or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › We could call this the "Clinton Re-Election Strategy"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

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

post #41 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

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.

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

Well frankly you do the same to me.

Quote:
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.

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 ".

Quote:
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.

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

Quote:
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.

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.

Quote:
---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.

And some wingnuts here say I babble incoherently.

Quote:
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.

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.

Quote:
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

Anyone who isn't a conservative here ( and been here all along not someone that just timely joined ) want to support this claim? Anyone?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #42 of 55
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

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.

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.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #43 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

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.

I'm coming out of ignore for a moment to say now you're just playing with words. I always said it isn't a tough thing to figure out and it's common knowledge. Why did you think that is?

Back to ignore.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #44 of 55
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I'm coming out of ignore for a moment to say now you're just playing with words. I always said it isn't a tough thing to figure out and it's common knowledge. Why did you think that is?

Back to ignore.

In this post you made this claim:

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac

Actually he's right. The oil companies are more of an obstruction to this kind of change than just phasing out cars.

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

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #45 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

In this post you made this claim:



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

And........?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #46 of 55
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

And........?

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'.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #47 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

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'.

If you will recall you weren't even included in the conversation.

Quote:
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.

Also you've just admited that this is probably a true statement with :
Quote:
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

So I'm sorry and I probably could have done more work to look this up but why when it's common knowledge. Even to you.

I mean really MJ the internal combustion engine is over a hundred years old. Do you know of any technology we all use to today that has improved less that this? Sure MPG has gone up in a small way and lot's of improvements in stability in engne design have taken place but ultimately it's the same as it was over 100 years ago. Do you know of any other tech like this?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #48 of 55
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

If you will recall you weren't even included in the conversation.

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


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Also you've just admited that this is probably a true statement with :

But that wasn't the claim. This was:

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac

The oil companies are more of an obstruction to this kind of change than just phasing out cars.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac

So I'm sorry and I probably could have done more work to look this up but why when it's common knowledge. Even to you.

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?


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac

I mean really MJ the internal combustion engine is over a hundred years old. Do you know of any technology we all use to today that has improved less that this? Sure MPG has gone up in a small way and lot's of improvements in stability in engne design have taken place but ultimately it's the same as it was over 100 years ago. Do you know of any other tech like this?

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

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #49 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

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.

You're fond of Youtube MJ. Here's a little entertainment for you : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-SuYQ5bVKk

Quote:
GM - Evidence that Big Oil & GM Killed The Electric Car
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #50 of 55
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

You're fond of Youtube MJ. Here's a little entertainment for you : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-SuYQ5bVKk

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

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #51 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

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

That's your counter?

You want support for the statement I supply it-you deny it. It's you who have nothing so you try to play superior and dismiss it. What a surprise.

And you didn't even comment on any points in the film. How pathetic is that? Sure it's a simple film but are any of the points untrue and if so why? When someone replies with support you make excuses and run.

You're so right we're done and now you know why you're on ignore.

I have no time for as some have noted here " Circle jerk " games.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #52 of 55
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

That's your counter?

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

You want support for the statement I supply it-you deny it.

You provide links to a movie ("Who killed the electric car?")...which I've actually seen BTW...that offers an unsupported theory (not even really a theory, merely vague innuendo and implication) that the oil industry killed the electric car all the while ignoring all of the other more sensible reasons why that car failed and you expect me to bow down and admit you've actually supported your claim. Nice try Einstein.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

And you didn't even comment on any points in the film.

Actually, I categorically dismiss the film as nothing more than an weak propaganda film that offers no real evidence for a vague claim. Much like you have.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

How pathetic is that?

The film was pathetic actually.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

you know why you're on ignore.

I'll believe it when I see it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I have no time for as some have noted here " Circle jerk " games.

All evidence to the contrary.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #53 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Well frankly you do the same to me.

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.

Quote:

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 ".

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

Quote:

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

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

And some wingnuts here say I babble incoherently.

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.

Quote:

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

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.

Quote:
The film must have some facts in it.



Quote:
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.

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.

Quote:

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

What? I'm not making a claim! What in the world are you talking about? Or, are you asking others to support YOUR claim?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #54 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

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?

Quote:
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

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

Dickhead A peice of work etc.

No I never will forget that.

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

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

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

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.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #55 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

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

Dickhead A peice of work etc.

No I never will forget that.

If you have an example of a time I've used the existence of our past debates as a credential or as a way of supporting my current point, please link to it now. You literally claimed that someone didn't have a place in the discussion because you and I had gone back and forth for years. Give me an example of a time I did that with someone. Just one example.

Quote:

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

Those were "outrageous" claims? Oh boy. First, they weren't even claims. They were my opinions. I believed both of them to be accurate when I posted them. Notice as well that both are highly dependent on timing. I thought we would find WMD in Iraq for some time. At a certain point (and I can't recall when, exactly), it became clear doing so was unlikely. Now, you can run around and do a victory dance that I and most of the rest of the world was wrong, but frankly...you've already done that and it's getting a little tiresome. It doesn't seem to matter what topic we're on. Once you get backed into a corner, you throw out a "oh, yeah, SDW...where are the WMD"

As for name calling, I never called you the first term. You certainly are a piece of work, though.

Quote:


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.


I'm sorry, jimmac...it's not a rant. It does to the specific point of what is and what is not common knowledge. Here is an example of SOMEONE ELSE addressing this very topic.

MJ:

Quote:
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.


See, I wasn't imagining it. You've been asked time and time again, and you refuse to support your claim. Maybe you can link to some cool indie films and rock bands next. That'll do it.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › We could call this the "Clinton Re-Election Strategy"