House Majority Whip shot at congressional baseball field

[Dill]

(06-16-2017, 07:00 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The first question you should have asked is are my examples complete and do they attempt to be fair?  It doesn't look like either of these questions were on your list at all.
 
Absolutely untrue.  Again, is that a complete or exhaustive list?  I think we'd both agree that the answer is no.  Given that, why did you choose the examples you did?  Why were all the examples you chose to use regarding action by one political party?  You can keep trying to put tinsel on a turd, it won't make it a Christmas tree.

Again, incorrect.  This statement also makes me question your grasp of the concept being discussed.  You go in with no assumptions at all.  However, seeing as we have both lived on this planet, and in this country, for a fair amount of time it doesn't take any assumptions, only basic experience, to know that both sides engage, and have engaged, in political skullduggery.

1. My examples don't have to be "complete" to make my point.  And if "fair" means they supply enough context to make point without misrepresenting, then yes, they are fair.

2. Again, no need to make a an "exhaustive" list. (How would you ever fit something like that in a forum post?) My point is that "both sides" aren't equally responsible for the current politics of hyperbole and hate, and some "skullduggery" as you call it, definitely originates with one side, not the other.  You had to UTTERLY MISS that clearly stated point to come back with questions like "why those examples?" and "why only one party?" The examples were chosen because so far as I know, no Democratic organization or campaign did what I specified Gingrich, Rove, and the Fox crew did. I am claiming that BOTH SIDES DON'T DO IT because I have not seen the other party doing it. That is why "all the actions are by one political party."

3. One doesn't begin any inquiry with "no assumptions at all." And you are faulting me for not going into my inquiry with your assumption--namely that "skullduggery" must be equally distributed.  My clearly stated hypothesis is that it must not.  To test that hypothesis, I must find examples that either originate with one side or are only practiced by one side.  The goal here is to find out whether the hypothesis is true, not to make both sides feel good.

Also, this hypothesis is put forward in a way that makes it falsifiable. One could 1) offer examples showing Democrats used the same three tactics BEFORE Republicans did, or 2) put up three examples of equally egregious tactics created and pursued by Democrats in the post-Watergate era (i.e., close enough in time to influence current politics), or  3) demonstrate the examples did not in fact occur or did not occur as described.

Claiming that BOTH SIDES DO IT--"it" being skullduggery--does not refute my hypothesis.  I BEGAN by granting all kinds of behavior is done by both parties. That was to set up my point, that I was specifying behavior originating with one party.

Michaelsean understood on the first reading, and went right to the appropriate question.