On 3/20/2012 4:40 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
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.

The question is what does that make you? You say **** about me for not
having read the book and you haven't either. You don't see that makes
you the same as me? Knowing you, probably not.


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.

That's a long time, you cracker. Plenty long enough to see what kind of
operator Dole was.


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 ****.

You can't see anything. In fact even when you do the exact same thing as
I do you don't know it's the same. You have ragged on me for not reading
the book yet you haven't either. That's nuts. You're insane.


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 mean like you do about me? Accusations with nothing to back them up
whatsoever. I didn't put it out you moron. I read about it. It was other
people who have known and worked with Dole who said he was out to get
rich from his job. I only read what they said.


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.

Puts me far ahead of you in knowing anything about that book. You've
never seen it in person. I have. Funny thing is you act like I know
nothing about it and you're a ****ing expert on it. Well, you aren't.
Neither am I but at least I've seen the damn thing myself. You can't
even say that.



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

Well, there you go again, Jr. Making it up as you go. You go on and on
about my sloppiness and here you are just plain making up outright lies.
You have now officially taken over Gummer's position as the biggest liar
on the group. You must be proud.


Hawke

On 3/20/2012 4:37 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 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.

For what? And why bring it up except to smear the character of the
author. How about you show his book is full of lies. All you are doing
is attacking the messenger. We know why.



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

You're so stupid you think "EVERY" book is explained by its title?
They're not. But many are. If you don't get what Senator for Sale is
about you are an idiot.


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.

Everyone is smarter than you are. Especially me.


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.

That's more than you, right?


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?

Now if I were you I'd say something like, you only heard things about
them. You don't know anything about them. You have no proof they used
their office to get rich. But we all know all those guys probably cashed
in, don't we. But when I say Dole did and was a king at it somehow it's
all different.



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?

The same way any author know about the subject he's writing the book
about. They do research. In this case not only did the writer do
research on Dole but he had personal experience with him too. Who better
to write about someone?


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 ****.

A car out on the street with a for sale sign on it has been bought at
least once. Don't bother pretending you see new cars on the street with
for sale signs on them. You don't. You see new cars at dealerships. A
car on the street is a used car and it has been sold at least once. You
dummy!

Hawke

Hawke wrote:
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.
No,
All he has to do is show that you did it 12 times to satisfy his
statement, he doesn't have to show that it was ONLY 12.

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.
NO, I called him a crooked lawyer, which he is. He has even admitted
it in court documents.

But when I say Dole was
crooked and have a book that also says so it's wrong?
I never said it was wrong. I said that Saying "a senator is for
sale", is a little redundant.

If it is so minor why argue it.

Because that is what he's been doing every day.
IF you think it is wrong of him to do so, then it is equally wrong of
you to do so.

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.
He doesn't agree with you that they are trivial. So get over it.

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.

And I agree with him, that it is NOT the same thing.

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.
Which STILL proves nothing. You could have been fed a pack of lies.
People in the public eye get lied about all the time.

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.
To make the claim, and then say that implies to me that you "can not",
not just "will not".


jk

Hawke wrote:




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

You're so stupid you think "EVERY" book is explained by its title?
They're not. But many are. If you don't get what Senator for Sale is
about you are an idiot.
He based it on what you said. "Titles tell you what the book is
about."
A clear unequivocal statement.

If you don't want your posts used to make you look like an idiot, quit
posting idiotic things.


You mean like Cranston, DeConcini, Glenn and Riegle?

Now if I were you I'd say something like, you only heard things about
them. You don't know anything about them. You have no proof they used
their office to get rich. But we all know all those guys probably cashed
in, don't we. But when I say Dole did and was a king at it somehow it's
all different.

I don't recall him ever saying Dole was honest. All he did that I can
recall, is attack your basis for saying otherwise.

The same way any author know about the subject he's writing the book
about. They do research. In this case not only did the writer do
research on Dole but he had personal experience with him too. Who better
to write about someone?


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 ****.

A car out on the street with a for sale sign on it has been bought at
least once. Don't bother pretending you see new cars on the street with
for sale signs on them.

Irrelevant, and I can think of at least 3 ways that a car that had
never been sold, could end up with a for sale sign on it.

You don't. You see new cars at dealerships. A
car on the street is a used car and it has been sold at least once. You
dummy!
jk

On 3/21/2012 3:08 PM, Hawke wrote:
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?

It's something a person with superior reading comprehension, such as I,
can extract from your posts even if the words aren't literally there.


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,

Didn't you say you're 61 or 62? How could you say you know about Dole
from his days in WWII?



to his election in Kansas to the senate, to
his retirement and presidential run. I was a witness to his entire
political career.

Cut the ****. You had a below-average layman's awareness of him. You
may - *may* - have heard a little about him during Watergate. More
likely, your first real awareness of him was when he was Gerald Ford's
running mate in 1976. After that, you stopped paying attention, just as
everyone else did.

Cut the bull**** about being a highly attuned political observer - you
just aren't. You never had any reason to be.


As a major American senator during my lifetime I've
leaned many things

You were never a major American senator. You were never any kind of
senator.

Why don't you learn how to write proper English so you can avoid
dangling participles like that, ****wit?

On 3/21/2012 3:18 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/20/2012 4:40 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
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.

The question is what does that make you? You say **** about me for not
having read the book and you haven't either.

I didn't claim any particularly keen knowledge about it merely from
having glanced at the jacket; you did.


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.

That's a long time,

It's not a long time, and it was 15 years before he scrawled out his hit
piece, you stupid ham hock.


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 ****.

You can't see anything.

We all can see that your character is ****.


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 mean like you do about me?

No, not like those at all.


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.

Puts me far ahead of you in knowing anything about that book.

You don't know the details of the book. In particular, you don't know
any specific allegation the disgruntled, about-to-be-disbarred fired
aide said about Dole.


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

Well, there you go again, Jr. Making it up as you go. You go on and on
about my sloppiness and here you are just plain making up outright lies.

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

George Plimpton wrote:

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,

Didn't you say you're 61 or 62? How could you say you know about Dole
from his days in WWII?


It is REALLY quite simple George, I am almost shocked that you don't
know.
Doles skin is essentially the "cover" to his "book" and once he saw
Dole on TV he "knew" ALL about him.
jk

On 3/21/2012 3:31 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/20/2012 4:37 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 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.

For what?

Moral turpitude. Seriously.

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2009/11...vorce-lawsuit/
http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Member/Detail/65990


And why bring it up except to smear the character of the
author.

His integrity is non-existent.


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

You're so stupid you think "EVERY" book is explained by its title?

"I got enough from it to understand what it is about.
The title should tell you that."

Hawke-Ptooey - 20 Mar 2012


You ****ing clown.



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.

Everyone is smarter than you are. Especially me.

Lots are smarter than I, but not you. You're intensely, aggressively
stupid.


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.

That's more than you, right?

It's inadequate for you to be running your mouth the way you have been.
You are unaware of a single concrete charge the disbarred crackpot
made against Dole.


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?

Now if I were you I'd say something like, you only heard things about
them. You don't know anything about them.

I know a fair amount about their involvement as four of the Keating Five.



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?

The same way any author know about the subject he's writing the book
about. They do research.

Hilton didn't do any research - he was too busy filing frivolous,
meritless lawsuits.


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 ****.

A car out on the street with a for sale sign on it has been bought at
least once.

You're inferring from the fact it has a "for sale" sign on it that it as
been sold as a result of that sign. You're an idiot.

On 3/21/2012 5:08 PM, jk wrote:
George wrote:

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,

Didn't you say you're 61 or 62? How could you say you know about Dole
from his days in WWII?


It is REALLY quite simple George, I am almost shocked that you don't
know.
Doles skin is essentially the "cover" to his "book" and once he saw
Dole on TV he "knew" ALL about him.

Although Hawke-Ptooey didn't actually say that, it makes as much sense
as anything he might actually say. Doctrinaire extremists like him
never say anything that makes sense.

I simply can't believe how much this inattentive, plodding, slovenly
dogmatic Hawke-Ptooey pretends he knows. He doesn't write like a
complete inept, but the quality of thought behind what he does write
shows staggering ineptitude. He doesn't seem to have any idea what a
clown caricature he is.

On 3/20/2012 4:41 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

Nice diversion. Nice attack on the messenger too.

His credibility is zero.

That's what smart people do, reject everything in the book without
reading a word of it. Yeah, sure they do. Closed minded dweeb.



Nothing he wrote in his book is true, right?

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

Admit it you coward, you don't know a word that is written in that book
but you have rejected it anyway. Good little totalitarian.


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

Prove it, ****flaps.

For you? Forget it. You're such a jerk that if I had chapter and verse
right in front of me proving Dole was guilty of what I said he did I
wouldn't show it to you. You don't deserve to hear the facts. You're
such an ass that I would purposely leave you out whenever I cited
anything for other people. I do nothing for **** ants.

If it ever mattered to you in the least you would take the time to prove
me wrong. But you're too lazy to find the facts out for yourself. You'd
much rather just run your mouth and make one personal criticism after
another. So get the facts for yourself, or you have no business
commenting on Bob Dole. You're obligated to do more than say I'm wrong.
We get it you deny Dole used his office to get rich. We also know you
will never come up with any proof of that too. You just want to call
people names like a punky little kid. That's the only thing you know how
to do. You sure can't prove what you are implying about Bob Dole. All
you can do is blah, blah, blah.

Hawke

On 3/22/2012 12:13 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/20/2012 4:41 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

Nice diversion. Nice attack on the messenger too.

His credibility is zero.

That's what smart people do, reject everything in the book without
reading a word of it. Yeah, sure they do. Closed minded dweeb.

Hilton, the disbarred crackpot lawyer, has no credibility.


Nothing he wrote in his book is true, right?

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

Admit it you coward, you don't know a word that is written in that book
but you have rejected it anyway.

I'm extremely skeptical of it. All of the metadata about it points to
it being nothing but a hit piece, which the ****head did only for the money.


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

Prove it, ****flaps.

For you? Forget it. You're such a jerk that

Translation: you can't prove a word of it.

On Mar 22, 3:13*pm, Hawke wrote:
On 3/20/2012 4:41 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

Nice diversion. Nice attack on the messenger too.

His credibility is zero.

That's what smart people do, reject everything in the book without
reading a word of it. Yeah, sure they do. Closed minded dweeb.

Nothing he wrote in his book is true, right?

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

Admit it you coward, you don't know a word that is written in that book
but you have rejected it anyway. Good little totalitarian.

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

Prove it, ****flaps.

For you? Forget it. You're such a jerk that if I had chapter and verse
right in front of me proving Dole was guilty of what I said he did I
wouldn't show it to you. You don't deserve to hear the facts. You're
such an ass that I would purposely leave you out whenever I cited
anything for other people. I do nothing for **** ants.

If it ever mattered to you in the least you would take the time to prove
me wrong. But you're too lazy to find the facts out for yourself. You'd
much rather just run your mouth and make one personal criticism after
another. So get the facts for yourself, or you have no business
commenting on Bob Dole. You're obligated to do more than say I'm wrong.
We get it you deny Dole used his office to get rich. We also know you
will never come up with any proof of that too. You just want to call
people names like a punky little kid. That's the only thing you know how
to do. You sure can't prove what you are implying about Bob Dole. All
you can do is blah, blah, blah.

Hawke

This is not how you impress people with your higher education.

Dan

On 3/22/2012 12:13 PM, Hawke wrote:

If it ever mattered to you in the least you would take the time to prove
me wrong.

You have to prove that you're right, ****head. But you can't.


But you're too lazy to find the facts out for yourself.

I've shown that you have *not* produced any facts. You're produced a
smearing book title; that's all.


You'd much rather just run your mouth and make one personal criticism after
another.

Your slovenliness and partisan credulity are easy and obvious targets
for criticism.


So get the facts for yourself, or you have no business commenting on Bob Dole.

You try producing some facts, ****head. A smearing book title is not a
relevant fact.


You're obligated to do more than say I'm wrong.

You're obliged to show you're right. You can't, of course.


We get it you deny Dole used his office to get rich.

Nope. I haven't said anything of the kind. I've said that *you*
haven't showed that he did. He might have, but you haven't come close
to showing it - haven't even started, really.



We also know you will never come up with any proof of that too.

Not my burden. It's your burden to show you're right; not anyone's
burden to show you're wrong.


You just want to call people names

I just want to point out what a lying partisan ****bag you are.

On 3/21/2012 4:03 PM, jk wrote:
wrote:




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

You're so stupid you think "EVERY" book is explained by its title?
They're not. But many are. If you don't get what Senator for Sale is
about you are an idiot.
He based it on what you said. "Titles tell you what the book is
about."
A clear unequivocal statement.

If you don't want your posts used to make you look like an idiot, quit
posting idiotic things.

So let me understand this, you're saying that saying the title of a book
tells you what the book is about is idiotic? Really? Then why not tell
me what percentage of books have a title that give no clue as to what
the book is about. Or how about tell us what is the purpose of a book's
title?




You mean like Cranston, DeConcini, Glenn and Riegle?

Now if I were you I'd say something like, you only heard things about
them. You don't know anything about them. You have no proof they used
their office to get rich. But we all know all those guys probably cashed
in, don't we. But when I say Dole did and was a king at it somehow it's
all different.

I don't recall him ever saying Dole was honest. All he did that I can
recall, is attack your basis for saying otherwise.

Do you ever remember him giving you a good reason why what I said was
not true? Or just that it was not? It's perfectly acceptable to provide
proof of something when you claim someone is wrong about something. But
do you see him actually showing you why what I said is wrong?

The same way any author know about the subject he's writing the book
about. They do research. In this case not only did the writer do
research on Dole but he had personal experience with him too. Who better
to write about someone?


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 ****.

A car out on the street with a for sale sign on it has been bought at
least once. Don't bother pretending you see new cars on the street with
for sale signs on them.

Irrelevant, and I can think of at least 3 ways that a car that had
never been sold, could end up with a for sale sign on it.

Now you're getting the same disease that Pimpleton has, exceptionitis.
Just because you can imagine a few far fetched reasons why a car with a
for sale sign on it isn't being advertised for sale doesn't mean for
sale means something other than for sale. The reality is that when a car
has a sign on it saying it's for sale that's exactly what it means. If
not, then what percentage of cars with for sale signs on them aren't for
sale. It has to be a miniscule exception, right, and there is no point
in that.

Hawke

On 3/22/2012 5:38 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/21/2012 4:03 PM, jk wrote:
wrote:




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

You're so stupid you think "EVERY" book is explained by its title?
They're not. But many are. If you don't get what Senator for Sale is
about you are an idiot.
He based it on what you said. "Titles tell you what the book is
about."
A clear unequivocal statement.

If you don't want your posts used to make you look like an idiot, quit
posting idiotic things.

So let me understand this, you're saying that saying the title of a book
tells you what the book is about is idiotic?

Saying that the title of the book makes the case is idiotic, you ****ing
cheeselog.


You mean like Cranston, DeConcini, Glenn and Riegle?

Now if I were you I'd say something like, you only heard things about
them. You don't know anything about them. You have no proof they used
their office to get rich. But we all know all those guys probably cashed
in, don't we. But when I say Dole did and was a king at it somehow it's
all different.

I don't recall him ever saying Dole was honest. All he did that I can
recall, is attack your basis for saying otherwise.

Do you ever remember him giving you a good reason why what I said was
not true?

Because it's not established. It's nothing but an allegation.

What the **** is wrong with you, bitch? You think when you make some
wild, irresponsible and essentially slanderous charge, that it is
considered true until someone disproves it? Not the way it works,
bitch. *YOU* have to make the case that it's true, with verifiable
evidence, and until you do, it's considered "not proved."


The same way any author know about the subject he's writing the book
about. They do research. In this case not only did the writer do
research on Dole but he had personal experience with him too. Who better
to write about someone?


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 ****.

A car out on the street with a for sale sign on it has been bought at
least once. Don't bother pretending you see new cars on the street with
for sale signs on them.

Irrelevant, and I can think of at least 3 ways that a car that had
never been sold, could end up with a for sale sign on it.

Now you're getting the same disease that Pimpleton has, exceptionitis.

Now he's simply pointing out that you're full of **** - illogical,
irrational and full of ****.

On 3/21/2012 5:13 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

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.

For what?

Moral turpitude. Seriously.

Yeah, and when was that filed? 2012? When did he write the book? 1995?
What does one thing have to do with the other? Make a connection between
two things that happened 17 years apart and with no connection to each
other. There's no link there.



http://www.wired.com/autopia/2009/11...vorce-lawsuit/
http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Member/Detail/65990


And why bring it up except to smear the character of the
author.

His integrity is non-existent.


If you only look at a part of the guy's history you might think that. Of
course if you look at this part you get a different take on him.

Hilton has a law degree from Duke University and is a former
civil litigation attorney with more than three decades as an
active member of the California State Bar. He served as a counsel
to Sen. Bob Dole from 1979-80 and as an aide to state Sen. Dan O’Keefe
from 1980-81

It may seem as though he has become somewhat unhinged at this point in
his life it says nothing about whether his book about Dole has any merit
to it or not. As usual you have forgotten that all along I only pointed
out this book as one reason why I'm saying Dole made himself rich from
his senate job. There is lots of reasons to believe what I have said is
a fact. You have proven nothing I've said about Dole is wrong.


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

You're so stupid you think "EVERY" book is explained by its title?

"I got enough from it to understand what it is about.
The title should tell you that."

Hawke-Ptooey - 20 Mar 2012


You ****ing clown.



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.

Everyone is smarter than you are. Especially me.

Lots are smarter than I, but not you. You're intensely, aggressively
stupid.


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.

That's more than you, right?

It's inadequate for you to be running your mouth the way you have been.
You are unaware of a single concrete charge the disbarred crackpot made
against Dole.

Let's compare it to your knowledge. You know not one single word from
the book yet you're telling me how little I know. Get off it you idiot.
As little as I have read of that book it's far more than you have. You
know less than me. Got that? You know less. So stop pretending you
actually know anything. You don't. You're full of ****.



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?

Now if I were you I'd say something like, you only heard things about
them. You don't know anything about them.

I know a fair amount about their involvement as four of the Keating Five.

No, you know nothing. If you can't cite exact proof of their being
corrupt then you can't say a word about them. That's the standard. You
have to have absolute proof to say anything. At least that is what you
think I have to do. You, it's okay to just "know" a fair amount about
them and that's good enough. You've really got a screw loose. If you are
going to demand perfection then you damn well better deliver it when you
make a statement.


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?

The same way any author know about the subject he's writing the book
about. They do research.

Hilton didn't do any research - he was too busy filing frivolous,
meritless lawsuits.

Baseless accusation, unsupported by anything but opinion. Normal for you.



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 ****.

A car out on the street with a for sale sign on it has been bought at
least once.

You're inferring from the fact it has a "for sale" sign on it that it as
been sold as a result of that sign. You're an idiot.

Coming from someone that is so mentally incompetent that he doesn't even
understand what it means when a car has a sign on it that says "for
sale" on it, that's saying something. You don't know what a book is
about that says Senator For Sale, and you don't know that a car with a
for sale sign on it is for sale, and you are calling other people
stupid? If you can't fathom those things you really are mentally impaired.

Hawke

On 3/22/2012 6:01 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/21/2012 5:13 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

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.

For what?

Moral turpitude. Seriously.

Yeah, and when was that filed? 2012? When did he write the book? 1995?

He has been a crackpot all along. That's why Dole fired him.

Seriously, this guy is completely and obviously nuts. That's not to say
he didn't have some intellectual horsepower once upon a time -
University of Chicago undergraduate, Duke law school - but he went over
a mental and moral cliff decades ago. He's just not to be believed.


http://www.wired.com/autopia/2009/11...vorce-lawsuit/
http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Member/Detail/65990


And why bring it up except to smear the character of the
author.

His integrity is non-existent.


If you only look at a part of the guy's history

His integrity is non-existent.


Hilton has a law degree from Duke University and

....and he's completely mentally unbalanced.


It may seem as though he has become somewhat unhinged at this point in
his life

YA THINK???

Ha ha ha ha ha!

He is and long has been nuts - a ****ing fruitcake.



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

You're so stupid you think "EVERY" book is explained by its title?

"I got enough from it to understand what it is about.
The title should tell you that."

Hawke-Ptooey - 20 Mar 2012


You ****ing clown.



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.

Everyone is smarter than you are. Especially me.

Lots are smarter than I, but not you. You're intensely, aggressively
stupid.


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.

That's more than you, right?

It's inadequate for you to be running your mouth the way you have been.
You are unaware of a single concrete charge the disbarred crackpot made
against Dole.

Let's compare it to your knowledge.

My knowledge is not at issue, because I'm not the one making wildly
irresponsible and slanderous accusations.

*Your* knowledge - actually, your utter *LACK* of knowledge - are at issue.


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?

Now if I were you I'd say something like, you only heard things about
them. You don't know anything about them.

I know a fair amount about their involvement as four of the Keating Five.

No, you know nothing.

I know - we all know - they are crooks.


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?

The same way any author know about the subject he's writing the book
about. They do research.

Hilton didn't do any research - he was too busy filing frivolous,
meritless lawsuits.

Baseless accusation,

Yep, that's what Hilton has made. You're learning.


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 ****.

A car out on the street with a for sale sign on it has been bought at
least once.

You're inferring from the fact it has a "for sale" sign on it that it as
been sold as a result of that sign. You're an idiot.

Coming from someone that is so mentally incompetent

You, you dunce, are in no position to be speaking of anyone's mental
competence.

On Mar 22, 8:38*pm, Hawke wrote:


So let me understand this, you're saying that saying the title of a book
tells you what the book is about is idiotic? Really? Then why not tell
me what percentage of books have a title that give no clue as to what
the book is about. Or how about tell us what is the purpose of a book's
title?


Hawke

The title of a book is the name of the book. Pretty much the same as
Dave Smithers is your name. Your name may or may not give a clue
about what you are about. I think the Bible is the book that is the
most sold book. It's title does not say what the book is about. The
purpose of a books title is to have a way to easily identify the
book. It provides a way to search for copies of the book and a way to
tell others about a book so they can find and read it. A title is
much easier to remember than say a number.

Authors generally name their books with names that increase sales. So
to an author the purpose of a title may be to catch attention as well
as provide a way to identify the book.

Why do you think it is important to know the percentage of books that
have a title that gives no clue to what the book is about? As I see
it that is not relevant. It appears you just threw that out for no
reason other than to be typing something. My guess is that a majority
of novels have titles that do not indicate what the book is about. But
I think a majority of text books do have titles that indicate what the
book is about. I suggest you look at the New York Times best sellers
list and see if you can guess what the books are about from the
titles.

Dan

On 3/21/2012 3:50 PM, jk wrote:

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.
No,
All he has to do is show that you did it 12 times to satisfy his
statement, he doesn't have to show that it was ONLY 12.

If he said a dozen then a dozen it must be. That's the way he plays it
so that's the rules. It has to be exactly the way he said it in his
accusation.


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.
NO, I called him a crooked lawyer, which he is. He has even admitted
it in court documents.

He also had a thirty year career as a lawyer so you have to take that
into consideration too. This is simple. It's smearing the author to make
it look like nothing in his book is valid. You don't know that and
neither does he. You are judging without the facts.


But when I say Dole was
crooked and have a book that also says so it's wrong?
I never said it was wrong. I said that Saying "a senator is for
sale", is a little redundant.

What does that mean? It's ambiguous.

If it is so minor why argue it.

Because that is what he's been doing every day.
IF you think it is wrong of him to do so, then it is equally wrong of
you to do so.

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.


He doesn't agree with you that they are trivial. So get over it.

That's an arguing technique. You show where someone made a minor mistake
on something and that means he's not to be believed in general. It's a
strawman argument. He knows they are trivial. He can't debate the larger
issue so he's focusing on the trivial.


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.

And I agree with him, that it is NOT the same thing.

Since they both are former senators and are both rich what is the
difference and how big is it? Is it minor? How close is it.


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.

It does if the sources are telling the truth. I'm not just talking about
vague rumors I've heard. They came from the newspapers of TV or other
reliable sources. But you don't remember them clearly when they happened
decades ago.


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.

Which STILL proves nothing. You could have been fed a pack of lies.
People in the public eye get lied about all the time.

We're not in a courtroom. The level of proof we need isn't what is
demanded in court. FYI, I don't just accept anything I hear as true. I
need proof before I believe anything. I'm a skeptic. So when I say Bob
Dole was crooked it was based on real evidence not just some rumors. But
this was many years ago. So when I saw a book that basically said the
same thing as I already knew it was just more evidence against Dole.

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.

To make the claim, and then say that implies to me that you "can not",
not just "will not".

There are some people that act so disagreeable that I won't waste any of
my time trying to please them. Plimpton is one of them. I won't spend
any time trying to "prove" anything to him. He is such a nitpicker that
anything I show him he will deny. So I'm not going to fool around with
that dog and pony show.

You can believe anything he says if you want. I don't care. But have you
not noticed that he keeps claiming that Dole was not using his office to
get ahead? That's what happens when you say I'm wrong. So have you seen
him show anything to make you believe Dole was honest, ethical, and
never made use of his office for financial gain? You know he hasn't. So
why believe him?

Hawke

On 3/21/2012 5:00 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

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?

It's something a person with superior reading comprehension, such as I,
can extract from your posts even if the words aren't literally there.

That's good. You can't come up with a cite because you lied when you
said I "announced I'm incapable of critical thinking" and now you say
you got that from your superior reading comprehension. What you really
mean is you made it up out of thin air and had to lie about it when
asked to prove it. Chalk up another display of your lack of character.



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,

Didn't you say you're 61 or 62? How could you say you know about Dole
from his days in WWII?

Because I've seen documentaries about him and his WWII experiences. He
was in Italy and got badly wounded and nearly lost his right arm. He was
in the hospital for something like 39 months recovering.


to his election in Kansas to the senate, to
his retirement and presidential run. I was a witness to his entire
political career.

Cut the ****. You had a below-average layman's awareness of him. You may
- *may* - have heard a little about him during Watergate. More likely,
your first real awareness of him was when he was Gerald Ford's running
mate in 1976. After that, you stopped paying attention, just as everyone
else did.

Now you are making one unsubstantiated claim after another. You don't
have any facts to support those wild suppositions. You made them all up,
and you expect anyone to accept anything you say as true? Give me a
break. Wild claims without support gets you nowhere. Just like I said
before, I've watched Dole for his whole career. He was one of the
primary republicans in congress for years. So of course, someone like me
who has always paid attention to politics, would be well aware of
someone in a position of leadership like Dole was for many years.



Cut the bull**** about being a highly attuned political observer - you
just aren't. You never had any reason to be.

None other than that was my primary and lifelong interest. It was my
first major in college way back in the late sixties. So despite your
baseless denials, I've been an interested and educated observer of
American politics for many decades. Pretty much the opposite of someone
like you that we call a Johnny come lately.


As a major American senator during my lifetime I've
leaned many things

You were never a major American senator. You were never any kind of
senator.

Hmmm, I seem to remember that sentence ending with the words, about Bob
Dole. Or are you now claiming that I say I was a major American senator
in my lifetime? Because if that is what you say then it's something no
other human has ever heard me say. You see, it's well known I've never
been a U.S. Senator. If you say I ever said I was then you're lying.


Why don't you learn how to write proper English so you can avoid
dangling participles like that, ****wit?

Why don't you learn to make a cogent argument sometime so you don't have
to lie to avoid looking like a fool?

Hawke

On 3/21/2012 5:08 PM, jk wrote:
George wrote:

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,

Didn't you say you're 61 or 62? How could you say you know about Dole
from his days in WWII?


It is REALLY quite simple George, I am almost shocked that you don't
know.
Doles skin is essentially the "cover" to his "book" and once he saw
Dole on TV he "knew" ALL about him.
jk


You think you know more about Bob Dole than I do? And I don't mean after
you look him up on Wiki and Google? When he was Gerald Ford's running
mate in 1976 I was 26 years old. I had already gone to college and was a
political science major. You don't think I would have been paying
attention to the election? Do you think I'm paying attention to this
year's election? FYI, I pay attention to all presidential elections.

So what were you doing when Dole and Ford were running for president in
1976? Was politics something you paid a lot of attention to back then?
It was for me. And have you ever seen any documentaries about Bob Dole
in your life? Because I have.

Hawke

On 3/21/2012 9:39 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/21/2012 5:08 PM, jk wrote:
George wrote:

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,

Didn't you say you're 61 or 62? How could you say you know about Dole
from his days in WWII?


It is REALLY quite simple George, I am almost shocked that you don't
know.
Doles skin is essentially the "cover" to his "book" and once he saw
Dole on TV he "knew" ALL about him.

Although Hawke-Ptooey didn't actually say that, it makes as much sense
as anything he might actually say. Doctrinaire extremists like him never
say anything that makes sense.

I simply can't believe how much this inattentive, plodding, slovenly
dogmatic Hawke-Ptooey pretends he knows. He doesn't write like a
complete inept, but the quality of thought behind what he does write
shows staggering ineptitude. He doesn't seem to have any idea what a
clown caricature he is.


What you don't seem to get is that people here can through your facade.
They have seen your blustering and frothing about silly, immaterial
points, name calling galore, and demanding others prove everything to
your satisfaction. But they have also figured out that it's all just an
act. You're a fraud. You don't take real political positions. You don't
make arguments. You don't debate. Everything from you is blather and
personal attacks. It's not argument. It's not debate. You can't and will
not take a position on a real issue and make a convincing case about it.
So you are all BS. You and Gummer are two of a kind. And it's not the
kind that anyone has any faith in.


Hawke

On 3/21/2012 5:03 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/21/2012 3:18 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/20/2012 4:40 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
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.

The question is what does that make you? You say **** about me for not
having read the book and you haven't either.

I didn't claim any particularly keen knowledge about it merely from
having glanced at the jacket; you did.

The hell I did. All I said was I had looked it over. I said I know
hardly anything about it. But as little as I know it's far more than you
do. So why keep pretending you know the first thing about it? When we
both know my small bit of information about that book is a lot more than
what you know, why say anything and ensure everyone knows you are
criticizing me when you know zero about it? Are you that dumb?



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.

That's a long time,

It's not a long time, and it was 15 years before he scrawled out his hit
piece, you stupid ham hock.


It's plenty of time to know what your boss is like as a person. It
doesn't take a decade to know what someone is like. Maybe it takes you
years to know what someone is like but to normal people they can tell
what kind of man their boss is in a few months. Hilton knew Dole was out
to gain financially from seeing how he operated and it didn't take years
to see what Dole was aiming for.


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 ****.

You can't see anything.

We all can see that your character is ****.

What we see is you don't have the facts you would need to make that
judgment. So you are making it up, lying if you will. Like you always do
when you don't have the facts on your side. That's when your imagination
takes over and you start making things up. You do it all the time.



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 mean like you do about me?

No, not like those at all.


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.

Puts me far ahead of you in knowing anything about that book.

You don't know the details of the book. In particular, you don't know
any specific allegation the disgruntled, about-to-be-disbarred fired
aide said about Dole.

There you go again telling everyone how little I know about the book
when we both know you know even less. You know how stupid that makes you
look? You accuse me of not knowing anything about the book and you have
never read a single word of it. Talk about the pot calling the kettle
black. Only a real ass would criticize someone for their lack of
knowledge about a book when they knew even less. But that's how you
roll, isn't it?



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

Well, there you go again, Jr. Making it up as you go. You go on and on
about my sloppiness and here you are just plain making up outright lies.

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


And how exactly would you know that? It's obvious you wouldn't. So again
you resort to making a claim you know you have no way to prove. You
don't know anything about what I know. But you think you can bluff your
way through by making one accusation after another. By now everyone
knows you make all kinds of allegations but you can't prove any of them.
You have no credibility left at all. Better you quit while you can.


Hawke

On 3/22/2012 6:00 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

If you don't want your posts used to make you look like an idiot, quit
posting idiotic things.

So let me understand this, you're saying that saying the title of a book
tells you what the book is about is idiotic?

Saying that the title of the book makes the case is idiotic, you ****ing
cheeselog.

You're the first to say the title of a book makes the case. I never said
that. I said a book title tells you what the book is about. Can't you
get anything right? And do you always have to make up a lie?



You mean like Cranston, DeConcini, Glenn and Riegle?

Now if I were you I'd say something like, you only heard things about
them. You don't know anything about them. You have no proof they used
their office to get rich. But we all know all those guys probably
cashed
in, don't we. But when I say Dole did and was a king at it somehow it's
all different.

I don't recall him ever saying Dole was honest. All he did that I can
recall, is attack your basis for saying otherwise.

Do you ever remember him giving you a good reason why what I said was
not true?

Because it's not established. It's nothing but an allegation.

What the **** is wrong with you, bitch? You think when you make some
wild, irresponsible and essentially slanderous charge, that it is
considered true until someone disproves it? Not the way it works, bitch.
*YOU* have to make the case that it's true, with verifiable evidence,
and until you do, it's considered "not proved."


You're taking the other side of the question. When you deny an
allegation is true you're taking a position. If I say Dole was out to
use his position to gain financially and you deny it then you are saying
he did not do that.

Are you saying that Dole did not use his position to gain financially? I
don't have to prove an allegation any more than you have to prove it's
false. It is what it is, an allegation. I've seen evidence that it is
true. How about you? Do you have any information about the issue at all?
No? I thought not.


The same way any author know about the subject he's writing the book
about. They do research. In this case not only did the writer do
research on Dole but he had personal experience with him too. Who
better
to write about someone?


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 ****.

Nobody said that it meant that. What was said is that a car with a for
sale sign on it is for sale. That's all it means. Same as when you say a
senator is for sale. He's available to be purchased. It means he's
crooked too. Funny that you are so ****ing stupid you can't understand
something so simple.


A car out on the street with a for sale sign on it has been bought at
least once. Don't bother pretending you see new cars on the street with
for sale signs on them.

Irrelevant, and I can think of at least 3 ways that a car that had
never been sold, could end up with a for sale sign on it.

Now you're getting the same disease that Pimpleton has, exceptionitis.

Now he's simply pointing out that you're full of **** - illogical,
irrational and full of ****.

No he's not, he's trying to avoid facing the plain fact, which is when a
car has a for sale sign on it that means someone is wanting to sell that
car. It doesn't mean a sale is pending, or the sign is on the car by
mistake, or that the car has been sold. It means the simple meaning.
That care is currently for sale. You can dance around it all you want
but that is what it means. The only way someone wouldn't understand what
the sign on the care means is if they are mentally ill.

Hawke

On 3/22/2012 6:29 PM, wrote:
On Mar 22, 8:38 pm, wrote:


So let me understand this, you're saying that saying the title of a book
tells you what the book is about is idiotic? Really? Then why not tell
me what percentage of books have a title that give no clue as to what
the book is about. Or how about tell us what is the purpose of a book's
title?


Hawke

The title of a book is the name of the book. Pretty much the same as
Dave Smithers is your name. Your name may or may not give a clue
about what you are about. I think the Bible is the book that is the
most sold book. It's title does not say what the book is about. The
purpose of a books title is to have a way to easily identify the
book. It provides a way to search for copies of the book and a way to
tell others about a book so they can find and read it. A title is
much easier to remember than say a number.

First I'll take you example of the Bible. The word bible comes from the
Greek word biblios or something close to that. It means a collection of
books. So the title bible tells exactly what the bible is.



Authors generally name their books with names that increase sales. So
to an author the purpose of a title may be to catch attention as well
as provide a way to identify the book.

That's true. A good, catchy title helps to sell a book.


Why do you think it is important to know the percentage of books that
have a title that gives no clue to what the book is about?

It's important because while there are some books that have titles that
give no clue as to what the book is about, like the book Rabbit Redux,
the vast majority of books have titles that identify what the subject of
the book is. That is the number one reason for a title, to identify what
the book is about so the reader will know it without reading the book first.

As I see
it that is not relevant. It appears you just threw that out for no
reason other than to be typing something. My guess is that a majority
of novels have titles that do not indicate what the book is about. But
I think a majority of text books do have titles that indicate what the
book is about. I suggest you look at the New York Times best sellers
list and see if you can guess what the books are about from the
titles.


It's true that novels are the most likely to have a title that may not
tell you anything about what the book is about but in the majority of
books the reason for the title is to tell what the book is about. You
can argue about percentages but most book titles tell what they are
about or at least give you a clue to what it's about.

Hawke

On Mar 23, 1:48*pm, Hawke wrote:

You think you know more about Bob Dole than I do? And I don't mean after
you look him up on Wiki and Google? When he was Gerald Ford's running
mate in 1976 I was 26 years old. I had already gone to college and was a
political science major. You don't think I would have been paying
attention to the election? Do you think I'm paying attention to this
year's election? FYI, I pay attention to all presidential elections.


Hawke

I thought you said you did not go to college until you were about
fifty. Did you go and drop out and later went back? Was all your
college studies at the same college?

Dan

On Mar 23, 2:48*pm, Hawke wrote:

First I'll take you example of the Bible. The word bible comes from the
Greek word biblios or something close to that. It means a collection of
books. So the title bible tells exactly what the bible is.


But that does not give any information about what the collection of
books is about. So the title does not tell you what the Bible is
about.


It's important because while there are some books that have titles that
give no clue as to what the book is about, like the book Rabbit Redux,
the vast majority of books have titles that identify what the subject of
the book is. That is the number one reason for a title, to identify what
the book is about so the reader will know it without reading the book first.


You really blew this one. " Rabbit Redux " actually tell you exactly
what the book is about. Provided you know something about Updike and
his books, and you know what Redux means. I was in high school with
John , but he was several grades ahead of me.

You are wrong about the title of books. The number one reason for a
title is to identify the book. Not to identify what the book is
about.

It's true that novels are the most likely to have a title that may not
tell you anything about what the book is about but in the majority of
books the reason for the title is to tell what the book is about. You
can argue about percentages but most book titles tell what they are
about or at least give you a clue to what it's about.


Like " Gone with the Wind " is about a tornado.


Hawke

On 3/23/2012 10:43 AM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/21/2012 5:00 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

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?

It's something a person with superior reading comprehension, such as I,
can extract from your posts even if the words aren't literally there.

That's good. You can't come up with a cite because you lied when you
said I "announced I'm incapable of critical thinking"

No, I didn't lie. You did announce it. You didn't know you were
announcing it, but you were.


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,

Didn't you say you're 61 or 62? How could you say you know about Dole
from his days in WWII?

Because I've seen documentaries about him and his WWII experiences.

No, you ****wit - writing "I have known about Bob Dole from his days in
WWII when he got wounded" implies that you were *there*, you clumsy
plodding idiot.

Your writing skills are atrocious.


to his election in Kansas to the senate, to
his retirement and presidential run. I was a witness to his entire
political career.

Cut the ****. You had a below-average layman's awareness of him. You may
- *may* - have heard a little about him during Watergate. More likely,
your first real awareness of him was when he was Gerald Ford's running
mate in 1976. After that, you stopped paying attention, just as everyone
else did.

Now you are making one unsubstantiated claim after another.

The claims are correct. You were not a scoff "witness" chortle to
his career, you ****ing mullet.


Cut the bull**** about being a highly attuned political observer - you
just aren't. You never had any reason to be.

None other than that was my primary and lifelong interest.

Oh, so being a tennis instructor, paralegal, pickle-packer and whatever
other money grubbing things you did were just the dabbling of a
dilettante? That figures.

I don't care if it was your "lifelong" interest or not, bitch - you
didn't attentively follow the career of every major political figure of
the last 50 years. You paid no more attention than anyone else who
reads a daily newspaper. The simple fact is, you were nothing but a
dabbler in politics, just like all the other things in which you dabbled.


As a major American senator during my lifetime I've
leaned many things

You were never a major American senator. You were never any kind of
senator.

Hmmm, I seem to remember that sentence ending with the words, about Bob
Dole.

Your sentence construction is ****. You used what's called a dangling
participle. After writing "As a major American senator...", what comes
next must be a pronoun or the name of the person who *was* the major
American senator. If Dole himself were writing it, then "I" or "I've"
could reasonably follow, because Dole was a major American senator. You
weren't.

Your writing is **** - indicative of the thinking behind it.


Why don't you learn how to write proper English so you can avoid
dangling participles like that, ****wit?

Why don't you learn to make a cogent argument sometime

I learned how to do that decades before you finally quit ****ing off
long enough to get your ****ty degree from a ****ty school.

On 3/23/2012 10:48 AM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/21/2012 5:08 PM, jk wrote:
George wrote:

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,

Didn't you say you're 61 or 62? How could you say you know about Dole
from his days in WWII?


It is REALLY quite simple George, I am almost shocked that you don't
know.
Doles skin is essentially the "cover" to his "book" and once he saw
Dole on TV he "knew" ALL about him.
jk


You think you know more about Bob Dole than I do?

You don't know particularly much about him. You don't know of a single
concrete accusation that disbarred lawyer made about him.

When he was Gerald Ford's running
mate in 1976 I was 26 years old. I had already gone to college

....and had dropped out or been booted out for the same ****ty study
habits you exhibit now.


political science major. You don't think I would have been paying
attention to the election?

No more than any other registered voter.


Do you think I'm paying attention to this
year's election? FYI, I pay attention to all presidential elections.

No more than any other registered voter.



So what were you doing when Dole and Ford were running for president in
1976? Was politics something you paid a lot of attention to back then?
It was for me. And have you ever seen any documentaries about Bob Dole
in your life? Because I have.

I think you "saw" the documentaries about the same way you "read" that
book: you maybe watched the trailers for them.

On 3/23/2012 10:26 AM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/21/2012 3:50 PM, jk wrote:

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.
No,
All he has to do is show that you did it 12 times to satisfy his
statement, he doesn't have to show that it was ONLY 12.

If he said a dozen then a dozen it must be. That's the way he plays it
so that's the rules. It has to be exactly the way he said it in his
accusation.

A dozen...more or less.


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.
NO, I called him a crooked lawyer, which he is. He has even admitted
it in court documents.

He also had a thirty year career as a lawyer so you have to take that
into consideration too.

Was Nixon's long record of public service taken into account in 1974?


But when I say Dole was
crooked and have a book that also says so it's wrong?
I never said it was wrong. I said that Saying "a senator is for
sale", is a little redundant.

What does that mean? It's ambiguous.

Is English not your native tongue, Ptooey?


If it is so minor why argue it.

Because that is what he's been doing every day.
IF you think it is wrong of him to do so, then it is equally wrong of
you to do so.

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.


He doesn't agree with you that they are trivial. So get over it.

That's an arguing technique. You show where someone made a minor mistake
on something and that means he's not to be believed in general.

There's a saying, Ptooey: if you can't get the simple details right,
how do you expect anyone to believe you on the big stuff?


It's a strawman argument.

You don't know what that expression means. Stop using it - now.


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.

And I agree with him, that it is NOT the same thing.

Since they both are former senators and are both rich what is the
difference and how big is it?

You said that Dole was rich as a sitting senator, when you *only* know
about how much money he and his wife had together in 2008, a dozen years
after he was out of the Senate.

You have no evidence whatever that Bob Dole became rich due to any
unethical or illegal conduct while he was a senator.



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.

It does if the sources are telling the truth.

What sources? You don't even know of any specific allegations; just a
****ing smearing book title.



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.

Which STILL proves nothing. You could have been fed a pack of lies.
People in the public eye get lied about all the time.

We're not in a courtroom. The level of proof we need isn't what is
demanded in court.

You have *NO* evidence of Bob Dole's corruption - zero. You have a
smearing book title; that's all.


Dole had a reputation for using
his connections to get ahead financially.

So you keep saying, without a shred of evidence.

We get it, Ptooey, you slimy ****: you don't like Republicans.


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.

To make the claim, and then say that implies to me that you "can not",
not just "will not".

There are some people that act so disagreeable that I won't waste any of
my time trying to please them.

You can't support your claim. You never can.

On 3/23/2012 10:55 AM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/21/2012 9:39 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/21/2012 5:08 PM, jk wrote:
George wrote:

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,

Didn't you say you're 61 or 62? How could you say you know about Dole
from his days in WWII?


It is REALLY quite simple George, I am almost shocked that you don't
know.
Doles skin is essentially the "cover" to his "book" and once he saw
Dole on TV he "knew" ALL about him.

Although Hawke-Ptooey didn't actually say that, it makes as much sense
as anything he might actually say. Doctrinaire extremists like him never
say anything that makes sense.

I simply can't believe how much this inattentive, plodding, slovenly
dogmatic Hawke-Ptooey pretends he knows. He doesn't write like a
complete inept, but the quality of thought behind what he does write
shows staggering ineptitude. He doesn't seem to have any idea what a
clown caricature he is.


What you don't seem to get is that people here can through your facade.

You need a verb between "can" and "through", Ptooey, or maybe a verbal
phrase. "People here can:

- whistle
- relax
- do their tax return

through your facade."

Damn, you just blow.


They have seen your blustering and [rabid foam snipped]

You can't support your claim, Ptooey. We get that.

On 3/23/2012 11:27 AM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/21/2012 5:03 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/21/2012 3:18 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/20/2012 4:40 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
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.

The question is what does that make you? You say **** about me for not
having read the book and you haven't either.

I didn't claim any particularly keen knowledge about it merely from
having glanced at the jacket; you did.

The hell I did. All I said was I had looked it over.

You said you "knew" from it that Bob Dole committed unethical or illegal
acts as a senator and became rich from them, merely as a result of
having fondled the book in the library.


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.

That's a long time,

It's not a long time, and it was 15 years before he scrawled out his hit
piece, you stupid ham hock.


It's plenty of time to know what your boss is like as a person.

He didn't witness *anything* Dole did between 1980 and 1995. He was not
in a position to witness anything.


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 ****.

You can't see anything.

We all can see that your character is ****.

What we see is

....that your character is ****.


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 mean like you do about me?

No, not like those at all.


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.

Puts me far ahead of you in knowing anything about that book.

You don't know the details of the book. In particular, you don't know
any specific allegation the disgruntled, about-to-be-disbarred fired
aide said about Dole.

There you go again telling everyone how little I know about the book
when we both know you know even less.

As before, this is about what you *DON'T* know. You don't know any
specific allegations of impropriety, but you're acting as if you do.

Name one, you ****: name a specific act of impropriety that disbarred
hatchet artist Hilton made against Dole.

You can't.



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

Well, there you go again, Jr. Making it up as you go. You go on and on
about my sloppiness and here you are just plain making up outright lies.

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


And how exactly would you know that?

We all know it. You can't cite a single specific allegation the
smearing con man Hilton made against Dole; all you saw was the title.

On 3/23/2012 11:41 AM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/22/2012 6:00 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

If you don't want your posts used to make you look like an idiot, quit
posting idiotic things.

So let me understand this, you're saying that saying the title of a book
tells you what the book is about is idiotic?

Saying that the title of the book makes the case is idiotic, you ****ing
cheeselog.

You're the first to say the title of a book makes the case. I never said
that.

You did say it. You've been saying it for days.


You mean like Cranston, DeConcini, Glenn and Riegle?

Now if I were you I'd say something like, you only heard things about
them. You don't know anything about them. You have no proof they used
their office to get rich. But we all know all those guys probably
cashed
in, don't we. But when I say Dole did and was a king at it somehow
it's
all different.

I don't recall him ever saying Dole was honest. All he did that I can
recall, is attack your basis for saying otherwise.

Do you ever remember him giving you a good reason why what I said was
not true?

Because it's not established. It's nothing but an allegation.

What the **** is wrong with you, bitch? You think when you make some
wild, irresponsible and essentially slanderous charge, that it is
considered true until someone disproves it? Not the way it works, bitch.
*YOU* have to make the case that it's true, with verifiable evidence,
and until you do, it's considered "not proved."


You're taking the other side of the question.

There isn't any question. I'm pointing out that you are committing
debate errors, demanding that others disprove your claims when you
haven't done anything to try to prove them.


When you deny an
allegation is true you're taking a position.

I didn't deny any allegation was true. I said you haven't offered
anything but a ****ing smearing book title as "support" for your
allegation, and that's bull**** - an invalid technique.



If I say Dole was out to
use his position to gain financially and you deny it then you are saying
he did not do that.

I didn't deny anything. I said that you didn't support your claim, and
you didn't.



Are you saying that Dole did not use his position to gain financially?

I'm saying you haven't supported your claim, in *any* way, that he did.
I'm saying that you're stupidly willing to *believe* the allegation
because of your filthy political bias.



The same way any author know about the subject he's writing the book
about. They do research. In this case not only did the writer do
research on Dole but he had personal experience with him too. Who
better
to write about someone?


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 ****.

Nobody said that it meant that.

It is the equivalent of what you have said about Dole.


A car out on the street with a for sale sign on it has been bought at
least once. Don't bother pretending you see new cars on the street
with
for sale signs on them.

Irrelevant, and I can think of at least 3 ways that a car that had
never been sold, could end up with a for sale sign on it.

Now you're getting the same disease that Pimpleton has, exceptionitis.

Now he's simply pointing out that you're full of **** - illogical,
irrational and full of ****.

No he's not,

Yes, that's exactly what he's doing, and he's right.

On 3/23/2012 11:48 AM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/22/2012 6:29 PM, wrote:
On Mar 22, 8:38 pm, wrote:


So let me understand this, you're saying that saying the title of a book
tells you what the book is about is idiotic? Really? Then why not tell
me what percentage of books have a title that give no clue as to what
the book is about. Or how about tell us what is the purpose of a book's
title?


Hawke

The title of a book is the name of the book. Pretty much the same as
Dave Smithers is your name. Your name may or may not give a clue
about what you are about. I think the Bible is the book that is the
most sold book. It's title does not say what the book is about. The
purpose of a books title is to have a way to easily identify the
book. It provides a way to search for copies of the book and a way to
tell others about a book so they can find and read it. A title is
much easier to remember than say a number.

First I'll take you example of the Bible. The word bible comes from the
Greek word biblios or something close to that. It means a collection of
books. So the title bible tells exactly what the bible is.

You know that *now*. You didn't know it two minutes before you did a
Google search on "Bible".


Authors generally name their books with names that increase sales. So
to an author the purpose of a title may be to catch attention as well
as provide a way to identify the book.

That's true. A good, catchy title helps to sell a book.

Even if the title implies a lie.


Why do you think it is important to know the percentage of books that
have a title that gives no clue to what the book is about?

It's important because

It isn't important.


As I see
it that is not relevant. It appears you just threw that out for no
reason other than to be typing something. My guess is that a majority
of novels have titles that do not indicate what the book is about. But
I think a majority of text books do have titles that indicate what the
book is about. I suggest you look at the New York Times best sellers
list and see if you can guess what the books are about from the
titles.


It's true that novels are the most likely to have a title that may not
tell you anything about what the book is about

Hilton wrote a novel - well, fiction in any case.

On 3/23/2012 2:21 PM, wrote:
On Mar 23, 1:48 pm, wrote:

You think you know more about Bob Dole than I do? And I don't mean after
you look him up on Wiki and Google? When he was Gerald Ford's running
mate in 1976 I was 26 years old. I had already gone to college and was a
political science major. You don't think I would have been paying
attention to the election? Do you think I'm paying attention to this
year's election? FYI, I pay attention to all presidential elections.


Hawke

I thought you said you did not go to college until you were about
fifty. Did you go and drop out and later went back? Was all your
college studies at the same college?

He either dropped out or was expelled; either way, he clearly wasn't
college material at the time.

On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 14:21:51 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:
Hawke

I thought you said you did not go to college until you were about
fifty. Did you go and drop out and later went back? Was all your
college studies at the same college?

A bit difficult with a mail order degree from Nigeria.

His BA means bull**** artist

On 3/23/2012 4:28 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

I simply can't believe how much this inattentive, plodding,
slovenly dogmatic Hawke-Ptooey pretends he knows. He doesn't
write like a complete inept, but the quality of thought behind
what he does write shows staggering ineptitude. He doesn't seem
to have any idea what a clown caricature he is.


What you don't seem to get is that people here can see through your
facade.

There is that better you nit picking twit?


You need a verb between "can" and "through", Ptooey, or maybe a
verbal phrase. "People here can:

- whistle - relax - do their tax return

through your facade."

Damn, you just blow.


They have seen your blustering and [rabid foam snipped]

You can't support your claim, Ptooey. We get that.

I told you I don't make claims. When I say something it's true.

You claimed that I had no evidence that Dole was dirty or cashed in on
his office to gain personally. Really? You should know better than that.
Like I said, I've seen Dole's whole crooked career so I know him well.
He's a republican politician and as venal as they get but that's
redundant isn't it? You are too ignorant to even have known that. No
surprise there because you don't know jack.


Here's a few things to show what kind of guy Dole was when he was in the
senate.

Archer Daniel Midlands (ADM) is an agricultural giant. It's made huge
money from ethanol subsidies and it has contributed large sums of money
to a variety of entities that Dole and his wife own or control. But it's
only one company out of many that Dole made his money from.


"In a classic real estate maneuver, similar to one of which Lamar
Alexander was the beneficiary, ADM's founder, Dwayne Andreas, sold a
Florida condo unit to the Doles for $150,000.00. The unit, valued at
$190,000 and for which they paid no maintenance for seven months, may
actually have been worth $300,000.00. According to Dole's press
secretary, he and his wife had no idea they were buying the unit from
Andreas. "Ethics experts, "Lewis writes, "generally agree that it is
questionable for a lawmaker or their spouse to purchase real estate from
the chairman of a company with business pending before Congress.
Nevertheless, the Senate Ethics Committee has never formally
investigated the Dole-Sea View matter."

Hell no, those are republicans so we expect that from them and no longer
even think of it as wrong. Nice little gain there of 40 to 150K for the
Doles.

What has ADM gotten in return for its support of Dole? Hundreds of
millions of dollars in subsidies, paid for by our tax dollars. ADM's most
notorious product is ethanol, an alcohol distilled from corn and added
to gasoline to produce "gasohol". ADM makes 60% of the country's supply.
In a grant of corporate welfare as shameful as the equally famous
chinchilla subsidy, Congress created and supports a market for gasohol
that would not otherwise exist. In 1987 alone, ADM received $150 million
in federal ethanol support. Senator Dole was ethanol's steadfast sponsor;
to pick a single example, he held up a steel import bill until his
colleagues
agreed to extend the ethanol excise tax credit to the year 2000.

One thing about Dole, when a company bought him he really worked for
their interests and gave them their money's worth, just like he did for
ADM. But there were many including the tobacco companies. They really
owned Dole.


The above is just one of the ways that Dole used his position for
personal gain. He did this kind of thing for decades. He was a master of
using his office to gain from giant corporations. As a lawyer with
nearly three decades in the senate Dole was in a perfect position to use
every trick in the book to wheel and deal for himself and his corporate
donors. Of course, everyone who knows anything about politics knew this
about Dole.


In a ten year period beginning in 1985, ADM received $424.5 million in
other federal subsidies, from corporate welfare plans such as the
Export Enhancement Program (EEP). All of these programs were approved
by the Senate Agriculture Committee, of which Dole was a senior member.
Dole also supported EEP in speeches, legislative amendments,
and letters he has written to government agencies.





Of course, the real significance of this pattern -- much of which has
not been previously reported -- may lie not in what it says about a
particular senator or even a presidential candidate, but in what it tells
about our system for regulating political fundraising. Dole's story is
all too emblematic of how high-profile politicians use an array of loosely
affiliated PACs and nonprofits to fill their fundraising coffers, shore
up loyalty among potential allies, and build long-term relationships
with the nation's wealthiest interests. It is also indicative of how
the public and the press, increasingly desensitized to conflicts of
interest, are willing to give veteran politicians a free pass for sins
of the past. Oddly, Dole's campaign finance history has gotten virtually
no ink in the national media this election cycle. To be sure, Dole is not
the only prominent public official engaged in these practices. But Dole
was a pioneer of these tactics, and he remains one of the most
successful at employing them.



Although virtually every candidate for office poses as a man of the people,
the gap between rhetoric and reality is particularly glaring in the case of
Dole, a millionaire who has lived in Washington for three decades and
makes his home in the Watergate complex.



Dole, a pioneer of these tactics. Of course, he had decades in the
senate where he learned to be a master of this crooked game. But look at
what it says about Dole. A "millionaire" living in the Watergate
complex. That was way back in 1995 or 1996. So he was a millionaire way
back then. But that is what I said and Pimpleton said there was no proof
of. Well, here is someone else saying he was a millionaire back then.

So, there is tons of evidence that Dole was a master of using the system
in Washington to get rich. That's what he did. Anyone can find out what
Dole was like very easily. But you need to do it yourself. I am not
giving any citations. The quotes are there. If you don't believe it I
couldn't care less because I know what's true.

Hawke

On 3/23/2012 2:21 PM, wrote:
On Mar 23, 1:48 pm, wrote:

You think you know more about Bob Dole than I do? And I don't mean after
you look him up on Wiki and Google? When he was Gerald Ford's running
mate in 1976 I was 26 years old. I had already gone to college and was a
political science major. You don't think I would have been paying
attention to the election? Do you think I'm paying attention to this
year's election? FYI, I pay attention to all presidential elections.


Hawke

I thought you said you did not go to college until you were about
fifty. Did you go and drop out and later went back? Was all your
college studies at the same college?

Dan



No, what I did was start college way back in the late 1960s then dropped
out and went back again a few years later and got an AA degree in the
early 1970s. Then I went back years later when I was 48 and finished my
education. So there was a real big gap between when I started and when I
finished.

It was pretty cool actually having that time pass before going back to
school. I had a chance to be in college in the early 1970s and then
again in 2000. It wasn't really much different from the first to the
last either. As for schools, I went to several. Two Jr. colleges, one
year at Southern Oregon University, and I finished up at Chico St.


Hawke

On 3/23/2012 4:51 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/23/2012 2:21 PM, wrote:
On Mar 23, 1:48 pm, wrote:

You think you know more about Bob Dole than I do? And I don't mean after
you look him up on Wiki and Google? When he was Gerald Ford's running
mate in 1976 I was 26 years old. I had already gone to college and was a
political science major. You don't think I would have been paying
attention to the election? Do you think I'm paying attention to this
year's election? FYI, I pay attention to all presidential elections.


Hawke

I thought you said you did not go to college until you were about
fifty. Did you go and drop out and later went back? Was all your
college studies at the same college?

He either dropped out or was expelled; either way, he clearly wasn't
college material at the time.


Good to know you know so much more about me than I do. I do wonder how
you know all this though.

Hawke

On 3/23/2012 7:20 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 14:21:51 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:
Hawke

I thought you said you did not go to college until you were about
fifty. Did you go and drop out and later went back? Was all your
college studies at the same college?

A bit difficult with a mail order degree from Nigeria.

His BA means bull**** artist


I guess that's your way of saying you have none. You're a little man,
aren't you?

Hawke