A read through that thread, along with others that you’ve participated in, doesn’t reveal any witty rejoinders or anything even remotely approaching o devastating retort. Could you please point out one?
Cuz I gotta say, just you talking about how great your posts are and how everyone else is nowhere near as brilliant as you are makes you sound like a second-rate Ninja Turtle.
Or Humpy - he was always good for shitting the bed and then shouting “WINNING!”
That’s exactly who I was referring to
LOL - I see now
I realized long ago that way too many people here never bothered to check out links, and a too large fraction of those who did never read them all the way through. That goes double for those who didn’t really want an actual debate and had no interest in finding out they might be wrong.
I learned that I was much better off quoting the necessary portion and making it visible to everyone.
If I can get that through my thick skull then nobody has an excuse for not learning it themselves.
None of this justifies the boors who don’t bother to click on links and yet repeat their nonsense post after post. It’s just nice that my way everybody in the thread immediately sees what they’re doing and they have no dark corners to scuttle to.
Questions? Answering questions? I’ve repeatedly invited you to explain, even briefly, some of your more peculiar claims on economics and you have consistently refused. (Kudos to Budget Player Cadet who “took one for the team” and finally informed us about Hayek’s ‘solution’ to external costs.)
As always, great contribution.
As always, great contribution.
I never said there was no connection. If you will kindly point to where I said there was no connection, that would be great.
What I said was what you quoted. Wikileaks collusion is characterized as Russian collusion. The fact that there is some link between them does not mean that the two types of collusion should be conflated as they have been in the reporting.
If anything the poster tried to shift the goalposts at the outset. I asked for evidence about why the two types of collusion are conflated in the reporting. He responded by saying there is a connection between Russia and Wikileaks. There are all kinds of connections. Manafort and Wikileaks can collude on things. Wikileaks and Russia can collude on things.
There was no evidence presented that Manafort was trying to collude with Russians through Wikileaks. Indeed it is ridiculous to think that he would need to go through Assange to do so. This is why I continually asked about the nature of the internal communications. If there was a basis for the conflation of the two types of collusion, it could have been there.
As for your insinuation that my dismissal of cites based on their sources was out of line, that is ridiculous. Of course you can dismiss a cite if the source is not reliable. This is standard in debate and evaluating sources is elementary to good journalism.
If I responded to your fanboyish requests for me to lay out some sort of manifesto, I would definitely be forced to derail the thread. That is why I ignore them. If you want to ask questions, open a thread in the appropriate forum.
So you can’t be bothers to read someone else’s citations and you can’t be bothers to provide your own.
This debate thing may not be your cup of tea.
What are you talking about? Septimus follows me around to every thread and begs me to write a hardcore libertarian manifesto. I should provide cites for what?
septimus: I’ve repeatedly invited you to explain, even briefly, some of your more peculiar claims on economics and you have consistently refused.
Will: Septimus follows me around to every thread and begs me to write a hardcore libertarian manifesto.
I think I see the problem. Will wants too much drama.
I’m just glad to know that from now on if I post a cite from a ‘right wing’ source people will be forced to read it if they want to avoid being banned from a thread. Because I can’t count the number of times I’ve had a cite completely disregarded on this board because it didn’t come from a source approved by my debate opponents.
I’m gonna guess that said disregard only happened after repeatedly finding that a source was shite, not before ever checking the source. For example, it wouldn’t matter how many links to James O’Keefe’s websites were provided: they would all be shite.
There’s this spiffy thing people do, when they feel like their side is unfairly targeted, where they deliberately misunderstand what’s going on in order to justify future poor behavior on their part. You’re not doing that, but goddamn if you’re not doing then next spiffiest thing, pretending to be happy about a ruling that you know for sure won’t occur, based on a deliberate misunderstanding of what’s happening.
I’m not sure what you get from it, but cool beans.
When was the last time you read someone’s cite from CATO, or AEI, or the Heritage Foundation, before weighing in on their opinions?
I don’t remember seeing such a cite recently, but ITR Champion loved to trot out a CATO cite about one particular school with a corrupt administration who got a buttload of money and, amazingly enough, didn’t become un-corrupt. His conclusion, IIRC, was that you couldn’t fix public education with increased expenditures. And I read the entire damned cite looking for any support for that conclusion.
Yeah, I’ll very often read cites through entirely. Picking shitty cites apart is fun times.
But it’s not required–as you know!–and a failure to do so is also not what Farnaby was modded for–as you almost certainly know.
Also, your equivalency is absurd. The cites weren’t to left-wing think-tanks; they were to Time Magazine and AP News and the like. They gave direct cites to high-level intelligence officials. They’re pretty much the gold standard for citing this sort of thing.
Every time; feel free to cite my post showing otherwise.
I was modded for derailing the thread through a failure to “review” cites and having my “fingers in my ears”. Please follow.
I could be wrong, but I don’t think he’s going to fit in your ears.