Originally posted by FMF What does '[your lack of] trustworthiness when it comes to facts' mean?
You 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.
Originally posted by AThousandYoung I'm not interested in being interrogated by someone who refuses to answer questions.
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:
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.
Originally posted by AThousandYoung You never are willing to support them when challenged, which is deceptive.
It 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.
Originally posted by zeeblebot 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.png%3BLH%3A100%3BLP%3A1%3BVLC%3A%23663399%3BDIV%3A%23336699%3B&adkw=AELymgWJLbwTF4nDjNlVeyTI_a43jK04S7X2wBJKmIVLKL4sAJg7HZfAd20D9kk3XxX_gNGryoaVPj1DL ...[text shortened]... president-george-w-bush
Originally posted by zeeblebot 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.png%3BLH%3A100%3BLP%3A1%3BVLC%3A%23663399%3BDIV%3A%23336699%3B&adkw=AELymgWJLbwTF4nDjNlVeyTI_a43jK04S7X2wBJKmIVLKL4sAJg7HZfAd20D9kk3XxX_gNGryoaVPj1DL ...[text shortened]... president-george-w-bush
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 zeeblebot 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 zeeblebot 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Ten 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.
Any examples of Bush distancing himself from Cheney in, say, the last 3 or 4 months?