Originally Posted By gadzuux How about the internment camps resulting from the next census. Ahh - good times.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh How about when Obama said he would abide by the campaign financing laws? How about when the President said he wouldn't have any lobbyists in his administration? How about when he said every bill would be posted on the internet before he signed it? That C-Span would televise the health care debate? How about when Sen Dodd claimed he didn't have anything to do with the AIG bonus? How about when Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid said just about anything? Unfortunately, those weren't good times, and they're still going on.
Originally Posted By mawnck Yes, Douglas. Some of those are most definitely legitimate issues, for progressives as well as conservatives, and it would be nice if there were CREDIBLE people on the right raising them. Unfortunately, any Repub who is willing to behave in a credible manner, even for one soundbyte, is ostracized by people like yourself for blaspheming the Great Tea Party Gospel or something. You are part of the problem, my friend, by not standing up for the things that really do need to be stood up for. You'd rather chase off after the latest Fox News diversion for dummies. You're no help at all.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy C'mon, Doug. Wingnut lies are so much better. Let's hear some more lies about President Obama being a Muslim.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Actually, mawnck, anyone who is willing to behave in a credible manner, even for one soundbyte, is ostracized by people like yourself. You distort and denigrate any conservative idea, and pretend that anyone promoting one, or criticizing a liberal one, is crazy, and not to be listened to. You are part of the problem, my friend, by not standing up for the things that really do need to be stood up for. You'd rather chase off after the latest MSNBC News or Jon Stewart diversion for dummies. You're no help at all.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy So birth certificate conspiracy theories are now "conservative" ideas?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Let's hear some more lies about President Obama being a Muslim.> I get confused. Was the lie when the President claimed, “The only connection I’ve had to Islam is that my grandfather on my father’s side came from [Kenya]", or when his spokesman said, “The president himself experienced Islam on three continents. You know, growing up in Indonesia, having a Muslim father . . .”
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <So birth certificate conspiracy theories are now "conservative" ideas?> No, but the fact that the President wasn't honest about his background is.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>No, but the fact that the President wasn't honest about his background is.<< There's no evidence of that.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy Great! Obama a Muslim? No. Not a U.S. Citizen? No. We can move on and discuss something else now.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <There's no evidence of that.> Of course there is. I posted a link to an article that pointed out a lot of it. You claimed it was "patently absurd" and easily refutable, but haven't refuted a single thing it presented.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy I agree with ECDC. The article was patently absurd -- particularly the use of all sorts of qualifying adjectives and adverbs so that none of the theories in the article could be definitive claims. Lots of innuendo and counter-factual arguments, no definitive statements of fact.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Lots of innuendo and counter-factual arguments, no definitive statements of fact.> Please point out one counter-factual argument in the article.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<You're flailing around here to find some way out of the corner you've painted yourself into, but it doesn't work that way. You are not the arbiter of what is a "lie" and what isn't, as others have pointed out.>> <You claimed I said something I didn't. You repeated the claim multiple times after I told you it wasn't true. You just claimed, "I always quote you verbatim".> Meaning, I always copy your words WITHIN THE SAME FREAKING THREAD. < So live up to your words. Post a link to where I said what you claim I said, or admit you lie.> It really doesn't work that way. You've had more than 9000 posts here since 2000. If I search for the words "denigrate and distort" in them, I might find, oh, somewhere north of 8,000. Plus, you've already admitted that you do denigrate and distort, as long as somebody else "does it first." So we're arguing over whether you ever, in all those years and 9,000 posts, used the word "never" in the exact sentence "I never denigrate and distort." Apparently, you have a photographic memory and can remember every one of those posts perfectly. You should take that show on the road - you could make a lot of money. I'm sure no one else here would even imply they could do such a thing. It is my memory that you have said that. And I'm backed up by at least one person who thinks so too. You think not. And from this you leap to calling me a "liar." (!) And to using the same term for those who come to my defense. Meanwhile, when I come to your defense, what happens? Something reasonable like "thanks for that, but I still disagree on this other thing..." (Like I thanked DAR, whom I often disagree with)? No. It was attack, attack, attack. No moment of recognition that maybe we agreed on something, no thanks, nothing like that. Attack, attack, attack, and in a very nasty way also.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << Please point out one counter-factual argument in the article. >> You mean you haven't read the article? I just assumed that since you posted it, you must have been familiar with the content. I apologize for jumping to conclusions. I'll let you take the time to read it, and then you can tell me all about it. It's kind of entertaining. Lots of wingnut dram and conspiracy theories. I'm sure the Sarah Palin crowd eats this stuff up. Just let me know when you're all read up on it and familiar enough to discuss.
Originally Posted By mawnck >> You distort and denigrate any conservative idea,<< We've already established what your definition of a "conservative idea" is, so by your definition, yes, they all deserve to be denigrated, and I'm happy to do it. I decided I was done suffering fools gladly several years ago. >>You are part of the problem, my friend, by not standing up for the things that really do need to be stood up for. You'd rather chase off after the latest MSNBC News or Jon Stewart diversion for dummies.<< I'm stunned by the originality of your rebuttals. Don't try so hard. You'll injure yourself.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I always copy your words WITHIN THE SAME FREAKING THREAD.> Except, of course, when you don't. <It really doesn't work that way.> Except, of course, if I recount something I've read somewhere, or stated on another thread. Then I'm supposed to find it and present it again, or else I'm lying. <It is my memory that you have said that.> Your memory is wrong, but you wouldn't admit to the possibility, even after I told you. Even now you won't. And yes, if people keep lying about things, I'll keep telling them they are lying. The point is that you and many of the other liberal posters here distort and denigrate conservative ideas. That fact that I occasionally throw some of your tactics back at you, after you repeatedly do it to me, doesn't negate that you distort and denigrate conservative ideas. If you want to claim I'm a hypocrit, then find an instance where I actually fired first, instead of just returned fire. You do that, and I'll stop posting in WE.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <You mean you haven't read the article? I just assumed that since you posted it, you must have been familiar with the content. I apologize for jumping to conclusions. I'll let you take the time to read it, and then you can tell me all about it.> I didn't think you could find one. Do you enjoy being dishonest, or do you get paid to do it?
