Re: OT - Tell Bush: "Don't blame Hurricane victims, help them!"

> > You keep saying there is evidence indicating other than what I said but
then
> > you don't have it. How come? And you still haven't told me why you are
more
> > qualified to speak on behalf of right wingers than I am.

You still haven't given me any credentials why you are able to speak for the
"right" than I am. Could it be that's because, as I said, you don't?

> Because you're demonstrably wrong, and I have provided one or more
> counterexamples to show that. Since you aren't real good at it, maybe
> you should, you know, reconsider your credentials.

Because, that's your proof that I'm wrong? You have provided nothing in the
way of proof that what I asserted was not correct, and I gave you my
credentials. Let's see yours.

> >> Because you made a wrong global statement, and I provided a correction.

Let's hear it again, because all I heard was your opinion that I was wrong
because you disagreed with my statement. That's not proof.

> You presumed to speak for "the right", saying what they "would say". As
> someone who is on "the right", I would not say the thing you say I
> would, and I corrected you. You are putting words in my mouth, and I
> object.

You are wrong on two counts here. First, having vast life experience dealing
with people on the right I stated what a collective reaction would be from
them. That was my opinion based on experience. Because you don't agree with
my statement about the group that doesn't mean my statement included your
view. Any individual may have a different reaction than the group. So simply
because you personally don't agree with my statement doesn't mean it doesn't
apply to the group. Second, you're wrong that I put words in your mouth. I
didn't. You just made the incorrect assumption that because my statement
applied to Republicans in general it applied to you individually. It didn't
and that was your mistake too.

>
> > In reality all you did was say that, in your opinion, I was wrong.
> > That's not a correction.
>
> Yawn.

Can't do it can you? Indifference isn't an argument.

> >> Unless you're going to now tell me that I'm not right-ish, and/or what
I
> >> do or don't believe? If you're inside my brain that well, can you tell
> >> me where I put that 5/16ths hex collet that I can't find?
> >
> > And no, I wouldn't say that you weren't a righty but one doesn't have to
be
> > one to speak for them. It's not an exclusive club. Can't help you with
> > senior moments either, questions regarding politics, that's another
matter.
>
> All you leftists would say you're in favor of, oh, I don't know, eating
> puppies. There. It's just as accurate as your ramble, and equally
> something I've got no basis in fact to say.

Do you know any leftists that have eaten puppies? Do you have any evidence,
even anecdotal to that effect? Of course not, which is why just saying
anything or making any claim is meaningless. That's why your statement has
no value. You have to have a basis in fact for even an opinion to have
value. My statement about what a Republican response would be is based on
experience and evidence I have gleaned personally about Republican behavior.

> >> > The fact is though, what I said the right
> >> > would say is precisely what many, probably most, right wingers would
> > say.
>
> >> Ah, so you posted something wrong, I corrected you, and now you restate
> >> while telling me I've been the wrong one all along. Well, at least you
> >> got your statement to an accurate one - if you add "I'm guessing" or
"In
> >> my opinion" or "I bet, based on my personal biases and ignorance".
Good
> >> show - you're maybe trainable.

Again, just saying that I was wrong and you have corrected me is stupid. You
have not made one assertion and backed it up with any facts or evidence to
prove your point. Why you are critical of mine when you have not a whit of
evidence I was wrong about anything except to say "I wouldn't have said that
and I'm part of that group". That's not nearly good enough.

>
> > This is a newsgroup discussion not a peer reviewed article so it's
assumed
> > that everyone knows that unless a statement is specifically stated to be
> > factual it is opinion or a generalization. I haven't noticed that you
> > qualify every opinion statement that you have made so why should
everyone
> > else have to?
>
> You made a global statement which is wrong when made globally. This
> isn't difficult to understand.

Global statement? What's that supposed to mean?


> >> You claim Bush didn't know about the hurricane because he was "on
> >> vacation". You are wrong. Are you wrong due to you being ignorant of
> >> what he said about it when, or are you wrong because you know damn well
> >> what he was doing but choose to lie about his reaction to further your
> >> political viewpoint? This _is_ black and white. You _are_ wrong, and
> >> it's either because you don't know it (ignorant) or you do know it
> >> (lying). This isn't difficult.
> >
> > You are simply misinformed. It was confirmed again today on the
McGlocklin
> > Group that Bush was on vacation
>
> Yes.
>
> > and was unaware of the situation in
> > Louisiana.
>
> Cite, please? That means: "I believe you are talking out your ass and
> would like you to back up your claim with something from a credible
> source".

I told you; Newsweek Magazine, Chris Matthews, and Eleanor Clift of the
McGlocklin Group. When she said just what I told you about Bush having to
get the news about Katrina from Dan Bartlett nobody on the panel raised an
eyebrow. Apparently, they all knew it was true too. You're the one out of
the loop this time it seems.

> > He doesn't read newspapers, that is an established fact everyone
> > has known about for years. He relys on his aides to inform him. He was
not
> > watching television so he did not know what was going on. He didn't find
out
> > until Dan Bartlett, his communications director burned a CD that showed
what
> > was going on and gave it to Bush. That was two days after the problems
> > started. Those are the facts. Try reading
>
> Cite, please? (see above)

Already did, now can you prove that my references are not true? Let's see
it.


> > What I just told you isn't my opinion or a lie. It was reported in
Newsweek
> > and I've heard it confirmed twice by two different reporters. If you
have
> > solid evidence that what I have just said isn't true then, by all means,
> > lets see it. Otherwise, time to eat crow.
>
> Show me your sources. "two different reporters" is not a source.

Again, Eleanor Clift and Chris Matthews.
>
> >> >> You must be a troll. OK, ha ha, you got me. Nobody could seriously
> >> >> believe that that's how it went. Especially with, you know, the
> >> >> published timelines and all, but by all means keep digging.
> >> >
> >> > I report, you decide.
> >>
> >> I've decided, all right.
> >
> > Yeah, you decided but before you had the facts.
>
> The facts are pretty clear. You make sweeping generalizations as if
> they are absolute facts, when they're not. You're rabidly anti-Bush, so
> anything you claim is automatically suspect. Now, I bet, you'll weasel
> on posting actual cites.

What I bet is that you weasel on proving me wrong.

> >> You assert, then, that while Bush is on vacation, that he doesn't have
> >> any contact with the outside world? iPod on, playing with chainsaws or
> >> whatever, and nobody talks to him? Please answer specifically this
> >> question rather than evading it if you can.
> >
> > I already answered this question above, and yes, that's about the size
of
> > it, Bush was not informed of the situation. He also didn't have Karl
Rove
> > around to help him this time either because he was getting treated for
> > stones, kidney or gall, which I don't know.
>
> Somehow Rove always comes up with you people. What's next, calling
> someone "neocon"?

The point is Bush didn't have one of his closest advisors around to advise
him. The idea that Bush didn't know what was going on without the
information being given to him by subordinates is not new. Everyone knows
this except with the exception of you.

> >> See, there you go telling me (wrongly) what I believe again. I _know_
> >> it's not due to ignorance, because I have educated you as to where I
> >> stand, so this is clearly because you have chosen to lie. See how that
> >> works?
>
> > Yes I do. You call me an uber leftist and that's fine but when I call
you a
> > rightist it's not. Is that about the way you see it?
>
> You can't even keep your own story straight, can you.
>
> > To the fair minded that
> > kind of thing is called hypocrisy. You take me to task for labeling you
as
> > being far right but you have already labeled me uber-leftist and a
troll.
> > You have to be joking.
>
> No, I label you leftist and a troll, _and_ you have a weak grasp of
> reality.

And your proof to those baseless assertions is?

>
> >> > Maybe that's the reason nobody believes anything you say except other
> > right
> >> > wing types. You probably have lots of friends who are liberals,
right?
> >>
> >> Sure, why not?
> >
> > Because true conservatives don't have liberal friends. That's a
> > generalization (how's that) but for the vast majority it's true.
>
> See, there you go again, talking about a group that you clearly either
> don't understand, or choose to lie about.

Neither case, I understand them all too well and it's not my fault you think
unflattering truths about your group are lies. I don't think you can tell a
lie from the truth worth beans.

> >> > And
> >> > blacks too.
> >>
> >> Um, never thought of it in those terms, but yeah, so what's your point?
> >> All Bush supporters are racists or something? For the record, I also
> >> have gay friends. So?
>
> > That's a typical weasel way of trying to not look racist or homophobic
or
> > mysoginist when you really are. It's easy to say I have lots of friends
of
> > color, and women, and gays when you really don't.
>
> I see. So, you ask the question, and no matter how I answer it (happens
> to be true, but that's your problem), it's somehow a problem with _me_.
> Yeah, right.

No, it's just that your answer is a pat one. Everytime a racist or homophobe
has to defend themself against a charge the answer they have lots of friends
in the group they are accused of being biased against. I've heard it
countless times. You saying it now doesn't have a lot of weight. Other
Republicans say it all the time too but their actions put a lie to their
words. You are different though, right?
>
> > The fact is most people
> > don't have a wide variety of people for friends. For that matter most
people
> > don't have a lot of friends, period. But the point is that your view is
not
> > supported or accepted by a lot of people. It's mainly people that are
just
> > like you. You do know that black people don't support the views of the
> > conservatives don't you? That's a generalization too but I think you
> > understand the point.
>
> What the hell does political alignment have to do with who I'm friends
> with?

You kidding? Next thing I know you'll be telling me you have friends that
are Socialists and Communists. A person't political view has nothing to do
with who they associate with, right? Come off it.

I worked for a huge multinational corporation for a dozen years,
> and worked with people from damn near every western country, and many of
> the eastern ones. Friends? Sure.

No, not friends, business associates.

Agree with politically? What's the
> point? Someone in, say, Japan, is going to have such vastly different
> perspective that the topic doesn't even pay to discuss. Unless you're,
> ahem, freaking obsessed about it or something (ahem).

You finally said something I agree with. I guess that's the first time you
have told the truth.

> >> > You're probably just like a cop. Can't stand anyone but another
> >> > cop. Righties are like that.
> >
> >> You're doing it again. Telling someone what they're like, and being
> >> wrong. Is it due to ignorance or are you lying?

What I am doing is educating you in basic sociology/psychology. Cops are a
lot alike. They have been studied a lot so there is a lot of data about
their specific behavior. Apparently, you have no knowledge about that
either.

>
> > You're doing it again too. Are you just stupid or is it your ignorance?
See
> > I give you just two choices both of which are unacceptable, just like
you
> > did. Cops don't have a lot of social contact outside of other cops.

> Direct personal experience tells me otherwise.

Sorry but your anecdotal evidence doesn't trump the social science research
data.
>
> > I am saying that righties are the same way. They associate
> > with their own kind almost exclusively. That's clear isn't it?
>
> It's clear that you're wrong, yes.

Got any proof of your assertion? Didn't think so; another of your baseless
claims about me.

>
> >> > Are you like that too? I'm waiting to hear you
> >> > come across as moderate on something. I haven't heard it yet. So you
> > need to
> >> > think about where you really fit before you start labeling me as
being
> >> > radical.
> >>
> >> Show me where I called you a radical. Use google to provide evidence.
> >> Idiot, yes. Radical? I don't know, why would I apply a label without
> >> having facts to back it up? That's _your_ game, not mine.
>
> > Radical, uber-leftist, that's the same thing. I didn't even need Google.
>
> Obviously, because it would prove that once again, you're lying.
>
> Do you actually have anything here? You're getting to sound like a
> broken record.

Actually the broken record is you calling me a liar every time you can't
disprove something I have said. Everything I have said I have backed up. All
I've heard from you is your opinions. You can start showing evidence for
your opinions any time now.

Hawke


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT - Tell Bush: "Dont blame Hurricane victims, help them!"
    ... In reality all you did was say that, in your opinion, I was wrong. ... > You claim Bush didn't know about the hurricane because he was "on ... you decided but before you had the facts. ... Because true conservatives don't have liberal friends. ...
    (rec.crafts.metalworking)
  • Re: The case for circumcision
    ... There is a difference between fact and opinion. ... correct assessment of the facts, ... That anti-circ activists can't do that shows that ... did you only look at evidence that favored your case?. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: The case for circumcision
    ... There is a difference between fact and opinion. ... correct assessment of the facts, ... That anti-circ activists can't do that shows that ... did you only look at evidence that favored your case?. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Anti-Gun Hysteria!
    ... court decisions either; ... Everyone is entitle to their own opinion but everyone is not entitled to ... You have repeately refused to treat any subject logically or to use facts ... and evidence to support you case, while ignoring those presented to you. ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: Meeting Floyd
    ... My opinion is not based on facts, ... lab or USADA/WADA could produce. ... "Spin" is one thing - the hard documentary evidence that Dr. Baker's ...
    (rec.bicycles.tech)