For what that’s worth. :shrug: I already provided evidence of his lying in this thread. Nobody has provided evidence of the OP lying.
Spend more time in GD if you want to see more of Bricker’s act. You might change your mind.
Lamar, those documents were forged by somebody, and broadcast by CBS. It is possible to parse Sinaijon’s assertion in such a way as not to make that link. His assertion that I was “defending” them, though, is not only a very silly lie, but utterly misses (or, perhaps, assiduously avoids, Bricker-style) the broader point about Bush and his sense of responsibility.
I understand that the documents were forged, but they were forged by someone and given to CBS. IMO, the poster clearly makes the assertion that CBS forged them. I know a lot of conservatives who believe Dan Rather forged them personally.
Elvis you are really looking like an idiot in this thread. You may want to quit before the OP asks you to stop under-cutting the point he attempted to make in the OP.
Elvisl1ves reminds me of those occasional psychofans you meet at a sporting event who really believe that the opposing team is pure evil; that the refs never make bad calls in favor of his team; etc.
Really??? Maybe he made the comment under his breath, but only after it was obvious that taking the conversation further would be equal to banging his head against a brick wall.
Simply repeating the same basic statement (especially when it offers no sort of evidence to support the position) does not exactly scream “I’m interested in pursuing a hypothetical.”
Not really. I think one person reporting real anecdotes and one person generating plausible but fictional anecdotes are two different things, and I wanted to point that out. When Bricker clarified he was relating real anecdotes as well, I withdrew my point. I have as much reason to doubt him as the OP, and I choose to take both at face value without evidence to the contrary.
I’m glad you clarified that, because the whole exchange seemed to indicate that you didn’t believe him. First of all, because he never said they were hyopthetical at all, so I’m confused as to why you thought they were, and secondly, because your response “As you say” doesn’t acknowledge the fact that you were wrong and had no basis for believing his examples were hypothetical…it kind of sounds like another version of “if you say so,” which typically does not indicate acceptance of what the other person has said.
Well, he didn’t say they were real either. Someone asked for a similar conversation with the political roles swapped, and Bricker showed up with some. I inferred he was just putting out hypothetical examples. “As you say” does sound like “if you say so”, so that was a goof on my part. “Fair enough” would have been better.
No, he didn’t explicitly say they were real, but Kolga didn’t ask for “examples of similar conversations with the political roles swapped,” but rather, if anyone could give “concrete examples of liberals doing the same thing,” and Bricker said, “Of course I can. Borrowing the format of the OP:” whereupon he did exactly what the OP did. I really don’t see how you could infer anything other than he was recounting conversations he had, just as the OP did.
But, either way, I understand now that you did not mean to call Bricker’s honesty into question…I just wanted to explain why I construed it that way.
For what it’s worth, I didn’t take away any impression except that you weren’t sure if I was being hypothetical or real, I clarified, and that was that for you.
I could have added a couple more examples, but they were way out there (think “All property is theft!”) and I didn’t think it was accurate to call proponents of those ideas “liberal.”