Originally Posted By DouglasDubh The words of the clueless mean nothing. Which is why your insults don't bother me. That you constantly resort to insults or distortions shows you don't have the ability to think an argument through.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan What was the topic again? Oh yeah, Fred Thompson. I liked him in Die Hard 2.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder I liked Fred in Hunt For Red October, too. He was pretty good in Law and Order. Now I can't separate his shameless politicking from his acting.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>I liked Fred in Hunt For Red October, too. He was pretty good in Law and Order. Now I can't separate his shameless politicking from his acting.<< He was good in those. But doesn't he end up playing the bureaucrat who doesn't get it in a bunch of his movies? That's who he was in In the Line of Fire, and, IIRC, Die Hard 2. Maybe it's not the best foreshadow of his Presidency. (I'm kidding, BTW, for the humor-impaired.)
Originally Posted By jonvn I don't think Thompson has a chance. I don't see why anyone would vote for him.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I give up. You're simply delusional. You're distorting what was said, even things that are still available for review> I love it. I demolish your argument point by point, and you're left with an insult. Typical. The simple fact is, you have NO kind of evidence, concrete or otherwise. Coming to the conclusion that CNN "must have" omitted a word in this particular case because (in your opinion) they have a shown a bias in other cases is not evidence. Of any kind. You're right on one point. The posts are still there. So, as always, I invite anyone (if remotely interested, which is doubtful) to read them and see what the real deal is. Sorry, jonvn - I know deep down you're right, but I keep hoping for the "old Doug" to come back. I miss that guy.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 And the truth is you had no evidence, concrete or otherwise. Cop to it, man. Just say "my bad' or something. Because you're making yourself look foolish.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Because you're making yourself look foolish.<< We're way past foolish and into "deliberately ignorant" territory. Foolishness is one thing; obfuscation just to be a "winner" of an argument is quite another. That's sadly what I've come to realize about the die hard supporters. Most (but not all) seem to care little about the dead soldiers, and even less about the dead Iraqis. What they care about is their ego; they care about being right. They just can't fess up and admit that their guy is a complete, blathering idiot who can't manage to do much right when it comes to this war. He's so incompetent he had to appoint a war czar, for hell sake. Idiots, just like corruption (see the New Orleans thread) transcend partisan politics. Only ego would prevent someone from admitting otherwise. Bush is a moron; Democratic Representative Jefferson is completely corrupt; so was Tom Delay. We're worse off as Americans when people are so desperate to be right that they defend the indefensible because they've chosen to associate themselves with a political party. It's ego and insecurity that drives Douglas's obstinance. Nothing more.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh It's either that or you're purposefully distorting what I said. And it's been sad for a while.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Please point out an example of where I distorted what you said. And for your own sake, please make it one where someone besides you would accept that definition. In fact, the very reason I always repeat your quotes verbatim is so that everyone can see there is no distortion. But give it a shot, anyway. Meanwhile, how 'bout that Fred Thompson?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh I'll give it a shot, but I'm sure you'll say it's not a distortion. In post 19 I said, "Well, this is CNN we're talking about. It's not inconceivable that they would leave out a qualifier that would make a conservative seem more reasonable." You questioned if I had evidence of that, and I said, in post 30, "Of course I do. None that you would accept as conclusive, of course." Of course, you couldn't just let this go, and focus on the issue, you had to keep hounding me, and then claiming that I said I had concrete evidence, when I never did, and finally you pretended I said, "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" This is a distortion of what I said.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 It's an accurate (if hyperbolic) demonstration of your reasoning. Leaving your parsing of "evidence" vs. "concrete evidence" aside, you claimed you had evidence. But you had none, of any type. Only a belief that CNN was biased in general, and therefore that was "evidence" enough for you that they left out a qualifier in this particular instance. Of course, that doesn't pass the logic test, the smell test, or anything else. I believe Fox news to be horribly biased, but if I had no evidence that they left out words when reporting on, say, Hillary Clinton in a particular instance, I would not claim to have evidence that they did. Feelings and beliefs are not evidence, of any type, Doug. I perhaps should have left out the quotes when stating your position, but it is not a distorted position. It accurately describes the "evidence" you claimed to have, while not actually having any.
