Hannity's Enemy of the Week

[fanatiquefou]

It's in the link

All you've given is a link to Google!

 

[MachZer0]

All you've given is a link to Google!

That's standard here. If you want to see a transcript, you have to do your own research

 

[MachZer0]

I'm sorry Mach, but your inability to provide an official transcript, or provide a means for me to recieve the content in a non-audio format because of my inability to turn my TV off mute, leaves me with you providing no verifiable evidence to back up your claim.

I gave a link. Did you miss it?

 

[USincognito]

No problem. You can reread my previous post for a brief synopsis. glad to be of help. Otherwise you can find the transcript here

It's there, so no excuses

It's in the link

If you'd spend as much time and effort here trying to actually provide evidence for your claims as you do trying to be clever you might actually make a point once in a while.

There is NOTHING in a link to Google.com except an empty space in a search engine. If you've taken any of the links I've provided where I Googled for sources, evidences, I've actually entered search perameters and gotten results, I just provide all the results to people can decide if the sites Google has on the first page can pass muster.

You can keep playing this game, but you're the only one who looks bad when you do it. As has been pointed out to you previously, it only takes a few seconds for anyone with even the most megre command of the English language to plug a few words into Google and see if the Web has anything to support one's assertions.

 

[fanatiquefou]

That's standard here. If you want to see a transcript, you have to do your own research

No, it's not standard. If you bring something up in a debate, you can't just expect people to take your word for it, and it's your responsibility to provide them with your evidence. A link to Google doesn't cut it, and I think you know that very well.

 

[MachZer0]

If you'd spend as much time and effort here trying to actually provide evidence for your claims as you do trying to be clever you might actually make a point once in a while.

There is NOTHING in a link to Google.com except an empty space in a search engine. If you've taken any of the links I've provided where I Googled for sources, evidences, I've actually entered search perameters and gotten results, I just provide all the results to people can decide if the sites Google has on the first page can pass muster.

You can keep playing this game, but you're the only one who looks bad when you do it. As has been pointed out to you previously, it only takes a few seconds for anyone with even the most megre command of the English language to plug a few words into Google and see if the Web has anything to support one's assertions.

When I ask for supporting evidence, the two responses I get are links to Google and instrusctions to do my own research, and from the very same people participating in this thread. Moreover, I haven't made any assertions here other than who I think will be the Enemy of the Week and the reason it will be so.

 

[USincognito]

When I ask for supporting evidence, the two responses I get are links to Google and instrusctions to do my own research, and from the very same people participating in this thread.

Offal. I have seen people provide you links to evidence. I have seen people tell you to take what you are claiming (when you're the one making an assertion), plug that into Google and see what you get. I have seen people provide linked results from Google searches. I have seen some who were pressed for time suggest you have the keywords in their post and if you had the time you could verify it yourself. And I will admit I have seen some people tell you to look it up yourself. But you act as if the latter is the only thing that occurs to you and thus feel no impetus to either evidence your own claims or investigate the claims of others.

Every time Voeglin posts one of his TownHall, etc. opinion pieces and I'm interested in the topic I do the legwork and check the background on the author and any quotes or claims they might have in their piece. I have no problem doing that. With as much time as I've seen you waste on threads with "oh yeah"/"yeah" "sez who"/"sez me" prattle it's disingenuous of you to cry foul about doing some legwork once in a while.

-edit

Also in in this thread about the cervical cancer/HPV vaccine the OP makes a claim about how long the vaccine was tested. I myself went to PubMed to see if I could find any articles about the testing/efficacy/etc. I did find several, but since they all were only abstracts, not the full article, I didn't bother linking. I did the investigation myself on a claim made by another - and came up with potential responses, but since I didn't feel they were sufficient, I ate the time spent and didn't mention them.

Sometimes hitting a search engine is a more productive use of time than 20 seesaw patter posts.

 

[JustOneWay]

When I ask for supporting evidence, the two responses I get are links to Google and instrusctions to do my own research, and from the very same people participating in this thread. Moreover, I haven't made any assertions here other than who I think will be the Enemy of the Week and the reason it will be so.

Once, I gave exactly what was asked, a video with a website and the exact time the quote was spoken.

The response to me was:


I DONT USE MY SPEAKERS. I HAVE THEM, BUT I DONT USE THEM.


I cant waste any more time.

 

[MachZer0]

Offal. I have seen people provide you links to evidence. I have seen people tell you to take what you are claiming (when you're the one making an assertion), plug that into Google and see what you get. I have seen people provide linked results from Google searches. I have seen some who were pressed for time suggest you have the keywords in their post and if you had the time you could verify it yourself. And I will admit I have seen some people tell you to look it up yourself. But you act as if the latter is the only thing that occurs to you and thus feel no impetus to either evidence your own claims or investigate the claims of others.

Maybe you noticed earlier when asked for the evidence here, I clearly stated that one would have had to watch the TV program in order to see it. Yet requests persisted. What more would you suggest I do. It was on a TV show, nowhere else, and I clearly stated that

 

[MachZer0]

Once, I gave exactly what was asked, a video with a website and the exact time the quote was spoken.

The response to me was:


I DONT USE MY SPEAKERS. I HAVE THEM, BUT I DONT USE THEM.


I cant waste any more time.

Your point being??

 

[USincognito]

Maybe you noticed earlier when asked for the evidence here, I clearly stated that one would have had to watch the TV program in order to see it. Yet requests persisted. What more would you suggest I do. It was on a TV show, nowhere else, and I clearly stated that

What do the specifics of this one particular part of this one particular thread have to do with the larger issue of fairness and onus in evidencing claims/basies for opinions? I'm discussing the larger pattern of behavior I see here and I'm affering some advice.

You can take it or leave it. Since I do enjoy tangling with you here I'd hate to put you in ignore, but plowing through ten pages of "oh yeah"/"yeah" just gets old. I'd rather see you offer up something more than bon mots or evasion when asked about something (other than this particular show when "I can't find a transcript" should have been a sufficient response for those questioning you).

 

[MachZer0]

What do the specifics of this one particular part of this one particular thread have to do with the larger issue of fairness and onus in evidencing claims/basies for opinions? I'm discussing the larger pattern of behavior I see here and I'm affering some advice.

You can take it or leave it. Since I do enjoy tangling with you here I'd hate to put you in ignore, but plowing through ten pages of "oh yeah"/"yeah" just gets old. I'd rather see you offer up something more than bon mots or evasion when asked about something (other than this particular show when "I can't find a transcript" should have been a sufficient response for those questioning you).

Let's set the record straight. The topic here is not about what I mentioned regarding Dennis Kucinich. It's about who will be the next Enemy of the Week. I gave two possibilities and gave the reasons why I chose them. Providing evidence for those two reasons is not critical. For Kucinich, there is no evidence unless you watched the particular Hannity & Colmes segment where he was the guest. Whether or not he said what I claimed is irrelevant, What is relevant is whether or not he gets picked as the Enemy of the Week. That is the topic. Do you have a pick, or not?

 

[USincognito]

Hey man, lighten up. I was just offering some advice and as I said, you can take it or leave it.

 

[pantsman52]

Your point being??

I think this says everything we need to know.

 

[MachZer0]

Hey man, lighten up. I was just offering some advice and as I said, you can take it or leave it.

No problem, but in the interest of the larger issue of fairness and onus in evidencing claims/basies for opinions, it's odd that your advice only applies to me and that you have no opinion yourself on the next Enemy of the Week. Do you think Kucunich and Biden are in the running or not?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Let's set the record straight. The topic here is not about what I mentioned regarding Dennis Kucinich. It's about who will be the next Enemy of the Week. I gave two possibilities and gave the reasons why I chose them.

Allegedly. When asked for clarification on your "reasons," you turned evasive.

Providing evidence for those two reasons is not critical.

Only if you want them, and by extension, want youself, taken seriously.

For Kucinich, there is no evidence unless you watched the particular Hannity & Colmes segment where he was the guest. Whether or not he said what I claimed is irrelevant,

Whether or not this or your other claims can be confirmed is often relevent -- extremely relevent.

What is relevant is whether or not he gets picked as the Enemy of the Week.

Why would he be picked for no verifiable reason? I would think Hannity wouldn't be so arbitrary.

That is the topic. Do you have a pick, or not?

I have no interest in broadcasting a personal "enemies list" -- neither my own nor somebody else's. I fail to see how that counts as entertainment.

 

[MachZer0]

Allegedly. When asked for clarification on your "reasons," you turned evasive.

Actually, I was very clear that to see the evidence, you would have had to have watched the TV show. Other than that, no evidence existed of which I was aware. Perhaps you missed the post where I said that. And what he actually said is unimportant as it relates to the topic here. I pointed out the reason I believe Hannity will give, if he does indeed select Kucinich for Enemy of the Week.

 

[k]

When will hannity pick bush or oreilly? If jesus were here surely he would get pegged.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Actually, I was very clear that to see the evidence, you would have had to have watched the TV show.

So, the only support for your claims has already come and gone -- unless someone had the foresight to record the episode.

Other than that, no evidence existed of which I was aware.

Precisely what we were saying.

I pointed out the reason I believe Hannity will give, if he does indeed select Kucinich for Enemy of the Week.

An opinion with no means of support is just that.

 

[MachZer0]

So, the only support for your claims has already come and gone -- unless someone had the foresight to record the episode.

What claims would those be.