
often than you are. That's not something anyone would want to hear.

Hawke