Kerry's record

[bamabake]

Bamalaw92,

Sure, no problem, Bamalaw92. I said I thought Kerry was being dishonest in the next to last sentence: “I will agree that is sounds like Kerry is REACHING for 56, …”

I don’t think there is such a huge difference between ‘reaching’ and ‘dishonesty’ but, either way, I’ve already covered this in a previous post.

No, I didn’t say it was acceptable (this is funny. No, seriously, trust me, it’s funny). Again, you’re twisting what I said. I said that both Bush and Kerry are guilty of using broad definitions (well, actually I said, as you pointed out again, board, but that was clearly a typo. Or was it? Do you see how close those words are? DO YOU? I mean one is spelled BOARD and means plank and the other is spelled BROAD and means large (or is it the other way around? I always mess this up). I mean the last two letters are the SAME. Hahaha. It’s funny, I’m telling you.). I didn’t say anything like you claim (Wait for it …). Nothing at all. So I put an 11 instead of a 5, so what? It doesn’t make a bit of difference to the point I was trying to make and certainly doesn’t show that I didn’t read the article (which I did). What I got from the article was this:

“Kerry counted all measures he wrote that were approved by the Senate. While Bush defined “bills” in the strictest sense, Kerry included bills, joint resolutions, concurrent resolutions with no force of law, and even simple Senate resolutions that aren't even considered by the House. Kerry would have been more accurate to say he wrote 56 "measures" that passed the Senate, including 11 that became law. (Kerry's total of 56 does not include the private law.)” (Look, Bamalaw92, nothing is misspelled. But, then again, I do copy and paste that from something else. So, I guess, I can’t really count that one).

(‘Did’ you notice that I slipped something in that last sentence? I’ll wait for you to catch it. You got it? The ‘do’ should be a ‘did’!)

That was the point I was trying to make. Nothing more, nothing less. I stated in several other posts that I thought Kerry was being dishonest (or reaching. Which ever you prefer). You’re clearly not reading all of my posts. You’re guilty of exactly what you’re accusing me of!

I said previously that I wrote an 11 instead of a 5, but it doesn’t matter, because my point was only to add that factcheck.org also showed how Kerry got to his number. I know, I know, YOU know for a fact that WAS my point.

In your third post you said, “You don’t need to tell me about engineers.” Which I still don’t know what means, but it sounds angry to me. Either that, or it sounds funny to me. Wait, check that, I think it sounds both angry and funny! Later in that same post, you say, “… and, yes, it is obvious other know more about it than you do.” Angry, anyone? Those are just two.

I didn’t respectfully call you a liar. I respectfully disagreed with you. Although I’m starting to see why you’re so angry. You took it personally. Let’s go over it game: I didn’t call you a liar. I disagreed with you. You thought you got the tone right, I didn’t. That’s ok. In you’re profession I’m sure you’ve run into someone who disagreed with you, right?

You have proven that I exchanged a 5 for an 11, which was not evenly remotely important the case I was trying to make. But this isn’t even worth my time.

You said: “Get those google fingers working!!”

Hahahahaha … Now I’m sure that was funny.

And I am sorry to pull you "off topic" to all the other "reasonable posters" here but you failed to defend your position on moral absolutes, or lack of.

I see no reason to not defend the position I have. It is right and it is important to pursuade others.
If you think morality is relative then please promulgate it here.



cheers

 

[Bamalaw92]

Bamalaw92,

Sure, no problem, Bamalaw92. I said I thought Kerry was being dishonest in the next to last sentence: “I will agree that is sounds like Kerry is REACHING for 56, …”

Reaching and dishonesty are two totally different words that do not connote nearly the same meaning when used in this context. Look them up.

I don’t think there is such a huge difference between ‘reaching’ and ‘dishonesty’ but, either way, I’ve already covered this in a previous post.

There is a huge difference. It is sad that an educated man such as yourself does not know the difference.

No, I didn’t say it was acceptable (this is funny. No, seriously, trust me, it’s funny). Again, you’re twisting what I said. I said that both Bush and Kerry are guilty of using broad definitions (well, actually I said, as you pointed out again, board, but that was clearly a typo. Or was it? Do you see how close those words are? DO YOU? I mean one is spelled BOARD and means plank and the other is spelled BROAD and means large (or is it the other way around? I always mess this up). I mean the last two letters are the SAME. Hahaha. It’s funny, I’m telling you.). I didn’t say anything like you claim (Wait for it …). Nothing at all. So I put an 11 instead of a 5, so what? It doesn’t make a bit of difference to the point I was trying to make and certainly doesn’t show that I didn’t read the article (which I did). What I got from the article was this:

“Kerry counted all measures he wrote that were approved by the Senate. While Bush defined “bills” in the strictest sense, Kerry included bills, joint resolutions, concurrent resolutions with no force of law, and even simple Senate resolutions that aren't even considered by the House. Kerry would have been more accurate to say he wrote 56 "measures" that passed the Senate, including 11 that became law. (Kerry's total of 56 does not include the private law.)”[let me just note here in this little rant of yours - THIS IS THE REASON FACTCHECK POINTS OUT KERRY WAS BEING DISHONEST! Kerry is a lawmaker - not an engineer - he knows the difference between bills and measures. He is banking on the fact that people like you do not] (Look, Bamalaw92, nothing is misspelled. But, then again, I do copy and paste that from something else. So, I guess, I can’t really count that one).

(‘Did’ you notice that I slipped something in that last sentence? I’ll wait for you to catch it. You got it? The ‘do’ should be a ‘did’!)

That was the point I was trying to make. Nothing more, nothing less. I stated in several other posts that I thought Kerry was being dishonest (or reaching. Which ever you prefer). You’re clearly not reading all of my posts. You’re guilty of exactly what you’re accusing me of!

Well that was a nice meaningless little rant. Still can't admit that you made an error. You stated clearly and unequivocally that Bush's number was 11. You even went as far as denying that you ever said it in you second most recent post. You used the number 11 originally in response to my listing of the only true 11 measures that Kerry can take credit for as proven by an unbiased source in an attempt to demonstrate NOT that Kerry's record was substantial, but as an attempt to discredit my representation of the article. Trying to say now that you REALLY meant 5 when you said 11 in response to my initial post that showed the ELEVEN was what factcheck.org found to be the truth is pathetic. Nice try at saving face though.

I said previously that I wrote an 11 instead of a 5, but it doesn’t matter, because my point was only to add that factcheck.org also showed how Kerry got to his number. I know, I know, YOU know for a fact that WAS my point.

You had no point. The fact that factcheck.org displayed that Kerry was dishonest and misled the country about his record while criticizing the president for misrepresenting Kerry's record was the entire point of the original post. You saw fit to offer up an excuse for it by saying "oh well, it was just how he defined words, and Bamalaw92 is being misleading about the article!" What we have now after multi posts finally learned from you is that you agree that Kerry was dishonest and that my representation of the article was accurate.

In your third post you said, “You don’t need to tell me about engineers.” Which I still don’t know what means, but it sounds angry to me. Either that, or it sounds funny to me. Wait, check that, I think it sounds both angry and funny! Later in that same post, you say, “… and, yes, it is obvious other know more about it than you do.” Angry, anyone? Those are just two.

I love how you can divine anger where none exists. Out of curiosity, how does one determine the emotion of an unemotional written sentence? The engineers comment was one addressing the only relevance of your post (I only address what is relevant unlike some) as explained earlier (which apparently you are having trouble understanding.) The stating of the obvious is not anger - it is fact. I cannot help it if you are woefully uninformed. In your arrogance you somehow thinks that makes me angry - frankly I could care less if you ever learn anything but it is not anger that causes me to state the facts.

I didn’t respectfully call you a liar. I respectfully disagreed with you. Although I’m starting to see why you’re so angry. You took it personally. Let’s go over it game: I didn’t call you a liar. I disagreed with you. You thought you got the tone right, I didn’t. That’s ok. In you’re profession I’m sure you’ve run into someone who disagreed with you, right?

In my profession I have learned to never take anything anyone says personally, but apparently that is another concept that you are unfamiliar with. I will agree that you did not use the word liar. Instead you said I was "misrepresenting" the article. For someone who thinks "reaching" equals "dishonest" , it amazes me that you do not equate "misrepresenting" with "lying", but I will take you at your word The fact of the matter is that the article clearly stated that Kerry's number of 56 was wrong given ANY definition, broad, board or otherwise and the correct number was eleven. Even now you cannot seem to accept the truth. Not surprising, but sad.

You have proven that I exchanged a 5 for an 11, which was not evenly remotely important the case I was trying to make. But this isn’t even worth my time.

So when you wrote in your original post, and I quote, "He [meaning me] decided only show how Bush arrived at his total for Kerry of 11 'bills passed'", what you are saying now is that you REALLY meant to say, "He decided only show how Bush arrived at his total for Kerry of 5 'bills passed'". Is that what you REALLY want to argue??? That would've be incredibly horrible retort considering I detailed all eleven of the bills factcheck.org found to be true and not just the five that Bush stated was his record (which is true in the strictest definition). Why would you accuse someone of misrepresenting the article by "only showing how Bush arrived" at his numbers if you thought there was more in the original post than Bush gave credit for?? That was the ENTIRE case you were trying to make! It was based on a faulty premise that I was only looking at what Bush said, and ignoring the article, when in fact the ONLY thing I was looking at was the article. A point that has been proven time and time again.

You said: “Get those google fingers working!!”

Hahahahaha … Now I’m sure that was funny.

I am glad to see that truthful humor does not escape you.

 

[COBamaFan]

Come on, Bamalaw92, there was some funny stuff in that last post. No response to it? Nothing? Whatever, man, whatever …

Maybe you should read it again?

Ahhhhh, Bamalaw92, I know you think ‘reaching’ and ‘dishonesty’ are two totally different words, but you’re thinking about it too much. Just groove on it (on a personal note, I’ve been trying to work that into a post for quite sometime now – ever since I heard it on the Simpson’s. Anybody else remember that one? It was a good one. I’m kind of proud of working it into this post). I’ll even use it in a sentence for you: “COBamaFan is really reaching on this one. He’s completely full of it!” See? ? that was seriously funny. It’s got to get a response!

As to the rest of it: What’s the point? Nothing really new in your post, so I would just be repeating myself. And then you would just repeat yourself and, well, we might continue on forever and ever like this. It's the circle of life, Simba. (That one was only kind of funny. I was reaching a little ... )

Seriously, I disagree with pretty much everything you said, but have a wonderful evening. Which out for those engineers!

Ok, later ...

 

[Bamalaw92]

Come on, Bamalaw92, there was some funny stuff in that last post. No response to it? Nothing? Whatever, man, whatever …


Maybe you should read it again?

Why read it again? We are all now dumber for having to read it the first time. (Let's see if you pick up on the pop culture reference there as that seems to be what your sole retort now is)

Ahhhhh, Bamalaw92, I know you think ‘reaching’ and ‘dishonesty’ are two totally different words, but you’re thinking about it too much.

Sorry. I am of the school of belief that words actually have meanings and connote the meaning that they have. Go figure. Your problem is that you are grooving to much instead of actually thinking before you write. Must be too many Simpson episodes.

Just groove on it (on a personal note, I’ve been trying to work that into a post for quite sometime now – ever since I heard it on the Simpson’s. Anybody else remember that one? It was a good one. I’m kind of proud of working it into this post). I’ll even use it in a sentence for you: “COBamaFan is really reaching on this one. He’s completely full of it!” See? ? that was seriously funny. It’s got to get a response!

Your example is the first correct thing you have said this entire post. It does not say that you have been dishonest, just full of it.

As to the rest of it: What’s the point? Nothing really new in your post, so I would just be repeating myself. And then you would just repeat yourself and, well, we might continue on forever and ever like this. It's the circle of life, Simba. (That one was only kind of funny. I was reaching a little ... )

Reaching but not being dishonnest.....you are beginning to learn the way grasshopper. I know that you refuse to admit your error (typical liberal trait) so I guess the better tactic for you is as you are doing - deflect the discussion with lame, cutesy tripe. At least you are consistent.

Seriously, I disagree with pretty much everything you said, but have a wonderful evening. Which out for those engineers!

Ok, later ...

Too bad you have absolutely nothing to base your disagreement on....still anxiously awaiting your personal in depth analysis of the Kerry record (especially considering this is the entire point of this thread) but apparently we all will not be fortunate enough to receive that and must settle for you snappy and witty repartee. How fortunate!

BTW, how does one which out for an engineer??

 

[bamabake]

Why read it again? We are all now dumber for having to read it the first time. (Let's see if you pick up on the pop culture reference there as that seems to be what your sole retort now is)


Sorry. I am of the school of belief that words actually have meanings and connote the meaning that they have. Go figure. Your problem is that you are grooving to much instead of actually thinking before you write. Must be too many Simpson episodes.

Your example is the first correct thing you have said this entire post. It does not say that you have been dishonest, just full of it.


Reaching but not being dishonnest.....you are beginning to learn the way grasshopper. I know that you refuse to admit your error (typical liberal trait) so I guess the better tactic for you is as you are doing - deflect the discussion with lame, cutesy tripe. At least you are consistent.


Too bad you have absolutely nothing to base your disagreement on....still anxiously awaiting your personal in depth analysis of the Kerry record (especially considering this is the entire point of this thread) but apparently we all will not be fortunate enough to receive that and must settle for you snappy and witty repartee. How fortunate!

BTW, how does one which out for an engineer??

Your problem is that you are grooving to much instead of actually thinking before you write. Must be too many Simpson episodes.

lol

 

[IH8Orange]

Which out for those engineers!

The credibility of engineers is falling like Fidel Castro on an ice rink.