No, I don't. I don't believe you. Especially when the evidence proves otherwise.
Do you really feel that you can just make things up out of thin air and then expect people to believe them?
Sarah Palin's Email Hacked
- Thread starter TWD
- Start date
-
Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.
No, I don't. I don't believe you. Especially when the evidence proves otherwise.
Do you really feel that you can just make things up out of thin air and then expect people to believe them?
Yes, but when people come in here and start making claims that have absolutely no basis in fact we can't help but cry fowl. Every fact about this matter points to the conclusion that hal has made. You are basing your assertions almost completely on your political leaning "I don't like McCain so obviously it must be true that he left his wife because she wasn't pretty" when the truth is that every concrete piece of evidence we have points otherwise. You should base your arguments upon evidence, instead of wild theories and speculation that are politically convenient for you.
Last edited:
So are there any actual moderates, independents or anyone else who hasn't made up their mind reading these threads, or is all of this just pointless dick waving? 
ib4 my genitals come up as a topic of conversation again.
ib4 my genitals come up as a topic of conversation again.
Yes. The 2000 article hardly sought to "establish" anything regarding this specific issue, it devotes barely a sentence fragment to the question, and it provides no more detail than anything we've heard since then.
For the umpteenth time: it all may very well be true, and if only someone credible would tell us about, e.g., specific nerve damage, muscle spasms, mangled brachial plexi, anything plausible like that—then the issue of the extent of his disability is settled as far as I'm concerned. No one has been willing to even come close, therefore, yes, we are left to wonder whether we're having a get-out-of-hot-water-free card played on us. Why not just tell the whole truth and bury the question once and for all?
Yes, sir, "proof" is a mischaracterization. Proof would be more than sufficient; but it is above and beyond what I "demanded". Competent evidence, substantiation, plausible explanation is as far as it went.
And come on, spare us the dictionary trick. If you want to throw letters around like this, hit me up on Facebook and you can kick my ass at scrabble.
1. You would be the first in the thread to mention anything so silly as, "he doesn't want to learn," which I agree would indeed probably be a complete fabrication.
2. "He knows virtually nothing ..." accurately describes McCain's own words.
3. "He doesn't have to answer ..." accurately describes the implication of his surrogates evasively citing generic injury as an exemption from being judged for his personal unfamiliarity with technology. It also now seems to echo your own defense on his behalf.
I didn't say it "sought to establish". I said it established. More specifically, established by precedent. You'd have to believe that the 2000 article was nothing more than a cover for any future assertions that he was out of touch. And you'd have to believe that what was said was not the whole truth. As far as I can tell, the only thing that is making you believe it's not the whole truth is a political ad by his opponent.
Now, realize there are two different things in discussion here.
1. That he has a disability that does not allow him to use a keyboard.
2. That he is out of touch (as charged by the political ad and by John McCain saying he was "computer illiterate") with technology.
My first objection was that you were asking for evidence that his injuries truly made it impossible or reasonably difficult for him to use a keyboard.
My second objection was that you made a leap of logic by taking point 2 at face value. The two pieces of information there being 1) a political ad and 2) him calling himself a computer illiterate in response to the question "Mac or PC". Neither of those things in and of themselves ought to lead one to the conclusion that "virtually nothing about (technology) on a personal level".
I already said that if it was important to that your candidate is tech-savvy, then so be it. It just seems unreasonable to believe that there was any attempt to be dishonest in rebuttal, given the previous general knowledge that he was disabled, and that he lacks understanding on whole of the HUGE technology industry because he doesn't use a computer.
We're debating nuances here. Micharacterization implies that I was deliberately misleading and I assure you I was not.
1. Actually, no I wasn't. There seems to be some misunderstanding based on an insta-post. The post of mine to which you were refering was directed towards Cymek's post, not yours. I didn't quote his because when I was replying there was no post between his and mine.
2. That wasn't your whole quote. It was "virtually nothing about it on a personal level". The paragraph from which that quote comes seems to be talking about technology in general.
3. Again... where are the campaign people that are saying that he doesn't have to answer? Again... a leap of logic in saying that being less than familiar with an instrument of technology makes him unfamiliar with technology on the whole.
Well again nobody is going to go into it any more than they have because they already feel that the question was answered by the Boston Globe article. Sorry, but if that's not enough for you, no amount of detail is going to make you happy.
In that post it seems rather clear you were addressing me. A thousand pardons if I read that wrong.
The ellipsis was purely for brevity; anyway, the main idea of that paragraph I thought was clear enough: "In my view, such [a profound] appreciation [of information technology] can truly come only with significant personal experience using the technology oneself." McCain himself says he has virtually none, but has recently started attempting to learn.
I wouldn't say that, nor will I be entrapped by injected superlatives and absolutes; what I would say is that being less than familiar with a ubiquitous core instrument of technology makes him less than familiar with technology on the whole. That's perfectly fair.
And here I think we've finally hit upon the fundamental but subtle difference between your viewpoint and mine. In fact I would agree completely with the above quote if I were to add "necessarily any attempt," and "that he lacks any understanding."
Where the disparity appears to lie is in the threshold of credibility that we apply to the McCain folks. You seem content to assume that their statements, rebuttals, and explanations are generally true unless they can be shown to be overtly suspect; whereas I consider any campaign operative's statements to be generally suspect unless they can be shown to be overtly true. Based on the pitiful lack of veracity in many of their absolutely idiotic ads, they damn well deserve to have a razor sharp eye fixed on them anytime they open their mouths.
Yes, in that post I was. But when you mentioned that I was the first to express the idea that McCain "doesn't want to learn" I went back and found the post to which you were refering and it was this one. I was responding to CyMek, but didn't quote him because your post wasn't between mine and his at the time.
See, you've greatly clarified your position by being more specific in all of those quotes and it seems much more reasonable.
Not really, Poker. I haven't really heard McCain's camp say much about Obama's email ad, so I haven't taken anything at face value. That's why I've asked everyone throughout this thread to produce something that they actually said and no one ever did. There has just been a lot of conjecture and innuendo (<--directed towards everyone posting in this thread).
I recalled hearing that he couldn't use a keyboard quite some time ago, so I wasn't basing my understanding of his condition on any attempt at sweeping a recent political ad under the rug. To me the issue seemed rather trivial considering my previous knowledge of his disability.
You're right that politicians in general deserve scrutiny. I agree with that wholeheartedly. It works both ways though, so I'm not prepared to quickly accept a seemingly silly charge based upon a one sentence answer featured in a political ad. I was equally skeptical of a number of ads that McCain has run against Obama.
Perhaps I'm just annoyed that many people seem willing to accept a charge if it's coming from the right camp, but require extraordinary evidence to counter it. You're perfectly entitled to believe what you want and the issue seems of great importance to you, so I hope you find the answers you're looking for.
Wow.
Why do you guys keep telling me I'm making assertions? Or claims? I'm not. I blatantly said I wasn't making an assertion, nobody wants to listen. The first thing I said that was called an assertion ended with a question mark, for chrissakes. Maybe you guys just like the word "assertion."
What is my political leaning? I sure as hell haven't stated it in this thread. Nor have I stated I don't like McCain. Don't tell me to base my "arguments" upon evidence when you're throwing around baseless assumptions yourself.
