A couple of things I'd like to see clarified: Kilarney, what exactly is your point? It's hard to work out what it is among all these shifting goalposts. Joe, what exactly constitutes "proof" by your standard?
Not really. Your original problem was that one particular guy was supposed to have bought one particular job. This article doesn't say anything about that, but I guess you're moving the goalposts.
I cited a specific example to illustrate a concern. When the basis for my concern was questioned, I cited more examples.
That's how debate works, Joe.
Nice try.
Now will you answer my question? Do you personally believe that Obama has NOT engaged in patronage?
Kilarney, what exactly is your point? It's hard to work out what it is among all these shifting goalposts.
My point is that I don't like the idea of any president appointing persons to positions based in part on how much money they have offered to the president. This is an issue of inequality.
Joe, what exactly constitutes "proof" by your standard?
I think the original contention was that one guy bought a job. If that one guy or someone in the administration came out and said, "That guy bought that job", or if the Justice Department launched an investigation and found that the guy bought the job, then I would be satisfied that the guy bought the job.
When the basis for my concern was questioned, I cited more examples.
Some people around here call that "moving the goalposts", but I guess hypocrites do that type of thing. Woops!
Then you don't believe that there are pirates off the coast of Somalia?
In the strictest sense, No, I don't. I also don't disbelive there are pirates off the coast of Somalia. Ruling out silly Bill Clinton word games on things like the fact that one could take the question to mean classic Hook-hands and eyepatches pirates, or simply modern day pirates. I can't tell you the exact location of the Pirates in question, but there is more than enough evidence that there are people who engage in acts of piracy in that general vicinity, in other words, there's pirates about there.
How much straw did you stuff into that man?
Enough to make it burn quite merrily. But that aside, so far, all you have is a bunch of people saying the same thing at the same time. Since there's no tune to it and you're not in robes, a church choir you ain't, and since there is no hard evidence of it, that means you're so far just a bunch of people with the same idea at the same time. Nothing more, nothing less.
Joe, you are a fucking liar. Read this article again. It's from the Senior White House Correspondent for ABC news. A good source.
Hmm... Senior White House Correspondent or.... uhh... well... NO evidence in support of your position. Hmm... who should I believe?
And you still cling to your position that money had NOTHING to do with these appointments? You really believe that a producer of this show was the best pick for ambassador to France?
Stop dodging a simple question. Do you personally believe that Obama has NOT engaged in patronage? Why are you so afraid to answer this?
Kilarney, what exactly is your point? It's hard to work out what it is among all these shifting goalposts.
My point is that I don't like the idea of any president appointing persons to positions based in part on how much money they have offered to the president.
What you cited to prove that was a series of articles that say that people who contributed to the campaign later found jobs. No proof was offered that there was any correlation between donations given and jobs offered. You're confusing correlation with causation. Correlation =/= Causation.
And you still cling to your position that money had NOTHING to do with these appointments?
You're confused again. That's not my position. My position is that you haven't sustained your burden of proof.
Forum, let this be an example of Joe being an ass. You have to love the double standard here.
If I said that Obama exhales CO2, and that's lowering the oxygen level, I am sure that Joe would make up an equally absurd argument as the one we have seen here.
Joe, you keep forgetting that YOU are the one who is making an incredible claim.
hat you cited to prove that was a series of articles that say that people who contributed to the campaign later found jobs.
Either you are being disingenuous or you have little reading comprehension. The BIGGEST donors found jobs. That is the point.
Again... continue to ignore the conclusion of the ABC News Senior White House Correspondent. I should encourage this to keep going, since it makes you look completely stupid.
How so? As far as I can see, it's just that Joe has a higher standard for what constitutes evidence. I can't speak for Joe, but I can speak for myself, and you haven't even met my lowest standard of what I could consider evidence.
No proof was offered that there was any correlationcausation betweenfrom donations given andto jobs offered. You're confusing correlation with causation.
For example, let me pose the following. Two criteria that I, as a president, would consider very important in an ambassador, are willingness to support my administration, and a high level of ability to negotiate with others. Now, I would think that bundling a large amount of money for my campaign is in fact an excellent indicator of both these criteria.
Stop dodging a simple question. Do you personally believe that Obama has NOT engaged in patronage? Why are you so afraid to answer this?
The answer to that question is completely irrelevant, that's why.
Personally, I do think that it is very likely that Obama is engaging in patronage, and that Joe's standard of proof in this regard is somewhat unreasonable. However, I also believe that patronage is far less of a problem than Kilarney makes it out to be.
Personally, I do think that it is very likely that Obama is engaging in patronage, and that Joe's standard of proof in this regard is somewhat unreasonable. However, I also believe that patronage is far less of a problem than Kilarney makes it out to be.
Ahh... finally a reasonable person!
My concern is that while these people may have some qualification for the job, the fact that access to money got them considered is wrong.
I'm not saying that they will be terrible ambassadors. Only time will tell. It's the fact that they used money to gain access that is my problem. Again, it's an issue of equality.
Kilarney, the burden of proof is still on you. You made an assertion, Joe challenged it, and now you've turned it around on him and muddled the point with ad hominems. The line between "it's likely" and "I've proven it to be true, case closed" is thicker than you seem to think.
Joe, you keep forgetting that YOU are the one who is making an incredible claim.
I'm not making any claim whatsoever aside from the claim that you have failed to sustain your burden. If you sustain your burden, then I will gladly accuse Obama of all sorts of turpitude and I will write a strongly worded letter to the editor of the Washington Post outlining my reproaches to his dastardly deeds. Until then, my position is not the opposite of yours. My position is that you have not proven your claim.
Stop dodging a simple question. Do you personally believe that Obama has NOT engaged in patronage? Why are you so afraid to answer this?
The answer to that question is completely irrelevant, that's why.
I said that Obama is acting consistently with every president in recent memory. Joe said that he did not believe this. In this scenario, he is the one with the burden of proof.
Nonetheless, I cited numerous sources in furtherance of my argument. Ignoring these does not mean that you can say that I have not met my burden of proof. Again, amongst numerous sources, the Senior White House Correspondent for ABC News agrees with me. Obama himself admitted that he engaged in this behavior.
And yet some people believe that I haven't met a burden of proof.
The line between "it's likely" and "I've proven it to be true, case closed" is thicker than you seem to think.
The fact that it is "likely" alone is enough to be concerned, which is what I have said I am.
I am glad that civil rights leaders in the 1950s didn't throw in the towel because it was merely "likely" that blacks were being discriminated against.
True.
Joe, so we can establish that you are not a troll, please stop dodging my question. Do you believe that Obama has NOT engaged in patronage? Your refusal to answer the question is compelling evidence that you are a troll.
Either you are being disingenuous or you have little reading comprehension. The BIGGEST donors found jobs. That is the point.
Fucking fantastic! Coincidentally, 100% of major league baseball players own baseball gloves, and dolphins have a more elegant system than humans, because they have a separate breathing and eating orifice, thus eliminating the risk of choking on food.
Seriously, if that's your point, It's pretty piss-poor. The Biggest donors got these jobs. Nobody was arguing that they didn't. Also, I'd like to point out that you've shifted your goalposts - Your stated point before was that the fact that they WERE the biggest donors was why they got the job, which is something you've yet to provide any evidence for, but all of a sudden, your point has become "The Biggest donors got the jobs".
And besides, you're the guy who doesn't believe that there are pirates off the coast of Somalia.
I was trying to state my point a little more eloquently than this, but it appears that you misunderstood my attempt to do so, so please take a rather more plain explanation and my apologies that you didn't understand what I said. Belief does not come into it. There is provably groups of people in that area who do things that fall under the definition of piracy, which makes them pirates. I don't believe OR disbelieve that they're there, because that's as stupid as believing in Magnetism - it either exists, or it doesn't, and in either state, it's not a case of belief, just "Does it exist? Y/N"
Besides, you have notproventhat the question is irrelevant. You made the claim, now prove it.
Oh come on, That's just childish. What's next, are you going to rub gum in our hair?
Fucking fantastic! Coincidentally, 100% of major league baseball players own baseball gloves, and dolphins have a more elegant system than humans, because they have a separate breathing and eating orifice, thus eliminating the risk of choking on food.
No offense, but there is no point in debating with you. You have demonstrated a true lack of intelligence.
Yeah, Churba. You're smarter about white house politics than the Senior White House Correspondent for ABC News. It must be nice to go through life being so arrogant.
If you are ever interested in a sailing vacation, you should try the coast of Somalia. There's no proof that there are pirates there.
Either you are being disingenuous or you have little reading comprehension. The BIGGEST donors found jobs. That is the point.
Fucking fantastic! Coincidentally, 100% of major league baseball players own baseball gloves, and dolphins have a more elegant system than humans, because they have a separate breathing and eating orifice, thus eliminating the risk of choking on food.
Seriously, if that's your point, It's pretty piss-poor. The Biggest donors got these jobs. Nobody was arguing that they didn't. Also, I'd like to point out that you've shifted your goalposts - Your stated point before was that the fact that they WERE the biggest donors was why they got the job, which is something you've yet to provide any evidence for, but all of a sudden, your point has become "The Biggest donors got the jobs".
Yeah, the only one moving goalposts tonight has been K.
Fucking fantastic! Coincidentally, 100% of major league baseball players own baseball gloves, and dolphins have a more elegant system than humans, because they have a separate breathing and eating orifice, thus eliminating the risk of choking on food.
No offense, but there is no point in debating with you. You have demonstrated a true lack of intelligence.
Yeah, Churba. You're smarter about white house politics than the Senior White House Correspondent for ABC News. It must be nice to live life being so arrogant.
Joe, you are still dodging the question. Do you believe that Obama has NOT engaged in patronage?
At this point, it is clear that you are a troll. I'm just giving you a chance to state otherwise. But you won't, because we all know that you are a troll.
There is provably groups of people in that area who do things that fall under the definition of piracy, which makes them pirates. I don't believe OR disbelieve that they're there, because that's as stupid as believing in Magnetism - it either exists, or it doesn't, and in either state, it's not a case of belief, just "Does it exist? Y/N"
Churba,
Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true.
Whether or not it is irrelevant (and it's not), why are you so afraid to answer it?
Very trollish. Everything you are doing is consistent with being a troll.
Besides, you have notproventhat the question is irrelevant. You made the claim, now prove it.
Even if Joe is a troll, that is nonetheless irrelevant to the actual point of his argument. As such, it is irrelevant what Joe actually believes since that is not the topic of debate here.
Even if Joe is a troll, that is nonetheless irrelevant to the actual point of his argument. As such, it is irrelevant what Joe actually believes since that is not the topic of debate here.
I understand your point, whether or not I agree with it. However, it's entirely appropriate to establish that Joe is merely a troll. I feel better having shown that he is.
It's also hilarious that the great debater Joe is afraid of a simple question. At this point, it's demonstrative of how insecure or inept Joe is. Trolls are like that.
Even if Joe is a troll, that is nonetheless irrelevant to the actual point of his argument. As such, it is irrelevant what Joe actually believes since that is not the topic of debate here.
I understand your point, whether or not I agree with it. However, it's entirely appropriate to establish that Joe is merely a troll. I feel better having shown that he is.
I can't possibly understand how this would make you feel any better. You are a self-admitted troll, and you haven't proven anything about whether I am a troll. In fact, I'd say that your constant repetition of the question is more troll-type behavior than ignoring what was a transparent attempt for more trolling and ad hominems.
Comments
Kilarney, what exactly is your point? It's hard to work out what it is among all these shifting goalposts.
Joe, what exactly constitutes "proof" by your standard?
That's how debate works, Joe.
Nice try.
Now will you answer my question? Do you personally believe that Obama has NOT engaged in patronage?
Hmm... Senior White House Correspondent or.... uhh... well... NO evidence in support of your position. Hmm... who should I believe?
And you still cling to your position that money had NOTHING to do with these appointments? You really believe that a producer of this show was the best pick for ambassador to France?
Stop dodging a simple question. Do you personally believe that Obama has NOT engaged in patronage? Why are you so afraid to answer this?
Once again, why are you so afraid of a simple question. Do you believe that Obama has NOT engaged in patronage?
If I said that Obama exhales CO2, and that's lowering the oxygen level, I am sure that Joe would make up an equally absurd argument as the one we have seen here.
Joe, you keep forgetting that YOU are the one who is making an incredible claim.
Again... continue to ignore the conclusion of the ABC News Senior White House Correspondent. I should encourage this to keep going, since it makes you look completely stupid.
His refusal to answer a simple question is the best evidence.
The simple truth is that Joe believes in my position, but is just enjoying being a troll.
And besides, you're the guy who doesn't believe that there are pirates off the coast of Somalia.
Personally, I do think that it is very likely that Obama is engaging in patronage, and that Joe's standard of proof in this regard is somewhat unreasonable. However, I also believe that patronage is far less of a problem than Kilarney makes it out to be.
My concern is that while these people may have some qualification for the job, the fact that access to money got them considered is wrong.
I'm not saying that they will be terrible ambassadors. Only time will tell. It's the fact that they used money to gain access that is my problem. Again, it's an issue of equality.
His refusal to admit that his position is contrary to mine is compelling evidence that he is a troll.
Nonetheless, I cited numerous sources in furtherance of my argument. Ignoring these does not mean that you can say that I have not met my burden of proof. Again, amongst numerous sources, the Senior White House Correspondent for ABC News agrees with me. Obama himself admitted that he engaged in this behavior.
And yet some people believe that I haven't met a burden of proof.
Keep moving those goalposts, people.
I am glad that civil rights leaders in the 1950s didn't throw in the towel because it was merely "likely" that blacks were being discriminated against. Joe, so we can establish that you are not a troll, please stop dodging my question. Do you believe that Obama has NOT engaged in patronage? Your refusal to answer the question is compelling evidence that you are a troll.
Very trollish. Everything you are doing is consistent with being a troll.
Besides, you have not proven that the question is irrelevant. You made the claim, now prove it.
Seriously, if that's your point, It's pretty piss-poor. The Biggest donors got these jobs. Nobody was arguing that they didn't. Also, I'd like to point out that you've shifted your goalposts - Your stated point before was that the fact that they WERE the biggest donors was why they got the job, which is something you've yet to provide any evidence for, but all of a sudden, your point has become "The Biggest donors got the jobs". I was trying to state my point a little more eloquently than this, but it appears that you misunderstood my attempt to do so, so please take a rather more plain explanation and my apologies that you didn't understand what I said.
Belief does not come into it. There is provably groups of people in that area who do things that fall under the definition of piracy, which makes them pirates. I don't believe OR disbelieve that they're there, because that's as stupid as believing in Magnetism - it either exists, or it doesn't, and in either state, it's not a case of belief, just "Does it exist? Y/N" Oh come on, That's just childish. What's next, are you going to rub gum in our hair?
Yeah, Churba. You're smarter about white house politics than the Senior White House Correspondent for ABC News. It must be nice to go through life being so arrogant.
If you are ever interested in a sailing vacation, you should try the coast of Somalia. There's no proof that there are pirates there.
Joe, you are still dodging the question. Do you believe that Obama has NOT engaged in patronage?
At this point, it is clear that you are a troll. I'm just giving you a chance to state otherwise. But you won't, because we all know that you are a troll.
It's also hilarious that the great debater Joe is afraid of a simple question. At this point, it's demonstrative of how insecure or inept Joe is. Trolls are like that.
Typical Joe. Argue, but don't ever take a position.
I've asked for your position and you won't give it. You're either completely insecure or are a troll.
So, Joe. Do you believe that Obama has NOT engaged in patronage?