I really don’t have the inclination to do a serach. I’ve said good things about John McCain, Bob Dole, George Bush Sr, and Colin Powell. You can believe me or not. I don’t give a fuck.
Oh…and I voted for Reagan in '84. I know I’ve admitted that once or twice on this board.
Sorry, honeychunks, but your further misrepresentations are not going to work either.
You claimed that you stated that you were a partisan before you accused me of the same. You even put it in italics for emphasis. But it was a lie. You didn’t do that. Now you are attempting to make false claims about what you said. Which is unfortunate if you wanted to be taken seriously and believed.
No, I understand the concept just fine. I don’t think it applies to you, since your partisanship leads you to be other than truthful. As we have seen.
You are not prioritizing any values. You are applying the same value that you always do - Bush is bad, wrong, evil, nasty, criminal, blahblahblah.
I already have. The two quotes are contained in my previous post.
No, I am not deluded. You didn’t answer the question for the reason I stated, that you were not told which side was lodging the objections. And which side it is is solely and wholly determinative of how you will react. No other data are necessary. All Democratic objections you will defend, all Republican objections you will attack, instantly and regardless of any other circumstance. Exactly as you react to every political question.
Because you are exactly what you claim to object to in me. You are a mindless, unreflective partisan hack. Your partisanship is so extreme that it leads you to be either delusional or dishonest, as you have demonstrated here and elsewhere. You misrepresent arguments made against you, ignore evidence, and unhesitatingly lie about your own and other’s statements.
You are, as I mentioned, a hysteric. Deliberately offensive and deliberately obtuse, you represent the very worst the Left has to offer - an unpleasant mixture of screaming hypocrisy, intentional stupidity, and moronic abuse.
Your spelling could use some work, too.
Regards,
Shodan
I thought it was up to the person making the assertion to do the search and provide the cites. Guess I was wrong.
Boy, this is an easy one.
In Shoddy’s very first post to the thread at issue, he goes straight to the heart of the issue. The heart of the issue, according to him, is that the Democrats have no interest in the actual question of accuracy and fairness, but are intent on laying the groundwork for a corrupt and scurillous legal assault on the results.
I quote:
In his very first comment on the matter at hand, friend Shodan declares his ability to peer into the minds of others, and inventory the contents thereof. He knows what they will do, he knows why they will do it.
The evidence offered is his demonstrated perspicacity. We are invited to accept that at face value. Since Shodan is a staunch defender of Truth, Justice, and The Leader, he naturally expects his bona fides to be accepted without question.
But it comes down to a simple matter of telepathy and clairovoyance. The very instant that friend Shodan can demonstrate his infallible capacity as regards these talents, his point is proven and friend Diogenes must slink away like the partisan cur Shoddy claims him to be.
OK, then. Lets experiment! Shoddy, I’m thinking of a number between one and fuck you. What is it?
Shodan:
This is just getting stupid. I never said I was non-partisan and I didn’t answer your hypothetical because you didn’t explain what the legal objection was. Ask it again, give a specific reason that the loser is objecting (don’t say who the loser is) and I will give you an answer. You can’t just say that two parties are going to court and ask me who I would support if you don’t tell me what the actual complaint is.
The mere fact than an election is close is not a reason to go to court.
All this “I don’t believe you” stuff is on a par with “la la la, I can’t hear you.” There’s nothing more to say about it. You don’t believe me. I don’t give a fuck. My life will go on.
I’m not the one making the assertion. Others are asserting that I’ve never said anything good about Republicans.
The great thing about self-diagnosed clairvoyance is that anybody can do it. Shodan claims to be a Christian. I don’t believe him. I think he’s really a Scientologist. Shodan claims to be a heterosexual. My Magic 8 Ball begs to differ. And no matter what Shodan says about his personal taste in music, I’m getting a very strong vibe that he is heavly into the Backstreet Boys and Wilson Phillips. We can all do this all day. The IMHO forum would be a trainwreck.
You’re right. Mr. Moto made the assertion. I misread and I apoligize.
Oh, we passed that point long ago. And by “we”, I don’t mean “me”.
True. You said that you had admitted that you were partisan before you Pitted me as a partisan. As I mentioned, you even put it in italics for emphasis. And you were lying.
No, you didn’t answer my hypothetical because I did not provide the determinative fact - who won. Which entirely controls every reaction you have to any political question.
Really? Then you better check who else is using your computer, because someone used your screen name to post the following:
You keep lying, and then complaining that I don’t believe you. It is silly. Almost as silly as a poster saying:
And then immediately complaining about what I think.
You asserted that I was a mindless Republican robot. I provided evidence that I was not, which you ignored, just as you ignored my cite of your lie about my motivations.
I then provided (or rather highlighted from your posts) evidence that you were so partisan as to be dishonest. In other words, I have provided evidence that both your assertions (that I am a mindless knee-jerk conservative and that you are honest about your own actions and motivations) were false. Probably unknowingly false, as you have likely deluded yourself, but false nevertheless.
In other words, evidence has been provided both disproving your assertion, and proving mine. The fact that you have ignored and misrepresented that evidence does not invalidate it. It simply provides further evidence that you are exactly what I have stated - a crudely dishonest and partisan hack.
If you decline to provide any reason to believe what you claim, you are going to wind up looking wrong by default.
I repeat, if you want me to take your word for it on any political question, I have already provided a number of reasons why your word for it is not worth much. Why I should believe you about the Diebold machines when it is clear that you are willing to be deceptive on other issues is a case yet to be made. Either get going, or don’t. If you don’t, I will continue to regard you as exactly what you prove yourself to be, over and over and over.
Regards,
Shodan
To be fair Shodan, it was Mr. Moto who made the assertion that you’d never hear Dio say a nice word about a Republican. Granted, it would have been nice if he had linked to a thread or two to disprove the claim…
:: donning hip-waders before entering this mess ::
Shodan wadr and all - when you state, as you do here, that you know the ‘real"reason for Dio’s refusal to answer your challenge, you are, indeed asserting that you know what’s in his mind. And it really is a no win situation for you in the end - you can posit your hypothetical in any way you choose, and unless the actual hypothetical exists and has been already discussed, his answer has to remain unchallenged. For example - I can assert that the event that former governon JOhn Engler was drowning that I would indeed risk my life to save his sorry ass. And you would find it impossible to prove that I wouldnt’. Unless, Of course, I’d already posted somewhere that I wouldn’t lift a finger to help him under any circumstances.
and wrt: your point about Dio making an assertion wrt his posting positives about Republicans, his comment was in reply to some one else claiming that he’d never said anything positive about republicans. If some one claims that they’ve at times said positive things about a group, I’d offhand believe it - just ‘cause it’s unlikely as hell that any given poster w/that many posts (and many in political threads) would have never said anything remotely positive about any memeber on the other side (even the most partisan hacks). that’s why I ‘hardly ever’ use the phrases “never” or “always” when commenting on other posters’ comments (as in “you often espouse the republican viewpoint” vs. “you always espouse the republican viewpoint” etc.).
Shodan, this is a little backwards from how it’s usually done, but I’ve started a GD thread about your hypothetical question.
Recent revelations as to Shodan’s telepathic powers have placed me in an awkward position.
I am very sorry for that thought I just had about you. Though I am sure you probably know some chihuahua’s, I have no reason whatever to believe that you have any intimate relations with chihuahua’s, or any canine species whatsoever.
Any other telepaths are also enjoined to ignore that thought. I do not have any proof of any such contention, and do not assert that I have.
Your powers of clairovoyance, however, cannot be addressed, beyond a blanket apology in advance for those terrible thoughts that I may very well have in the future. Not being clairovoyant myself, I am unable to apologize substantially, since you are aware of what I’m going to think, and I am not.
Please be assured this in no way affects my regard for you, or my estimation of your character, honesty, and integrity.
Oh, wait, you already know that, don’t you?
Yes, I saw that and I responded. Having done so, I am a little nervous that the rancor from this thread will slop over into GD. If it does, I can drop out. But FTR, yes, my question was loaded. Obviously.
Yes, quite true, just as DtC has stated that he knows what is in my mind - that I am a mindless Republican robot, etc. I have posted evidence that I am not. It took all of thirty seconds to find. If I were so one-sided as he claims, why was it so easy to find a counter-example? And if DtC is actually the fair-minded person he claims, why is it not equally easy for him to find a counter-example?
And I am afraid you are incorrect that DtC has never asserted that he has said nice things about Republicans. I quoted where he said exactly that. His response was that he didn’t feel like providing any evidence. Imagine, if you like, that I had asserted that I could easily show I was not a mindless partisan, but I just didn’t feel like it. Does your reaction change?
OK, I have found you to be a generally fair-minded poster, so possibly not.
But, FTR, I was accused of being Bush’s mind slave. Which is largely why I posted the link to the thread I started. I could probably find other links, to positive things I have said about Lieberman, a Democrat I could see myself voting for. And I actually voted for the Democratic candidate in our last gubernatorial election. Another thing I can’t prove, just as DtC can’t prove he voted for Reagan.
But DtC says that he can’t link to anything positive he has ever said about Bush because Bush has been wrong on every single issue, and in everything he has ever done. And that does sound like something a mindless, knee-jerk partisan would say.
This is also true, of course - unless the hypothetical comes to pass. Then we would see whose predictions are most accurate.
You want better hypotheticals? OK. Suppose one candidate wins the popular vote, but loses in the electoral college. Is that victory tainted in any way?
Suppose the losing side files lawsuits to try to get the method of counting votes changed. Suppose the Supreme Court strikes it down as un-Constitutional. Would it be appropriate to refer to the winning candidate as having been appointed?
Suppose the margin of victory is far less than the number of eligible voters who stayed home. Does that mean the victory is less meaningful?
Regards,
Shodan
I said it in rebuttal to an accusation that I haven’t said good things about Republicans.
Ironic that you cite Lieberman. He happens to be a Dem that I don’t like and I actually once posted the following:
That should also count for a “good things to say about Republicans” cite, I hope.
Or a response a really incompetent POTUS would inspire. The one thing I can remember saying in support of Bush defending his amnesty for undocumented workers. I can also remember praising him for being able to throw a ceremonial baseball over the plate without bouncing it. Something you rarely see in a POTUS. There may be something else but that’s all I can remember. I basically despise the guy, not because he’s a Republican but because he’s GWB.
No.Not legally anyway. It’s a PR issue for the winner, though.
I don’t think the Constitution has anything to say about the method of counting votes so I think this scenario is unlikely. I would support suspending the declaration of a winner until it is certain that every vote has been counted, though.
No.
I think the claim that you’re a mindless republican robot is an opinion, though you do often spout the party line quite a bit. I find you not as shrill for example as some others I won’t name, and not as ballsoutoffensively stupid as the dimwit who wrote into my local paper suggesting that we not vote for Kerry since he’s an admitted killer (somehow I doubt that the same person would be horrified if we were to abhore all of our former pilots and bombadeirs since they, too, would be defined in the same way for example). As to the bigger question of why is it easier to find counter examples of ones own posts etc well, um, duh. It can be assumed that I’ve read all of what I’ve personally posted, vs. what some one else may have. and it’s easy to think of ourselves as well balanced even if one leans a tad in one direction or another, yet have a clear idea of another poster as being (mostly) partisan. I know , for example that I’ve posted stuff that was conservative in nature, or complimentary towards some republicans, even though I’m a dyed in the wool (natural) born again hippie. 
but, for example, I’d be hard pressed to come up with any specific items that I personally recall where, say, december or Brutus were anything remotely complimentary towards left leaning folks.
In my (often) off boards discussions my conservative pal, I often ask “do I just see it more on your side or can you give me examples where…” and most often it is indeed that I see it better when it’s the opposition. ::shrug:: that’s why I use terms like “often” vs. “always” as noted above.
nope, I still don’t see it that way - the other person made the assertion, his comment (to me) was another way of saying “oh yea? Cite” (iow “nope, I’ve made positive comments before try and prove that none of my comments have been complimentary”) but in any event, again, I see the original assertion as probably idiotic since I generally doubt that any poster here doesn’t at some time give some small measure of positive to someone on the other side (since ‘other side’ includes moderates as well as party hacks).
thanks - and tho we are not on the same aisle politically, generally I see you as being far more approachable and willing to see other pov’s than other folk, even if you are so often, wrong. 
I wouldn’t agree with the ‘mind slave’ thing. but did you notice what you did there? you started out with the Bush mind slave and offered as some element of proof that you’re not that you’d agreed w/Leiberman and voted for another Democrat. yet when discussing DtC, you change the assertion from ‘nothing positive about republicans’ to ‘nothing positive about Bush’. IOW - when looking at yourself as non party hack, you look past the presidential office, but when looking at DtC as being partisan hack, you only focus on Bush the second (as opposed to Bush Junior ) It’s possible to be “a Bush mind slave” while being somewhat open to other Democrats, just as well as it being possible to hate everything about GWB, while admitting some positives about other republicans. (for example - I don’t hate all republicans - most of my relatives are…)
I’ll answer your hypotheticals as posted:
One candidate wins popular vote, loses in electoral college. IMHO, victory is not tainted (assuming no other factors, such as irregularities in voting to a degree that would potentiall affect the outcome in a state where the electoral votes would affect the outcome), though I’d suggest that the winner not act as though he had a ‘mandate from the people’, since less than 50% shouldn’t be construed as such. (enough qualifiers for you? - IOW my beef w/the 2000 deal wasn’t with the electoral college per se, but that the margin of win in FL was microscopically small, smaller than the irregularities - specifically the voters not allowed to vote due to the felon question, the polling places moved, the police presence in some polling places, the panhandle question etc.)
Method of counting votes changed? I would need more information - some of the Florida controversy was publicized as ‘changing the method’, yet others were not - for example, military ballots were allowed even w/postmarks after the election - was that ‘changing the method of counting’?
Margin of win less than voters staying home? nope no effect to me. But of course, I was also less than impressed w/those who crowed about the relative amounts of real estate ‘voting’ one side (“x number of counties voted republican vs. much smaller number voting democrat” - since in our country, real estate does not currently vote, it’s a meaningless stat - of no more importance than discovering the relative number of left handed voters vs. right handed )
Fair enough?
Well, of course an electoral college win without a popular vote win is “tainted”. But not tainted by illegal means, but by the perfectly legal means by which the principle of “one entity, one vote” is abrogated.
But more importantly is the dishonesty of Bush’s reaction. He did not win, he just didn’t lose. And yet he proceeds to govern as though he were the recipient of a thunderous mandate from the people, a ringing endorsement of the far rightest position, a position he was at pains to pretend wasn’t his while he was running.
He could have been honest and straightforward. He could have said something like “Clearly, the electorate is divided, and niether I nor my opponent can claim to represent a clear majority of the people. I will be mindful of that, and present a more centrist agenda than I might if I clearly had the confidence of the people.”
But he damn sure didn’t, now did he?
You must have missed my first link. It was to a thread I started where I asked Bush to concede, as evidence that I am not mindlessly pro-Bush. My pro-Lieberman comments were offered as evidence that I am not mindlessly pro-Republican or anti-Democrat.
DtC, on the other hand, is mindlessly anti-Bush. He has posted a link to one post in which he says he could “almost” vote for McCain, and could “stand” Powell. Not exactly a ringing endorsement, but FTR, I am prepared to classify him as not mindlessly anti-Republican. But, since we were discussing the upcoming Bush election, I will have to stand by my opinions as to his motivations. As well as my characterization of him as so partisan as to be led into dishonesty, as has been seen.
Fair enough. But, as I mentioned and despite attempts to characterize me as saying so, not all liberals are dishonest.
But, FWIW, I may have been verging on a mistake I have made in the past. The SDMB is a predominantly liberal board. Some posters are extremely liberal, some are moderately liberal, some few are even conservative. But it is heavily, extremely, fanatically anti-Bush. And sometimes I have been known to lump together those who are allegedly conservative and consumed with hatred for Bush with those who are liberal and consumed with hatred for Bush or centrist and consumed with hatred for Bush.
But Bush-hatred is so extreme on this board that virtually any expression of support for Bush, or even a reluctance to join in the general abuse of everything he has done or said since conception, gets you labelled as in the OP to this thread. Anyone who refuses to condemn Bush is labelled as a mindless Republican robot. And then the Usual Idiots gets all huffy when anyone resists the attack.
Some liberals are sissies and hypocrites. They malign Bush and Republicans 24/7. We get called racists and bigots and hatemongers and bullies and cheats and liars. Then the instant they start getting a little of it back, they go off into hissy fits. They can dish it out. But it is mighty little that they can take.
Not all of them. But enough to make it worthwhile to rub their noses in it once in a while.
Regards,
Shodan
I wouldn’t mind seeing some cites for where I (or any other regulars on this board) have ever said that all Republicans are “racists” or “bigots” or"hatemongers" or “cheats” or “liars.”
I’d like to see a cite for where I’ve ever even accused Bush of being a racist. (I concede that I’ve called him a liar and a cheat. I’ve also accused him of exploiting homophobia, but I’ve never accused him of racism or bogotry other than anti-gay bigotry).
I qualified my statement about voting for McCain as being dependent on who the opponent was. I would vote for him over Lieberman, for instance. And here’s a bomb- I would vote for McCain over Kerry. Powell vs Kerry would be a toss-up for me. It would depend on how much Powell was willing to disavow himself of the Bush White House.
I’m not anti-Republican. I’m not even a Democrat. I have been a registered independent since I turned 18 in 1984. I am a liberal, no doubt about it, especially on social issues. I am not anti-Republican so much as I am anti the religious right. If the GOP was willing to disengage from the religious cabal which has them so in thrall, I would give them more consideration than I do.
And of course I’m anti-Bush. He is the religious right. I also think he’s genuinely incompetent, dishonest, grandiose and irresponsible. I don’t think that because he’s a Republican, I think that because of his performance in office. I didn’t hate him when he first took office. I thought he would probably be a relatively harmless one-term president who would not be permitted to do too much damage. I also thought his “compassionate conservatism” line might actually have a chance of translating into some moderation of the religious right’s control of the party. I wasn’t a fan, but I had no personal animosity towards him. Four years later, I’ve gone from thinking he was a harmless dunce to thinking he’s a genuine public menace.
I plead guilty to detesting GWB, but it wasn’t always thus and I don’t generalize my distaste for Bush to a condemnation of all conservatives.
You have got to be fucking kidding me.
You’re running out of fish. Try a bigger barrel.
Regards,
Shodan
Yes, dio overreached by asking for a cite of any regular who’s made that claim, true. But there are some important lessons from that thread:
Daniel