No. I honestly think it means that nothing in the article says money was going directly to Coleman.

You continue to insist on declaring as fact things which were not stated in the article, while I continue to quote what the article actually did say.

Yeah, Norm Coleman thought his actor / model wife should be paid $75,000 for a job she is not qualified for, and doesn’t even have to show up to to collect a paycheck.

Show me where in the article it says anything like that. Does it say just what Ms Coleman’s job is? No. Is any dollar amount mentioned? Yes, but it’s $100k and not in any way described as being paid to her. Are her qualifications or lack of them mentioned? No. Is her attendance mentioned? No.

In just one sentence you make up 4 “facts” not anywhere in evidence in the article.

I’ve decided to find you amusing.

Sean: “Some folks just never disappoint.”

Yeah, Sean, and that person who never seems to disappoint is you. You realized you just lied when you said you’d leave. And then made fun of me, even though you are the one who lied about leaving.

You are making fun of me for not letting this go, yet you are continuing the conversation. That makes you a hypocrite.

“Nothing in the article says money was going directly to Coleman.”

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

No wait, you’re serious. You honestly think that that clears Norm Coleman. You don’t think Mrs. Coleman’s finances have direct impact on Norm Coleman’s finances?

Wow. This goes right up there with the “Per 100,000″ debate as one of the stupidest things you’ve said.

“Nothing in the suits alleges either Coleman was even aware of Kazeminy’s plan.”

Yeah, Norm Coleman thought his actor / model wife should be paid $75,000 for a job she is not qualified for, and doesn’t even have to show up to to collect a paycheck.

You are as naive as you are hypocritical.

“And if allegations against one person being true means that someone else is guilty, yeah, the law is funny.”

If you are party to the same crime, then yes. If one person is found guilty of bribing a politician, then the politician is guilty of accepting a bribe.

That’s how the law works. If you don’t get it, you are as dumb as you are naive and hypocritical combined.

The suits allege Kazeminy tried to funnel money to the company at which Coleman’s wife works. Nothing in the article says money was going directly to Coleman. Nothing in the suits alleges either Coleman was even aware of Kazeminy’s plan.

And if allegations against one person being true means that someone else is guilty, yeah, the law is funny.

On a side note. say you break into someone’s house, sneak into their bedroom, and shoot them in the head, twice. However, it turns out, they died of a heart attack in their sleep and you techinically shot their corpse.

In this circumstance, you could not be convicted of murder, but you could be convicted of attempted murder.

(Also, if you sell powdered sugar thinking it’s cocaine, you can be convicted of conspiracy to traffic drugs. However, if you sell it knowing it’s powdered sugar, you can be convicted of fraud. Law is fun.)

On an additional note, Jay was talking about real people who are dying now. I was talking about a hypothetical situation with nearly zero chance of happening. Equating those two is intellectually dishonest.

Some folks just never disappoint.

Wow. Just wow. Is intellectual dishonest a sport with you? Because if it is, you are Olympic caliber.

Jay: “The article makes pretty clear that Coleman is not under investigation but rather Nasser Kazeminy is.”

Read that sentence until is sinks in.

Jay clearly said the headline was misleading because Nasser Kazeminy is under investigation and not Norm Coleman. However, as I have pointed out, the crime being investigated involves both Nasser Kazeminy and Norm Coleman, so you can’t say one is under investigation and the other is not.

If the allegations against Nasser Kazeminy are true, then both men are guilty. You can NOT parse this investigation and say one man is under investigation and the other is not.

Either both men are under investigation, which is acceptable in this casual setting. Or neither men is under investigation, because the FBI investigates crimes and not people.

Now do you get it?

“Perhaps ‘Coleman Donor Under FBI Investigation’ would have been a less misleading headline?”

No. Now it sounds like he’s under investigation for an unrelated issue and OW is going after Colmen because of ‘Guilt by Association.’

Fucking hell, you are stupid.

I did no such thing. I didn’t even specify which point I was talking about, because it applies equally to both of them.

You. Are. Wrong.

Me: “CSS: If someone murdered you tonight, they could never be found guilty, because you are clearly already brain dead.”

Sean: “”Now, I wonder, what should we call someone who says another could be murdered and the guilty should pay no penalty?”

And another lie.

I said they couldn’t be convicted, not that they should pay no penalty.

Oliver’s headline says “Norm Coleman Under FBI Investigation”
Jay said the headline is misleading and noted that “The article makes pretty clear that Coleman is not under investigation but rather Nasser Kazeminy is.”

Now, the article itself actually says:
- The FBI is looking into allegations Kazeminy tried to steer money to Coleman.
- Neither Coleman nor his office has been contacted by the FBI.
- The breadth of the FBI probe is unclear.
- The two suits filed allege Kazeminy is guilty of wrongdoing.
- Neither suit alleges Coleman knew anything about Kazeminy’s plan.
Even the headline of that article says only “FBI reviewing allegations involving Norm Coleman ally”

So I agreed with Jay and noted he had a point: The Pioneer Press article doesn’t say Coleman is under investigation and OW’s headline is misleading.

And even CSS ultimately admitted, that to the question “Is Norm Coleman the target of an FBI investigation?” “Technically the answer is no”

Perhaps “Coleman Donor Under FBI Investigation” would have been a less misleading headline?

You accuse me of using only parts of what you say to misrepresent what you say. And then you quote only my “No I didn’t” deliberately ignoring the following sentence so you can claim I’m responding to a point other than the one I’m responding to.

You complain that “First of all, you didn’t respond directly to my post. in a thread where you’ve provided responses like:
SDM: That’s the standard we’re to go by?
CSS: Shut the fuck up, you lying piece of shit.

And to look at the longer view (since you clearly will never be able to get over any previous disagreements) the first time you attacked me was when I had the temerity to question your calling Jay “sub-human”. You justified it by claiming once upon a time he said something like he would feel no remorse if you were to die and that anyone that devoid is sub-human.

CSS: If someone murdered you tonight, they could never be found guilty, because you are clearly already brain dead.

Now, I wonder, what should we call someone who says another could be murdered and the guilty should pay no penalty?

Even Jay has apparently on occasion noted he was wrong. CSS, of course, never is.

Sean: “Well, what do you know? You’re wrong on both counts.”

Oh my god. Oh my fucking god.

If someone murdered you tonight, they could never be found guilty, because you are clearly already brain dead.

First of all, you didn’t respond directly to my post. You merely deflected.

Secondly, you have no idea what I’ve seen of your posts, so you can’t make the second claim.

Although considering you don’t seem to know what a direct response is, how can I possibly blame you for thinking you know what I’ve seen.

How have you not accidentally killed yourself?

A lie of omission involved leaving stuff out, not changing what was said. You can do it just fine with cutting and pasting.

I can’t believe I have to explain this to you.

“No I didn’t.”

YES. YOU. DID.

I can prove this, because your post doesn’t make sense if you look at the context of the part you did quote.

Got it?

Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

I need to know this. Are you a fucking troll, or are you a fucking retard?

Which is it, because those appear to be the only two choices left.

Well, what do you know? You’re wrong on both counts.

CSS: It’s called a lie of omission. And you’ve done it twice in this thread alone. (Once with the wife-beating example,

CSS: I said Norm Coleman was involved in a crime that was being investigated, therefore unless their evidence that he is not being investigated, he is under investigation.

Even you have to see how that is a lie.

Oh, I do. I see exactly how you are lying. Although I’m sure the irony (not to mention the hypocrisy) of it will escape you.

To explain further…

Here you are complaining about me lying about what you say, about me not quoting from your comments accurately and you lie about what I said (and about what you yourself said for that matter) and don’t quote from my comments accurately.

EVERYTHING I’ve ever quoted from your comments came exactly as you wrote it, misspellings and all, thanks to cut-and-paste. I never re-type, always paste, just so that I can make sure when I represent what someone else says I do so accurately (a practice you clearly don’t follow, but have I gone around biting your head off for it?). And here you go attributing to me and putting in quote marks something I never wrote.

Understandable, I suppose, when one realizes you frequently don’t really want to respond to what I actually have written.

SDM: That’s the standard we’re to go by?
CSS: Shut the fuck up, you lying piece of shit.

SDM: And how do you know he is?
CSS:

Far easier, I suppose, for you to try to switch the disussion over to how you were misquoted because I didn’t include the entirety of your post in my comments.

CSS: You quoted the first part and pretended the explanation didn’t exist.
CSS: You cut out half my post and pretended the rest didn’t exist.

No I didn’t. I included the relevant part knowning your post is still there, in its entirety, for anyone who wants to scroll up to see it. But, as you’ve done so many times before, you’re going to tell me you know more about what I was actually thinking than I do.

But, then, you consistently tell those who disagree with you that they are liars whose opinions don’t count.

Is it pathological with you?

This is important, so I’m seperating it into another post.

This is like the “Per 100,000″ debate.

In a debate about gun deaths, Jay said, ‘That’s what per 100,000 is for.” I asked what he meant by that, and you attacked me for stalling. Jay then admitted he misread the post he was responding to. (But would never explain how, despite a number of requests on my part on the details.) However, that wasn’t enough for you, and you continues to attack me for asking about it in the first place.

The key is, even after Jay admitted he was wrong, you never did.

JAY ADMITTED HE WAS WRONG AND MY QUESTION WAS VALID AND YOU NEVER DID.

Or if you did, I never saw it. I am open to that possibility. However, I have brought up this little incident, and I have yet to see you address it head on.

It is solid evidence that whatever problems we have between each other, it’s your fucking fault. How else can you explain why you would attack what I said, even after the person I was responding to admitted I was right?

I don’t expect you do respond directly to this post, I’ve never seen you do so to similar posts in the past.

It’s called a lie of omission. And you’ve done it twice in this thread alone. (Once with the wife-beating example, and the ‘FBI investigates crimes, not people.’

To explain further…

1.) I said Norm Coleman was involved in a crime that was being investigated, therefore unless their evidence that he is not being investigated, he is under investigation.

You quoted that as, ‘unless their evidence that he is not being investigated, he is under investigation.’

Even you have to see how that is a lie.

2.) I said, “Technically the answer is no, because the FBI doesn’t investigate people, it investigates crimes.” and further down in the same post I explained, “However, while that’s the technical answer, one would not be in error in a more casual setting like this to say Norm Coleman is under investigation. You can not say, as Jay did, that Nasser Kazeminy is under investigation but Norm Coleman is not. They are both involved in the crime, therefore they are both under investigation.”

You quoted the first part and pretended the explanation didn’t exist. And you used the first part to imply I was somehow contradicting myself.

“If I did that, it would only be because I’m following your example.
But what I actually did do is quote your exact words. Yet, still, you convince yourself I’m misqouting you.”

No you didn’t, asshole. You cut out half my post and pretended the rest didn’t exist. And don’t give me that lie that, ‘the rest is still there and people could look up if they wanted to.’

Your response only worked if the parts you didn’t quote were never said in the first place.

Therefore, you implied they didn’t.

Therefore, you lied.

“You’re special, CSS. Mostly because you’re the only one I’ve seen who consistently replies to anyone who disagrees with you, no matter how reasonably or diplomatically, with some variation of ‘You’re a lying sack of shit and your opinion doesn’t count.’”

And another lie.

Is it pathological with you?

Let me pull one of your favorite lines out of the bag.

Prove it.

Show me, exactly, where I’ve lied about what you said.

What I have done (and this would make the third time I’m pointing this out in just this thread) is copy your words exactly. I do that so you can know exactly which of your comments I’m commenting on (seems only fair) and so that others don’t have to scroll up to see what I may be referring to (a courtesy).

So, would you like to point out to me exactly where I’ve lied about what you’ve said in this thread, or would you like to demonstrate the superior validity of your view by calling me a shit again?

If I did that, it would only be because I’m following your example.

But what I actually did do is quote your exact words. Yet, still, you convince yourself I’m misqouting you.

Are you this way with everyone? Or do I get special treatment?

You’re special, CSS. Mostly because you’re the only one I’ve seen who consistently replies to anyone who disagrees with you, no matter how reasonably or diplomatically, with some variation of “You’re a lying sack of shit and your opinion doesn’t count.”

Seriously?

And I’m pissed off because Sean lied about what I wrote, again. He can’t compete with me on the facts or using logic, so he lies about what I said and tries for a ‘Gotcha!’ moment.

If someone lied about you, repeatedly, wouldn’t you be pissed off?

You are a fucking piece of shit, you know that?

I explained exactly what I meant, and you ignore it and pretend I never said it.

This is 100% proof that you don’t give a flying fuck about the truth.

You are a liar and an asshole.

Are you this way with everyone? Or do I get special treatment?

Become a Republican, you deserve each other.