|
|
Post by (R)uffda! on Jul 26, 2012 11:36:14 GMT -5
Irrefutable facts?
I guess, if by irrefutable you actually mean refutable and by facts you mean lies.
Other than that ...
What the hell is going on in that avatar? My eyesight's way too poor. (I know. I know. You'll say that's a metaphor.)
|
|
|
|
Post by lonewolf on Jul 26, 2012 12:51:21 GMT -5
Perceived? You admitted your error on Chip's question. wolf -- if you are still experiencing the fog of confusion this morning, please see your doctor or get to the er asap. i'm serious. you may have had a mini-stroke around 10:35 pm est last night. again, this is not sarcasm. i'm serious. it's the only way that such seemingly deliberate altering of the record could have been innocent. otoh, if you are physically fine -- and let's hope you are -- then you've got some explaining to do. (wait. i retract that. pls: no more explaining.) you regularly forget that i was a practicing lib/prog/socialist for quite a while myself. i know the playbook by heart. revisionism, along with repetition of inaccuracy until it is no longer challenged, is classic my friend. so, with regard to your strategy here, well done. but let's take just one more look at that pesky written record. you are claiming, in your post quoted above, that the error you have been correcting was in regard to chip's point which i misunderstood. first, the resolution -- way back on page 3! -- of my misunderstanding of chip's point: point resolved! now, how could that error have been the object of all your corrections, as you claim here: What revisionism? Did I say that error was the focus of everything? Please go back through the "Written Record" and show me where I said that? |
|
|
|
Post by lonewolf on Jul 26, 2012 12:55:42 GMT -5
your "corrections" were attempts to portray weiner as "heavily involved" in us politics, expand the definition of "us politics" to include international relations, and the clumsy replacement of my use of "politics" with your insistence that it be "policy" instead, to wit: "corrections" regarding weiner as "heavily involved": Again, you've made a mistake. I said Weiner was involved is heavily involved in politics, I never said he was involved in international relations. I mentioned that he was heavily involved in politics as backing as to why someone might know who he is when we're having discussions on a political rambling board, and why it isn't TMZ'esque. The international relations was in reference to Huma's positions as her involvement with the US Secretary of State. |
|
|
|
Post by lonewolf on Jul 26, 2012 13:00:42 GMT -5
Then you expand the meaning of us politics to include what you prefer to argue: Politics (n)The activities associated with the governance of a country or area. The activities of governments concerning the political relations between countries. Since she's involved in that as her every day job with the secretary of state... and we move on to your egregious "correction" of trying to change what i said from "politics" to "policy" and continuing to make the irrelevant argument you want to pursue:[/quote] Again, you're mixing up 2 different parts of an argument. One, pointing out that Weiner is noteworthy for other than the scandal. And the other pointing to Huma's position in the government. There's no trying to change what it is, you're limiting the scope of the words to fit what you want. |
|
|
|
Post by lonewolf on Jul 26, 2012 13:03:08 GMT -5
for a man of conviction, there's very little conviction here. the only definitive thing you say is "no" to her father -- one of at least 3 people referenced in that question. this leaves much unanswered. but i do appreciate that you stuck a foot in. So, you want me to speak with conviction when the facts aren't available, or when (as I admitted) I hadn't had time to look into them? How very religious of you. |
|
|
|
Post by lonewolf on Jul 26, 2012 13:21:53 GMT -5
otoh, having to go back and present the record of our dialogue to you because you constantly evade, replace, and pursue takes way too much time & energy to justify doing it on an ongoing basis. so this is likely the last conversation we'll have on political issues, my friend. not that silence = assent by any means. don't make that assumption. but i have things to do besides trying to converse with artful dodgers. Ohh...the victim card. I have not changed anything that you claim (intentionally that is, and have apologized in cases where I have done it unintentionally in the past with posters on this board). You're misunderstandings are the reason you feel I am replacing/revising things. Isn't it funny how of all the posters on all the threads on the several boards here (and with all the posts I make) you're the only one claiming I'm doing these things...much less doing them intentionally and often? Last time we tried that you would not accept my opinion as an argument, so I doubt this will happen unless you become more open minded. |
|
|
|
Post by lonewolf on Jul 26, 2012 14:12:03 GMT -5
my understanding is that this is a moot point. "evidence of a direct connection...to her" is neither alleged by rep. bachmann nor required to question her eligibility for security clearance at the level her present position requires, so that's not an issue here. nor is evidence of current "influence on her". the fact that there are close members of her immediate family with current connections to groups who have declared their intent to stand against the u.s. is sufficient for this to be a relevant and important consideration in granting security clearance. rep. bachmann is asking if that was done in this case, and that it be done consistently on an ongoing basis. nothing more. again, not the point of rep. bachmann's inquiry. there is no allegation of this, so your question is a red herring. So far I would say that no, which is why I find Bachmann's claims and use of Huma as an example as off base. she has made no such claim. here -- again -- is the letter which has everyone so upset: www.sctimes.com/assets/pdf/DR192062714.PDFrep. bachmann is making 5 points in this letter. ms. abedin is mentioned and relevant to point 2 only. reread it, and then quote for all of us anything that confirms what you are alleging about rep. bachmann's "claims" regarding ms. abedin personally. Just so you know, not evading these questions, just haven't had time to read through the pertinent articles yet. |
|
|
|
Post by truffleshuffle on Jul 26, 2012 19:08:06 GMT -5
Neither are requests by members of Congress seeking, through the appropriate formal channels, to establish whether the Muslim Brotherhood has gained a foothold and legitimacy... should we also spend taxpayer money studying whether alien lifeforms have infiltrated congress? just because a small handful of ignorant rubes say that fundamentalist Islam is infiltrating american life doesn't mean that we should waste time and money to placate those idiots. |
|
|
|
Post by lonewolf on Jul 27, 2012 22:13:23 GMT -5
my understanding is that this is a moot point. "evidence of a direct connection...to her" is neither alleged by rep. bachmann nor required to question her eligibility for security clearance at the level her present position requires, so that's not an issue here. nor is evidence of current "influence on her". the fact that there are close members of her immediate family with current connections to groups who have declared their intent to stand against the u.s. is sufficient for this to be a relevant and important consideration in granting security clearance. rep. bachmann is asking if that was done in this case, and that it be done consistently on an ongoing basis. nothing more. again, not the point of rep. bachmann's inquiry. there is no allegation of this, so your question is a red herring. she has made no such claim. here -- again -- is the letter which has everyone so upset: www.sctimes.com/assets/pdf/DR192062714.PDFrep. bachmann is making 5 points in this letter. ms. abedin is mentioned and relevant to point 2 only. reread it, and then quote for all of us anything that confirms what you are alleging about rep. bachmann's "claims" regarding ms. abedin personally. Actually to understand what is going on...you need more information. E.g the original document where Bachmann lists a series of decisions from H. Clinton's department that she finds questionable www.scribd.com/doc/100439777/Ig-Letter-Dept-of-StateHere she does not list Huma by name, but when considering she's discussing decisions made by Hillary (and/or her staff - 3 situations listed) and asks questions such as "Within the programs...has the Muslim Brotherhood -- or anyone associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, directly or indirectly -- ever renounced the objectives of the Muslim Brotherhood in North America" Pretty silly question in general, not to mention anyone that would be in a covert mode to try and infiltrate as Bachmann is worried about would not be outed in such a way. And in the letter you provided she also asks "how she [Huma] was able to avoid being disqualified for a security clearance" Which is also is a statement on insinuation. |
|
|
|
Post by cvvcdad on Jul 27, 2012 23:21:49 GMT -5
this is just too important not to respond to. to understand what is going on...you need more information: www.investigativeproject.org/documents/misc/20.pdfi honestly don't know how anybody can read this, and then say this: "Within the programs...has the Muslim Brotherhood -- or anyone associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, directly or indirectly -- ever renounced the objectives of the Muslim Brotherhood in North America" Pretty silly question in general... so i'm sincerely hoping that this is the first time you have seen this document, and that you will read it. because, after knowing and understanding what this document tells us, it should be impossible for anyone to seriously say that asking if the objectives of the muslim brotherhood in north america have been renounced is a "pretty silly question". not only do we know strategy; we also know tactics. what is astounding is that everything progressives hold dear will be undone if the tactics succeed... |
|
|
|
Post by lonewolf on Jul 28, 2012 1:00:37 GMT -5
this is just too important not to respond to. to understand what is going on...you need more information: www.investigativeproject.org/documents/misc/20.pdfi honestly don't know how anybody can read this, and then say this: "Within the programs...has the Muslim Brotherhood -- or anyone associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, directly or indirectly -- ever renounced the objectives of the Muslim Brotherhood in North America" Pretty silly question in general... so i'm sincerely hoping that this is the first time you have seen this document, and that you will read it. because, after knowing and understanding what this document tells us, it should be impossible for anyone to seriously say that asking if the objectives of the muslim brotherhood in north america have been renounced is a "pretty silly question". not only do we know strategy; we also know tactics. what is astounding is that everything progressives hold dear will be undone if the tactics succeed... Sigh, reading comprehension. Did I say that the objectives of the Muslim Brotherhood in North America aren't worth speaking against? Please, go to the "Written record" to prove where I said it and I will quickly apologize. 1-As you (and others, to which I did not disagree) mentioned, you don't have to believe in the same things or even like the person you marry. Can't the same hold true for offspring? You can look at trends of beliefs in race, sex, and sexual orientation as proof there. 2-I mentioned it was a silly question for 3 reasons A-Do we have to renounce everything we're against to prove we're against it? B-Public renouncement of a group means a lot less than your pattern of behaviors. As I said previously. Anyone (even a full believer working for the group) could renounce them publicly. C-The person in question here (Huma), has cleared at least some decent level of scrutiny of her background to get her security clearance. It's pretty unlikely that her connections were overlooked by the government. 3-Notice the wording "Directly, or indirectly" : do you not see the link to McCarthyism there. 4-To combine the above. I have "indirect" connections to some radical groups (the kind that gather in the woods...wear camo...stockpile guns..have manifesto's...and are on government watch lists). Do I need to publicly renounce them to show that I'm against them? Especially when my actions have shown no indication of favoring their views. On a side note. If that "manifesto" worries you. In a general sense, now you know how many secular people feel when they see certain politicians making promises in their election speeches. |
|
|
|
Post by lonewolf on Jul 29, 2012 11:48:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by cvvcdad on Jul 29, 2012 21:30:01 GMT -5
pg 1 of the thread. point already made & countered. cmon wolf -- keep up with us...  |
|
|
|
Post by (R)uffda! on Jul 29, 2012 21:41:42 GMT -5
Countered?
Uh, no. That's another case of your irrefutable facts being refuted.
|
|
|
|
Post by lonewolf on Jul 29, 2012 22:46:37 GMT -5
pg 1 of the thread. point already made & countered. cmon wolf -- keep up with us... I must have missed that link when I scanned through to see if it had been posted. As for the point being countered...well there's 3 points being made. 1-Her allegations are a stretch (argument has been made against) 2-Former members of her staff admit her issues with facts (no counters made) 3-The resemblance to McCarthyism (argument has been made against...but there is at least some similarities there no matter which side of the fence you fall on) |
|
