ATTACK: At first, I always thought Kokonutguy was highly intelligent and could debate well. Well, he *was*.
REBUTTAL: Just because if you cannot come up with an alternative argument in a debate, don’t go about using ad hominem attacks as an excuse for what you lack.
*
ATTACK: Well, the bad news is Kokonutguy is just getting worse and worse. He found a new sport - bashing liberals and using liberals as scapegoats for all the evils in this world.
REBUTTAL: There are evils in both arenas. Just that there are variations and aspects of it. What some people do not get is that they try and portray the Clintons as angels (ie. "His lyings and obstructions weren’t really a crime" and yet compare that to the recent Libby case, yet not even at a trial, and they go nuts over.....Scooter) and that Karl Rove is the eeeeevil Republican masterminding everything in the Bush administration. It’s called turning the table on them. Not only politics do I blog, but technology, deafness related issues, science, national security issues, foreign politcs, etc.
*
ATTACK: Every time there's a scandal in the White House, he brings up Clinton. He's obsessed with Clinton and his arguments are non-sequitor.
REBUTTAL: Non-sequitor is defined as "a reply that has no relevance to what preceded it” Everything I write has relevancy to it whether you see it or not. It’s like an inside joke sometimes, only you have to know the whole story to understand it. If you don’t, well, just pretend by nodding your head up and down and smile as if you got the joke. Isn’t that what deaf people do?
*
ATTACK: He whines consistently about Clinton and Liberals.
REBUTTAL: You have to have a baseline comparison to start with. I could go with Jimmy Carter but that’s a bit outdated. Reagan? A hard man to measure up with. Ford? Just clumsy. Nixon. Never did like him. See what I mean?
*
ATTACK: What Bush administration is doing right (now) has NOTHING to do with Clinton but he tries SO hard to protray the Bush administration as the moral administration thus should not be held accountable for bad ethics.
REBUTTAL: Actually, Bush has a better moral compass than Clinton ever did. Ever wonder why Clinton was impeached? Ever wonder why Bill and Hillary never got together and showed affection with each other like George W. Bush with his Laura? Like here, for example?
What about Bill's affection towards his wife? Not much is there. It’s called public perception. According to me, Bill lacked any real meaningful examples about his own moral compass like here…oops….oops….oopsies again.
Of course, there are human frailties to consider. We all have them. Some more, some less. Hence the comparison between Clinton and Bush is a good start to point out the obviousness.
*
ATTACK: He argues that Clinton did so many terrible things, it makes Bush look like a saint.
REBUTTAL: Please see my previous reply
*
ATTACK: Well, he fails to realize that we're concerned about the present problems in the White House, not the old problems that's way behind us.
REBUTTAL: Actually, I am concerned with the present problems such as our leaky borders and national security issues, among other things as well. However, the MSM never (as in very rarely) cover anything good on the progress seen in Iraq. And I remind people often that freedom is never free which is why old problems have a way of catching up to us if we're not careful thinking it'll go away. This is why I say go here for the updated information on Iraq's progress.
*
ATTACK: The facts are here: Plame was the CIA operative and she was not supposed to be exposed.
REBUTTAL: Glad you brought that up which shows a certain ignorance on your part. If Plame's ID was suppose to be a secret and if Novak "outed" her in his July 14, 2003 article then why did Wilson and Plame have their pictures taken in November of 2003 for the January 2004 Vanity Fair article with Plame in her scarf and dark glasses sitting next to Wilson in a car? If her identity was top secret..shhh...shhh...shhh! would Wilson NOT go ahead and have themselves interviewed and their pictures taken for a NATIONALLY recognize magazine? And reduce the risk of exposing his wife which would be easily connected to the Novak's article? Sounds like Wilson had a plan with this set up from the get go. If so, then Wilson's move with the Vanity Fair interview would have been incredibly foolish, putting his wife in extreme, extreme, extreme danger!! (ok, a little sarcasm there) if she happens to be the top, top secret, ultra-covert CIA operative.
In Washington, plenty of people are acquainted with CIA “operatives” who are not working undercover. For example, when one CIA analyst wrote a book called “Anonymous,” it was widely known by that time that "Anonymous" was about the CIA agent/employee Michael Scheuer. Later on the name was revealed in print for a wider audience to find. No crime was committed or alleged — no classified information had been disclosed, no NOC had been exposed. Go figure. Also, one mustn't forget this and this one, too. And if you think the CPSAG.org was a recent update think again by clicking on the February 2003 archive which occurred way before Novak's article came out.
So much for Wilson's extreme care to keep his wife's top secret identity secret...shh! shh! This is the problem I see here.
*
ATTACK: Kokonutguy knows NOTHING about her.
REBUTTAL: True. I only know on what I’ve researched so far to come up with a certain conclusion about all of this. It's never final until all of this is truely over. Isn’t this what the Liberals are doing, too, by guessing on the Plame’s investigation on how the indictments (if any) may turn out tomorrow (Monday, October 31, 2005)? Hoping and dreaming that this will open up a hole for a Democratic pre-emptive strike at the Bush Administration in the hope that an impeachment will finally, somehow, come to fruition after seeing the dominos effect? Do you claim that Liberals know something about Valeria Plame? You're quick with your tongue before you can stop it.
*
ATTACK: He even had the nerve to say that she wasn't even a CIA operative based on unreliable sources.
REBUTTAL: I never made such an assertion. Please provide the quote and reference next time.That’s what good bloggers do. Furthermore, when you say “operative” you are saying she was covert as in top, top, top secret? How do you know? How "secret" is "secret" are you saying? You got the inside scoop, too?
*
ATTACK: Kokonutguy whines about how Tom Delay is being targeted by the liberals.
REBUTTAL: He is being targeted. Plain and simple. What else can you conclude when the Liberal D.A. used 7 different grand juries just to come up with an indictment on the 6th try but was found bogus and hurriedly got the 7th jury to come up with another charge in 24 hours. If that doesn’t sound fishy then I don’t know what is. Outlining discrepancies such as this is all but an observation I am providing and questioning the motives of such moves.
*
ATTACK: He whines about him (DeLay) getting indicted.
REBUTTAL: I point out irregularities I see in this whole indictment process. See above. Also, many people (ie. reads "Liberals") see this “indictment” process as the automatic equivalency of being guilty. Not so. Anybody who has been charged is still innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. The court of law has barely begun for Tom DeLay and people have already charged him guilty when they try and figure out the size of his orange prison jumpsuit. This is what I am pointing out.
*
ATTACK: He cheers when Tom Delay grinned on a mugshot.
REBUTTAL: Because I thought it was funny when Liberals were hoping for an unCongressman–like photo mugshot. You know. Like a deer caught in the headlights? Unkempt clothing. Roused hair. Pale look on his face. Etc. But a smart move on DeLay's part for him to smile grandiously with his wrinkle-free suit, sharp tie, lapel pin and the combed hair. You have a problem with Tom DeLay making a fantastic mug shot?
Here's the next closest squeaky clean looking Congressman mugshot, unfortunately for him, a Democrat, who was bonafide convicted and sent to jail.
Now, name another Congressman who smiled fantastically for a mugshot? See what I mean? Priceless of DeLay's smile. Pure brilliance. And much to the disappointment of Liberals everywhere on DeLay's mugshot.
*
ATTACK: Guess what? Tom Delay admitted that he didn't report the contributions. But I'll bet you all, he'll whine more about it.
REBUTTAL: Actually, you’re twisting things a bit here. He did report it…some days late amid all the activity that was going on. I believe this is what you're referring to? Can't read minds here. See the value in providing links, now?
Dates on federal records filed by DeLay show that Alexander's contribution was received after DeLay was indicted, though Welch faxed The Tennessean a computer printout of Tenn PAC's financial activity that lists a donation to DeLay on Sept. 14. DeLay's campaign-finance report shows the Tenn PAC contribution came on Sept. 30 — two days after DeLay's indictment.
For reporting late, after 48 hours, there is a formula to calculate the amount of fines for late reporting on PAC contributions. It’s common for PAC contributions be reported late. In fact, many, many days late. Hence, the formulas are used to assess the amount of fines to be paid out. Here’s an example:
EXAMPLE 4: Nonfiler of 48-Hour Notice.
A House campaign committee fails to submit a 48-hour notice to disclose its receipt of a last-minute $5,000 PAC contribution. During the current two-year cycle, the campaign has two prior violations under the administrative fine program.
Applicable formula:
Penalty = [$100 + (.10 x amount of contribution(s) not timely reported)] x
[1 + (.25 x number of previous violations)]Penalty = [$100 + (.10 x $5,000)] x [1 + (.25 x 2)]
Penalty = $900
Nothing illegal here. And certainly nothing that DeLay will “whine” about either. His PAC organization will simply pay the fine. It’s certainly a common occurrence to report late on contributions to PACs. Here’s from the 2003 report on late fees (and you thought library late fees were bad?) for PAC contribution reporting violations:
Committees Fined and Penalties Assessed
1. Bob Condon for Congress Committee $521
2. Briggs for Congress $9002,3
3. City PAC April Quarterly 2002 $900
4. City PAC July Quarterly 2002 $550
5. Cohen & Grigsby PAC $350
6. Hudson Valley PAC $1,350
7. Keyes 2000, Inc. $9002
8. Maximus Inc., PAC (MAXPAC) $650
9. Montana for Johnson July Quarterly 2002 $9001,2
10. Montana for Johnson 12 Day Pre-Primary 2002 $2,0002
11. Political Action Council of Educators (United Teachers—Los Angeles) $343
12. Raczkowski for Senate $4,200
13. Salt PAC $3,5002
14. Skorski for Congress _____4
15. Voters for Choice/Friends of Family Planning $2,550
No whining here. Everything’s legal. All monies reported that was contributed by Lamar Alexander where he voluntarily gave money to DeLay’s PAC called “Tom DeLay Campaign Committee.” Are you trying to infer is that this was an illegal contribution in this case? No such thing. A nice little Ronnie Earle's move you got there if that was your intention.
*
ATTACK: Kokonutguy whines saying that MSM doesn't report about the heroic efforts in Iraq. Wah! Wah! (Ok, need tissues?)
REBUTTAL: It’s true, MSM rarely report anything good and when they do there is always something ominous about it. They report the glass as half full but remind you that there is a hole at the bottom of the glass.
Here’s a challenge for you guys out there without doing any Google checking. I doubt you can do it. Name (a very big list here) the things that were done successfully in Iraq that could have only been succeeded with the help of the coalition work. That's your kiddies homework for now.
*
ATTACK: Kokonutguy whines saying that liberals are babies... ha... just look at his blog.
REBUTTAL: Well, when they say they are for peace and you see these Liberals running amok attacking others who want to also voice their opinions? Sure, many of them are basically babies when it comes to free speech. Just like what you’re doing to me. Attacking me ad hominem style in place of any valid arguments whatsoever. Where's the argument? No arguments but attack ad hominem style nonetheless.
*
ATTACK: he whines consistently about liberals... nothing intellectual at all.
REBUTTAL: Like what you are doing now? Nothing intellectual to give but attack and no valid arguements? Nice intellectual move there.
*
ATTACK: Lousy arguments.
REBUTTAL: And what was yours by the way? Again?
*
ATTACK: Just full of whiney comments about liberals. Oh the horrors!!!
REBUTTAL: I report. You decide. I have opinions, too. But I provide links and references. Yet I don't scream "QUAGMIRE!" at every turn in Iraq. You? Still looking for the links.
*
ATTACK: He conjures a stupid theory that Bush already expected Meirs to be withdrawn and would nominate Janice Rogers Brown.
REBUTTAL: Her name is "Miers"...not Meirs. Stupid or not, that’s why it’s called a “theory.” You have your own opinion about it. I have others but that’s another story.
*
ATTACK: He whines about liberals blocking her nomination but never mind that it was the conservatives that literally prevented her.
REBUTTAL: No. I never, not once, ever mentioned that nor implied that Liberals were blocking her nomination. Even Democrat minority leader Harry Reid was happy with the nomination and fawned all over her for the press while many Republicans had question marks over their heads when President Bush announced Miers for the Supreme court. Even I had that question mark.
"I like Harriet Miers," Reid said in a statement. "As White House counsel, she has worked with me in a courteous and professional manner. I am also impressed with the fact that she was a trailblazer for women as managing partner of a major Dallas law firm and as the first woman president of the Texas Bar Association."
Haven’t you been following the news at all?? Or even follow correctly my bloggings? This was common knowledge that many Republicans didn’t like Miers nomination. Neither did I. Again, you’re running wild with your imaginations here or at best a selective memory problem.
*
ATTACK: He whines that the MSM failed to see the possible idea that a bum who put feces in food is a terrorist. Blah blah blah... the FBI said it's not a national security issue but he whines still.
REBUTTAL: I really grate you don’t I? Just…don’t…read my blogs. Simple. But you actually thought that I was serious about that blog piece? If anybody who have known me long enough or know the inside joke about all this then you’d know. Remember, just nod your head and smile like you completely understood the joke here. Remember when I said “Could the FBI elaborate a bit more?” about how they came up with the conclusion about this guy in my blog? You probably missed that one did you? What I wanted was more info on why the FBI concluded that. See? I question things. You misconstrue on a lot of what I say.
*
ATTACK: He whines about Joel not being treated as a terrorist suspect. (Ok, here more tissues)
REBUTTAL: No. I never made that assertion nor have I implied that. See here, here, here and here. Again, either you are running wild with your imaginations or you are reading my blogs quite poorly and misinterpreting them quite badly. Very, uh, dishonest of you to say that. Very.
*
ATTACK: He whines about the MSM doctoring the Rice picture. (more tissues, dear?)
REBUTTAL: USAToday is supposed to be a reputable online news organization. This includes ensuring all aspects of editorial control, including what pictures to go in and do a final proof analysis before putting it online. They failed. Not only did Time did this (OJ) as well, so did a few others nationally known MSM magazines and news outlets. Something that many conservative bloggers report but liberal bloggers do not. Photo-shopping anybody, whether a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, or a regular schmoe Joe off the street just to make his/her appearance a bit more on the shady or guady side is a no no. Otherwise, it’s being partisanship or trying to cast doubts for the readers. I'm sure you agree but I may be wrong.
*
ATTACK: Kokonutguy has become a truly pathetic loser. I totally lost respect for him. Because of that, I am removing his link. Bye, Whiny Baby!
REBUTTAL: Well, there are people who cannot or do not have the ability to look beyond my writings and see for what they are whenever I point out certain odd or inequitable things I see out there (e.g. Harry Reid demanding that Bush make a pledge not to do any pardoning relating to the Plame “leak” investigation) where I reiterate or magnify their actions just to make a point. Things like that. Remember, nod your head and pretend to understand the joke or the meanings here. Must act cogent at all times.
*
ATTACK: Any deaf conservatives out there that doesn't whine about liberals?
REBUTTAL: I’m a rarity. A hard of hearing Republican. I’m proud of my political status. But what I do is not about whining because there is this inside story I'm attempting project. Guess you don't see it. But an example of whinning belong to you on what you just did. A classic case without a nary of rebuttal or argument. Just pure ad hominem attacks one after another. Are you sure you're a Libertarian?
What I do is about getting people to look at different perspectives here by presenting my views, my opinions and lay out all of my arguments on the thing that I see using my own special brand of writing style. Love it or leave it. I cannot possibly satisfy every creatures on the planet just so they can be placated and cuddled into having that warm and fuzzy feeling. If you think that's possible, you're nuts.
*
ATTACK: It'd be nice to have a new link to replace the deranged Kokonutguy's link.
REBUTTAL: It must really be a nice feeling using words like “deranged”, “pathetic”, “loser”, and so on ad nauseum? Not once a rebuttal using proper the arguments, links, or references in a debate you have displayed so well. Well, it's hardly was a debate as readers can see for themselves here. Do what you must. De-link me! I think I'll hang my head in utter shame. Woe is me. Let me play the victim card and get some practice.
Here's the thing. I do get it. However, it is just that I don’t go about the ad hominem style like what you just have done to me. Doing so is just a measure of a person’s own intellectual capacity and capability when they respond in such a way. Much like using epithets all the time thinking it's a yardstick measurement of sort to measure a man's worth. It does get across. Pointless and worthless as though it may be. In a word, for those who insist on ad hominem attacks deserve to be recognized as such even if it they turn out to be a Libertarian. A lesson learned for them.
Ya'll come back, hear?
*Kokonut Pundits is now officially with meritable unmentionable mentions De-linked from Netrox' blogsite.
I am now shamed.
No comments:
Post a Comment