Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabine Gallais
|
Sabine:
I think that there is as little chance of your responding to this as there was you admitting you were wrong about the Shirley Sherrod blow-up over the Summer but I'm going to put this out there at any rate.
Why did you post a lie? Because what you posted was a lie. This isn't a matter of interpretation and it isn't a matter of being off by a few thousand dollars. What you posted was a lie and I'm curious as to why you did so. It took me all of about 15 minutes to debunk your lie so I'm curious were you simply too lazy to do the research yourself, figuring that someone like me would do your homework for you, did you not even have a moment of "that figure seems a bit high" or were you SO gleeful at being handed a stick with which you could poke liberals that it never even occurred to you to actually fact-check this? I ask because this behavior is genuinely perplexing to me.
It seems as if you do not CARE if something is empirically true. Or perhaps you do not realize that, all the rhetoric you may have learned in humanities classes at university to the contrary, there IS such a thing as reality. EITHER this trip is going to cost $200 million per day or it is not. EITHER there will be 34 warships off the coast of India or there will not. These are matters subject to empirical verification. You do not get to interpret that 10 warships that are on station in the Indian Ocean as part of a the normal deployment of the 7th fleet is somehow 34 warships that are being sent to the region for the purpose of Mr. Obama's trip. Either they are there on normal deployment or they are there because of this trip. Either there are 34 ships or there is a number other than 34.
Now, the chances are that you will do what you did with the Shirley Sherrod incident and just pretend that you never posted a lie--and it was a lie that Ms Sherrod's speech was racist gloating. If so, I'm curious why you want us to think that you are either dishonest, gullible or lazy. Because it has to be one of those three. If you knew what you were posting was inaccurate but posted it anyway, you're deliberately posting a lie which makes you mendacious. If you didn't realize that what you were posting was a lie but posted it anyway, that means you were gullible. If you weren't sure about the veracity of the claim but didn't take the time to verify it before posting it, you were lazy. There are no OTHER generous interpretations of your actions. I suppose you might rejoin that you just don't give a damn but if that is the case that really puts you in the category of dishonest. At which point why should we take ANYTHING you say as having any weight what-so-ever?
Like I said, it's highly unlikely that you will respond to this because you seem to lack the courage of your convictions but I would be fascinated to know by what core conservative belief do you base your posting of lies--and whether you knew it or not what you posted was a lie--and why you would consider dishonesty an honorable thing.
And if you feel you must report me for saying you posted a lie, so be it. When you can demonstrate that this $200 million figure is anywhere NEAR close then I will stop calling it a lie but until such time as you do so, I'm not going to pretend that you get to have an opinion about WHAT amount is being spent. You don't, I don't. An actual dollar amount is being spent, that dollar amount is a matter of empirical fact and not subject to opinion. You have every right to an opinion, you have no right to your own set of facts.
Cheers
Aj