I look forward to a world where people of all non-beliefs can live together.
You should read your own posts sometimes:
I don’t believe in non-belief.
That is not an objection to non-belief in response to a “could it be”’ question. You cited my response to a mischaracterization of my question as a conspiracy theory and not a reasoned and supportable response to my question.
One poster, a Right Winger, responded that it was impossible for the improper actions at the IRS to have been instigated by a Tea Baggin’ anti-Obama, anti-government insider at the IRS. Other posters responded that my ‘could it be’ question is not impossible but instead is improbable.
I accept improbable as a reasonable opinion in response to my OP.
That is not my objection to disbelief, specifically because it is not technically or realistically disbelief.
You are simply wrong about what you read and cited.
Your continued denial that you posted a CT does not make you very credible.
(And my first two responses to your OP were reasoned and supportable before you hijacked your own thread with denials of your CT.)
Your constant responses have not been in response to my arguments for denial and my arguments for the weakness in yours.
Your responses have been repeated unrelenting expressing your opinion that my intent was to start a CT.
Your opinion is not a fact nor does it approach any basis in fact.
I wrote what I wrote to ask people what they would think if “it turned out” that this huge anti-tax and anti-IRS flare up from the right turned out, “could have been” - has the possibility to have originated by right wing sympathetic staff at the IRS itself.
One answer I could have received would be that this might destroy the TeaParty once and for all and the world would be better off.
Another answer could be (because of Mark Levin’s on air boasts that his Landmark Legal Service was involved with many of these Tea Bagger Groups from the early days when mistakes were made) that all aspects should be investigated.
There’s more…
In the universe where I have lived if there is a question on the author’s intent - the tie goes to the author not an opinionated reader.
If your concern was just another tired CT disrupting this ‘debate’ forum I have suggested that you could have asked first about intent and my intentions would have been known.
But you chose to file a charge and then constantly refuse denial.
That is what happened. I respectfully must tell you the record is here.
Yet, Mark Levin, Bill O’Reilly and “a congressman” don’t enjoy the benefits of your universe. Interesting.
So, that “W” in your user name, I think I figured out what it stands for: “Weality”. Is that wight? You know, if you honestly don’t see that what you proposed in your OP is a CT, you’re wasting your and everyone else’s time. As has been pointed out, this is a left-leaning board, and if you can’t find even a semi-reasonable amount of support for your position here, well, you might want to rethink your theory.
Of course, if your Just Asking Questions, well, that’s another matter entirely.
:rolleyes:
Bill O and Levin of course enjoy that same benefit in that universe.
What makes you think otherwise?
Yes, it is.
Explain why.
Because your OP was stupid and your mode of argumentation contemptible.
Like XT pointed out, if you can’t get any traction with your silly conspiracies on a message board as partisan-left as this one, it ought to tell you something.
I may have been born at night, but it wasn’t last night, and your aggressively stupid posts are hardly the first examples of the type I have ever seen. If you want to have a serious debate, feel free, but you will need to step up your game. If you expect us to fall for this kind of BS, well, “get used to disappointment”.
Regards,
Shodan
Then why do you claim they lied? You do realize that for something to be a lie that the person has to know that there statement to be false when they utter it. You do know that, right? RIGHT? Sadly, that does not appear to be the case.
Now, I’m able, like almost every other poster to this thread, to write off your OP as pure CT, which it is, whether you realize it or not. But perhaps you can help me with two statements you made back on Page 2: (emphasis mine)
You bristled mightily when you though a poster was claiming you lied, so you seem to value reputation, and I admire that. But how do you square that persona with calling someone a nut job when you’ve never watched or listened to his radio or TV shows? I find that inconsistency at bit…odd, shall we say.
Add to that with the seeming ease you have in labeling other liars and we get “odd” X “what the fuck”?
Then again, perhaps you can explain.
CTs are permitted in this forum. I may find them silly, but no more so than arguments about the existence of (a) god or any number of other silly arguments.
The fact that your OP was a CT is not arguable. Everyone reading this thread knows that it was.
Your intentions are also known: you will defend to our dying breaths the belief that the Right wing is truly evil and that any accusations against anyone on the Left, (regardless how well supported by facts), must be fought with alternative scenarios, rife with speculation, that holds all Democrats as entirely free of blame and any person on the political Right as a probably corrupt, lying, miscreant. Your first example of that characteristic of your debating style was when you spent page after page arguing against posters who had openly opposed the invasion of Iraq on the grounds that they would not agree with you that no Democrat could be held in any way responsible for that debacle. You have pursued a similar theme in several threads, culminating in this thread, arguing against posters who support President Obama and even those who hold him blameless in the current IRS contretemps, simply because they are not willing to ignore every uncomfortable fact that has come out in the way that you need for such facts to be ignored.
You reply is duly noted. There is no effort to debate or discuss anything. I am not dissappointed at all.
I am quite thrilled to record and reflect upon the variety of anti-intellectual and quite visceral reactions to the simple question that I’ve asked.
There are issues here but I am quite certain they are not mine.
There’s nothing to debate here - you threw out a wild theory about conspiracies with no evidence. People look at it and say “yup, crazy.”
I’m not offering up detailed explanations about why there aren’t alien autopsies going on in the White House basement - I don’t have any kind of evidence that there aren’t, but I don’t really need any.
If you can’t see it, no explanation is going to convince you. It’s more for other people reading anyway, not you.
I came to this forum by invite after which I soon noticed the following exchange between John Mace and Tony Sinclair last February.
That which caught my eye was Tony’s comment that is quite rarely heard specifically on the left by folks opposed to the US invasion of Iraq.
It was these three words “She was Correct”.
This exchange from last February is relevant since you cite that Iraq/Inspections discussion as part of the case for your current opinion of what my ‘underlying’ intent that manifests itself into some ‘silly’ one-sided debating style.
It is relevant to your comment this afternoon where you claim that I " hold all Democrats as entirely free of blame and any person on the political Right as a probably corrupt, lying, miscreant."
That theory is debunked by the fact that If I thought Sen Clinton and Sen Kerry were “Correct” as Tony Sinclair thinks they were correct to vote yes in October 2002 when there were no UN inspectors in Iraq, then it means I believe Bush was correct to seek it, and Republicans were correct to vote for it also.
Your theory is crumbling already.
I will post the full contents from some posts back then as the only way to show how incorrect your assumptions have been with regard to my intent and my argument.
First is the exact exchange that caught my attention. Tony had cited John’s morning post.
As Rachel Maddow’s documentary was showing, Tony had the exact same views on it as did I. I could care less of what politics Tony held, it was nice to see a viewpoint about inspections that has rarely been heard. It is all true by the way what Tony said.
As this discussion about ‘inspections/vote to authorize war if necessary’ continued last February it led to my very clear statement of what I want and what this debate was about for me at least:
“Bush needs to take responsibility for ignoring inspections.”
But you cited that and started with the “we don’t know what you want theme”.
In T&D debate style there seem to come a point where it gets into some kind of issue of malignant intent on the part of the opponent.
“- you seem to feel the need to claim that Bush is the sole actor whose behavior is blameworthy. That is silly.” -T&D
That is only silly if one dismisses my main point that somehow slipped your attention although you cited it.
“Bush needs to take responsibility for ignoring inspections.”
Bush is solely responsible for ignoring inspections But he still claims to this date that Saddam Hussein defied inspections and Bush had no other choice but to end them. It was Bush’s SOLE RESPONSIBILITY to decide that.
He should be made to explain why he decided to end inspections when he stated he wanted to disarm Iraq peacefully if Iraq let inspectors back in.
Those dots have not been connected and they cannot be.
We all know SH let the inspectors back in. We know it.
That is not a conspiracy theory gone wild.
Those dots have not been connected and they cannot be.
I want Bush to be held to account for kicking the inspectors out and you turned that into this:
You wrote over my clear intent and desire that “Bush needs to take responsibility for ignoring inspections” and starting the invasion of Iraq instead of peacefully disarming Iraq as he pledged at the time of the vote.
You changed it to ‘feel a need’ to blame Bush for ‘sole responsibility’ for everything.
"The problem, here, is that you seem to feel the need to claim that Bush is the sole actor whose behavior is blameworthy. That is silly. " -T&D
That is bull. I stated and you cited my statement that “Bush needs to take responsibility for ignoring inspections.”
HRC and Kerry, the CIA, the Joint Chiefs, the neocons, the media, the members of the House and Senate, his Pappy, his Mommy, his preacher, his Candlestick Maker did not make the decision, and the sole decision to ignore inspections and start a war of choice all on his own. The Decider clearly boasted that it was his decision.
All that you mentioned but for the Joint Chiefs on the operation of the war took place before the inspectors returned to Iraq in December 2002.
By March 2003 the threat of the possibility of Iraq in possession of WMD was a few months away from being removed without war.
Tony and I think HRC was correct to vote for war. That was correct not because of hyped intel and neocons run amok pushing for invasion. It was because there were no UN inspectors inside Iraq at the time of the vote.
You may argue all you like against that vote and that reasoning but it is absurd to make it me being a partisan RW hating - silly Democrat hack as you have clearly done here.
So what I see is a debate style that sometimes strays from facts and reasoning rather to focus on the ‘intent’ in order to find some “Beckian” behavior in an opponent.
Your closing point on 02-24-2013 at 12:00 AM tells a lot.
(a) "Bush is not made less culpable because he persuaded others to join him -
(b) “Your effort to make him singularly responsible for this tragedy makes no sense.” -T&D
With regard to (a) I have not argued that Bush is solely responsible because he persuaded others to join him or that Bush is less culpable had I made that argument. **Bush is not responsible for my approval and support for any politician DEM or GOP who voted to authorize force against Iraq in October 2002 when there were no inspectors inside Iraq as required by international law. **
With regard to (b) there is no effort on my part that can make or change the FACT that Bush is solely responsible for the decision to force the inspectors out, put an end to peaceful diplomatic means, and start a war.
And that is what I argued.
Bush needs to take responsibility for ignoring inspections.
Your posts are out there for anyone to view.
Dance all you want. Your behavior is as I described it.
I am already taking heat from multiple posters for not warning you as a troll. I don’t think you are trolling, just monomaniacal. As long as you continue your behavior, you are going to fail to persuade anyone of your (lopsided) world view.
Does that mean you have no counter to this rebuttal from my preceding post:
I mean what I’ve written does refute what you have charged me with.
I forgot to mention that I supported Bush Sr on the Gulf War I, and I thought he was a pretty good Republican President. Perhaps the only good one since IKE.
I also supported His wayward son on the Military commitment to Afghanistan. I didn’t support his decision to abandon the Afghan people for Iraq But I do not have a debate style keyed upon ‘never blaming Dems’ and maniacally dissing Republicans.
I was very perturbed at what Clinton did with Monica. He put the county’s security at risk when he put himself in a position to be blackmailed.
I have been a great admirer of General Petraeus since 2007 when I think he was a leading proponent of getting us out of Iraq… when he brought Bush the reality - Liberals were trashing him… I parted ways with Libs on that and it was quite contentious. I was disappointed to see him involved in a scandal… Yes what he did was worthy of scandal… Just like Clinton, Edwards and Wiener.
So since you have not responded other than now I am now regarded as monomaniacal in your opinion. Can I assume that you cannot argue the point of yesterday about me being one-sided and therefore ‘everyone knows’ my intent.
And could you at least give me a definition of what being a ‘troll’ is… Heaven forbid I slip up or something and that one gets added to my rap sheet.
I’d appreciate it.
It means nobody cares about what you have to say. I didn’t read past the first line or so of your post, why would anyone?