Stats

Comments Posted By KevenSeven

Displaying 0 To 0 Of 0 Comments

Sometimes a Cigar is Just a Cigar: Sparkman Committed Suicide

Oh, you need not argue that BushCo came into office with the intention of invading Iraq and deposing Saddam. I concede that. I do not concede that it proves anything.

» Posted By KevenSeven On January 14, 2010 @ 6:15 pm

No, that is not an argument.

That is an accretion of accusations and suppositions.

Do please try again. You need to give citations to be taken seriously.

» Posted By KevenSeven On January 14, 2010 @ 6:11 pm

Well, it is not a debate yet, as you have not yet presented an argurment. And please do not do so without offing facts that can be verified.

I think it would be interesting to have a drink with you. So there.

Try this: Resolved: BushCo had knowledge of the threat of 911 and deliberately did nothing to meet the threat in order to justify (waddevah).

Hey, I wrote this column in about fifteen minutes. You and Javez could take a few hours and try to write something really solid.

But I will have nothing but contempt for the argument if you do not give me citations that I can check.

The other day I was confronted with “a lot of people agree with me!”

Sheese. I have no patience for that sort of twaddle.

I’ve seen Fahrenheit 911. I warn you. M Moore is not an authority on anything except how to produce a provocative narrative. Do not come at me with “M Moore says….”.

» Posted By KevenSeven On January 14, 2010 @ 5:03 pm

If you two could catalog them and co-author a column on the subject, that could be cool.

Do this: go to google, create email accounts that are utterly anonymous and has no other purpose, then correspond for a bit until you have the column.

I look forward to dismantling your argument.

» Posted By KevenSeven On January 14, 2010 @ 4:38 pm

I’m right here, although it is nice to be missed. I appreciate your attitude toward debate. Without an expectation that one’s opinions will be challenged, there is no value to having an opinion. The adage is: opinions and hemorrhoids, sooner or latter every asshole will get one.

I don’t know that I have ever expressed an opinion on a political blog that I was not prepared to back up with reason, facts and logic. I am at a loss as to how anyone can think that they have some privilege to share an opinion, such as, say, black people are inferior to white people, and not expect to get challenged.

If French food superior to Italian food? I am a chef, and I cannot answer that one. And I don’t think that a lot of blood would get spilled over the question.

I frankly feel that it is disrespectful of the other members of a political blog to expect to be able to declare a position, especially a controversial position, and then demand that the opinion be “respected” without being willing to argue for the validity of that position. That may just be me, but there you have it. Stand and Deliver, I say.

As for BushCo and 911. I would say that there might be a living human on this planet that despises BushCo more perfectly than I do, and I appreciate that it is not a competition, but I will insist that my bona fides on this matter cannot be challenged.

That said. I am almost perfectly incapable of believing that BushCo did anything deliberate to bring on 911, including any passive yet deliberate refusal to take action on intel. I feel they are capable of almost any other kind of criminality and mendacity, but not this. Feel free to educate me. I think 911 is a direct result of overweening hubris and incompetence. Occam’s razor, again. I so despise those assholes.

While I am certainly opinionated, and damned happy to share my opinion, I am not really all that knowledgeable. The most knowledgeable member here, to my mind? Quark (despite the fact that he and I fight like cats) that guy knows more about health care than anyone I know. I don’t even bother to try to know what he does not know. I just ask him what should I think. I have asked him to speak to some details that I find interesting, but most of what I know I learned from him.

As for global climate change, I defer to my favorite living political philosopher, Christopher Hitchens. To paraphrase him: We have a moral duty to assume that it is true. We are trapped on this one planet, it is not ours to despoil, we have no right to destroy it for future generations. So it does not matter that the Cassandra voices could be wrong. If they are, we will essentially lose nothing. If they are right and we ignore them, then we lose EVERYTHING. And I mean EVERYTHING. We are talking about the potential for a billion people to die in one year. And for five years running.

Oh, BTW, whoever wants to write to bag on Hitchens, I blow a big fat raspberry. As he wrote regarding his reputation as a drinker, I love it when the argument turns to ad hominen. That means the other guy has nothing.

Hey, I know we have butted heads, and so doubly I appreciate your sentiments. While you appear to have two woo woo opinions that I don’t credence, I certainly will respect any coherent presentation of facts and reason that might back them up.

And my fucking kitties are just fine, thanks.

And I’m not wearing any pants!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

» Posted By KevenSeven On January 14, 2010 @ 4:25 pm

I say, you must always start with Occam’s razor. The simplest answer may not always be the correct one, but the majority of the time it will be, and one only needs to maintain an open mind for alternatives to be doing one’s part.

I have never seen anyone claim that Nada was a fraud…..

» Posted By KevenSeven On January 13, 2010 @ 1:01 am

Unlike the question of how Sparkman came to his end, reasonable people can take either position, based on the evidence at hand.

» Posted By KevenSeven On January 12, 2010 @ 11:32 pm

You are very kind and I was delighted that you had joined from the moment I read your first column.

» Posted By KevenSeven On January 12, 2010 @ 11:28 pm

OK. Now I am asking you to stop lecturing me.

» Posted By KevenSeven On January 12, 2010 @ 11:26 pm

Did you want to stop talking to me or did you not?

» Posted By KevenSeven On January 12, 2010 @ 11:25 pm

Yeah, I think we have a pretty clear-cut dichotomy on this one.

» Posted By KevenSeven On January 12, 2010 @ 11:04 pm

Well, I perhaps see your point. I do feel frustration and little regard for the argument of people who will not address reason. I mean, what is the point of giving all sorts of regard to somebody who will not give a reasoned argument? “A lot of people agree with me!”

I mean, seriously, what are you supposed to say to that?

As for only responding to the one element of your post, what can I tell you? I’m multitasking here!

But I do appreciate your sensible comments. I will treat them with the respect that they deserve.

» Posted By KevenSeven On January 12, 2010 @ 11:02 pm

Yeah. But ask yourself: which is easier to believe? That the FBI played this by the rules or an insurance company came upon what looked to be a horrific murder and rather than pay out, suborned perjury from a dozen or more State Policemen and FBI agents?

» Posted By KevenSeven On January 12, 2010 @ 10:19 pm

Well, I think I have been debating on a perfectly reasonable level here, using facts, logic and reason. As well as any here, I believe.

Despite assertions to the contrary, it is not possible for those who hold the opinion that this man was murdered and those that have the opinion that he committed suicide to both be right. I’m sorry, either he was murdered or he committed suicide.

Now, if someone wants to assert that reasonable people can come to either conclusion, then perhaps that could be defended. Not that I would not insist that the entire body of evidence that is currently available about the actual facts points to only one conclusion.

Reasonable people can have a reasonable discussion whether the ideal maximum tax rate should be 34% or 39%. Economic science is a trifle vague. How this man met is end has only one answer.

» Posted By KevenSeven On January 12, 2010 @ 10:12 pm

My best man had a t-shirt emblazoned:

Philosophy: I’m in it for the money.

» Posted By KevenSeven On January 12, 2010 @ 8:58 pm

Nellie, you are a gem. I wish that I had found this first!

Has everybody playing on this thread read this?

» Posted By KevenSeven On January 12, 2010 @ 8:56 pm

And we were all discussing racism and the difference between intent and inference.

I did not intend to utterly insult you, but rather express my frustration with what I saw as some pretty sloppy thinking.

You inferred it differently than I intended. Gee.

» Posted By KevenSeven On January 12, 2010 @ 8:52 pm

Well, it was not Kersman who dismissed my comment with “what are you smoking”, so there may be a point in there.

» Posted By KevenSeven On January 12, 2010 @ 8:45 pm

OK, you are not looking for an argument.

I was debating you. I brought facts and logic to the discussion, and argued that my opinion was superior to yours.

That is called a debate.

» Posted By KevenSeven On January 12, 2010 @ 8:43 pm

I’m not wearing any pants!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And in what am I wrong?

» Posted By KevenSeven On January 12, 2010 @ 8:41 pm

Hehe. That’s funny.

Actually, I think conspiring to suborn an FBI report on a death is perhaps a bit of a different animal than the offenses you list.

I really gotta think that suborning an FBI report would be, well, a mistake.

» Posted By KevenSeven On January 12, 2010 @ 8:40 pm

Well, of course that makes sense.

» Posted By KevenSeven On January 12, 2010 @ 8:37 pm

Joe Wilson, for one. The weapons inspectors, among others. I remember Martin Sheen was pretty heated up. And he was not alone. You really are not challenging me to find some more, are you>

» Posted By KevenSeven On January 12, 2010 @ 5:49 pm

Yes, I want an argument. Actually, I want a debate.

If you want to retire from the debate, that is fine.

» Posted By KevenSeven On January 12, 2010 @ 5:47 pm

Ah, a fresh conspiracy. Not that that is not some huge felony that would land people in the slam for years. Noooooo.

» Posted By KevenSeven On January 12, 2010 @ 5:45 pm

boomer1949 says:
01/12/2010 at 5:05 PM

Not the point Keven, not the point.

—————–

No, boomer, it is my point. I made the point. It is the point until you show with reason and logic that it is invalid.

You don’t get to just dismiss my arguments by saying “you’re wrong”.

Sorry, debate does not work that way.

(The point being that I am most comfortable in my conclusion because no reputable reporter or investigator, nor the Southern Poverty Law Center, have in anyway challenged the report authored by the Kentucky State Police and the FBI.)

I need to get to my kid’s High School orientation. I’ll look in again in about two-three hours.

» Posted By KevenSeven On January 12, 2010 @ 5:44 pm

No, this is no strawman. This underlies the whole strength of my conclusion. There were indeed plenty of voices saying that the WMD charge was bull. Hence the good reason to doubt BushCo’s fearmongering.

Nobody is challenging the police report, to the best of my knowledge. I have asked to be shown such, and been shown nothing.

I am much more comfortable in my conclusion knowing that nobody is challenging the police report.

A perfectly non-strawman logic.

» Posted By KevenSeven On January 12, 2010 @ 5:39 pm

Thank you.

» Posted By KevenSeven On January 12, 2010 @ 5:36 pm

You write: “Each of us has our own opinions and insights. However, just because we may disagree and not draw the same conclusions, does not make any of us wrong. Period.”

OK, I’m sorry, but that is patent nonsense. Unless I am living in an Agatha Christie novel, the man was either murdered, or he committed suicide.

One of the features of the other site is a movement of woo woos who insist on perpetuating conspiracies theories despite all rational discourse to the opposite. Do we need to look the other way here when we see it?

I need not challenge the racism endemic to that region of the nation, the Klan’s real stronghold is southern New Jersey, fer Pete’s sake. All that means is this is possible. The fact that a thing is possible does not mean that it happened.

You did indeed write something, and I questioned your conclusion. You have yet to provide a logical thread that leads, with facts and not suppositions, from his death to his murder. My only supposition is that I can trust the FBI in this case.

I do not deny that it was reasonable to assume, at first, that this guy was murdered. I certainly did. Then I was presented with facts.

I like facts. I like logic. Opinions are not worth a lot to me if they are not backed up with some facts and logic. Hence my distaste for Repuglicans.

» Posted By KevenSeven On January 12, 2010 @ 5:35 pm

Ah, but regarding Saddam, there were hundreds of serious voices calling BS.

See the difference?

I was just looking to inject a little intellectual rigor to the question.

As I said yesterday: Get back to me with FACTS that undermine the conclusion, and I will consider them. But there is not one person of any weight saying that this was a murder.

» Posted By KevenSeven On January 12, 2010 @ 5:11 pm