Originally Posted by EricOKC

You asked why many of us hold the opinions we do - and I told ya. I am also of the opinion that Brussel sprouts suck. Do you want documentation to support THAT?

Originally Posted by EricOKC

You asked why many of us hold the opinions we do - and I told ya. I am also of the opinion that Brussel sprouts suck. Do you want documentation to support THAT?

Originally Posted by EricOKC

Again, I do not have to provide supporting information for an OPINION.

Is there any one post which has led myself and many others to despise the woman? No. There are literally thousands of posts under a different screen name.

Its not just that she holds a, um...lets just say "different", viewpoint - its the way she expresses it and an apparent disconnect from reality.

Kinda like how this entire thread is based upon nothing but some bizarre fantasy concocted in her mind.

Originally Posted by Birdzeye

Perhaps the resident righties could take a short break from bashing the thread parent, just long enough to provide a few examples of Cheney's deep commitment to preserving the environment.

That would be an excellent way to prove that the premise of this thread is bogus, if that's what you're trying to do.

Originally Posted by goober

It's not like the White House is refusing to acknowledge the facts, by doing ridiculous things like refusing to open emails from EPA scientists, so they can say they were never informed about the facts behind global warming.

Oh, wait a minute, I take that back
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/25/washington/25epa.html

Because if they were informed that greenhouse gases were pollutants, then they would be legally bound to do something about it. So they acted like the dignified people they are, they refused to open the email, put their hands over their ears and chanted "nah nah nah, I can't hear you, what are you saying nah nah nah, nope I never heard about greenhouse gases"

Originally Posted by EricOKC

Using this standard of proof, you'll be presenting a big ole pile of evidence showing Obama's deep commitment to such things as, oh, lets say his support of gun rights?

Of course not.

The onus is not upon anyone to prove Cheney did not do what he is being accused of. Rather, those attaching Cheney have to prove he DID do it.

Do you not understand this concept? Why you, yourself, have demanded people provide supporting documentation for an OPINION for pete's sake. Surely you cannot object to expectations that accusations of illegal acts should have SOME supporting data...

Originally Posted by Birdzeye

Mmmm, sounds like more deflection. It's funny how when I ask difficult questions, that's the reply I invariably get. People here were getting their panties in a wad because some others dared to criticize Cheney on environmental issues. So I thought it reasonable to ask them to provide some examples of Cheney's commitment to improving environmental quality.

Originally Posted by EricOKC

No it is not deflection. It is pointing out the rules of debate.

You are demanding the absurd to disprove an unfounded accusation, when instead the onus is upon the accuser to support his claims.

Originally Posted by Si modo

No.... Another strawman.

Originally Posted by chassisman

Wahtever will she do with Bush gone next year?? Will she be able to muster the same level of contempt for McCain?

Originally Posted by Birdzeye

I did not demand that anyone "disprove" anything. I asked that someone provide examples of things Cheney has done that would show a commitment by him towards preserving/improving the environment. Asking for evidence is a legitimate thing to do in a "debate," and in any case, we're not in a formal debate with rigid rules.

So far nobody has responded positively to my request. The snarky comments and the bulls*** replies can only be described as deflection to avoid responding positively to a reasonable request.