Reply #22: Oh robcon, you actually responded to a post of mine. [View All]

[tom_paine]

Finally found something you could successfully tear down? Cool. Well, I have to agree with your comment, generally.

I have to agree with you that I have no ironclad evidence. Ironclad evidence of corruption, for many reasons, usually decreases in concert with the moral and political decay of a nation.

Ever heard of Samizdat? Google it up if you haven't.

Yeah, I could just imagine you making that same comment in the 1978 Soviet Union.

"Evidence, tomski_painski? All your conspiracy theories about people being dragged away to Gulags at night are evidence-free. I have seen no investigations, nothing in the newspapers, nor on TV. The best you give me are these greasy-stained mimeographed sheets printed up by God Knows Who in their basement, and you expect me to believe there's more truth in THAT than in all our Soviet TV, radio, and newspapers? Absurd."

I do apologize about the realities of living in a totalitarian nation (or, as in our case, a nation rapidly trending away from liberty and Constitionality to the New Kinder and Gentler Totalitarianism, which I call BushPutinism after it's Founding Fathers).

I apologize for the shitty quality of Samizdat. I apologize that our Mainsteram Media is only good for Britany stories, and couldn't uncover it's own ass with a flashlight and a tweezers.

But I must say, for all the times I have posted to you with lengthy and detailed posts, some with evidence that even went well beyond untrustworthy Samizdat.

And every time...silence, silence, silence.

For all those things, you finally choose to respond to THIS?!?

I was making an assertion for which I admittedly have no hard evidence. OK then, Now what?

I guess you'll have to wait for another weak post like my previosu post to try to take a shot at me, because over time I have given you ample chance for rational discourse, and you haven't taken me up, not once.

After all this, THIS is your best? OK, I concede your point. I made an assertion, and as we all know, no one anywhere on this wide Earth makes assertions based on circumstantial evidence and no one anywhere on this Earth has EVER been convicted on circumstantial evidence alone (if there was enough of it).

You know how long I have waited to have intellectual discourse with you, rob, primarily because you do bring a fresh and uncommon perspective (at least on DU) that I always though would be interesting. At least, that's what I thought.

That is why, over the years, and I have continued to try and engage you.

And now this, a weak, short, pointless post from you. I sure did expect better from you than to wait until I had a post you could jump in and make a quick cheap shot without thinking about it.

Happy to provide. :hi: Plus, you were right (I'll say it again) that I was making an assertion and I have no hard evidence for that assertion.

You got me, rob. Oh, and I do apologize for trying to engage you in discourse all these years. I had no idea that this was all you could bring to the table.

Sorry. I won't make that mistake again.