Live in a quite comfortable double-wide. And you can kiss my ass.
You’ve said that before, and each time you have you’ve failed to back it up when challenged. Remember when I said: “cite instances where you feel I wrongfully accused you of lying and see if I can’t back it up”? And remember how crickets chirped?
The challenge still stands.
While this body is hardly what I’d call august, and I assume your smilie means that you are not acting as a mod and threatening me with bannination for defending myself from specious accusations of lying, I will happily defend any charge I’ve made as to another poster’s dishonesty…quite unlike yourself, Lobohan and GIGObuster. (And Marley23 and mhendo, for that matter.) And unlike every one the posters mentioned - plus elucidator - I will unhesitatingly recant and apologize if I am either proven wrong or unable to back up my assertions.
All of you have called me a liar recently (or in the hair-splitting case of mhendo: “dishonest”), and not a one of you has backed it up when challenged. (Although to be fair, I never actually got around to challenging Marley23.)
You’ll have to mark the spot, chum. You look like all ass to me.
You’re lying now. I cited it several times. You’re just too dishonest to actually cop to it.
You’re stupid too. 
And yet it does, and quite heavily. A real head-scratcher!
You’re right, my comment was in error. I meant to say "It seems to me though that an environment…etc.
It seems to me that every comment you make is in error.
In the other thread Starving Artist then claims that in the end “Hannity didn’t lie.” As many who are involved in ethics can tell you, equivocation or lies by omission are indeed lies. (It depends on the situation if they are as bad as complete lies)
No, you cited a post in which I made comments about one of two omitted clips on Hannity’s program. You then make the ludicrous claim that because I didn’t mention the first clip (a clip that was the first thing anybody saw upon clicking the link, no less), I was somehow lying about the existence of the first and trying to fool people into thinking it wasn’t there.
Utter, utter nonsense. No wonder you’re reluctant to post it again.
I blame liberals.
I’m realizing that’s it’s probably just better not to pay so much attention to people like Starving Artist and Shodan. I had fun at first, but now it’s just tiresome.
The quote below refers to trailer parks.
Well, you’re just wrong. Worse, you’re making an ugly stereotype about people you certainly know little to nothing about, which is hardly a good example of civility, is it?
(Although, to be fair, it’s worth noting that most people who live in in trailer parks have low incomes and usually aren’t especially politically active in the first place.)
You live in a fictional world that you just made up wholesale, that much is clear.
I’d like to see a cite that drug abuse is higher among liberals than conservatives.
Kudos on the dig at Al Gore. Very well done. Has nothing to do with this, but well done. So the liberal aging baby boomers (feel bad for them. Least popular generation ever apparently) have cultural influence. Turns out now they have actual power as well. For a cite, take a quick glance and the legislative and executive branches. Point stands, wouldn’t they now be backing off the whole “never trust anyone over forty which is really the new thirty so never trust anyone over fifty which is the new forty.” Least I think that’s how it goes. I suck without my conversion guide handy. Now that I think about it, the liberals had a fair amount of authority during the Clinton administration and they owned the legislative during the Reagan/ George H.W. Bush years (iirc of course). Crafty liberals must’ve meant to question conservative authority.
Walked right into that one. That said there are likely a large number of Bush hating liberals who would say the same thing. Now I’m more perplexed.
But if the students have no respect for the teachers, they’ll never learn which authority to question!:eek: Sorry for the confusion. Didn’t mean to imply you were a “schools are breeding grounds for liberal pansies” type of person. It’s just so hard to tell one wackadoo right wing conspiracy from another.:o
No “probably” about it. I actually said “I’m just not seeing why ‘respect for the environment’ deserves a rolleyes.” Thought it was a pretty clear sentence. Maybe I just don’t have any respect for the language. Curse those liberals. They’ve gotten me again.
Didn’t you hear? The minute BugMeNot and StarvingArtist graduated, the public school system went down hill and that’s why no one knows which authority to bow down to and which to respect and why 47% of our youth respects the authoriteh of an obese cartoon eight year old anti-Semitic boy. Now that’s what I call a return to traditional values.
Please, *please *stop calling **Starving Artist **an old man! It’s beginning to creep me out, because he is apparently only 2 years older than I am!!
I had long hair, I marched in the protests, and was tear gased, fire hosed, billy clubbed and jailed for my trouble. Hell, I can probably find a hat or something around here now with peace signs on it.
I ***am ***the people his parents warned him about.
Hannity didn’t lie…or at least it wasn’t proven by the OP of that thread (which btw, contains several lies of its own. How come nobody’s talking about that, hmmm?)
Obama didn’t answer the question well, he stammered around coming up with lame comments “Havel” and “Walesa” (and when’s the last time you heard an American president speak positively about a foreign leader while dropping their title and referring to them by their last name only? He was clearly struggling.) He then made some lame comment about American Democratic and Republican presidents’ efforts to “lift the iron-curtin”, whatever that means.
In light of Walesa’s comment regarding Reagan, Hannity’s remark about Obama needing to study history was not only reasonably justifiable but certainly not a lie, which the OP claimed.
And there was absolutely nothing, nothing, in the OP to back up GO’s claim that Hannity cast aspersions the the effect that Obama “HATES AMERICA” [all-caps his].
So here we have three blatant or at least arguable lies on the part of the OP which all the intellectually honest liberal Straight Dope posters around here are utterly ignoring.
Now, on the subject of Hannity lying by virtue of the omissions. An intentional omission for the purposes of deception would certainly count as dishonest if not an actual lie. Still, by no reasonable measure is the omission itself sufficient evidence that that was the motive. The clip could quite reasonable have been omitted for reasons of time, or because it was considered too inconsequential and lacking in substance. Either of those two explanations seem perfectly reasonable to me, and since we don’t know for a fact that Hannity himself a (as opposed someone on the production staff) a.) ordered the omission himself, or b.) ordered it with the intent to deceive, it cannot be accepted as fact that he lied, nor can it be accepted as fact (by honest, reasonable people) that I lied by pointing out that Hannity did not lie based on the evidence.
And now, I got chit to do. I’m outta time for this nonsense!
It’s apparently an actual medical disorder brought on by andropause. The sun shone brighter when they still had swimmers, I guess.
Ha!
To the degree that my parents and I discussed politics, it usually flowed from me to them.
Yeah, yeah. Whatever.
I read the thread, and I’m sorry, but I call bullshit on damn near everything. Liberal baby boom of 40 years ago? A bunch of liberal babies? A bunch of liberals deliberately overbreeding in some sort of sinister plot to take over the world?
Hmmmmm. That baby boom started in the 50s, as the result of people returning from World War 2, people who instead of being Commie Libruls, were the ones who had fought for America against the Axis. Later they were joined by those returning from Korea (where they directly fought the Commies). Or Viet Nam (more Commie fighting). They were good people, good Americans. There was a boom because they all, each group, came home about the same time, and wanted a piece of the American dream - family, house, kids, real subversive shit like that. Commie reasons - family, kids, maybe true love (but we cynics don’t buy that love crap, do we?).
Someone could be conservative OR liberal, and still be a decent person. Someone can live in a mansion, a Levitt house, a trailer park or an apartment and still be a decent person. Our society isn’t screwed up. It’s working as intended. People live their lives, and don’t have to worry about the Huns, the Hittites, the thought police, or Joe McCarthy. The occasional blip is relatively minor, and settles down relatively quickly. Working as intended. We have more freedom, more security, longer lives, better health, better everything than ever before.
And some people are just crazy.
You want to blame some imagined evil on an invisible bogeyman? Go ahead. Meanwhile the rest of us have better things to do.
Your persistent use of this spelling, even after the error has been pointed out to you, leads me to the inescapable conclusion that you are an ignorant slut.
No, it started in the forties. And baby-boomers born in the forties and early fifties were the hippie dipshits of the late sixties…just like I said. (Although not all were dipshits. Some of my best friends were hippies, including some here. (Zoe, I’m looking at you. 
People around here like to claim I hate hippies or I hate liberals, but the truth is I hate hippiedom and I hate liberalism, but I don’t hate their individual members. Far from it.)
I agree.
I agree.
Apparently not.
And here I thought my error was in having previously omitted the hyphen, despite the fact that it still looked odd to me. (I just posted this in “Palin resigns” thread: "Happens to all of us. I used to be a much better speller than I am now.)
I’ll happily cop to being a slut but I fight ignorance every chance I get. 
Anyway, thanks for your correction which finally arsed me to look it up.
“Iron-curtain”, how’s that?