We could call this the "Clinton Re-Election Strategy" - Page 2

Originally Posted by SDW2001

jimmac:

First, stop using my name as some sort of credential. Anyone that looks back at our "conversations" over the years will just see that you've gotten your butt handed to you in the most embarrassing fashion, just as is happening here.

Secondly, you being a member here for many years doesn't mean you're "right." It doesn't mean you get to make a statement and not support it.

Thirdly, I would love to go back and count the number of times you've claimed that your statement is supported because it's "common knowledge." It's actually laughable when you do this, because it's almost always a statement that is highly debatable, dubious or even just an opinion. Perhaps you're unaware, but "common knowledge" usually refers to facts whose veracity is not in question by, well, anyone.

Here are some examples:

--Grass is usually green.
--Low barometric pressure often results in precipitation.
--Smoking is bad for one's health
--The personal computer was non-existent until the late 1970s/early 1980s.

Here are some hypothetical examples of statements that are NOT common knowledge:

---We have only 50 years of oil left.
---A tooth left in Coke overnight will dissolve.
---A car that ran on water was invented in the 1970s, but the oil companies killed it.
---Government spending will save the economy.


Of the above, 2 are urban legends and 2 are HIGHLY debatable if not almost certainly false. However, the above hypotheticals are the kind statements you claim are "common knowledge." In reality, they are nothing close to that.

Last, let's address your "evidence." The issue here, as usual, is that you're not linking to factual information....you're linking to opinion. The existence of a documentary that espouses your view does not prove anything, just as the existence of a book called "How Al Gore Tried to Steal The Election" does not back the opinion that he actually DID try to steal the election.

The funny part of this exchange is that you haven't realized that WE are not even necessarily disagreeing with you on the issue itself. WE would just like to see you actually support your claims.

First, stop using my name as some sort of credential.

Anyone that looks back at our "conversations" over the years will just see that you've gotten your butt handed to you in the most embarrassing fashion, just as is happening here.

Secondly, you being a member here for many years doesn't mean you're "right." It doesn't mean you get to make a statement and not support it.

Thirdly, I would love to go back and count the number of times you've claimed that your statement is supported because it's "common knowledge." It's actually laughable when you do this, because it's almost always a statement that is highly debatable, dubious or even just an opinion. Perhaps you're unaware, but "common knowledge" usually refers to facts whose veracity is not in question by, well, anyone.

---We have only 50 years of oil left.
---A tooth left in Coke overnight will dissolve.
---A car that ran on water was invented in the 1970s, but the oil companies killed it.
---Government spending will save the economy.

Last, let's address your "evidence." The issue here, as usual, is that you're not linking to factual information....you're linking to opinion. The existence of a documentary that espouses your view does not prove anything, just as the existence of a book called "How Al Gore Tried to Steal The Election" does not back the opinion that he actually DID try to steal the election.

The funny part of this exchange is that you haven't realized that WE are not even necessarily disagreeing with you on the issue itself. WE would just like to see you actually support your claims

Originally Posted by MJ1970

I don't think anyone would deny that in general consumers switching to a product that's outside the control of the currently dominant companies is not in the best interest of those companies. And that applies equally to the oil industry as any other. But that isn't the claim you made.

Originally Posted by MJ1970

In this post you made this claim:



I've underlined the claim you made in case you can't recognize it.

Originally Posted by MJ1970

And...I asked for something to back up this claim. You've provided nothing but hand waves, distractions, blathering on about how it is in the oil industry's best interest for us to not change to alternative energy sources. But nothing to support the claim that they have been "more of an obstruction to this kind of change than just phasing out cars."

I'm just sayin'.

You've provided nothing but hand waves, distractions, blathering on about how it is in the oil industry's best interest for us to not change to alternative energy sources.

I don't think anyone would deny that in general consumers switching to a product that's outside the control of the currently dominant companies is not in the best interest of those companies

Originally Posted by MJ1970

If you will recall this is a public forum. It's amazing how much time and energy you've avoiding answering.




But that wasn't the claim. This was:






Then do the work. No, it's not common knowledge to me. That's why I'm asking. What specifically has the oil industry done or is it doing to obstruct the change to alternative energy sources?




You're hand-waving again and throwing out red herrings.

Originally Posted by MJ1970

That's the best you can do? That's fine. I get it. You have nothing. I'm done.

Originally Posted by jimmac

Well frankly you do the same to me.

Only you think this SDW. Sorry but that's the way it is. You make so many outragious claims, you complain about everything but the subject matter, and besides I'm not the only one here who's " Handed your butt to you in the most embarrassing fashion ".

The problem is when I do you don't acknowledge it.

Do you mean something like we didn't find the WMD right away but rest assured they're over the next sand dune. And before you start I won't stop bringing that up because you were so forthright in convictions that they existed.

And some wingnuts here say I babble incoherently.

Like I've said I present evidence and you just dismiss it whatever the source.

The film must have some facts in it.

And really SDW it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out going to alternative energy ( that's out of the oil companies control ) isn't being viewed in their best interest by them.

Anyone who isn't a conservative here ( and been here all along not someone that just timely joined ) want to support this claim? Anyone?

Originally Posted by SDW2001

No, I absolutely do not. You were using the existence of our past "debates" (I used that very loosely) to bolster your credibility. I have never once done that.



Please give me an example of an "outrageous claim." Just one. As for who has won various arguments, I'll leave that to others.



Even if that were true, it's irrelevant to the point. Having as many posts as you and I do doesn't give one more credibility on an issue. It doesn't mean we get to not support what we post, even after repeated requests to do so.



I don't mind you bringing it up, because I actually didn't mean that at all. I simply meant that when pressed to support a claim, you often answer with "it's common knowledge!" In most cases, the claim you are making is nothing close to common knowledge. You abuse that term.



Let me spell it out for you: I gave examples of things that were NOT common knowledge, since you seem to have such trouble distinguishing what is and what is not.



It's not the source I take issue with in most cases. It's the nature of the "evidence." You seem utterly incapable of distinguishing fact from opinion. You don't seem to understand that someone stating an opinion does not provide "evidence" of anything.







What's hilarious is that you fail to see that I'm NOT DISAGREEING with the above statement. I am merely echoing the calls of others for you to specify and support your claims.

But you can't do this, because you hold the dyed-in-the-wool belief that "the oil companies are killing alternative energy." You know this to be true because you know this to be true. Ergo, it's common knowledge. Of course, it's not common knowledge. It's a common belief...even a common opinion. Logically, it makes sense that it could be true. We don't disagree there. But you've not proven or even supported the statement. It's nothing buy dogma on your part.



What? I'm not making a claim! What in the world are you talking about? Or, are you asking others to support YOUR claim?

No, I absolutely do not. You were using the existence of our past "debates" (I used that very loosely) to bolster your credibility. I have never once done that

Please give me an example of an "outrageous claim." Just one. As for who has won various arguments, I'll leave that to others.

I am merely echoing the calls of others for you to specify and support your claims.

Originally Posted by jimmac

Yes you do. Plus I've never called you a :

Dickhead A peice of work etc.

No I never will forget that.

How about the idea that we'll still find WMD in Iraq ( after the invasion ) or that the Democratic party is melting down?

are you sure you're not hearing echo's because besides a few wingnuts the room your in is empty?

The rest is just a rant. I won't even bother.

Yep. It's all I can do. I've done everything but beg you to support your claim and you haven't. Nothing more to do at this point.
...

Then do the work. No, it's not common knowledge to me. That's why I'm asking. What specifically has the oil industry done or is it doing to obstruct the change to alternative energy sources?......

.....Indeed you have said this. You haven't provided what this so-called "common knowledge" is, nor do you seem able to recognize that what you declare as "common knowledge" is merely common belief or opinion.