Dharm,

Don't skip the question. You said I am less than honest. You have not given any facts to back that up.

I said you are less than honest, I gave facts to back that up.
(like the way you titled this thread)

The NY times is liberal, and I have show that. Ask any one with at least half a brain. (like Frogger or Decka)

I have shown the liberal slant in the NY times. They are not honest.

You are not honest. (again back to the title of your thread)


Yes, really. You have merely given your repeated opinion that the media is "liberal".

You have not given facts to prove your opinion.



I already admitted I should have titled it differently, not because it is not honest, but because it misses the larger issue.

dharmabum,

It is not only Cisko's view that the NY Times is liberal. It is also the view of the Public Editor and he works for the NY Times.

I guess you know better than he does too, right, dharma.

Dharm,
I'd like to see you slober all over yourself in order to answer this.


dharmabum,

It is not only Cisko's view that the NY Times is liberal. It is also the view of the Public Editor and he works for the NY Times.

I guess you know better than he does too, right, dharma.

Dharm,
I'd like to see you slober all over yourself...

Thats pretty sick.
:lolhit:

That is just like a liberal. Quote half of what someone says and paint a bad picture.

Thats pretty sick.
:lolhit:

Thats pretty sick.
:lolhit:
so? when are you going to answer the question?

so? when are you going to answer the question?

Never.

I refuse to go along with sisko's threadjacking attempt. He already has a seperate thread for that discussion.

This thread is about John McCain and his quid pro quo with lobbyists, from the Keating Five scandal through today.

Never.

I refuse to go along with sisko's threadjacking attempt. He already has a seperate thread for that discussion.

This thread is about John McCain and his quid pro quo with lobbyists, from the Keating Five scandal through today.


Translation:

I have no answer to the question. I just spouted off as usual and got caught and now I am trying the old, "The best defense is a good offense.", trick.



Please stop trying to get an honest answer out of dharmabum. It is as much an exercise in futility as trying to change lead to gold.

Translation:

I have no answer to the question. I just spouted off as usual and got caught and now I am trying the old, "The best defense is a good offense.", trick.



Please stop trying to get an honest answer out of dharmabum. It is as much an exercise in futility as trying to change lead to gold.

Or reason with fools....:drinktoth

Or reason with fools....

I don't try to reason with fools, which is why Frogger is on ignore.

:thumbs:

You are a fool, dharma. You were asked a simple question but because your premise, like so many of your premises, is built on a lie you can't answer it and prefer insulting the person who asked it. If everyone put fools on ignnore you would be posting to yourself and no one else.

I don't try to reason with fools, which is why Frogger is on ignore.

:thumbs:

Then why in the heck does anybody reason with you?

Dharm,
Please act like an adult and answer the question.
If you don't answer the question, you should be treated like the child your either are or pretend to be.



You are a fool, dharma. You were asked a simple question but because your premise, like so many of your premises, is built on a lie you can't answer it and prefer insulting the person who asked it. If everyone put fools on ignnore you would be posting to yourself and no one else.

Dharm,

Post 99 If you are able, please answer. Please show us how smart you are.

We are waiting. Please help us along by answering the question.

so? when are you going to answer the question?

Never.

I refuse to go along with sisko's threadjacking attempt. He already has a seperate thread for that discussion.

This thread is about John McCain and his quid pro quo with lobbyists, from the Keating Five scandal through today.
do you really want to try to treadjack yourself? with the keating 5?:lolhit:

do you really want to try to treadjack yourself? with the keating 5?

The subject of McCain's role in the Keating Five scandal is on topic.

The subject of McCain's role in the Keating Five scandal is on topic.
if you wanted that for a topic, you should have gone with it instead of a smear attempt that was beneath even the National Enquirer.

the simple fact is the the bias of the NY Times is closer to "on topic" than the Keating 5- no matter what the voices in your head tell you.

if you wanted that for a topic, you should have gone with it instead of a smear attempt that was beneath even the National Enquirer.

There was no "smear". McCain's corruption is well documented.


the simple fact is the the bias of the NY Times is closer to "on topic" than the Keating 5- no matter what the voices in your head tell you.

Nonsense.
Media bias is just a red herring you try to use to avoid talking about McCain's corrupt relationships with lobbyists.

There was no "smear". McCain's corruption is well documented.



Nonsense.
Media bias is just a red herring you try to use to avoid talking about McCain's corrupt relationships with lobbyists.

Could you kindly just write down on the nearest napkin,what
you want.
I feel it imperative upon me,to get to the root cause of all yer
Posting frustration.
I seldom have read a post of yourn,that was even remotely
satisfied or at ease.I think yer lookin for somethin.
Tell us all what you want.
The perfeck Politician,or President or Government system.
Some kinda viable Shangri-la.A place where Civil people can live,
co-exist and achieve their own American Dream.
Are you lookin for some Huge Heroin Needle to make all warm and
content,those who hurt and feel unnecessary.
What is it you want.
I feel you're Lookin for some fix.
There is NO fix to Life.
Never has been to my tired & weary eyes,having read mush in
the same vein.
The best any peoples can wish upon is simple daily satisfaction,free
from strife and undue pressure in the public and private sector.
Do you not feel America has succeeded in that vein.?
Or are yer Pie-in-the-Sky Dreams,unrealized and continually haunting
yer bemused better half?

gmsisko.. don't bother trying to get dharm to actually answer anything, he's been dodging my questions in other threads. It's easy to just lay back, ridicule, and not actually answer any questions or stand behind anything.

Dharm has no backbone.

As Worf would say...................... Dharm is with-out honor.


gmsisko.. don't bother trying to get dharm to actually answer anything, he's been dodging my questions in other threads. It's easy to just lay back, ridicule, and not actually answer any questions or stand behind anything.

Dharm,

We are still waiting for an answer to post 99.

Will you answer, or are you with-out honor? (Worf says it best)

Dharm,

Post 99 If you are able, please answer. Please show us how smart you are.

We are waiting. Please help us along by answering the question.

There was no "smear". McCain's corruption is well documented.
where is it?



Media bias is just a red herring you try to use to avoid talking about McCain's corrupt relationships with lobbyists.
media bias is where you got the cock-eyed idea that getting the FCC to do their job, and in no particular direction btw, is "corruption".

Originally Posted by dharmabum
There was no "smear". McCain's corruption is well documented.

where is it?

:rolleyes:

A Google search for **McCain Keating Five** will provide you with over 110,000 pages of answers.

(p.s. -- to be honest, disingenuousness is not all that effective as a debating tactic)

So... Google picks up 110,000 mentions of it. Does that really mean that there's actually any evidence?

(I don't know anything about this, I'm just saying - he asks for documentation and you give him Google results, which could be anything from unsubstantiated theories to horse porn. :p)

:rolleyes:

A Google search for **McCain Keating Five** will provide you with over 110,000 pages of answers.

(p.s. -- to be honest, disingenuousness is not all that effective as a debating tactic)


Of those 110,000 of answers, how many document any evidence of corruption by McCain? I would venture to say, none because there was no corruption by McCain.

Of those 110,000 of answers, how many document any evidence of corruption by McCain? I would venture to say, none because there was no corruption by McCain.
You're really losing credibility by holding onto your claim of "no" corruption by McCain. As I've said before, there was marginal corruption. McCain was primarily thrown into the affair by Democrats who wanted a Republican to be caught in it too, and he wasn't exactly complicit, but he did take money from that guy. Hence the Senate Ethics Committee giving him a reprimand.

(p.s. -- to be honest, disingenuousness is not all that effective as a debating tactic)
Doctor, heal thy self:slap:

Doctor, heal thy self:slap:

You such a PuddyKat.
Imagine bein squeamish about Postin agin Me,me,me,me ....
Meeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

You're really losing credibility by holding onto your claim of "no" corruption by McCain. As I've said before, there was marginal corruption. McCain was primarily thrown into the affair by Democrats who wanted a Republican to be caught in it too, and he wasn't exactly complicit, but he did take money from that guy. Hence the Senate Ethics Committee giving him a reprimand.


YOU are really losing credibility by holding on to dharmabum's claim that John McCain is corrupt. McCain was found to be not guilty of corruption in the Keating affair. Even Lanie Davis, a dyed in the wool Democrat and Bob Bennet, the Keating Five lawyer say McCain had not even a hint of corruption. He was kept in the mix because if he was not included all the defendents would have been Democrats, something the Democrat controlled Congress did not want.

YOU are really losing credibility by holding on to dharmabum's claim that John McCain is corrupt.
Where did I ever make such a claim? McCain acted questionably. The Senate Ethics Committee essentially said this.

So... Google picks up 110,000 mentions of it. Does that really mean that there's actually any evidence?

Actually I got 299,000 results from Google.
Take a look and judge for yourself (http://www.google.com/search?q=McCain+Keating+Five&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a).


After McCain's election to the House in 1982, he and his family made at least nine trips at Keating's expense, three of which were to Keating's Bahamas retreat. McCain did not disclose the trips (as he was required to under House rules) until the scandal broke in 1989. At that point, he paid Keating $13,433 for the flights.

And in April 1986, one year before the meeting with the regulators, McCain's wife, Cindy, and her father invested $359,100 in a Keating strip mall.

Where did I ever make such a claim? McCain acted questionably. The Senate Ethics Committee essentially said this.

Well it helped to have High profile Republican friendly Bob Bennett,
a Democrat,hired on to Investigate this McCain rascal.

Actually I got 299,000 results from Google.
Take a look and judge for yourself (http://www.google.com/search?q=McCain+Keating+Five&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a).
Well I didn't even check, I just took FT's word for it. Looks like he was wrong. Not my fault. :)

Actually I got 299,000 results from Google.
Take a look and judge for yourself (http://www.google.com/search?q=McCain+Keating+Five&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a).

Damn, and only 284,000 hits for 'Clinton, corruption' (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Clinton%2C+corruption).
I'm genuinely surprised.

Are we really using results on google as a way to try to prove something?

Not really.

I was just being a smart ass.
(Though I am truly surprised that Bill and Hillary only got 284,00 hits.)

Well I didn't even check, I just took FT's word for it. Looks like he was wrong. Not my fault. :)

You asked if it showed any evidence.
Have you looked at the search results for an answer to that question?

Not really.

I was just being a smart ass.
(Though I am truly surprised that Bill and Hillary only got 284,00 hits.)


Some things, (the lClinton's corruption) are so obvious and well known people no longer post them on the internet.

You asked if it showed any evidence.
Have you looked at the search results for an answer to that question?
No. I don't want any evidence. I don't care about this issue much at all. My point was that FT offering Mikezila the number of Google results for "McCain Keating five" was hardly evidence. It's akin to Waldo's tactic of calling people lazy when they ask him to provide evidence for his points; "Go look for the evidence yourself!" isn't really strong support for an argument...

No. I don't want any evidence. I don't care about this issue much at all. My point was that FT offering Mikezila the number of Google results for "McCain Keating five" was hardly evidence.

How could you possibly know whether there was any evidence if you never bothered to even look?

How could you possibly know whether there was any evidence if you never bothered to even look?

I guess google results are concrete proof then

How could you possibly know whether there was any evidence if you never bothered to even look?

The fact that Bob Bennet said there was no corruption on MCain's part carries a lot more weight than dharmabum or some blogger saying there was.

How could you possibly know whether there was any evidence if you never bothered to even look?
I never said that there wasn't any evidence. Why do you think this sort of thing is ridiculous when Waldo does it, but not when FT does it?

simple

because anything's fine when it fits dharma's agenda...

How could you possibly know whether there was any evidence if you never bothered to even look?
it's not my or her responsibility to to find evidence of your accusations, Waldo.

No. I don't want any evidence. I don't care about this issue much at all.

You claim you don't care about it, yet you come here making baseless accusations. How odd.

Unlike you, I am at least aware that documentation of McCain's corruption does exist.

My point was that FT offering Mikezila the number of Google results for "McCain Keating five" was hardly evidence.

And I was not attempting to and made no claim to be providing evidence. I was giving what mikezila asked about.

The question I was asked by mikezila was --- "Where is the documentation for the corruption?"

I gave him exactly what he asked for; I directed him to where documentation of McCain's corruption is located.

Unlike you, I am at least aware that documentation of McCain's corruption does exist.
I never said it didn't. As a matter of fact, I'm sure it does.


The question I was asked by mikezila was --- "Where is the documentation for the corruption?"

I gave him exactly what he asked for; I directed him to where documentation of McCain's corruption is located.
So basically he says "Where's the evidence?" and you said "It's somewhere on the internet!" Good job, Sherlock. That's so helpful.

simple

because anything's fine when it fits dharma's agenda...


Whats a - Dharma Agenda -.?
Some animal,vegetable,mineral er... Ting ?
How Dharmatic.
Thoroughly Dharmistic.
Like a sage during Plato's evening with The Arts.
I mean... Farts.

Still waiting Dharm.
Please answer the question in post 99.
Thanks.


Dharm,

We are still waiting for an answer to post 99.

Will you answer, or are you with-out honor? (Worf says it best)

I never said that there wasn't any evidence.

You said you don't care and I cannot understand how someone could not care about a history of corruption in a potential President of the United States.

Why do you think this sort of thing is ridiculous when Waldo does it, but not when FT does it?

I am not talking about Waldo or FT.

People care enough about it to ask you to document some of it. You care so little about it you refuse to do it.

People care enough about it to ask you to document some of it. You care so little about it you refuse to do it.

The key problem I had originally with this Drarma Bum is that he
enjoys stirrin the pot.There's no way,rationally,he can say half
the stuff he does and maintain credibility.
Since he cares not a whit about how credible and viable
his many failings of faux rhetoric { obviously used more for effect }
than I say give him a dose of his own ploy.
Because Ploy is what he's UP to.

Hey Dharm,

I know you have Frogger on ignore, but you need to read this.

People care enough about it to ask you to document some of it. You care so little about it you refuse to do it.

Hey Dharm,

I know you have Frogger on ignore, but you need to read this.

No, actually I don't.

:)

Damn! I was hoping you did.

You said you don't care and I cannot understand how someone could not care about a history of corruption in a potential President of the United States.
They are ALL corrupted. Past, present, and future Presidents. BFD. It's not going to change anything if I'm more aware of the exact nature of the corruption.

So basically he says "Where's the evidence?" and you said "It's somewhere on the internet!" Good job, Sherlock. That's so helpful.

I realize you are not exactly the sharpest pencil in the box, but that is a mischaracterization of what occurred.

He specifically said "Where's the evidence?" and I informed him ---------"Here (http://www.google.com/search?as_q=McCain+Keating+Five&hl=en&num=20&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&cr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=off) is where some evidence of said corruption can be found".

I gave him precisely what he asked for. He did not ask for evidence to presented. He asked where it was.

I told him.

I realize you are not exactly the sharpest pencil in the box, but that is a mischaracterization of what occurred.
Yes, I'm an idiot. How nice of you to point that out for me, FT. And to think, I was going to continue going to college - now I know I shouldn't bother! :)

Yes, I'm an idiot. How nice of you to point that out for me, FT. And to think, I was going to continue going to college - now I know I shouldn't bother! :)

DOWN W/THE MAJORITY...

Neither the DEMS or REPS are offering a good CANDIDATE... PLEASE VOTE INDEPENDENT... write in your candidate... IF enough do it the message will get across...

NO McCAIN/HILARY/OBAMA... USA IS BETTER THEN THAT!

I am unconvinced as to the actual effectiveness of voting independent/third party. I'm seriously considering it though.

Yes, I'm an idiot. How nice of you to point that out for me, FT.

I do not know if you're an idiot or not. It is likely you're somewhat intelligent.

But I do know that your contention that --""My point was that FT offering Mikezila the number of Google results for "McCain Keating five" was hardly evidence. It's akin to Waldo's tactic of calling people lazy when they ask him to provide evidence for his points"" -- was an idiotic and unsupportable accusation.

You mischaracterized what was said, what was asked for and what response was given, and made your (idiotic) conjecture about ""It's akin to what Waldo does..."" based on a flawed understanding.

And with that, I conclude my commentary on that particular matter.

I do not know if you're an idiot or not. It is likely you're somewhat intelligent.
Hmmm. I didn't know that was what "Not the sharpest pencil in the box" meant.

It is likely you're somewhat intelligent.


There's a quote for your resume, DF!

Just plug your little fingers in your ears and sing.......... la la la la

When the facts smack you up side your head, just pretend it doesn't hurt and say........... please sir may I have another.


No, actually I don't.

:)

I know what you mean.
I really don't like MCCain, but I dislike Clintax and Obama more.
I think I need to do what ever I can to keep this from becoming a socialist Nanny state.

We all know that people like Dharm and FT will be the first in line to expose the Government nipple. They just want free milk. (that will come from the rolling back of the tax cuts for the rich)

I really don't want to get stuck on the Government Nanny Socoalist State Nipple.


I am unconvinced as to the actual effectiveness of voting independent/third party. I'm seriously considering it though.

So nobody tried to prove anything on the number of google hits FT?