Why is no one answering the question about whether Nader is a Truther or not?

Seixon on September 19, 2009 at 7:02 PM

Are you freaking kidding me? You can’t even answer if Van Jones is a truther or not.

the fact that you believe it is OK to make claims without any sufficient evidence.

You stated that claims can’t be made unless they’re proven. In response to this utterly stupid notion, I replied that claims CAN be made without any evidence at all and that the claim is TRUE if the claim is TRUE regardless of the information used to make the claim. I didn’t say that it was responsible to do so. I didn’t say that it was smart to do so.

But the fact remains, that the information used to make a claim has no bearing on whether or not the claim is actually true.

If someone makes a well researched claim based on hard evidence which provides 99.99% certainty, then the claim will be wrong 1 time out of every 10,000. In that 1 occurrence, the fact that the evidence was strong has no bearing on the fact that the claim was WRONG.

If someone makes a claim based on scant information which provides a mere 0.01% certainty, then the claim will be right 1 time out of every 10,000. In this occurrence, the fact that the claim was based on scant information doesn’t diminish the truthfulness of that claim at all.

You can argue that Hot Air’s information wasn’t very strong, but you can’t definitive state that Hot Air’s resulting claim was wrong – unless you know that it is – which you’ve already admitted that you don’t.

And you’re an idiot for being unable to understand this very simple concept despite all of our efforts.

Because it shows just how completely without logic you are, which is quite clear from your strained attempts to avoid facts, the plain meaning of words, and the fact that you believe it is OK to make claims without any sufficient evidence.

Seixon on September 19, 2009 at 7:02 PM

Are you really this stupid?

Let me try again.

YOU are the one making the claim. YOU are claiming that Hot Air smeared Van Jones. YOU are the one asking us to prove that you didn’t. YOU are the one asking us to prove a negative.

YOU didn’t say that Hot Air was irresponsible. YOU didn’t say that Hot Air should have had a few more data points prior to making their claim. YOU didn’t say that Hot Air was too aggressive in their claim. YOU didn’t merely say that Hot Air can’t prove its claims.

YOU decided to state that Hot Air smeared someone. THAT’s a definitive statement. YOU decided to make a definitive statement.

If Van Jones is a truther than your definitive statement is 100% wrong. YOU agree that Van Jones might be a truther therefore you agree that you might be 100% wrong.

Is Ralph Nader a Truther? Answer the question.

White House lukewarm on Van Jones after his “9/11 Truth” petition signature surfaces — but Newsom “stands by him

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/nov05election/detail?entry_id=46917

The Bay Area’s Van Jones — the Special Advisor for Green Jobs at the White House Council on Environmental Quality — just finished apologizing for calling Republicans “a-holes” when he got something else to start explaining: How his signature got on a 2004 petition asking for an immediate “inquiry into evidence that suggests high-level government officials may have deliberately allowed the September 11th attacks to occur.” Van said he didn’t carefully review the petition before signing it “certainly does not reflect my views now or ever.”

No I did not. He’s already admitted to agreeing to have his name attached to the petition, but nobody has asked him how or why, and as such, nobody knows.
If you cannot establish how or why he signed the petition, you cannot establish whether he is a Truther or not, since there is no other evidence that he is.
Seixon on September 19, 2009

Your using the “4 year-old” argument.

Father walks into kitchen, sees 4 year-old son with milk jug in hand.
Sees milk and milk cup on floor.
Ask son “what happened”
Son says “I don’t know”

Your claiming Van Jones has the mind of a 4 year-old.

All of this occurred back in 2004 when he first got hold of the petition.

He has said, yes he saw the petition.

He has said, he did not understand the petition.

And he did not agree with what was written in the petition he did not understand.

He has said, yes that his signature on the petition.

But he does not know how his signature got on the petition. “I don’t know”

WOW! Golly why the flock did Obama have this guy in his admin!

We need to SERIOUSLY look deeply into EVERY person in Obama’s admin top to bottom.

If this idiot got through who knows what we will find!

Why is no one answering the question about whether Nader is a Truther or not?

Seixon on September 19

Who cares?

Was Nader an Obama czar? No

Does Nader have access to millions of taxpayer dollars that he could spend, un-checked? No

I no more care if Nader is a truther than I do if the guy on the street talking to the lamppost, wearing a “the end is near! repent” sandwich board is a truther (btw he is a truther, just like Van Jones, a nutcase) he can’t do harm.

Van Jones is a truther its been proven a hundred times over.

Why are you so proud of that stupid phrase?

Because it shows just how completely without logic you are, which is quite clear from your strained attempts to avoid facts, the plain meaning of words, and the fact that you believe it is OK to make claims without any sufficient evidence.

Why is no one answering the question about whether Nader is a Truther or not? Could it be that Nader obviously isn’t a Truther, and thus the single piece of circumstantial evidence you’re all clinging to does not justify calling Van Jones a Truther for the same exact reason?

Uh oh!

Here I thought a Truther actually knew they were a Truther because they believe in Trutherism.

Seixon on September 19, 2009 at 12:37 PM

You really are stupid.

Truthers don’t know they’re truthers. Truthers are just askin’ questions ya know? Nothin’ wrong with askin’ questions. Some stuff about it just don’t add up. Truthers just happen to believe an unrealistic version of events, but they don’t know they’re truthers. Except I’ll give you that maybe 5% of truthers know they’re truthers.

I have to prove a negative?

Why are you so proud of that stupid phrase?

To demonstrate that Hot Air didn’t smear Van Jones…

I don’t have to demonstrate that Hot Air didn’t smear Van Jones. I merely have to demonstrate that you’ve failed to demonstrate that Hot Air smeared Van Jones which many of us have done repeatedly.

The only thing you’ve demonstrated is your lack of knowledge about the law, your lack of knowledge about defamation, and your lack of an any sign of intelligence.

Good luck with your new blog. Keep those google search skills up, because you’re devoid of any hint of analytical skill.

All Truthers are unwitting Truthers.

Here I thought a Truther actually knew they were a Truther because they believe in Trutherism. I guess that could make me an unwitting Christian, even though I don’t believe in God. Maybe I believe in something without even knowing!!

This is the first time you’ve acknowledged this point.

Actually it’s not, but I guess you don’t remember that well, either.

Look. If your claiming that Hot Air smeared Van Jones, then it’s you that needs to prove that Hot Air smeared Van Jones. In order to do that, you need to prove that Van Jones isn’t a Truther.

I have to prove a negative? No, you see, this is exactly backwards. To demonstrate that Hot Air didn’t smear Van Jones, you have to prove that Van Jones is a Truther.

I cannot prove Van Jones isn’t a Truther no more than I can prove that he isn’t Santa Clause.

He’s already admitted to agreeing to have his name attached to the petition

Seixon on September 19, 2009 at 10:58 AM

This is the first time you’ve acknowledged this point.

but nobody has asked him how or why, and as such, nobody knows.

Look. If your claiming that Hot Air smeared Van Jones, then it’s you that needs to prove that Hot Air smeared Van Jones. In order to do that, you need to prove that Van Jones isn’t a Truther.

You haven’t even come close to doing so yet.

As someone else already pointed out, you cannot be an unwitting Truther.

Seixon on September 19, 2009 at 10:56 AM

All Truthers are unwitting Truthers.

BTW didn’t you state he didn’t sign the petition or didn’t know how his named got on that petition?

Your augment is crumbling for yur eyes!

DSchoen on September 18, 2009 at 6:37 PM

No I did not. He’s already admitted to agreeing to have his name attached to the petition, but nobody has asked him how or why, and as such, nobody knows.

If you cannot establish how or why he signed the petition, you cannot establish whether he is a Truther or not, since there is no other evidence that he is.

Unwitting truther.

Note the bolded part, and f*** off.

MadisonConservative on September 18, 2009 at 5:24 PM

It occurs to me from this whole discussion that you, and many others, are more interested in what things say rather than what they mean.

As someone else already pointed out, you cannot be an unwitting Truther. Maguire writes that Van Jones is an unwitting Truther because, as he also wrote, it would seem that Van Jones is guilty of signing a petition that he hadn’t read carefully. Thus, he opened himself up to be called a Truther, because he signed a petition that included Truther sentiments. That doesn’t mean that he actually is one, but he becomes an unwitting Truther because of it.

SeattleJohn on September 18, 2009 at 5:27 PM

Look above. Maguire putting Truther in quotes as in the “‘Truther’ controversy” should maybe have clued you in.

I see that no one has answered my question: is Ralph Nader a Truther?

Nice try at spin, but once again the libs are counting on the ignorance of their readers and listeners.

“The bombs the government drops in Iraq are the bombs that blew up in New York City.”
- Van Jones in 2001

“It’s the bombs that the government has been dropping around the world that are now blowing up inside the U.S. borders.”
- Van Jones in 2002

Are these the sentiments of a Truther, or a left-wing loon of the Blame America First crowd? Ponder. Think. Discuss. Go.
Seixon on September 18, 2009

These are the words of a nut case. Note: this statement was in 2001

He was an organizer of the 2002 truther protest (yes I know Truther org didn’t name themselves truthers till 2004, its irrelevant)

Pay back, blow back Fits into the Made It Happen category.

It changes nothing nutcases can evolve their nutty beliefs to more nutty beliefs cuz their nuts, that’s what they do.

Except the petition that Van Jones admits to having signed was only partly about Trutherist sentiments. Most of it was about conducting a new 9/11 investigation, which quite many people feel would be warranted.

Anyways, how about reading Jones’ actual statements about 9/11 from directly after the attacks, and before the Iraq war. They don’t seem to mesh with him being a Truther, more like a left-wing loon who holds the US responsible for the acts of terrorists.
Seixon on September

Seriously Seixon, get your logic straight! Truther have both LIHOP and MIHOP as the MAIN categories, I’m sure among the nut cases you will find grey men form mars did it.

There nutcases that’s what they do!
Cuz their nuts!

BTW didn’t you state he didn’t sign the petition or didn’t know how his named got on that petition?

Your augment is crumbling for yur eyes!