Having spent the day in boring busy work, I’ve had the chance to ruminate about the many, many things wrong with Barbara Boxer’s attack on Condi Rice. To refresh your recollection, here’s what happened (courtesy of the New York Post,…

i cited the title of the article. i’m not saying i made it up. the title is: “eritrea a threat to the u.s.?” just as i said, the weekly standard was suggesting that eritrea might be a threat to the u.s. i didn’t make that up again.

So asking the question is the same as stating it is? Logical?
No. I think they asked the question and then presented their facts and left it up to the reader to decide. I personally didn’t see anything in it that would imply any threat to the US and really don’t know what they saw that made them think it.

I sure think you read a whole lot more into that title than I did.

Define progressive.

How can a Jew support a democrat?

and here is the inconsistency:
(2) i don’t hate america or think it is evil

All liberals say this but all, without fail do everything that a person that hates America would do.
So I judge more by what you do than say. Even tho I can only judge by what you write.
You write that you don’t hate America, but you endorse everything and everyone that do.

Answer this. Is America a force for good in the world, or is it a force for evil?

Do you think there is a war on Christmas?

I don’t think what’s in your head is significantly different than all the other SP’s in the world. In fact I’ll bet you sing about 95% of the same songs. (and I’m not talking about music)

hey, you’re right. the link on brendan’s site is broken. it wasn’t always. i wonder what happened. i’ll have to email him to see if he can fix it.

the article said eritrea was challenging……. yada yada yada, so basically you’re saying you just made it up, the article never said it. You just applied it because it sounded good. You didn’t cite one sentence in the article that said what you said it did.

i cited the title of the article. i’m not saying i made it up. the title is: “eritrea a threat to the u.s.?” just as i said, the weekly standard was suggesting that eritrea might be a threat to the u.s. i didn’t make that up again.

As little as I can, there’s nothing nice about them and they only hate America. They basically think America is an evil place that does more bad than good. Do you fit that category? The jury is still out. But they are deliberating and it ain’t looking too good right now.

i can prove you wrong right now:

(1) i am liberal

(2) i don’t hate america or think it is evil

therefore, i win!!!

see how easy that was? in all seriousness, any time you base an argument on what is going on in my head, you will lose the argument. it’s just that simple. i simply know better what i think, or what i hate or don’t hate than you do. so long as you are not a liberal, you cannot be certain what is going on in a liberal’s head. if you insist upon basing your arguments on the premise that liberals “hate america” you will simply lose ever time. i am a liberal, and i do not hate america. there’s a counter-example that you cannot contradict because i have better access to my own thoughts than you do. Q.E.D.

Are you familiar with Culture Warrior by Bill O’reilly where he defines Secular Progressives (describes most libs) and Traditionalists. The SP’s are the America haters.

i’m familiar with it, but haven’t read the book (o’reilly is a bit of a buffoon IMHO)

also he (or you?) is wrong to say that SPs hate america, for the same reasons i wrote above. after all, i fit the definition of a progressive and i am definitely secular (though raised and ethnically jewish, i am basically no religion). and yet i love my country precisely because i can be an SP here.

Just kidding.

as i said above, i’m not denying that it is personal. boxer did bring up rice’s immediate family. i am denying it is a personal attack.

I said personal, I didn’t say ‘attack’ I didn’t go back to check, She did attack Rice, but I’m not saying the personal part was an attack, just personal.

Personal HAD no place in the discussion.

Then that part about Laura Bush, first yes you gave a link to nothing. the link just says exactly what you said.

But you may be a lost cause on that whole issue. I’m going to attempt one more time to define the difference. If you don’t see it this time, then just drop that issue.

What Boxer said had no place at all. Under no circumstances should she have made a point that Boxer had children and grandchildren, but Rice had ‘no immediate family’ you can interpret that as well as anybody, if you want to. Sounds like you just want to be contrary for no good reason.
Now on to Laura Bush’s comments. First, again, there is NO CONTEXT stated. What job were they even talking about? But suppose this were the question. Mrs Bush do you think that a person’s family, whether they have young children, whether they have a supportive family could live here in the White House and how would that affect their thinking and actions? If that were the question then I think this would be a very appropriate answer. Don’t you.

Mrs. Bush: I agree. But it isn’t easy to live here. Dr. (Condoleezza) Rice, who I think would be a really good candidate, is not interested. Probably because she is single, her parents are no longer living, she’s an only child. You need a very supportive family and supportive friends to have this job.

As I stated, as far as I know, that’s exactly what happened. But even after I said I don’t know the context, you insist I did because you linked it. YOUR LINK WENT NOWHERE, IT ONLY SAID EXACTLY THE SAME THING YOU SAID.

another example of why libs are frustrating, you aren’t reading a damn thing I’m saying and if you are, you not addressing WHAT I say, only say something to distract. ADDRESS THE ISSUE.

the article said eritrea was challenging……. yada yada yada, so basically you’re saying you just made it up, the article never said it. You just applied it because it sounded good. You didn’t cite one sentence in the article that said what you said it did.

So, now you’ll say well, I thought I did. The point is, you as a typical liberal just thought you would blow a little smoke and I would agree.
Cite the sentence, or admit you are wrong.

i begin to wonder if you have any first hand experience with living breathing liberals. Very condesending. typical liberal. But to answer your wondering, As little as I can, there’s nothing nice about them and they only hate America. They basically think America is an evil place that does more bad than good. Do you fit that category? The jury is still out. But they are deliberating and it ain’t looking too good right now.

Went to that link, yes you did change your mind. And yes earlier you did admit you had misinterpreted something I had said. So yes I’ll admit that I was wrong about that one little point. The larger picture is not so clear tho.

I actually like this paragraph. If it’s true, there is some hope for you.

oh, i am liberal. but it’s an adjective not an affiliation. in other words, i think it’s fair to call me liberal because my views generally follow what is thought of as liberal views in the u.s. but i do not identify with being on some liberal team. if you can convince me that i am wrong about something i am willing to change my mind and admit i was wrong.

I find that many people have many views, most have some of both liberal and conservative traits. I may have some liberal thoughts, right now i can’t think of any, but if I do, I’ll let you know.

Are you familiar with Culture Warrior by Bill O’reilly where he defines Secular Progressives (describes most libs) and Traditionalists. The SP’s are the America haters.

as i said above, i’m not denying that it is personal. boxer did bring up rice’s immediate family. i am denying it is a personal attack.

and, as i also said above, boxer applied her comments equally to rice and to herself–she said neither one of them were “paying the price.” so if she were really “attacking” rice, she was also attacking herself, which i think makes no sense.

First, you brought up the example, and left out the context.

no, i gave a link. the context is there if you want it.

Why should I hunt it up?

because you’re trying to claim that the context changes the apparent meaning of laura’s statement. if it really does, it’s up to you to show me how. otherwise, your argument is weak and looks a little desperate. at least that’s what i always thinks when i see people claim something is “out of context” and then completely fail to explain how the context would change the meaning.

Will you agree that if she were asked, in public, by news people. Would Condi Rice’s family situation affect her opinions and judgements if she were Secretary of State. Then yes, it would be appropriate to respond to the question with an answer, in context. it would be personal, but it was asked specifically to question her personal situation in context with the job.

look, this all started because strata claimed that boxer was being “cruel” for bringing up rice’s childlessness in the context of her job. but, in fact, boxer did no such thing. instead she spoke more generally about whether rice had any immediate relatives serving in iraq. the world “childless” does not appear in what boxer said at all. instead strata and others read that implication into her comments. the funny thing is that rice herself did not protest until the next day. i’ve seen the video of the exchange and rice simply answered the question, she didn’t indicate that she was insulted at all at the time. it’s not like rice can’t stand up for herself either.

and contrast that with what laura said. she directly brought up rice’s lack of children when asked about whether rice would make a good secretary of state. i think if i were rice, i would find laura’s comments to be far more cruel than boxers. and it is amusing to watch you work so hard to distinguish between the two in this case. is it really so hard to acknowledge that the first lady may have said something wrong?

See, you are too sensitive, I said this is the typical lib that comes on the site and their modus operandi and that you were very typical. Yes, one or two things might not apply to you, but most do.

that’s the problem in a nut shell. rather than dealing with me as an individual, you’re treating me as if i am part of some liberal team. i am not trying to answer for anyone except for myself. i sometimes disagree with both conservatives and liberals. i try to think for myself rather than towing any party line. that means i am not responsible if some other liberal may have come by here and acted like a jerk. just like i don’t hold you responsible if someone with the same party affiliation as you says something rude to me.

either a criticism applies to me or it doesn’t. it isn’t good enough to say i am like a “typical liberal” and then start talking about the faults of typical liberals. if you want to talk about me, by all means talk about me. what i think you’re doing is dodging a real discussion by arguing against a straw man, a theoretical liberal rather than a breathing human being. for example:

It is the libs that attack the person. They never have a valid argument, they never attack the message, they always attack the messenger. That is their MO. and you are typical in this respect.

see? you’re only talking in generalities. give me an example where i have “attack[ed] the person” or “attack[ed] the messenger.”
i don’t think i have. indeed, despite barbara’s attempt to get personal with me about my identity i have consciously refrained from doing anything like that back to her. you’re not actually arguing with me when you go into the “typical liberal” you’re arguing against an imaginary opponent instead. and to me it just looks like you’re trying to avoid my actual arguments.

First the article seems to imply that place is not friendly toward the US, but I didn’t see where it was trying to terrorize anyone. Did you really read that into it, or was it just a silly opportunity to bash conservatives for no reason?

the article said eritrea was challenging ethiopia in somalia by supporting the IUC. from that it raised the spector that eritrea was a threat to the u.s. which makes no sense, but by putting the threat to the u.s. in the headline it followed the weekly standards long practice of hyping everything as a threat to the existence of the u.s. in this case, even a weak impoverished ally of the u.s.

God, then how can you not bash the NYT?

who said i don’t? they definitely deserve it sometimes.

Do you deny the substance of what I said? uninformed, unpatriotic, allegiance, anthem? those things?

i deny that your stereotype of a liberal has nothing to do with me, so yes. certainly, there are probably liberals who are uninformed, unpatriotic, and don’t know the words to the pledge and anthem. but so what, there are also liberals who are not any of those things. and there are conservatives who also fall on both sides of those questions. the extent that people are informed is not a liberal or conservative thing. again, when you fall back on simplistic stereotypes i begin to wonder if you have any first hand experience with living breathing liberals.

Well that’s simple. I’m sure you only change your mind if proven wrong and my experience with you implies that ain’t gonna happen.

oh, but you’re wrong. i have changed my mind many times. want proof? a couple of weeks ago i wrote this post. you’ll note it is partially retracted. one of the conservatives who is a regular at my site pointed out that i was being unfair to rice and that her comments in context could not be read the way i said they should be taken. i read what he wrote and decided he was right. then i wrote the update to my post admitting that i was being unfair to condi rice.

i have more examples too. it’s funny how you simply concluded that i won’t change my mind or admit a mistake, even when i admitted that i made a mistake and misunderstood your comments earlier today. on the other hand, i’ve yet to see you give any ground on anything. and yet i am still willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.

where is meat-land?

meatland is my attempt at being funny. i was referring to the offline world. you know, where people are walking around in physical bodies (meat) and are not just words written in electricity on a screen

I only ask because you say you are not lib. At least you question me labeling you as one.

oh, i am liberal. but it’s an adjective not an affiliation. in other words, i think it’s fair to call me liberal because my views generally follow what is thought of as liberal views in the u.s. but i do not identify with being on some liberal team. if you can convince me that i am wrong about something i am willing to change my mind and admit i was wrong.

no she didn’t. she just said that rice wasn’t gonna “pay a price” with any immediate family members
Yes she did. Saying I have children and grandchildren and you have no immediate family is personal. If and that’s a bif if, she wanted to be impersonal, she could have left out both references or she could have said: Neither of us will be influenced by our immediate family” but by saying ‘my children and grandchildren’ and you don’t have an immediate family was CLEARLY for personal reasons. you may as well drop that subject, you are apparently closeminded. ANY MENTION OF FAMILY IS PERSONAL.

I notice you seem to have a style of just writing or linking and insinuating that people on the right…… well, don’t have a clue.

i disagree with your characterization. but hey, you’re certainly entitled to your own opinion. do you have any particular example?

I said that was a duplication and did give an example on the other one.

in other words you are bringing up “context” to make excuses for what laura bush said. if you wanted you could have hunted down the original interview to see the context yourself. but you didn’t. i guess some people’s making comments about someone else’s personal life is worse than when other people do them. i mean, laura bush was questioning whether rice was qualified for a job simply because she is single and childless. that’s a lot more direct than anything boxer said.

It’s not the same. First, you brought up the example, and left out the context. Why should I hunt it up? I clearly said context makes a difference and gave an example, which you chose to ignore. Wasn’t that my point about you ignoring what is said in response.

First, we both know Boxer’s context. You know Laura’s. Will you agree that if she were asked, in public, by news people. Would Condi Rice’s family situation affect her opinions and judgements if she were Secretary of State. Then yes, it would be appropriate to respond to the question with an answer, in context. it would be personal, but it was asked specifically to question her personal situation in context with the job.
So what she said may have been an exact answer to the question. I’m not making excuses, pointing out difference in context.

Come on site, make statements indicating everybody but you is an idiot, won’t answer any question about what you write, ask many questions about what we write, criticize us for not answering your dozens of questions and insinuating we are ignorant if we don’t.

once again you’re making a lot of accusations against me without giving a single example. i disagree with that characterization (i am especially offended that you claim i have indicated that other people here are idiots. i don’t know why you keep saying that. let me say again and again, i do not think anyone here is an idiot. why are you and barbara so insecure about this?)

See, you are too sensitive, I said this is the typical lib that comes on the site and their modus operandi and that you were very typical. Yes, one or two things might not apply to you, but most do. As I said, you’ve begun to moderate a little. We were speaking of the typical lib and you came on very similarly.

here’s the thing: i suspect a lot of your problem with me is simply that i’m not toeing the party line like everyone else here is. i presume that ken also disagreed with you. the horror! why are you having such a hard time dealing with the existence of dissent?
Ha ha, I don’t. I don’t care who’s line you toe. I don’t like dishonesty and I don’t like BDS and that defines 99% of the libs in the world.
I have no problem with dissent. I dissent from your opinions regularly.

i am trying to make substantive points about the post and inevitably someone raises an issue about me personally.
Ah, but there you are wrong. It is the libs that attack the person. They never have a valid argument, they never attack the message, they always attack the messenger. That is their MO. and you are typical in this respect.

First the article seems to imply that place is not friendly toward the US, but I didn’t see where it was trying to terrorize anyone. Did you really read that into it, or was it just a silly opportunity to bash conservatives for no reason?

the article claimed that eritrea may be a threat to the safety of the u.s.
it didn’t say it wasn’t friendly (in fact, that’s a hard case to make. eritrea was a member of the “coalition of the willing” after all), it claimed that an impoverished normally ally of the u.s. poses a danger to you and i.
No, it didn’t. claiming it does and raising the issue are 2 different things.

much of what the weekly standard writes is fear-mongering, this is just the latest and most ridiculous example.
This is YOUR example of them fear mongering? I’m missing something.

that was my point. i wasn’t bashing conservatives, i was bashing the conservative press and specifically the weekly standard.
God, then how can you not bash the NYT?

By the way, I’m not trying to change your mind about anything. I find in general that it is a total waste of time to talk with Libs, they generally are very uninformed, and only get involved to bash conservatives and Pres Bush or to ‘feel good’ about what they do. Most of them don’t know the words of the Pledge of Allegiance and would think it is silly to know them. Most of them won’t stand up for the nationa anthem or their mother. That’s my experience.

so you’re both close-minded and are generalizing me into some caracature of a “liberal.” nice
You deny you are a lib, every single sentence you’ve written parrots libs positions, and you’re saying you’re not?

Do you deny the substance of what I said? uninformed, unpatriotic, allegiance, anthem? those things?

riddle me this: for over a year i have tried to find a conservative who is willing to have an honest discussion with me. you know, one who is willing to change his mind if i prove him wrong and to whom i will promise to change my mind if he proves me wrong. the weird thing is i have changed my mind and issued corrections about stuff i have gotten wrong before. but i have yet to find a single conservative online who will do it. why is that?

Well that’s simple. I’m sure you only change your mind if proven wrong and my experience with you implies that ain’t gonna happen. I’ve seen no willingness of you to even listen to opinion. As I mentioned before. If I say you are wrong about ‘Position A’ you come back and tell me why you’re not wrong about ‘Position B’
totally changing the subject until backed into a corner and then just dropping it without answering it. Again, typical Liberal.
So in your opinion libs are the good guys that will always compromise, change their mind, be open minded and the conservatives are the opposite. I’ve got some cheap ocean front property in Az, you interested?
My experience is the opposite.

(for some reason this is only a problem with online conservatives. my real life friends span the political spectrum and i find it quite easy to have open and honest discussions with people in meat-land)

where is meat-land?

no she didn’t. she just said that rice wasn’t gonna “pay a price” with any immediate family members. just as boxer said that she herself “wasn’t paying a price.” if it was an attack boxer was attacking herself just as much as she was attacking rice. which is why your interpretation is so implausible

You made a point of saying you were a lawyer as if that should influence the validity of your argument. Did you not?

i did not. i first raised the issue just to explain why i was amused by your “i rest my case” line. it had nothing to do with my argument. and your decision to pick up on the lawyer thing in this thread had nothing to do with this argument otherwise.

I notice you seem to have a style of just writing or linking and insinuating that people on the right…… well, don’t have a clue.

i disagree with your characterization. but hey, you’re certainly entitled to your own opinion. do you have any particular example?

On the comments by Laura Bush, first I suspect you got something wrong in that. I don’t know what job she was talking about, what the context was, was it on the record in an official meeting? If the question was “Do you think a person’s personal family situation will have an impact on the qualifications of that person to be secretary of state? then absolutely they would be pertinent. So overall, on your question, as you stated it. I don’t have an opinion. Boxer’s situation was entirely different and it had no place there.

in other words you are bringing up “context” to make excuses for what laura bush said. if you wanted you could have hunted down the original interview to see the context yourself. but you didn’t. i guess some people’s making comments about someone else’s personal life is worse than when other people do them. i mean, laura bush was questioning whether rice was qualified for a job simply because she is single and childless. that’s a lot more direct than anything boxer said.

Come on site, make statements indicating everybody but you is an idiot, won’t answer any question about what you write, ask many questions about what we write, criticize us for not answering your dozens of questions and insinuating we are ignorant if we don’t.

once again you’re making a lot of accusations against me without giving a single example. i disagree with that characterization (i am especially offended that you claim i have indicated that other people here are idiots. i don’t know why you keep saying that. let me say again and again, i do not think anyone here is an idiot. why are you and barbara so insecure about this?)

here’s the thing: i suspect a lot of your problem with me is simply that i’m not toeing the party line like everyone else here is. i presume that ken also disagreed with you. the horror! why are you having such a hard time dealing with the existence of dissent? i am trying to make substantive points about the post and inevitably someone raises an issue about me personally rather than the substance of what i am saying. that’s happened on a lot of different threads here, but it takes on an extra ironic dimension here, considering the topic of the thread.

First the article seems to imply that place is not friendly toward the US, but I didn’t see where it was trying to terrorize anyone. Did you really read that into it, or was it just a silly opportunity to bash conservatives for no reason?

the article claimed that eritrea may be a threat to the safety of the u.s.
it didn’t say it wasn’t friendly (in fact, that’s a hard case to make. eritrea was a member of the “coalition of the willing” after all), it claimed that an impoverished normally ally of the u.s. poses a danger to you and i. that is patently ridiculous and frankly seems to be simply an attempt to get people excited about another country in the wide world. much of what the weekly standard writes is fear-mongering, this is just the latest and most ridiculous example.

that was my point. i wasn’t bashing conservatives, i was bashing the conservative press and specifically the weekly standard.

By the way, I’m not trying to change your mind about anything. I find in general that it is a total waste of time to talk with Libs, they generally are very uninformed, and only get involved to bash conservatives and Pres Bush or to ‘feel good’ about what they do. Most of them don’t know the words of the Pledge of Allegiance and would think it is silly to know them. Most of them won’t stand up for the nationa anthem or their mother. That’s my experience.

so you’re both close-minded and are generalizing me into some caracature of a “liberal.” nice

riddle me this: for over a year i have tried to find a conservative who is willing to have an honest discussion with me. you know, one who is willing to change his mind if i prove him wrong and to whom i will promise to change my mind if he proves me wrong. the weird thing is i have changed my mind and issued corrections about stuff i have gotten wrong before. but i have yet to find a single conservative online who will do it. why is that?

(for some reason this is only a problem with online conservatives. my real life friends span the political spectrum and i find it quite easy to have open and honest discussions with people in meat-land)

It got in their twice in my cutting and pasting.

“but by referencing my profession you are bringing it to a personal level.” And why did I even have that info to use? You used it. You made a point of saying you were a lawyer as if that should influence the validity of your argument. Did you not?

That’s like saying. That’s a beautiful color isn’t it. I’m a judge of colors and I think it’s beautiful, don’t you? Is that intended to sway by using personal info?

And you say you’re a lawyer?
i am. what do you do?
I’m 66 and retired. I was executive level with a major company for 20 years just prior to retiring. I’m a chem eng by education and experience.

I went over to your site and read a few things. I notice you seem to have a style of just writing or linking and insinuating that people on the right…… well, don’t have a clue.

On the comments by Laura Bush, first I suspect you got something wrong in that. I don’t know what job she was talking about, what the context was, was it on the record in an official meeting? If the question was “Do you think a person’s personal family situation will have an impact on the qualifications of that person to be secretary of state? then absolutely they would be pertinent. So overall, on your question, as you stated it. I don’t have an opinion. Boxer’s situation was entirely different and it had no place there.

As for whether Barbara actually meant you are Ken( himself) or Ken (in style and substance) I don’t know. I took it as the latter for the reasons I stated before.
Here is the undesirable characteristic: Come on site, make statements indicating everybody but you is an idiot, won’t answer any question about what you write, ask many questions about what we write, criticize us for not answering your dozens of questions and insinuating we are ignorant if we don’t. Acting if there is no basis for questioning you. I could go on and on, but you get the point, I’m sure. Now, go back to some of your earliest posts and see if that doesn’t describe you. Yes, now that we said what we did about you, you’re trying to moderate a little(and you have) but it was your earlier visits that set the tone.

I went over to your site and read a little and notice you seem to use the tactic of bashing conservatives as your forte. an example:
“claims that eritrea may pose a threat to the u.s.

sometimes i think conservative publications spend all their time dreaming up new ways to get their readers to s**t their pants with terror.”

First the article seems to imply that place is not friendly toward the US, but I didn’t see where it was trying to terrorize anyone. Did you really read that into it, or was it just a silly opportunity to bash conservatives for no reason?

By the way, I’m not trying to change your mind about anything. I find in general that it is a total waste of time to talk with Libs, they generally are very uninformed, and only get involved to bash conservatives and Pres Bush or to ‘feel good’ about what they do. Most of them don’t know the words of the Pledge of Allegiance and would think it is silly to know them. Most of them won’t stand up for the nationa anthem or their mother. That’s my experience.

apparently i misunderstood you. i apologize.

You are a lawyer and can’t keep track of your position, geez talk about malpractice.

no, i just misconstrued what you wrote. luckily the standard for malpractice is a lot higher than that (or do i mean lower? sometimes this metaphor is confusing)

Now Barbara Boxer can make that statement that was putting her argument on a personal level.
Now you could interpret it that she didn’t put it on a personal level, and I could interpret it that she did.
You would be wrong and I would be right.
So if you still maintain that it wasn’t personal, you are still interpreting it incorrectly. And it doesn’t matter how I interpret it because it doesn’t change the fact: that it was a personal attack.

there’s a difference between being “personal” and being a personal attack. boxer was relating the issue to rice personally. she was also relating it to herself personally. boxer said that neither she herself, nor rice were paying a personal price for iraq because neither had close family members who were currently serving there. that was personal. but it wasn’t a personal attack. indeed, boxer applied her comments both to rice and to herself. just to illustrate my point, i’ll quote her remarks again:

“Who pays the price? I’m not going to pay a personal price,” Boxer said. “My kids are too old, and my grandchild is too young.” Then, to Rice: “You’re not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family.”

using someone else to illustrate your point on a personal level is not a personal attack. if it were, your using the fact that i am a lawyer in this discussion would also be a personal attack. i don’t think you intend it to be and i don’t take it as one. but by referencing my profession you are bringing it to a personal level.

And you say you’re a lawyer?

i am. what do you do? (not to get “personal.” i’m just trying to make friendly conversation. obviously there’s no need to answer if you don’t want to)

But the problem you have, in common with Ken, is that you come on, make an irrational statement, expect everyone to believe it and if we challenge it, you just quote some source that we already know has zero credibility, like the NYT. Wiki is ok, but questionable sometimes.

a couple of points:

(a) i don’t think my statements are irrational, but i’m open to the possibility that they are. all you have to do is explain to me why you don’t think what i am saying makes sense.

(b) you’ve just given the exact reason that i do not cite the NYT here. i know that you guys don’t think it has any credibility (i think you’re wrong to reject it out of hand, by the way, but there’s no need to get sidetracked into that discussion now). so you’re wrong if you’re suggesting that i ever have cited the NYT here. i never have. in fact, i have made a conscious decision not to.

(c) which is why i go with wiki instead. and yet barbara cited my citation to wiki as a reason to give me less credibility. which puts me in an impossible situation. i mean, i could be right sometimes. none of us are perfect. we all could be mistake. maybe you guys are right 99% of the time and i’m only right 1% of the time. but still that 1% will happen now and then. but between doubting all the MSM sources and barbara raising credibility problems with wiki, you’ve closed off virtually every avenue for me to ever support anything. so you’ll miss the times that i actually turn out to be right–even if it’s just 1%

(d) it’s nice that you are not as convinced as barbara that i am the same person as ken.

But then when one of us makes a statement you question it to the nth degree and won’t accept anything at all as supporting data. In fact you usually totally ignore it.

well, it is true that i question things a lot. i’m not trying to be cute, i’m just trying to be clear on what exactly you are saying. maybe to you that seems like the “nth degree” but that’s probably just a matter of perspective.

as for not providing any supporting data, i completely reject that characterization. see above for my dilemma re: wiki vs. any MSM source

So in short, you expect us to buy you hook line and sinker and don’t take anything at all that any of us say, no matter the absolute proof.

that’s absolutely not true. i am here for a discussion. i’m not trying to lecture anyone. although i do stick up for my position if i think you are wrong, i will admit i am wrong if you can convince me that you are. i just hope that you will extend me the same courtesy

In your opinion, Boxer said nothing at all personal in her statement…

see above. i’m not saying boxer said nothing personal. i am saying it wasn’t a personal attack and that it was not out of line.

If you can do it and convince two or 3 people here to agree with you. Then we will accept you as being genuine.

i think that’s ridiculous. i’m here to interact with individuals, not sell my moonshine to the whole group. everyone reading this can think for themselves and decide if i’m right or if enforcement is right, or if someone else is right. maybe i won’t convince anyone here, but that that could just be because this is a conservative audience predisposed to dislike boxer.

here’s a test for you. do you think laura bush’s recent remarks about whether rice would be a good secretary of state were out of line:

Mrs. Bush: I agree. But it isn’t easy to live here. Dr. (Condoleezza) Rice, who I think would be a really good candidate, is not interested. Probably because she is single, her parents are no longer living, she’s an only child. You need a very supportive family and supportive friends to have this job.

unlike boxer, laura bush directly stated the fact that rice is single and childless. are you equally outraged at the first lady as you are at boxer?

maybe i won’t convince three people with that, but i think it’s a fair point. if i’m wrong, please explain so i can change my mind

First since you are being challenged, you are beginning to respond a small amount. But the problem you have, in common with Ken, is that you come on, make an irrational statement, expect everyone to believe it and if we challenge it, you just quote some source that we already know has zero credibility, like the NYT. Wiki is ok, but questionable sometimes. But then when one of us makes a statement you question it to the nth degree and won’t accept anything at all as supporting data. In fact you usually totally ignore it. So in short, you expect us to buy you hook line and sinker and don’t take anything at all that any of us say, no matter the absolute proof.

An example of this is: In your opinion, Boxer said nothing at all personal in her statement. Now you have heard everyone of the regular people here say it was personal and you are the only one that says it wasn’t. Do you think you are the only one that can correctly interpret what she said and that there is no way she meant it to be personal. Tell you what. Take her entire paragraph that included the statement in question, print it out and break it down for us, in your opinion. If you can do it and convince two or 3 people here to agree with you. Then we will accept you as being genuine.