Jim Alder wrote:

Steve Krulick <s@krulick.com> wrote in
news:408BD591.EC4F9CE2@krulick.com:

Jim Alder wrote:

Sorry, Dawg. You're going to have to face it. The neo-libs

Ah, someone who has to put others in a neat little box to
dismiss them! Beats thinking!

Heh heh. When I get sick of hearing neocon, this is how I
retaliate.

Huh? "Sick of hearing neocon"? Explain where THAT came from!

So, you retaliate by side-stepping and strawslinging and
stereotyping and generalizing?

Yeah, that's about how I figured it.

As a Green, I could care less what YOU call a "neo-lib,"
particularly as you don't define your terms! But you assiduously
side-step the actual issues I've raised, anyway.

You didn't raise any issues.

So you claim. But there ARE none so blind as those who WILL NOT
see.

You just posted links.

Among other things. But when you snip and ignore as YOU do, I
guess you have to hew to your line!

In fact, the
sidestepping began long ago as evidenced by the subject line.

That's not my concern. *I* addressed EXACTLY what was presented
before me in THAT post; if HE was off topic, well, blame him,
but *I* dealt with HIS point.

are going to
assume that everything he says is a lie.

Sweeping generalization, strawslinger.

All you neolibs say that all the time!

Guffaw! ALL "neolibs" say that ALL the time?

Behold, the classic textbook use of a sweeping generalization!

Don't define what a "neolib" even is, but declare blatantly that
ALL of THEM do something ALL the time!

Brilliant, troll! I couldn't have delivered a better example to
prove my point about your logical flaws!

I provided several of
very many cites that deal with SPECIFIC statements that THEY
demonstrate were lies.

So can we conclude that you believe ALL of them are lies?

The EVIDENCE presented is mighty convincing! Care to refute ANY
of it?

Oh, that's right, YOU just argue by blatant assertion and
side-stepping and slinging of straw!

But if anyone fits the description of the old saw, "because his
lips move," Dubya is it!

For example?

Try his 15-minute address in March 2003 for starters; I gave an
URL to the MANY lies there.

But stay in denial and make excuses for the Commander-in-Thief!

Don't need to.

Like he depends on YOU! Stay in denial.

It's easier than backing it up
with proof.

Yes, like Bush backed up HIS claims of "uranium from Africa"
with proof! And dozens of other similar LIES!

That's a lie! Bush never claimed that Iraq tried to buy uranium
from Africa.

So you can't read either, strawslinger! Uh, did you just address
the POINT that Bush didn't back up CLAIMS of uranium from Africa
with PROOF?!!! NO!

He CLAIMED there was intel, but he didn't
back up the CLAIMS with PROOF!

What was a terrified nation,
conjuring up mental images of mushroom clouds, supposed to
think?

Did he hold up the intel?

Did he cite Wilson's report
demolishing any such story?

He said British intel said they had. That was the truth.

So every half-baked rumor is to be held up like gospel, EVEN
AFTER your own men have refuted its validity!

Do YOU have a term for THAT, if not lying?

His own envoys and intelligence people squashed that beaut early
on, but it kept popping back up because they were desperate to
pad their non-existent argument. Bush was either using carefully
chosen weasel words to IMPLY what they knew was going to be
interpreted (like MUSHROOM CLOUDS, TONS of gases, DELIVERY
SYSTEMS that didn't exist, IMMINENT THREAT, WE KNOW WHERE THE
WMDS ARE, Saddam/9-11 hinted links) a certain way, or he was
being duped by his handlers so he could CLAIM plausible
deniability later. Why did Powell throw the papers in the air
before his UN speech and call it *****?!!!

You're still making excuses for either a liar, a fool, or both.

Did YOU back up YOUR claim that I'm a "neo-Lib"?

Naw, it's obvious!

So is your ignorance. Since you don't even define the term, I
guess it means anything you WANT it to mean, but without the
specificity, side-stepper. Again, it's what a troll uses to
avoid actual thinking and evidence; reread the Orwell and what
follows!

That *I* assume that EVERYTHING "he says is a lie"?

Tou cited countless web links with lists of lies, so apparently
you think everything THEY say is the truth?

Non sequitor. Logic is not something you understand well, is it?

Do I THINK everything THEY say is the truth? No! Where did I
claim that?

What flawed process of illogic led you to THAT
nonsense claim, strawslinger?

It wasn't incumbent on ME to prove the veracity of their claims;
THEY do that WITHIN the cites! I merely responded to a request:
"so what are all these many lies you claim?"

THEY are to be easily found and studied at the various sites I
showed existed, pointing out 8 for particular review, as they
appear on the FIRST search page.

But it is typical of you illogical method of fallaciousness that
you even go to the straw ("so apparently you think"), the
sweeping generalization ("everything THEY say"), and the non
sequitor, all in one swoop!

NO, it's easier for YOU to
make blatant assertions of unsubstantiated ad hom opinion than
to 'back it up with proof' hypocrite!

Anyone else would have found a few of his favorite "lies" by now
rather than merely parroting others' accusations.

Favorites? Parroting? MORE side-stepping straw! Again, I was
merely responding to "so what are all these many lies you
claim?"! I gave the WHAT, as requested! MANY "whats"! Unable to
deal with THAT, YOU and your pals side-step to deal with the
messenger, NOT the message!

And as we both know, the easy way is the liberal way.

Yawn. Since I'm not a "liberal" (whatever THAT hoary term even
means; lesson from Orwell coming up), I could care less about
your blatant sweeping generalization. No, the "easy way" is to
MAKE sweeping generalizations without proof or evidence, and
wipe your hands of any REAL HARD thinking! Let me know when YOU
are ready to refute the evidence MY sources presented!

See, they ARE "YOUR" sources. Weren't you objecting earlier to
someone calling them YOURS?

Well, I don't OWN them, silly. In THIS context, it simply means
the sources referred to in MY previous post.

But again, all YOU can do, troll, is side-step and misdirect,
rather than address the matter at hand, i.e, the evidence.

When you can't dazzle with brilliance, try to baffle with BS,
eh?

Perhaps when you get around to actually defining "liberal" and
"neo-lib" to some objective standard that actually has some
useful meaning for political discourse, this might turn into an
actual question that isn't just mindless name-calling.

The words are essentially meaningless in this context. You need
a lesson from Orwell.

No, that was my point.

What was? That you need a lesson from Orwell? Is English YOUR
native tongue?

Did you EVEN make any point?

His classic "Politics and the English Language" should be
required reading for every student.
(http://www.bnl.com/shorts/stories/patel.html)

"The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it
signifies "something not desirable." The words democracy,
socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice, have each of
them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with
one another. In the case of a word like democracy, not only is
there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is
resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when
we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently
the defenders of every kind of régime claim that it is a
democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using the word
if it were tied down to any one meaning. Words of this kind are
often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person
who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his
hearer to think he means something quite different. Statements
like Marshal Pétain was a true patriot, The Soviet Press is the
freest in the world, The Catholic Church is opposed to
persecution, are almost always made with intent to deceive.
Other words used in variable meanings, in most cases more or
less dishonestly, are: class, totalitarian, science,
progressive, reactionary bourgeois, equality."

Words still have meaning even if a bunch of people refuse to
understand
them.

And YOU STILL show no inclination to define YOUR terms! No, it's
just as shown above, a word or term that has devolved to
unthinking slur, devoid of consensual meaning.

So, what does "liberal" mean?

1. Look it up in the dictionary. There you will find, depending
on the size and thoroughness of the tome, a history of the word
over hundreds of years. You will find that it's meaning has
evolved, changed, even meant contradictory things over time. You
will find references to political, economic, and social
applications of the word. Most, but not all, of the dictionary
denotations are positive and noble.

2. It means whatever people think it means. And their definition
may have nothing to do with the dictionary's, or yours.
Therefore, two people can use the same word, in the same
discussion, and be referring to two different things, which
minimizes the discussion's value considerably.

3. It means something bad. Most of the current usages connote
negatives. The word has so much baggage, including being a
repository for all the bad, stupid, and evil things someone
wants to project on another, that is ceases to be anything more
meaningful than putting your thumb to your nose and wagging your
fingers at someone.

4. It means nothing. It, like its siamese twin "conservative,"
cannot be used in rational discourse anymore unless you know
what the "other" person thinks it means. Even then, any
connection to the dictionary meaning may have long since been
lost.

My recommendation is not to use the word at all, as I have here
avoided using it until now, or, if you must, use something like
"liverall," "librium," and, for its twin, "preservative,"
"concernative," so as to shake up the hypnotic trance the
original words induce in the reader/listener, where thought is
replaced by reflex.

But in your case, I think it's gone beyond fixing.

And the silence is deafening!

--
Metaphors bewitch you

A man's speech must exceed his gasp or what's a metaphor!

I've had enough with your sorry self.

Unless you have something relevant and intelligent to
contribute, I will let you stew in your illogical ignorance and
denial.

"Steve Krulick" <

Riley The Dog wrote:

"Steve Krulick" <

Riley The Dog wrote:

"Steve Krulick" <

Riley The Dog wrote:

"Man from Mars!" <GeeWhiz@MarsMail.net> wrote in message
news:108j43311mvhi74@corp.supernews.com...

"***** McBurney" <mcburney.r@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:U7adnWQU7bZ3EBTdRVn-sA@comcast.com...

"Crawlingeyeball" <EB@earthlink.com> wrote in message
news:10gic.485365$B81.8170934@twister.tampabay.rr.com...

Everything that comes out of his mouth for the past 40
years has been a lie or a scam.

***********************************************************

It would take another 40 years for him to get even

close

to Bush's lies.

I don't think he could outlie Bush in 3 lifetimes.

WOW. That's a lot of lies. Can you name a couple?
We know everyone was wrong about WMD so far,
so what are all these many lies you claim?

Start with this site:

No I was asking for any actual lies Bush told

And there's no reason for me to reinvent the wheel.

Re-inventing the wheel and me asking a fairly simple question
are hardly the same thing. I'd hardly compare my little
enjoin with having to re-formulate the wheel.

I'm not interested in web sites you've glommed
over. How about just one fucking example in your
own words instead of some crap from a lefty blog site you've been
forwarding to other loons.

Clearly there's no point in trying to present you with ANY
material, as you simply snip away what you can't address, much
less refute.

What difference is it if *I* present the lies "in [my] own
words" or simply present them as compiled by others? YOU asked
"so what are these many lies you claim" and I provided many
dozens, as stated by Bush and his minions, and as explained WHY
they were lies with detail and example.

Expletives by you are simply side-stepping the point. Calling
the evidence crap doesn't make it so; that's merely your blatant
assertion of your unsubstantiated opinion. Calling every source
"a lefty blog site" doesn't make it so; that's merely your
blatant assertion of your unsubstantiated opinion. Calling
persons "loons" doesn't make them so; that's merely your blatant
assertion of your unsubstantiated opinion. Nor have I been
"forwarding" it, other than my posting the one response to the
original request.

There is no reason for me to continue with you; I've made my
point, and you stick your fingers in your ears and go "La la la
la, I can't hear you."

Consider your worthless ***** plonked.

One last time:

If YOU can't read the clearly listed and enumerated plethora of
lies for yourself, then you are either ignorant, disingenuous,
or both.

I'll take the research and documentation by these reporters,
columnists, etc. as a starting point; as I said, there were over
600,000 references to a search for "Bush + Lies" so get
cracking!

not a bunch of your wacko recommended bookmarked links

Alas, calling them "mine" or "wacko" doesn't make them so; that
is simply the blatant assertion of your unsubstantiated opinion
and merely your side-step dodge of the evidence presented. No
debate points for YOU, Sparky.

other kooks told you about.

Calling them "kooks" doesn't make them kooks merely because you
opine so. That is, again, simply the blatant assertion of your
unsubstantiated opinion and merely your side-step dodge of the
evidence presented. No debate points for YOU, again, Sparky.

Unfortunately I've seen most of them.

And how many of them have you refuted?

(You've seen most of *600,000* cites? Wow!)

Seeing them isn't refuting them. Dismissing them with a mere
hand wave doesn't make them go away.

Rather lame of you, isn't it?

Tell me what *you* think Bush's lies are.

I'm satisfied with the lists already provided; my "thoughts,"
like yours, are secondary to the documented lists these cites
present. Unable to address, much less refute them, you dodge and
dance. Go suck an egg.

Start with this site:

What's interesting to note here is that when challenged and cornered,

Steve
Krulick is unable to discuss

(much less support and defend!)

even ONE single
imaged "lie"

from ANY of his site sources.

Each and every time he is
challenged on a particular "lie",

it turns out he CANNOT support and
maintain his claim.

So then he just backs down and publishes his tiresome
(and totally discredited)

site list of imaginary "lies".

Krulick and people like him

are one of the reasons why Kerry continues to
trail President Bush in the polls - He, like his hero Jon Kerry,

CANNOT
support his claims.