Re: NY OPMC Vetoes

a_weisman_at_yahoo.com
Date: 12/26/04 

Date: 26 Dec 2004 06:56:07 -0800

GregGerber@hotmail.com wrote:
> In my view there are many ways to critique a strategy substantively
and
> to oppose a leader's style, action, and vision without presuming to
> mind read --and that is what you are doing when you call someone a
> liar.

GOD you are so dense sometimes greggy.

SOMETIMES a liar is a liar and it is demonstrable without mind reading.

It isn't because I disagree. It is because they are lying.

Not that it really matters. Because, best case scenario, they are
naive and ignorant and utterly and totally incompetent.

At worst they are flagrant and reapt LIARS.

Either way THEY SUCK.

Put it however you want, that is the bottom line.

I mean, does it matter whether Bush lied or fantasized about WMDs?
Either way, he lied or he fantasized, but lots of people died as a
result. Either way, did he deserve to be reelected? Incompetent or
ignorant? Which recommends him more?

>You are saying that YOU know what they really believe and what
> they really think, and imo, you do not, in fact, cannot.

In some methaphysical and philosophical way maybe you're right/ I can
NEVER know if the "blue" I see when I look at the sky is the "blue"
others see.

I cannot "know" that when they've been told, that they actually "get
it" that when they are shown that the bill has NOTHING about Lyme so
isn't a "lyme bill" that they "get it>" I don't "know" that they can
ever know the first thing about anything that they talk about.

So maybe they're NOT "liars" or maybe they are? Maybe they're just
totally incompetent.

Either way it doesn't speak well of them does it greggy poo?

However, IF I cannot "know" they are liars, you cannot "know" otherwise
either, can you?

So your denials are as unavailing as my insistence.

However I think that I come closer to proving they are, than you do by
repeatedly saying that they are not. Cause saying it doesn't make it
true. And in the end it comes down to you saying that you know them and
they mean well, or some other bull***, and my argument comes down to
showing their inconsistent statements and inferring that saying one
thing and knowing another is a LIE, and my saying that they've been
told that what they're saying isn't true and them continuing to say it
anyway.

So who cares?

LIARS or incompetent boobs and ninnies.

>I think you
> would be more effective in persuading more people to your view if you
> made it less personal.

Oh thanks for the tip greg.

Do you think I have NEVER tried? And guess what, FYI, it doesn't
matter. No matter how one puts it they don't like to be disagreed with
greggy they don't tolerate it.

It is no more or less effective no matter how put or by whom.

They don't accept it from rita stanley anymore than from me or sir der
or anyone else. Cause they are so damend sure they know best and that
they mean well and that they're working hard. God they belong in the
bush administration for all their moral and intellectual certitude (and
utter incompetence, misfeasance and malfeasance)!

>But you have your own personal style --and
> perhaps it is this style, which you yourself admit is abrasive, that
> has caused some to tune you out. I think when you come at people with
> such a contentious tone it may be impossible for you to tell whether
> they are rejecting your ideas or just your personal style. GG
Cheers to you greggy poo. Happy holidays!

(was that better? LOL)

Quantcast