Bing Bong, The Bitch is NOT Dead

[Shodan]

@RTFirefly

There’s a difference between ‘no man (or woman) is above the law,’ a principle I’m happy to join you in upholding for members of both parties, or none at all - and ‘some are less equal than others’ which is what ‘uppity’ folk challenged, back in the day.

Actually, the quote from Animal Farm is that “some animals are more equal than others”, which is what McKinney is trying to say about herself - that she is above the rules that everyone else has to obey, and if a police officer tries to get her to abide by the security rules (five times, so far), she is being picked on because of her race.

Ah, a believer in a meritocracy. But now that you’ve defined ‘merit’ as intelligence and integrity, who will be the judge of who is meritorious and who isn’t?

How low do you want to set the bar? McKinney has ignored the rules on security (five times at least), assaulted and insulted an officer who was trying to do his duty and uphold the law - and misused taxpayer money, violated campaign laws, made racist remarks, associated herself with anti-Semites, and generally behaved like an asshole.

I can’t believe a rational person could believe that McKinney has either intelligence or integrity. It isn’t that close a call.

@BrainGlutton

Best of all, she’s a co-sponsor of Conyers’ H.R. 635, for looking into possible grounds to impeach W. So yeah, it’s good to have her in there, politically speaking, and as far as I’m concerned she can bitch-slap all the Capitol cops she wants.

Then you are nothing but a whore.

@Miller

The thread has nothing to do with Cynthia McKinney.

This is the problem with the Usual Suspects. A thread, expressly Pitting McKinney, and mentioning no other politicans, isn’t about McKinney. Because you don’t want it to be.

@UncleBeer

And a side note: The more times I read that OP, the more I think the derogatory remarks about McKinney’s physical characteristics are pretty stupid - offensive even. Shodan, the topic could have far better served by leaving that crap outta there. It’s entirely pointless and detracts from a valid gripe.

On reflection, I have to agree. I withdraw the remarks about her physical appearance.

@whole bean

This leaves me to come to one of two conclusions: either, you did mean this thread to be a response to the other, in which case it most certainly is a tu qoque (i.e. you’re now being disingenuous); or you did not intend this thread to be a response to that thread, but you did a terribly poor job in making your intentions known (you’re obtuse).

which is it?

Option three, none of the above.

No matter what, any Pitting I make of a non-Republican politician is going to attract an avalanche of tu quoques. As I mentioned, it is the stock in trade of the Usual Suspects. Therefore, the option is that the Usual Suspects are dishonest.

@LeftHandofDorkness

Precisely right. I am amazed that folks take him at face value when he implies he wasn’t setting up an equivalence–note that he could come right out and say, explicitly, that the thread title was not intended to hint at an equivalence. If he said that explicitly, I might believe him; but when he just implies that he didn’t intend such an equivalence, I think he’s playing “Gotcha” in a contemptible fashion.

So if you think I am implying that I am setting up an equivalence, then I must be, but if you think I am implying that I am not setting up an equivalence, then I am lying.

And you claim your biases don’t enter into it.

The thread title was not intended to set up a tu quoque. I said so, clearly enough for someone with normal intelligence, who does not allow his biases to interfere.

Is that you? Or are you applying for your membership card in the Usual Suspects?

This kind of thing is why it is so hard for me to take seriously any of your bullshit about how disingenous I am. It makes no difference what I post - none of you clowns are reading it. If I explicitly say that a thread is about McKinney, you morons instantly say that I meant it to be about someone else. If I explicitly say that it is not intended as a tu quoque, you instantly tell me that I did. I create the thread the morning it hits the news, and you dolts tell me it is a week old. I provide cites for admitted instances of misuse of public money and violations of campaign laws - you instantly dismiss it as nothing.

You’re idiots.

Regards,
Shodan

[UncleBeer]

@whole bean

You never answered a question about the source of the lyric “Bing, Bong the Witch is Dead” to my knowledge. If so, I appologize. But you’re saying there is scant evidence of a connection between the two threads. I’ve shown you the biggest peice of evidence there is and asked for, as you put it, an alternate explanation. You clearly cannot deliver such, so you say you’ve answered a question that you haven’t. Unless I am wonrg, you have yet to identify a possible source for the lyric “Bing Bong the Witch is Dead” as approrpriated for the title of this thread. Fucking admit he was referencing the Delay thread, please, and salvage whatever intelectual honesty you might claim.

When you can demonstrate that you’ve read this thread, I’ll respond. You can show me that you’ve read it by quoting the answer I’ve already supplied to your question. Strikes me that someone admitting “I might have missed something” and “I might be wrong” shouldn’t be following up with a strident claim that I “clearly cannot deliver” something. What’s clear is that you did miss something and that you are wrong. You’ve also clearly missed that other posters have asked the same question you’re asking. Please admit you haven’t read the thread closely and salvage whatever intellectual honesty you might have. Please admit there just might be an explanation for the thread and its title which you have failed to consider and try to reclaim whatever grounds your increasingly annoying argument might have. Please admit you’re asking questions that have already been asked and answered and that your increasingly annoying argument is becoming increasingly repetitive.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Shodan

So if you think I am implying that I am setting up an equivalence, then I must be, but if you think I am implying that I am not setting up an equivalence, then I am lying.

Blah blah blah blah blah. No, that’s not what I said. Once again, you behave disingenuously to deflect criticism.

The thread title was not intended to set up a tu quoque. I said so, clearly enough for someone with normal intelligence, who does not allow his biases to interfere.

Is that you? Or are you applying for your membership card in the Usual Suspects?

Your way or the highway, huh? Not buying it. You may have claimed it wasn’t set up to establish a tu quoque, but you didn’t say why you chose the title (at least, not that I’ve seen). Failing a plausible alternate explanation, I think you’re lying.

And lying about something totally trifling, too: if you’d admit that the thread title was poorly chosen as sort of a gotcha tool, then we’d be in agreement about the remaining issues-viz., McKinney being an idiot who deserves jail time. But you can’t admit to your silly partisan gotcha trick. So you’re a liar.

Daniel

[ElvisL1ves]

@Shodan

No matter what, any Pitting I make of a non-Republican politician is going to attract an avalanche of tu quoques.

How about an experiment, then? Try pitting a Republican pol, if you can force yourself to do it, and see what happens. Once everyone else gets over their astonishment, that is.

The thread title was not intended to set up a tu quoque.

“Truthiness”.

[Shodan]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

Blah blah blah blah blah. No, that’s not what I said.

Yes it is, you silly bitch.

Your way or the highway, huh? Not buying it. You may have claimed it wasn’t set up to establish a tu quoque, but you didn’t say why you chose the title (at least, not that I’ve seen). Failing a plausible alternate explanation, I think you’re lying.

And lying about something totally trifling, too: if you’d admit that the thread title was poorly chosen as sort of a gotcha tool, then we’d be in agreement about the remaining issues-viz., McKinney being an idiot who deserves jail time. But you can’t admit to your silly partisan gotcha trick. So you’re a liar.

No, you are just an idiot.

Like I said, it doesn’t matter what I say. You assign motives to me, and then call me names for not playing along.

And also like I said, your bullshit about how I must be lying because I don’t agree with your prejudices don’t mean much. The voices in your head are wrong. Get over it.

Regards,
Shodan

[Fear_Itself]

@Shodan

You assign motives to me, and then call me names for not playing along.

You have offered no credible reason for parodying the Delay title. All we hear is denial, denial, denial. Was it just a coincidence they were so similar? Were the voices in *your * head singing songs from Oz? What?

Until you can explain your motives, your denials ring hollow.

[whole_bean]

@UncleBeer

When you can demonstrate that you’ve read this thread, I’ll respond. You can show me that you’ve read it by quoting the answer I’ve already supplied to your question. Strikes me that someone admitting “I might have missed something” and “I might be wrong” shouldn’t be following up with a strident claim that I “clearly cannot deliver” something. What’s clear is that you did miss something and that you are wrong. You’ve also clearly missed that other posters have asked the same question you’re asking. Please admit you haven’t read the thread closely and salvage whatever intellectual honesty you might have.

mea culpa, Unlce Beer, I appoligize, I did miss this statement from you

I can think of a reason he might have used that title that has nothing to do with the DeLay thread. It’s a kinda catchy literary hook on which to hang a thread to draw in viewers, particularly so when the title is a variation of another on the same page. I see similar thread titles quite frequently; people see ideas and copy them. Ain’t so difficult to come up with another explanation. I’ve no idea whether it’s correct (and in actual fact, I think your interpretation probably is the correct one, but that judgement is lacking evidentiary support), or not, but at least we can dispassionately examine alternatives without rushing to a bias-influenced judgement

emphasis mine

Funny you don’t even believe it, though. (As an aside: it’s funny how “evidence” as a concept alludes so many. The timing of the thread title’s appearance, the similarity to another thread, the partisan nature of political discussion on this board and the poster’s political views are all evidence – hardly scant).

@UncleBeer

Please admit there just might be an explanation for the thread and its title which you have failed to consider and try to reclaim whatever grounds your increasingly annoying argument might have.

You’re right, there might be an explanation that I’ve failed to consider. I have, however, considered your explanation and find it laughable.

@UncleBeer

Please admit you’re asking questions that have already been asked and answered . . .

Again, mea culpa, I have asked a question that you provided an “answer” for. Just curious though, how hard would it have been to respond initially, “I answered that question in post # x”? I mean, if your argument were valid, it would have been a more effective presentation – repetition and all. My guess is that it’s much easier to say you effectively countered an argument, than it is to repeat that same weak ass counter argument and once again subject it to criticism. This is the stock and trade of right-wing talk radio.

@UncleBeer

and that your increasingly annoying argument is becoming increasingly repetitive.

had you bothered to repeat your lame ass counter agrument re the genesis of the thread title this insult would be more appropriately hurled at you.

[Miller]

@Shodan

This is the problem with the Usual Suspects.

Dude, you are one of the Usual Suspects.

[UncleBeer]

Great. So now we’ve established whole bean’s track record regarding actual verifiable facts is piss poor. I guess then we can dismiss his interpration of the genesis of the thread title and it’s meaning as equally “laughable” as mine. Perhaps there are other, even more laughable, explanations. Or maybe not. I just don’t see that the facts fit your interpretation any better than mine without viewing them thru the colored filter of bias.

@whole bean

had you bothered to repeat your lame ass counter agrument re the genesis of the thread title this insult would be more appropriately hurled at you.

But I didn’t. So you may assume full ownership of the insult and all rights to it that ensue from such. Enjoy.

[Fear_Itself]

@Miller

Dude, you are one of the Usual Suspects.

snerk

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Shodan

Like I said, it doesn’t matter what I say.

As long as you continue not to provide any explanation, let alone a credible explanation, for your actions, then no: what you say is not relevant.

That’s the only thing you got right in that post, though.

Daniel

[RTFirefly]

@Shodan

Actually, the quote from Animal Farm is that “some animals are more equal than others”,

You know how people sometimes take a famous quote and alter it to the specifics of a particular situation? Good.

which is what McKinney is trying to say about herself - that she is above the rules that everyone else has to obey, and if a police officer tries to get her to abide by the security rules (five times, so far), she is being picked on because of her race.

Dude: I wasn’t defending McKinney. (Thought I made that perfectly clear in my first couple of posts in this thread.) The only issue you’re debating with me here is the use of ‘uppity’; anything else, you must be arguing with someone else. So either connect this back to ‘uppity’, or address this to someone else, or shaddup.

How low do you want to set the bar? McKinney has ignored the rules on security (five times at least), assaulted and insulted an officer who was trying to do his duty and uphold the law - and misused taxpayer money, violated campaign laws, made racist remarks, associated herself with anti-Semites, and generally behaved like an asshole.

I can’t believe a rational person could believe that McKinney has either intelligence or integrity. It isn’t that close a call.

I wasn’t talking about McKinney. And I certainly wasn’t defending her. What I was pointing out was that under your meritocracy (a characterization I’ll note you didn’t object to, but rather built on), the Republican voter base would be decimated.

[whole_bean]

[QUOTE=UncleBeer]
Great. So now we’ve established whole bean’s track record regarding actual verifiable facts is piss poor. QUOTE]

Where do you get that from? I said initally that I might have missed your statement; you certainly weren’t proud enough of it to direct my attention directly to it. Nonetheless, I missed your lame-o “alternative explanation.” I admitted doing so. You think you can lob some shrivled up turd of an explanation and walk away from it without defending it (hell, you even implied you didn’t buy it yourself). When questioned about it, you say “I’ve already answered that question,” but don’t reiterate your answer (likely out of shame for having offered such a piece of mind shit)

You know it’s funny how a laundry list of circumstance connecting this thread and another is “scant evidence” of an intential tu qoque, but my single failure to catch your weak ass “alternate exlpantion” in one thread establishes a track record that you can then make other assumptions based on. Eat a dick, dude.

[whole_bean]

and coding, you can eat a dick too

[Shodan]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

As long as you continue not to provide any explanation, let alone a credible explanation, for your actions, then no: what you say is not relevant.

The word “credible” in the above has no meaning.

Like I said, you don’t read.

Ergo, you == idiot.

@RTFirefly

The only issue you’re debating with me here is the use of ‘uppity’; anything else, you must be arguing with someone else. So either connect this back to ‘uppity’, or address this to someone else, or shaddup.

No, I was debating “meritocracy” and how it could be determined where someone ranked. Or don’t you read your own posts either?

The “uppity” thing was somebody else. At least try to pretend to keep up, m’kay?

New topic for debate; Why are you folks so dim?

Regards,
Shodan

[UncleBeer]

@whole bean

Eat a dick, dude.

Wheee! Gay-oriented ad hominems. Is this what we’re gonna reduce this thread to? Frankly, I think I’ve been fairly polite and respectful in this particular thread. You wanna sling mud, go ahead. But mud splatters.

Where do you get that from? I said initally that I might have missed your statement; you certainly weren’t proud enough of it to direct my attention directly to it.

Why should I have to repeat myself just to satisfy your laziness? I ain’t here to spoonfeed your indolent ass. If you missed that post, then it makes me wonder what else you might have missed. Maybe whole fucking pages of this thread. I ain’t gonna sit around here and point you to everything that’s already been said.

[Exploding_Kitchen]

I’m just finding it funny that instead of actually providing an explanation as to his choice of topic, Shodan instead relies on direct insults.

[ElvisL1ves]

The funnier thing is that he seems to think it’s working.

[Fear_Itself]

@Shodan

New topic for debate; Why are you folks so dim?

Because your head is where the sun don’t shine?

[RTFirefly]

@Shodan

No, I was debating “meritocracy” and how it could be determined where someone ranked. Or don’t you read your own posts either?

Then why were you doing so in rebuttal to a comment I made preceding my introduction of the word into the thread? That seems like a mighty funny way to do it.

New topic for debate; Why are you folks so dim?

We only seem that way to people who think “A followed B, therefore A caused B” is sound logic.