No collaborative relationship

[shira]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Those 3 questions, CsG, are a dishonest attempt to move the burden of proof away from the accusers, where that burden rightfully resides.

Being called on that, you now attempt "the splitting of the hairs", as Poirot might put it, to weasel your way out of it, claiming that repeated demands for "facts" aren't a demand for "evidence". I suppose, that in the realm of rightwing framing and spin, that "facts" aren't really "evidence"- given that the "evidence" used to justify the invasion of Iraq in the first place was, indeed, not "fact" at all.

They'll never agree that the invasion was a mistake, shira. They have an emotional investment in the propaganda constructs used to achieve the invasion, the same propaganda constructs used to justify all Rightwing Bush policy, foreign and domestic. If any part of it were false, in their eyes, they'd have to question the very basis for their entire fervent belief structure, which would be utterly beyond the capabilities of their psychology. First, Believe- then intellectually justify such beliefs, rather than vice-versa. And, even if you don't believe it, as CsG basically admitted with the denial of representing this allegation as fact, defend the party line, anyway, avoiding cognitive dissonance... Attack, always attack, since there is, as you've pointed out, no point in attempting to defend the indefensible...

Of course they'll never agree. I just like bringing to the surface what intellectual frauds CSG and his kind are.

Mind you, there are many principled people who were and are pro-invasion. Although I may disagree with their assumptions, I have no issue with those who take a consistent intellectual position and follow it through to wherever it leads.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
Allawi is a puppet. He's a tool. We've already seen the forged documents pointing to people like Galloway and the Oil-for-Food scandal. And now, out of thin air these documents appear? GIVE ME A BREAK!

Ah, so you chose "duhversion" instead of addressing it. Figures...

CsG

Gee, CsG. Aren't you the one who used the counterargument, "It's only an allegation" in another thread, and then proceeded to assume the allegation was false for the remainder of your post? How convenient that your, er, principles are so, er, flexible.

Gee, have I stated that the OP is "fact"? Why no, no I haven't. So take you fake outrage and stuff it.

CsG

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
Allawi is a puppet. He's a tool. We've already seen the forged documents pointing to people like Galloway and the Oil-for-Food scandal. And now, out of thin air these documents appear? GIVE ME A BREAK!

Ah, so you chose "duhversion" instead of addressing it. Figures...

CsG

Gee, CsG. Aren't you the one who used the counterargument, "It's only an allegation" in another thread, and then proceeded to assume the allegation was false for the remainder of your post? How convenient that your, er, principles are so, er, flexible.

Gee, have I stated that the OP is "fact"? Why no, no I haven't. So take you fake outrage and stuff it.

CsG

So shouldn't you be asking for the person who makes a claim for proof of that claim, instead of asking for proof that the claim is false?

If a White House staff member said, "Bush constantly locks himself in the bathroom with a bunch of kiddie porn" wouldn't you want him to prove it? Or would you expect people to take it as truth until/unless it's proven false?

If you don't believe what someone says without proof, why do you expect others to?

 

[judasmachine]

AQ was formed most likely in Afgahnistan or Saudi Arabia. Or wherever the CIA recruited people to fight the Soviets.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
Allawi is a puppet. He's a tool. We've already seen the forged documents pointing to people like Galloway and the Oil-for-Food scandal. And now, out of thin air these documents appear? GIVE ME A BREAK!

Ah, so you chose "duhversion" instead of addressing it. Figures...

CsG

Gee, CsG. Aren't you the one who used the counterargument, "It's only an allegation" in another thread, and then proceeded to assume the allegation was false for the remainder of your post? How convenient that your, er, principles are so, er, flexible.

Gee, have I stated that the OP is "fact"? Why no, no I haven't. So take you fake outrage and stuff it.

CsG

So shouldn't you be asking for the person who makes a claim for proof of that claim, instead of asking for proof that the claim is false?

If a White House staff member said, "Bush constantly locks himself in the bathroom with a bunch of kiddie porn" wouldn't you want him to prove it? Or would you expect people to take it as truth until/unless it's proven false?

If you don't believe what someone says without proof, why do you expect others to?

Do you guys really enjoy getting into pissing matches day after day after day?

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
Allawi is a puppet. He's a tool. We've already seen the forged documents pointing to people like Galloway and the Oil-for-Food scandal. And now, out of thin air these documents appear? GIVE ME A BREAK!

Ah, so you chose "duhversion" instead of addressing it. Figures...

CsG

Gee, CsG. Aren't you the one who used the counterargument, "It's only an allegation" in another thread, and then proceeded to assume the allegation was false for the remainder of your post? How convenient that your, er, principles are so, er, flexible.

These are from the OP's linked article...
[*] "...former Iraqi premier Iyad Allawi has revealed to pan-Arab daily al-Hayat."
[*] "He also said that..."
[*] "...Allawi said."
[*] "According to Allawi,..."
[*] "...Allawi affirmed..."
[*] "On this question Allawi said: ..."
[*] "In Allawi's view, ..."
[*] "...he said."
[*] "The former prime minister claims that ..."
[*] "He added that..."

I won't be holding my breath for ANY of the "they're just allegations" crowd (CAD being the biggest, but many of his followers piped in also in various threads) to say anthing about 'allegations' here.

C'mon CAD. Say it. Say that they're allegations. No, that's not good enough. Say, "They're JUST allegations." C'mon. Say it.

 

[judasmachine]

Actually let's hold our breath while these are authenticated by someone who has no political aspirations......

/dead

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
Allawi is a puppet. He's a tool. We've already seen the forged documents pointing to people like Galloway and the Oil-for-Food scandal. And now, out of thin air these documents appear? GIVE ME A BREAK!

Ah, so you chose "duhversion" instead of addressing it. Figures...

CsG

Gee, CsG. Aren't you the one who used the counterargument, "It's only an allegation" in another thread, and then proceeded to assume the allegation was false for the remainder of your post? How convenient that your, er, principles are so, er, flexible.

Gee, have I stated that the OP is "fact"? Why no, no I haven't. So take you fake outrage and stuff it.

CsG

So shouldn't you be asking for the person who makes a claim for proof of that claim, instead of asking for proof that the claim is false?

If a White House staff member said, "Bush constantly locks himself in the bathroom with a bunch of kiddie porn" wouldn't you want him to prove it? Or would you expect people to take it as truth until/unless it's proven false?

If you don't believe what someone says without proof, why do you expect others to?

Do you guys really enjoy getting into pissing matches day after day after day?

Well I can't speak for CAD, but I get a warm and fuzzy feeling all over when I get to showcase CAD's blatant hypocrisy. (Which is quite often)

Better than sex.

Ok, not really better than sex, but better than purple popsicles.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
Allawi is a puppet. He's a tool. We've already seen the forged documents pointing to people like Galloway and the Oil-for-Food scandal. And now, out of thin air these documents appear? GIVE ME A BREAK!

Ah, so you chose "duhversion" instead of addressing it. Figures...

CsG

Gee, CsG. Aren't you the one who used the counterargument, "It's only an allegation" in another thread, and then proceeded to assume the allegation was false for the remainder of your post? How convenient that your, er, principles are so, er, flexible.

Gee, have I stated that the OP is "fact"? Why no, no I haven't. So take you fake outrage and stuff it.

CsG

So shouldn't you be asking for the person who makes a claim for proof of that claim, instead of asking for proof that the claim is false?

If a White House staff member said, "Bush constantly locks himself in the bathroom with a bunch of kiddie porn" wouldn't you want him to prove it? Or would you expect people to take it as truth until/unless it's proven false?

If you don't believe what someone says without proof, why do you expect others to?

Do you guys really enjoy getting into pissing matches day after day after day?

Well I can't speak for CAD, but I get a warm and fuzzy feeling all over when I get to showcase CAD's blatant hypocrisy. (Which is quite often)

Better than sex.

Ok, not really better than sex, but better than purple popsicles.

Well, you obviously like stroking yourself because there is no hypocrisy here.

If you had half a clue, you'd realize that my posts to conjur were not demands for proof otherwise -they were merely questions to IF he had anything suggesting otherwise. He has refused to answer the yes/no questions and instead proceeded with his specialty - character assasination.

Also, you seem to have missed(purposely?) that I never claimed the statements were "fact" - however conjur's character assasination of Allawi doesn't confirm or put into question the statements Allawi made.

But hey, keep fellating yourself if you must...

CsG

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

If you had half a clue, you'd realize that my posts to conjur were not demands for proof otherwise -they were merely questions to IF he had anything suggesting otherwise.

Are you truly this moronic? What possible "anything suggesting otherwise" could ANYONE possibly have? When something is NOT true, all you get is a LACK of evidence. When the stories of the connection between Saddam and International Terrorism were addressed in the Bipartisan Commission's report, the language used was, "a lack of evidence".

For an example closer to (your) home: If someone alleges that you give oral sex to your parakeet, and that is NOT true, what information "showing" that you don't give oral sex to your parakeet do you think exists? NONE! All there will be is a LACK of evidence that you do "service" your parakeet.

Get it?

What's utterly contemptible is that you don't assume this "do you have evidence" stance when an allegation is made against someone on the right. You simply make the claim that "it's only an allegation", and dismiss it out of hand.

Do you recall that thread less than a month ago about the right-winger, who gave speeches about morality from the church pulpet, whose ex-wife claimed that he frequently perpetrated forced sodomy on her? You just dismissed that claim as an allegation.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

If you had half a clue, you'd realize that my posts to conjur were not demands for proof otherwise -they were merely questions to IF he had anything suggesting otherwise.

Are you truly this moronic? What possible "anything suggesting otherwise" could ANYONE possibly have? When something is NOT true, all you get is a LACK of evidence. When the stories of the connection between Saddam and International Terrorism were addressed in the Bipartisan Commission's report, the language used was, "a lack of evidence".

For an example closer to (your) home: If someone alleges that you give oral sex to your parakeet, and that is NOT true, what information "showing" that you don't give oral sex to your parakeet do you think exists? NONE! All there will be is a LACK of evidence that you do "service" your parakeet.

Get it?

What's utterly contemptible is that you don't assume this "do you have evidence" stance when an allegation is made against someone on the right. You simply make the claim that "it's only an allegation", and dismiss it out of hand.

Do you recall that thread less than a month ago about the right-winger, who gave speeches about morality from the church pulpet, whose ex-wife claimed that he frequently perpetrated forced sodomy on her? You just dismissed that claim as an allegation.

Again, read what I posted. They are yes/no questions so take your fake outrage and shove it. You can think they are more than yes/no questions, but if you actually took time to read instead of ASSume - you'd understand. Clearly, I was trying to get conjur to talk about something of substance instead of continuing with his character assassination. But hey, he wouldn't even admit he had nothing. Ususally those things would transpire like this:
Me(to get him out of character assassination mode): "you have something showing contrary?"
conjur: "No. Do you have evidence to back up Allawi's claims?"

At that point I would have said "No, just his statements at this point".

So you see, we would have been talking about the substance of the OP instead of dealing with conjur's childish character assassination.

CsG

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
If you had half a clue, you'd realize that my posts to conjur were not demands for proof otherwise -they were merely questions to IF he had anything suggesting otherwise.

Are you truly this moronic? ...

He can be when he's trying to evade accountability for his words.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
If you had half a clue, you'd realize that my posts to conjur were not demands for proof otherwise -they were merely questions to IF he had anything suggesting otherwise.

Are you truly this moronic? ...

He can be when he's trying to evade accountability for his words.

That's rich coming from you. "rampant hateful stereotyping of Muslims." ring a bell? :laugh:

CsG

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
That's rich coming from you. "rampant hateful stereotyping of Muslims." ring a bell? :laugh:

CsG

Get well soon.