Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin
So, once Cisco became a monopolistic endeavor, he continued to hold stock in the company despite his disapproval of monopolistic practices. Once Cisco's conflict with his stated corporate investment policies became apparent
|
What I want to know is which monopolistic practices is Cisco doing that Nader is against? Any specific things? Google in T-minus....5...4...3...2..1
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin
Nice. Classic NC_Skins: Admit no error and move the rhetorical target. I commend you - you are excellent at the "bob and weave". --- The crux of the argument leading to this oh-so-overly-analyzed digression into Nader's investment into Cisco was the simple assertion that Nader's actions were hypocritical.
|
Admit no error? Error on what? I stated who I thought was a good candidate (based on his record and history), and all you've done is point at some stock and say "oooooo....look at the bad guy!!". You've done absolutely nothing to discredit his work or his intentions if he were in the White House. Essentially, making a mountain out of a mole hill.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin
Now, confronted with the blatant logical error of (3) above, and, to demonstrate the error, being confronted by the rhetorical corner requiring an admission from you that either (a) Nader's actions exhibited hypocrisy or (b) Nader's hypocrisy is relevant to his qualifications as a candidate - BAM - Nader's hypocrisy is no longer the subject of the discussion, but, instead, you assert through implication that, since all candidates are hypocritical (a truism I do not dispute - BTW), it is hypocritical of me to attack just Nader's hypocritical actions. This, despite the fact that I have taken no position as to any other candidates' alleged hypocrisies. Subtle, stunning and stupid all in one. As I said, brilliant.
|
How about we talk about Nader's track record. He's done more for the consumers in America than any other Republidiot or Demodummy candidate currently. HOW ABOUT THEM FACTS!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin
On the other hand, it was your claim that Nader's owning of stock in Cisco was irrelevant to his qualifications as a candidate. Through your typically imprecise language, and your equally typical moving of the rhetorical target, it is not clear whether you consider Nader's owning of Cisco stock to be hypocritical - your answer seems to say you don't find it hypocritical but, again in your typical fashion, your imprecisely worded response allows you to interpret it in whichever way ever suits you best at a later date.
|
So here, you can't tell if I think he's hypocritical, but below you are saying I'm denying he's being hypocritical...lol Smoke and mirrors. Keep detracting from the issues and continue to point at the speckle on the window.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin
Nader's actions were hypocritical. Your denial of such is either stupid or obtuse.
|
Can you show me ONE quote where I have denied he wasn't being hypocritical? Just one. I think I said him owning stock was irrelevant to his qualifications in being a candidate. If you think that one piece of hypocrisy (as you call it) nullifies all the work he's done to fight for consumer rights, then by all means continue on with your quest Captain Ahab.