Friday, June 8, 2012

What the Libs Are Doing: 6/8/2012

Here' what the libs were doing while Wisconsin voters were embracing fiscal responsibility and Bill Clinton and other Democrats were contradicting their president, the week of June 8, 2012:


smoore123 said...

If the Romney allegations are "hogwash" then might you be able to offer some evidence to dispute the claims made in the article you link to? Is the veracity of those interviewed in the article (which support the allegation) in question?

smoore123 said...

James, Were you going to provide a link to something that contradicts the claims made about Romney impersonating police? All you've done here is link to an article that quotes eye witnesses that corroborate the charges and then you simply say it is all "hogwash." Maybe it is hogwash but you are actually bolstering the case against Romney the way you have written this post.

James said...

The burden of proof is not on me to disprove an unsubstantiated rumor, it is on the claimant to provide evidence of their allegation.

smoore123 said...

WTF. My brain hurts reading your response. It's not like I randomly pulled you off the street and asked you to prove or disprove the allegations. You made a knowledge claim on your blog that the reporting was hogwash. It is therefore up to you to substantiate that claim. Christ, and now you make another knowledge claim that the story is an “unsubstantiated rumor.” Did you read the article you linked to? The authors interviewed eye witnesses that corroborate the charges. That is substantiation and that is direct viewing of the incident(s) so it can’t be called a rumor. Look, I don't know if they are credible witnesses or not. Maybe they are full of crap and out to get Romney, but since you said the story was "hogwash" I presumed you had something to back that up with. Again, I’m not saying Romney did these things. I just want to hear an intellectually honest defense of the charges.

I guess you could have qualified your hogwash statement with something like the following and then I wouldn’t nit pick: "it's hogwash however I just pulled that claim out of my ass because I wanted to bash liberals so my unthinking knee jerk response was to publish this link and call it such."

James said...

The entire story was pulled out of the ass of the "reporter" and his "source".

I spoke to a guy who knew Obama when he was at Columbia University. He told me he was totally creeped out when Obama showed him the chicken costume he put on to grope women and kids at the local park.

There you have it, prove me wrong, prove that it never happened.

smoore123 said...

I fear we are going down a rabbit hole of epidemiological madness here but let's try to figure this out anyway.

You are right in suggesting the impossibility of proving a negative. We can’t prove that there isn’t an invisible monster waiting at your front door to eat you but you probably still go out and get the paper every morning. Why? Because you’ve never been eaten by the monster before or you’ve never stepped in his invisible monster poop. Fortunately I have not asked you to prove that Romney did or didn't impersonate a police officer.

What is at issue is the positive true claim that you made, namely that the allegations are hogwash. I’m simply asking you to elaborate on how you came to that conclusion? Tell your readers what lead you to discount the story provided in the link you posted. Why should your statements be trusted over that of the reporter and the multiple people interviewed? You see James, if we apply your logic then we can just as easily dismiss any statement you’ve made on your blog as we can those of the reporters. We are then left in the intolerable position of not knowing anything.

Instead of this, let’s try some empiricism. We can investigate your Obama claim by posing some questions. Then we can decide if it is hogwash.

Is the witness willing to provide his name and be interviewed so that his statements would be in a public record and forever accessible through Google by prospective girlfriends or employers?

What does the witness risk loosing if his statements are proven false? How severe would the damage to his reputation be? Would this cause financial hardship or professional loss?

Did other individuals witness the same event or other occurrences of the same activity? Do their statements corroborate the story?

Has the witness ever made false statements before?

What statements has Obama made on the story? Does he remember the incident in question? Is he going to argue with it?