And doesn’t understand most of it.
Regards,
Shodan
You’re too stupid to click a fucking link?
Not really. I’m used to it and I understand it.
They are like Tolkien Orcs who are ugly, stupid and short-lived and hate the elves because they are wise, beautiful and immortal.
They are simply jealous of my magnificence. Who can blame them?
Did you try it before you posted that?
Somebody gonna owe me a 'pology.
To be fair, you’re not helping. :smack:
But it won’t be elucidator. His citation is to a specific Tom Blumer column from March 13, 2009, which makes more or less the same assertion you made in post 1605, but does not in any way compare anyone named Caine to anyone named Clinton at any point in the column. And while I have no doubt that somewhere in the pages of Newsbusters, some idiot is excusing the alleged sexual behavior of one Herman Cain (no “e” at the end) by citing the failure of Republicans to remove one William Jefferson Clinton from office for his peccadilloes, that stupidity does not occur in 'luc’s cite. Just the specific stupidity that agrees with yours appears there.
Had you a better citation to offer perhaps you shoulda.
I think your portable devices linking may well be as bad as its auto-correct–the link in question goes to the story '**luci **was quoting.
Weird. I still get the same Clinton Caine thing.
If the cite agrees with what I said why is this a problem for me?
You could confirm that as the origin of your claim, that we couid be assured that other things you refuse to substantiate are based on the same rock-solid integrity displayed by Newsbusters.
No. That’s not the origin of my claim. The origin of my claim is having been alive and having paid attention, and being able to remember what happened a mere three years ago.
Bush started the Tarp, but because it wod have to be continued by Obama, both wanted a continuous. Coordinated plan. So, bush worked with the transition team, so that it was bipartisan. Later Bush offered to ask Congess for an additional 3 billion or so if Obama wanted it. He did, so Bush did.
I think Geitner kept on two of Bush’s team so that their would be consistency. It was a pretty decent example of cooperation and bipartisanship.
You don’t fucking remember any of this at all?
My attitude toward cite requests is that if I say something like “74% of all chigger bites produce halitosis as a side effect.” and then somebody asks for a cite, than I probably owe them one.
I’ll usually provide a cite to substantiate a specific fact that I’ve stated.
If I’m explaining how markets or CDOs work or something like that you can either take my word for it or get a textbook. I kinda figure if you are going to debate something g you need to know how it works. It is unreasonable to expect the other person to educate while you fight them kicking and screaming.
If I explain something and you ask me for a cite without specifying what it is you want verified you will likely get nothing or a general cite.
If you ask me sarcastically for a cite to substantiate my “lies, fairy tales” or what have you, you probably won’t get one.
If your name is Elucidator, RTF, or any of about another half dozen people who I feel simply spam others with cite requests for annoyance value, and have never been to known to accept an opposing cite, anyway you are probably not getting a cite because I don’t take you seriously as debaters.
You too can use google.
In their defense, you do like to lie. You’re doing it right now, aren’t you?
That’s insulting. I never lie. Well, not never. In certain very extreme situations I may be known to stretch the truth a little, but only in the service of like some greater good, you know like winning the argument, avoiding inconvenience, or for fun, or to make money. Things like that. But everybody does that, right?
Only in the sense that if you believe it to be true, it is not a lie.
What other “sense” is there?
That’s not a lie. That’s ignorance/stupidity.
Well, another sense would be that you are knowingly misrepresenting the facts. I don’t think you are. You just can’t bothered to substantiate most of what you have convinced yourself is reality. I agree, you are not lying; you are just willfully ignorant.
I suppose that’s possible.
In my defense though I notice that you haven’t actually taken issue with anything specific that I’ve said and then requested a cite for that issue.
So far the only thing you asked me to substantiate was a “fairy tale.”
I think I am totally justified to blow that off.
Seeing as You failed to accurately define “lie.” I’m hard pressed to feel concern over your assessment of my integrity.
And that’s the truth!
Or is it?