Originally posted by FMFYou never are willing to support them when challenged, which is deceptive. You refuse to accept the burden of proof; you actively avoid having to enter the realm of logic. You prefer sophism, rhetoric and trolling.
What does '[your lack of] trustworthiness when it comes to facts' mean?
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungNo, no. Don't climb down ungraciously.
I'm not interested in being interrogated by someone who refuses to answer questions.
Which of the stances of mine, that you listed, are "far left" according to you?
Here they were:
You accuse others' sources of being biased to the right, but never left.
You're very critical of Bush, but not Obama.
You're pro-choice.
You're highly critical of capitalism;
you believe social democracy is needed to reign in the free market.
You favor government control of airwaves rather than private ownership.
Your fervent, bitter conflicts with conservatives like whodey and Hugh Glass are more evidence.
There was your recent detailed support for rwingett with respect to Chavez - rwingett was exceptionally admiring if your argument and he is a self described far leftists.
Which ones are "far left"?
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIt is, at worst 'unconvincing', assuming your accusation is true [because you have difficulty relating to nuance, I've noticed] but to call me a liar is a bit over the top.
You never are willing to support them when challenged, which is deceptive.
Originally posted by FMF1. the entire line.
No, no. Don't climb down ungraciously.
Which of the stances of mine, that you listed, are "far left" according to you?
Here they were:
[b]You accuse others' sources of being biased to the right, but never left.
You're very critical of Bush, but not Obama.
You're pro-choice.
You're highly critical of capitalism;
you believe social democra ...[text shortened]... t control of airwaves rather than private ownership.
Which ones are "far left"?[/b]
2. the part where it says "very".
3. (not a far left position)
4. the part where it says "highly".
5. (depends on the weighting used by the generator)
6. (not a far left position, if this is referring to the current status quo)
Originally posted by zeeblebotare we settled on this?
http://www.google.com/custom?hl=en&client=pub-5386907765195439&channel=5656732914&cof=FORID%3A13%3BAH%3Aleft%3BS%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.linuxmint.com%3BCX%3AGoogle%3BL%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.linuxmint.com%2Fimg%2Fcse.[WORD TOO LONG] ...[text shortened]... president-george-w-bush
12345678910Next
Originally posted by zeeblebotHas Bush criticized Cheney's behaviour?
http://www.google.com/custom?hl=en&client=pub-5386907765195439&channel=5656732914&cof=FORID%3A13%3BAH%3Aleft%3BS%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.linuxmint.com%3BCX%3AGoogle%3BL%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.linuxmint.com%2Fimg%2Fcse.[WORD TOO LONG] ...[text shortened]... president-george-w-bush
12345678910Next
yes:
http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/001434.htm
During his first post-presidential appearance yesterday in Canada, George W. Bush said he would refrain from criticizing his successor, insisting President Obama "deserves my silence." Apparently, Dick Cheney did not read the memo. In a blistering attack on Obama just two days earlier, Cheney ignored Bush's Golden Rule.
Originally posted by zeeblebotThat's not an answer.
During his first post-presidential appearance yesterday in Canada, George W. Bush said he would refrain from criticizing his successor, insisting President Obama "deserves my silence." Apparently, Dick Cheney did not read the memo. In a blistering attack on Obama just two days earlier, Cheney ignored Bush's Golden Rule.
Has Bush actually criticized Cheney's behaviour?
Try again.
Originally posted by zeeblebotTen citations of the SAME comment in March 18??? And a comment in which Bush did not criticize Cheney-type behaviour - maybe because Cheney's more egregious behaviour had not happened yet.
12345678910Next
Any examples of Bush distancing himself from Cheney in, say, the last 3 or 4 months?
this is a chess site. most of us are fairly intelligent. but for you, i keep having to spell things out, and even then, you just repeat ad infinitum.
try this on for size:
in my opinion ....
bush's statement coming two days after cheney's is a criticism of cheney's statement. it is not a random coincidence.