Originally Posted By Dabob2 <The thing about Rudy that is really in his favor is that when he needed to, he did his job competently. That would be a big step up from the crowd we have now.> Well, jon, he was semi-competent. Not as good as his image, though, and it's starting to come back to haunt him. I lived through it, and I give him great credit for what he SAID in the immediate aftermath. He was good there, primarily because he was so UNLIKE the usual Rudy - measured, even-tempered, etc. He looked and sounded great after 9/11. His actions, though, were less exemplary. There's a book out now called Grand Illusion that shatters quite a few of the Rudy myths, plus the firefighters in NY have been quite down on him since 9/11 itself for not upgrading the radios they had that malfunctioned during the 1993 WTC attack. In 2001 they had the same lousy radios. <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Grand-Illusion-Untold-Story-Giuliani/dp/B000OFOUK2/ref=pd_sim_b_1/102-6031452-8023332" target="_blank">http://www.amazon.com/Grand-Il lusion-Untold-Story-Giuliani/dp/B000OFOUK2/ref=pd_sim_b_1/102-6031452-8023332</a> And for an earlier expose by the same author, read <a href="http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0635" target="_blank">http://www.villagevoice.com/ne ws/0635</a>,barrett,74322,6.html The image and the reality, as with most politicians, are two different things.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<You have evidence that CNN left out a qualifier?>> <They have a record of it.> So you say. But you can't provide it. Thought so. <<If so, that might not be entirely objective either, to say the least.>> <Are you accusing them of lying about their position?> Not lying, just wording it the way they wanted to, as they're entitled to. Since we're really getting into arcana here (again), it seems we're down to "push for" vs. "if necessary." <<So are we arguing over "push for" (from CNN) and "if necessary" (an ambiguous term from - I guess, since there was no link - Thompson's campaign itself)?>> <I'm just stating what the Thompson campaign said. You appear to be arguing.> No, I'm just wondering what distinction YOU'RE making, actually. <<Again, without a link and knowing which came first - the CNN piece or the campaign piece (i.e. was CNN commenting on the official statement or was the official statement a response to the CNN piece) - it's hard to say.>> <Since the response mentions that it's a response to the interview, and the report of the interview mentions that its from an interview, it's not hard for me to say.> Actually, your link just said "In an interview with CNN today..." which would indicate his words were from the interview, not a response to the interview. We're getting into arcana worse than usual, even for us. Let's stop it.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Even if it was in response to a question, it still seems like pandering to the religious right, because he's essentially arguing for a constitutional ammendment to enshrine what already exists (i.e. states that don't recognize same-sex marriage don't have to recognize other states' marriages.)>> <He's letting everyone know that he doesn't think a handful of federal judges should be able to tell everyone in the Nation that they have to recognize gay marriages. You don't have to be on the religious right to believe that some things should be decided by the voters, and not by judges.> a). No judge HAS decided that other states have to recognize same-sex marriages, so he's essentially responding to a non-threat, which equals pandering in my book, and b). some things (like Loving v. Virginia) WERE decided by judges long before the voters in the state in question would have done so. I see that as a good thing; perhaps you don't think interracial couples should have been allowed to marry just 100 years after the 14th ammendment (too soon?) Now some people think that's not right, and I guess Thompson is saying we have to guard against the awful prospect that some judge might make a Loving-like decision for gay marriages. Of course, Loving was a supreme court decision, and before Loving no state had to recognize interracial marriages that didn't want to, and no state judge forced them to. Again, it seems like pandering against a threat that doesn't exist except perhaps at the supreme court level. But I'm sure it plays well with the people who still think Loving was "bad law."
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <But you can't provide it.> I've already admitted you would never accept it. Why do you keep harping on this? Are you claiming that it's impossible that a CNN reporter might slant an article? And if so, do you have any proof you can provide? <No, I'm just wondering what distinction YOU'RE making, actually.> That there is one between "push for" and "if necessary". I think it's clear that Sen Thompason would not push for an amendment under the present circumstances. Which is what I said awhile ago.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I see that as a good thing; perhaps you don't think interracial couples should have been allowed to marry just 100 years after the 14th ammendment (too soon?).> I've made it quite clear on numerous occasions that I agreed with the Loving decision, and that I believe it was substantially different from the what is now happening with gay marriages, and given my reasons for it.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<But you can't provide it.>> <I've already admitted you would never accept it. > Watch that Freudian slip, please. YOU've admitted that I'D never accept it. Could you BE more telling? LOL. Maybe I will, maybe I won't. I don't think you have it, frankly. <Why do you keep harping on this? Are you claiming that it's impossible that a CNN reporter might slant an article? And if so, do you have any proof you can provide?> Sure it's possible. But here we are again with you claiming to have something; me asking you to come up with it; you saying "you wouldn't believe it anyway - do YOU have proof of the opposite? Huh? Huh? Ha HA!!" like that proves anything. It's not my job to provide the "negative proof" of something you claimed you could provide and were challenged to do, but can't. <<No, I'm just wondering what distinction YOU'RE making, actually.>> <That there is one between "push for" and "if necessary". I think it's clear that Sen Thompason would not push for an amendment under the present circumstances. Which is what I said awhile ago.> Actually, I don't think he would either. I think he's only talking about it to pander to certain voters in the first place (which is what I said a while ago), and probably wouldn't give it a second thought until (if he's elected) 2012, in which case he'd push for it if he thought it would get him enough votes.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I've made it quite clear on numerous occasions that I agreed with the Loving decision, and that I believe it was substantially different from the what is now happening with gay marriages, and given my reasons for it.> None that made any sense to anyone here, though. You also made it clear that in your opinion Loving had nothing to do with "marriage," which was ridiculous.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Maybe I will, maybe I won't.> And maybe I'll win the Powerball lottery tonight. But the odds are against it. <I don't think you have it, frankly.> So if I say I've read and seen thousands of examples of such behavior over the years, would you say I'm lying or delusional? <But here we are again with you claiming to have something; me asking you to come up with it; you saying "you wouldn't believe it anyway - do YOU have proof of the opposite? Huh? Huh? Ha HA!!" like that proves anything.> You're asking me to come up with something that is impossible to come up with - I don't do that to you. Some opinions are formed after a multitude of experiences - it would be impossible to "prove" them. I did not claim that CNN absolutely did anything - I simply believe it's a good possibility, based on a lot of observations over many years. Asking for evidence of a specific charge is reasonable; asking for proof for a speculation is absurd. <None that made any sense to anyone here, though.> Well, it's not my fault if some people are so biased they refuse to accept certain ideas. <You also made it clear that in your opinion Loving had nothing to do with "marriage," which was ridiculous.> Or that they distort what others say.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Maybe I will, maybe I won't.>> <And maybe I'll win the Powerball lottery tonight. But the odds are against it.> I'd have to see your "evidence" first, wouldn't I. It's moot, of course, because you don't have it to provide. <<I don't think you have it, frankly.>> <So if I say I've read and seen thousands of examples of such behavior over the years, would you say I'm lying or delusional?> That's irrelevant. You claimed to have someting concrete, and now you're backing away. <<But here we are again with you claiming to have something; me asking you to come up with it; you saying "you wouldn't believe it anyway - do YOU have proof of the opposite? Huh? Huh? Ha HA!!" like that proves anything.>> <You're asking me to come up with something that is impossible to come up with - I don't do that to you.> Actually, you JUST did, which is what I was saying! You asked me for "proof that it's impossible that a CNN person might slant an article." But oh, you never ask for something impossible to come up with. LOL!! <Some opinions are formed after a multitude of experiences - it would be impossible to "prove" them. I did not claim that CNN absolutely did anything - I simply believe it's a good possibility, based on a lot of observations over many years. > Oh no, you won't get away with that. Let's go to the videotape. Look at #35. When I asked if you had evidence to the effect that CNN left out a qualifier (not a pattern or something weasly like that, but concrete evidence), you said "of course I do." So now you're backing away from your original assertion that you had actual evidence. It's right there for everyone to see - just cop to it, dude! <Asking for evidence of a specific charge is reasonable; asking for proof for a speculation is absurd. > Well, exactly. I did the former - asked you for evidence than CNN left out a qualifier. You did the latter - asked me for proof that would be impossible to provide. Thank you for making my point for me. <<None that made any sense to anyone here, though.>> <Well, it's not my fault if some people are so biased they refuse to accept certain ideas.> Ah. When someone disagrees with you, it's because they're "biased." Noted. <<You also made it clear that in your opinion Loving had nothing to do with "marriage," which was ridiculous.>> <Or that they distort what others say.> Not sure who the "they" is here, but you definitely said that Loving was not about marriage.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <You claimed to have someting concrete, and now you're backing away.> I never claimed to have something concrete. <Actually, you JUST did, which is what I was saying! You asked me for "proof that it's impossible that a CNN person might slant an article."> I'm sorry. I was attempting to illustrate how silly your demand of "proof" was; I assumed you were bright enough to understand what I was doing. <Look at #35. When I asked if you had evidence to the effect that CNN left out a qualifier (not a pattern or something weasly like that, but concrete evidence), you said "of course I do."> Your videotape is distorted. You asked for evidence, not concrete evidence. And I answered with "Of course I do. None that you would accept as conclusive, of course." <When someone disagrees with you, it's because they're "biased."> No, not everyone who disagrees with me. Only those who refuse to accept certain ideas. <Not sure who the "they" is here, but you definitely said that Loving was not about marriage.> The "they" are people are so biased they refuse to accept certain ideas, and I did not say that Loving was not about marriage.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<You claimed to have someting concrete, and now you're backing away.>> <I never claimed to have something concrete.> More semantic garbage. See below. <<Actually, you JUST did, which is what I was saying! You asked me for "proof that it's impossible that a CNN person might slant an article.">> <I'm sorry. I was attempting to illustrate how silly your demand of "proof" was; I assumed you were bright enough to understand what I was doing. > I assumed you were bright enough to know the difference between asking for something concrete and something not. Either that's not the case, or you're weasling more than usual. <<Look at #35. When I asked if you had evidence to the effect that CNN left out a qualifier (not a pattern or something weasly like that, but concrete evidence), you said "of course I do.">> <Your videotape is distorted. You asked for evidence, not concrete evidence. > Ah, it's the weasly answer. I should have known. You are fairly bright- but also fairly weasly. < And I answered with "Of course I do. None that you would accept as conclusive, of course."> "I, Douglas, proclaim CNN to be biased in general, therefore I know they left out a word in this particular instance, though I can't show it" is not evidence of ANY kind. It is an example of your own bias. Of course, you confuse the two constantly. Here's another perfect example. Thank you again. You're quite generous today. <<When someone disagrees with you, it's because they're "biased.">> <No, not everyone who disagrees with me. Only those who refuse to accept certain ideas. > Disagreement is not refusal to accept. You should learn the difference there as well. <<Not sure who the "they" is here, but you definitely said that Loving was not about marriage.>> <The "they" are people are so biased they refuse to accept certain ideas, and I did not say that Loving was not about marriage.> I wish those threads were still up.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh I give up. You're simply delusional. You're distorting what was said, even things that are still available for review.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>I give up. You're simply delusional. You're distorting what was said, even things that are still available for review.<< Are you looking in a mirror when you say that? Wasn't it you who just tried to distinguish between "evidence" and "concrete evidence" (but you never parse, spin, or play semantics, no sir). >>I'm sorry. I was attempting to illustrate how silly your demand of "proof" was; I assumed you were bright enough to understand what I was doing.<< That's quite the personal attack coming from someone who shouts "personal attack" quite frequently.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Are you looking in a mirror when you say that?> No, I'm looking right at Dabob. <Wasn't it you who just tried to distinguish between "evidence" and "concrete evidence" (but you never parse, spin, or play semantics, no sir).> Because, of course, there is a difference between "evidence" and "concrete evidence". And when someone starts claiming they asked for the latter, when they asked for the former, then it's they who are not debating honestly. <That's quite the personal attack coming from someone who shouts "personal attack" quite frequently.> Yes, it was. But when someone keeps moving the goalposts, distorting what I say, and then accuses me of lying, I think a personal attack is called for. I've never claimed to be perfect.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Actually, I don't think you're liars. I don't think you're too clueless to lie. You're just completely delusional.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh You're completely delusional. I'm not the one distorting what was said. It's you and your liberal pals.
