Replies

Does the Sisyphus comment make any more sense to you Calcowgirl?

Your original use of the Sisyphus comment that I found offensive was applied to a completely different issue (See Post #805)

I'm dealing with people who think directing someone to Google is supporting their own false claims.

Sorry, I'm with nic on this one. You keep dismissing stuff without apparently reading it or even acknowledging it. Why should he have to go back and repeat the same thing?

"You keep dismissing stuff without apparently reading it or even acknowledging it."

I haven't dismissed a damn thing. Nicmarlo has adamantly refused to support a SINGLE ONE of his statements with any specific evidence. NOT ONE. Instead, he tells me to search a 70 page document myself to figure out what twisted point he's trying to make. That this thread is full of people who are absolutely incapable of supporting their own points with specifics is a fundamental clue why those same people are so willing to use such damning evidence as book titles to build their conspiracies in the first place. If you think Nic's points are so solid, why don't you provide the evidence for him. I searched for the word "migration" in the last article he posted and it doesn't even exist in the article.

FWIW calcowgirl, I read the Sisyphus comment as somewhat self-depricating on Rokke's part.

The crux of the issue is that he took this fight on knowing full well much of what he said would be disregarded—but he understood that there is honor in the process, even if the goal is never reached.

One of the things that makes this forum great (or has in the past) is that rational discussion can be discovered, even on emotional topics. On occasion, that asset breaks down and disappears for awhile. This appears to be one of those cases.

I've been watching this thread with great interest for the past several days. Rokke is a brave man to even come in here and discuss the issue. He has first hand knowledge of the issue. He was willing to go head to head on the issue. He asked for one parameter—that evidence be gleaned from the text of the document itself. That was not respected from the beginning.

Instead the rebuttals have disintegrated into book titles from Amazon (LOL), long discussions on the meaning of "affiliation" (depends on what the meaning of the word is, is.) and attacks on his "Agenda" because he happens to know CFR members.

That he has been patient enough to put up with it all is a tribute to his character. There are many others on this forum who have simply given up and wandered off to find less exasperating situations.

To believe this theory is certainly within your right. What is being asked of you is to simply logically, unemotionally and specifically back up your assertions. Doing that would be as good for you, as it would be for him.

To goad the discussion into disintegrating into a discussion on whether or not the Sisyphus reference was an insult or not is, frankly, silly.

Oh by the way, since you've falsely accused me of dismissing stuff without "apparently reading it or even acknowledging it", here is my FACTUAL evidence that confirms otherwise.

In post #735 Nic posted a Joint statement by the three North American leaders regarding the SPPNA. Here are all my comments regarding that article...
Post #736 (The very next post mind you) "Nic, what part of that statement do you think is a bad idea?"
Post #739 "I agree. So what are they in this case? You must have posted that article for a reason. Which parts of it do you find disagreeable?
Post #744 "Why not? Both efforts were seeking solutions to the same problem. If you went to several different doctors seeking opinions about a medical condition, would you be concerned if they all agreed with each other. It really doesn't take a Harvard PhD to come up with a list of viable solutions to the problems we are encountering with both trade and security in North America. And none of the initiatives listed in either source are very specific (as you've pointed out). Yet both sources represent the efforts of representatives from all three of the countries involved. It isn't that surprising that there is a broad degree of consensus between the two."

Then Hedgetrimmer posts two links to books on Amazon of all places! Did you click on the links? I did. They were nothing but book ads. Later, in post #748 he posts an entire essay not even published by the CFR. My response...in post 762 "Would you like to debate the document you listed in post 748 instead of the CFR document you originally wanted to discuss? At least you've obviously read the one you posted." His response....nothing.

See, what I've just done there is supported my points with specific evidence. I realize that is a completely foreign concept to many on this thread, but it is a pretty good way of proving your point. And it really isn't that hard. In this case, I have refuted your absolutely false and unsupported claim that I "keep dismissing stuff without apparently reading it or even acknowledging it." Now you try. Back up your claim that I "keep dismissing stuff without apparently reading it or even acknowledging it".