The examples I said I didn’t have the time or inclination to provide? Keep waiting. In the meantime, you keep providing more and more examples of liberal stupidity in this very thread.
No, because you have a several-decade head start at developing the concrete knowledge and game-specific pattern recognition skills necessary to play well.
He may be cavilling about the definition of “disciplined.”
I seldom provide cites from Huffington Post. But it seems fitting here.
Confirming that there was, in fact, no disciplining involved, despite your lie that there was, is “caviling”?
The First Rule of Holes, schmuck. :rolleyes:
We all know what that means, troll.
I think this cite might be applicable on a number of levels. Our esteemed ElvisL1ves continuing to defend the CBS forged Bush documents. From a little under a year ago, no less.
Are you or are you not willing to admit that the conversations depicted in the OP might be described differently by the other party?
Of course. So what?
Sinaijon, to quote myself from the link you thoughtfully provided; "The story about Bush’s AWOL/desertion was well-established, via a number of other sources, before this document ever appeared. The problem is that the Bush diehards have used this forgery as proof, in their minds, that all the rest of the evidence was faked too. "
IOW, you haven’t figured it out yet. :rolleyes:
So why did you question Bricker’s stories and not the OP’s?
Yes, all of which was refuted in the linked thread by a NG veteran.
Thanks for proving my point, though.
So now the open-minded, thinking, willing-to-examine-ideas liberals are assuming Bricker’s examples are embellished and/or biased, but the OP’s examples happened exactly as reported.
Seriously, this thread is hilarious.
Where did you see me “defending the CBS forged Bush documents”, as you claimed above that I did? :rolleyes: Silly child.
LA, I already asked “So what?” Explain your point, please - in the context of the OP topic if you can.
Remember that Bricker has a well-established reputation coming in. It saves a bit of time to use the default presumptions that he has so earnestly striven for.
Who but the OP has said so?
Yep.
I just find it funny that the OP tells some stories that many use as evidence that conservatives are stupid, brainless fools, but when Bricker comes up with some counter-examples, you question their authenticity.
In other words, your bias is showing.
ElvisL1ves, Bricker may be a conservative, but I believe him to be no more a liar than the OP.
Sarahfeena, it’s only one poster, not liberals, who’s challenged Bricker so far.
Barry Goldwater was smart, too, but he isn’t influencing Republican policies anymore than Buckley was. Have you seen what’s happened to The National Review lately? All the old style Republicans are gone or leaving (Byron York is the latest) and all that’s left are a bunch of Young Republican types that are in love with Sarah Palin.
How can I “remember” something that I don’t know to be true?
Well, then, I ask the same question as others…why do you not challenge the OP in the same way you have challenged Bricker?
No, two posters…you and Elvis. And neither of you has challenged the OP.
CBS didn’t forge any documents. Another exhibit to add to the OP.
The nonfactuality of the “conservative” position in the OP conversations is either self-evident or already established. Yes, it may be possible that the interlocutor was talking about something totally unrelated. Note, btw, that nowhere have I even addressed any of the topics the OP claims to have discussed. So why are you going after me?
The nonfactuality of a Bricker claim often requires a bit of googling to establish (but usually only a bit), and once again I’ve done so. His well-earned reputation for dishonesty is nobody else’s responsibility but his own, though.
I did ask you to put your point in the context of the topic. Can you do so?
If I were to make a hasty generalization about all liberals based on your posts, I would be committing the same logical fallacy as the OP.
How’s that?