Well, you should have known better than to engage in debate with the loon in the first debate. Liberal combines nitpicking pedantry and weirdly abstruse allusions that are totally irrelevant to the topic under discussion, all blended up woith a vitriolic passive-aggressive attitude that makes productive conversation impossible.
Indeed. About once every six months or so I forget what a sphincter he is when his back is up, and try to call him on his bullshit. He quickly reminds me why this is useless behavior.
I apologize to everyone who waded through that, and resolve not to answer anything else by him in this thread unless he substantively addresses the issues. Let me tell you, I ain’t holding my breath.
But that’ll be the last I say on the topic.
Daniel
Nope, SA is just peachy, thank you very much.
But as an aside, your posts of late have really been giving me pause as to whether or not I should have included you among the names I gave Roseworm the other night of posters on the other side of the fence who were fine people nonetheless. Everything I’ve seen out of you lately has been snide, bitter, beligerent and insulting. If you’re not careful I’m gonna have to take away your gold star.
Since I don’t consider you to have much integrity, I ain’t so worried. There are conservatives on this board that debate civilly and respectfully. Once I see you doing so, I’ll give a shit about your opinion of me. Currently, you seem like an extremely partisan disingenuous supercilious sonofabitch.
Just in case you were wondering :).
Daniel
This thread title reminds me of the time that late, sainted, hyperfanatic Celtics radio announcer Johnny Most told the listening audience “Chamberlain just hit Russell in the elbow with his eye!”
Well, I’ve already been accused of that lack for failing to support same-sex marriage and for having the temerity to vote Republican at all.
Look - if actions are legal, then they are legal. If they are illegal, I condemn them. If they are legal, and you don’t like the result - work to change the law.
I didn’t whine that my Hispanic vote was being suppressed when I was sent to three different polling stations. I pushed on, and voted. And if there had been ten police cars lined up in front of each polling location, I would have gone ahead and voted.
I didn’t care if police were checking for warrants or unpaid child support. Why? Because I don’t conduct my life in such a way as to leave me vulnerable to warrants or unpaid child support, and I believe that’s a reasonable standard to expect from all people. And frankly, I think the kids’ right to paid child support trumps the right of a dead-beat dad to cast his vote, every time. I’d be happy with a rule that rescinded the vote from every person with unpaid child support.
Why would people leave to avoid being harrassed? What form to you contend this “harrassment” would take? “Oh, dear, I can’t vote because I’m afarid they’ll arrest me for my outstanding warrant!”
Good. If you have an outstanding warrant, election day is not a get-out-of-jail-free card. If you have an outstanding warrant, you should turn yourself in. I have ZERO sympathy for your voting problems under those circumstances.
I absolutely do not accept this whining. Period. Live your life correctly, and avoid these problems.
THIS is why I’m a Republican. I hold people responsible for themselves.
- Rick
People often see in others a reflection of themselves. I suggest you take a good, hard look at yourself before slinging such accusations around.
Regards. 
Looks to me like you were holding the Democratic party responsible for the shinkicker.
Again: will you impugn the entire Republican party for the illegal actions I referenced earlier? I’d prefer you not condemn either party for the actions of a few dumbasses, but if you’re going to do one, seems like you should do the other.
Daniel
Why do I doubt that you take your own advice? I’ll put my own fairmindedness up against your any day, you patronizing ass.
Daniel
You’re lying for saying that I didn’t quote you correctly. To wit:
You, post #49:
“Nah–I’m satisfied with two judges telling them that their plan was illegal. Course, that’s just my pansy-ass liberal spin on things.”
Me, post #51:
“The court ruled that the law itself is unconstitutional, not that their plan was illegal. Making plans was completely legal, but now carrying out their plan depends on court rulings.”
You, post #60:
“Second, carrying out a plan that a judge has forbidden you from carrying out is illegal. Maybe you should check out how the law works sometime before calling other people liars.”
[Note that I hadn’t called you a liar.]
“… I’ll accept your apology now, since I doubt I’ll get a chance to accept it later; you’re not famous for admitting when you overreach.”
Me, post #63:
“You are mistaken when you say that I do not admit when I’m wrong, as you can document by searching through my posts. I will expect your apology.”
You, post #64:
“You can bugger flies all you want, but the fact remains that I did not say that. Live by the pedantry, die by the pedantry, Lib.”
Me, post #68:
“Huh? You said that two judges ruled the plan was illegal. That’s what I said you said. If you point out an error, I’ll admit it.”
You, post #74:
“I should know better than to enter into this hairsplitting contest. Take it as a lesson: your confusion at my abstruse post mirrors other folks’ confusion at your own abstruse posts… [and then this gem] As for the connotation of them–well, I think your behavior here bears it out.”
You had finally admitted your misleading phrasing. But not to me, of course. It is in your post #69 to Bricker:
“Perhaps I should have phrased it differently; perhaps it would have been clearer if I’d said that “two judges telling them that their plan is illegal.” While what I said was technically correct, it was ambiguous; I apologize for the confusion.”
Meanwhile, as a subplot, you were going on and on with conjectures about what likely happened when my search did not pull up the term “appeal”. You were declaring what was more likely than what. You, from wherever the hell you are, were describing to me what I must have done. To wit:
You, post #64:
“You must’ve mistyped it or something, because that passage was in the article when I linked to it.”
Me, post #72 (to Bricker)
“My Control-F still has “appeal”. (Copied and pasted.)”
You, post #75:
"There are several explanations for this, the least likely of which is that Yahoo had the paragraph about appeals when I read the article, took it out when you read the article, and put it back in when I reread the article. Far likelier is that you didn’t search properly. Maybe you clicked somewhere near the end of the article, below the “appeals” paragraph, and it searched downward from there.
At any rate, you’re blaming technology for your own error. Had you read the article instead of Control+Fing it, you would’ve found the paragraph…"
Me, post #82:
“Perhaps I both read the article AND Control-F’ed it. It wasn’t very long. I don’t see why their putting in, taking out, and putting in is far-fetched. It happens routinely with Internet news stories. Quite obviously, the report I read was different from the report you read since it was more than three minutes between your post and my clicking it. Why you always want to die on this sort of hill is a mystery.”
You, post #88:
“Heh. Irony strikes again. But thanks for proving my point about your willingness to admit when you’re wrong.”
Me, post #101:
“Wrong about what? I quoted you correctly, for which you’ve already retracted your accusation that I didn’t. And I reported correctly that the word “appeal” was not in the article when I read it.”
You, post #103:
“No you didn’t, and no I didn’t, and I don’t believe you, in that order.”
I mean, by now, you’re so fucking off the wall in left field, that I’ve lost track of what you’re on about. But you apparently were saying that I was proving you right about something for not admitting I was wrong about what I did on my own computer.
And then, after already inexplicably criticizing my behavior (see your post #74), you begin telling me that I am angry.
You, post #110:
“I believe you are mistaken, because you’re letting your anger blind you, and i believe you’re behaving like a monumental sphincter. But I am willing to be proved wrong.”
And that was after you said you didn’t believe me when I told you what I did on my computer. You’ve been a jackass from the beginning of this dialog, and I’ve been nothing but civil with you until your last bit about simply not believing me. I mean, eariler you were all about what I must have done, and now you simply don’t believe me. So, as far as I’m concerned, you’re just a liar. And I’ll bet $10 against a dollar that you still won’t admit to doing anything wrong. If you do, it’ll just be to win the bet.
I rest my case.
:rolleyes:
Oh, stop it. You’ll embarass me with your flattery. Anyway, the topic is political spin. Which part of your post condemning me for going off-topic in my own thread dealt with it?
On the off-chance that there was something substantive in that, Lib, please give me a direct quote of where you think I was lying, and about what. I read through your whole post and see no misstatements in there.
Daniel
Better yet: if anyone sees me saying anything dishonest in this thread, please let me know, with direct examples. If anyone can find any lie in the stuff I said and lib quoted, please let me know. I take my honesty seriously, and want to correct any misstatements I made.
Daniel
I just wonder where the goofy idea that Democrats/liberals have to be passive unaggressive milquetoasts come from. I mean, as anyone who watches kung-fu movies know, the most peaceful and tolerant guys around are those old monks at the Shaolin temple, who’d gladly get medieval on your ass if you disrupt their tranquility…
“…and lib quoted”?
It’s interesting that you feel the need to use a qualifier to limit examples of possible dishonesty in your posts.
Let’s start with this one: “Maybe you should check out how the law works sometime before calling other people liars”. Where, before post #60, did I call you a liar? And don’t play word games now. We all know how you despise them.
Ain’t it just? just as it’s interesting that you feel the need to ignore the quote in order to advance your own dishonesty. WHat about the sentence immediately preceding that one?
"Better yet: if anyone sees me saying anything dishonest in this thread, please let me know, with direct examples. "
Do you have examples?
Daniel
Yes. Fer gosh sakes, I thought I’d been clear before, but: the Republican party, “defender of the rule of law,” takes a big hit with the revelation that party officials in Florida planned to illegally use a list that was heavily weighted with African Americans to exclude voters. I condemn their hypocrisy - how dare they cast themselves as “law and order” types and then flout the law?
You said we’d need a gyroscope, implying that we were doing a lot of spinning, in post 51. Spinning in my worldview equates to lying. One who lies is a liar.
If you do not equate spinning with lying, then I misunderstood what you were saying, and I apologize and withdraw that specific claim. However, although you may not have intended to call me a liar by implying that i was spinning, that was my honest interpretation of your post.
Daniel