Dear Fake-Patriots,

POSTED BY: STDOUBT
UPDATED: Wednesday, June 11, 2025 02:40
VIEWED: 17112
PAGE 9 of 13

PREV PAGE 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT PAGE

RUE

Saturday, April 29, 2006 1:19 AM

Slick,

YOU made it about you when you said those who disagree with you are fixated on being anti-Bush and full of - - - spin.

YOU are part of the pro-Bush crowd, though you claim not to be. YOU are partisan beyond reason though you pretend impartiality. All YOU have is spin, lies, distortions, excuses and distractions. Your posts prove it.

YOU qualify as one of the 'fake patriots' - the topic, you may recall, of the thread. And that is what I will prove with YOUR own words.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

GEEZER

Saturday, April 29, 2006 3:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Slick,

YOU made it about you when you said those who disagree with you are fixated on being anti-Bush and full of - - - spin.

Rue. Anyone who reads your posts for more than five minutes could figure out you're fixated on being Anti-Bush, and I believe that applies to SignyM, Citizen, and some others here. I believe I said that Mr. Britt had put spin in his article about fascism, not you. I think he did. Spin is interpreting things to agree with your view. If you say you don't do this, then you are a liar. I have no doubt I often do. That is one of the tools of debate and discussion, to see things from your own point of view. Hardly a deep technique of evil.

Quote:
YOU are part of the pro-Bush crowd, though you claim not to be. YOU are partisan beyond reason though you pretend impartiality. All YOU have is spin, lies, distortions, excuses and distractions. Your posts prove it.

{deep sarcasm}Well of course. Anyone who disagrees with you has to be a liar and a partisan. No one could actually have a valid difference of opinion. It's all just part of the conspiracy.{/deep sarcasm} Do you realise just how nuts you sound here? You KNOW what I really am, through your powers of deduction, or mind reading, or...paranoia? Hey, if you're gonna call me a liar, why can't I call you a nutcase?

Quote:
YOU qualify as one of the 'fake patriots' - the topic, you may recall, of the thread. And that is what I will prove with YOUR own words.

This is where you get really scary. You're going to go back to every post I've ever written, take remarks out of context, and assemble them in a PirateNews-like mega-post along with snide comments about how every one of them shows I'm really part of some grand plan to discredit you and you alone. O.K. Capt. Queeg, it really was the strawberries. Knock yourself out.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Saturday, April 29, 2006 4:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I don't know about Britain, but Bush achieved power and has remained in power because he grossly manipulated the election process. The people of the USA did NOT support Bush through the election process. Y'all keep assuming that Bush won. He didn't: Point No. 14- Fraudulent Elections.

And the referees are reviewing the instant replay...and the decision is...Bush wins!

You can keep having this opinion if you want to. In my opinion, if the Democratic candidates in either the 2000 or 2004 elections had believed they were ripped off, they would still be challenging the results in court. I can't see where they would have anything to lose. If you can clarify this for me, please do so. My candidate wouldn't have won either way, so it's a rather moot point to me.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

CITIZEN

Saturday, April 29, 2006 11:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Rue. Anyone who reads your posts for more than five minutes could figure out you're fixated on being Anti-Bush, and I believe that applies to SignyM, Citizen, and some others here.

As long as you recognise such a thing doesn't rubbish anything we say on the matter anymore than it does you with your fixated pro-bush.

However most of what I'm anti-Bush about I'm also anti-Blair about, and I voted for Blair in the elections before last, so I really can't see how you could say I was 'fixated' on being anti-Blair.

So logically does it necessarily follow that I am fixated on being Anti-Bush, or do Bush's actions and policies run completely counter to my ideas and morals?

I don't much care whose administration thinks tortures a good idea; I think its wrong full stop. You're the one that says inflicting pain and discomfort on a detainee isn't torture because they're not using thumb screws or a rack, or makes excuses as to why it's okay, but only if it's 'us' doing it too 'them'.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

SIGNYM

Saturday, April 29, 2006 12:29 PM

Quote:
In my opinion, if the Democratic candidates in either the 2000 or 2004 elections had believed they were ripped off, they would still be challenging the results in court. I can't see where they would have anything to lose.

[ You're basing your conclusion on a belief/assumption about what you think Dems would/should do which is far shakier grounds than exit polls, statistical analysis and historical fact. It's a historical fact that 19,000 people- mostly black- were erroneously tossed off the voter rolls By Katherine Harris in Florida, the Scy State who also happened to be running the Bush campaign. It's a fact that exit polls (which we count on to tell us whether elections were manipulated in the Ukraine but not here) were at statistically impossible odds (250,000: 1) with the vote count. Your position is not only weak it's willfully blind. Not that you're biased or anything... you just don't apparently understand that facts and reality actually *do* exist.

It's that kind of comfy-cozy view that caused people to be SHOCKED... SHOCKED, I TELL YOU! on 9-11. And they say I'M blind to reality! Heh heh heh.

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

SIGNYM

Saturday, April 29, 2006 12:42 PM

Quote:
Actually more like "Use the system", or "Work the system". It's functioned pretty good for the past 200 years. Do all the things interest groups, be they the NRA or the Million Mom March do. Write letters, lobby, demonstrate, support candidates favorable to your position. If you're doing all this, then you're doing all you legally can. Maybe you'll just have to wait for things to get worse, as you expect, before you get the momentum needed to throw the bums out. Maybe things won't get worse. There's an election coming up in a couple of years and Bush clones don't look to have a good chance. Maybe it'll all go away. You can work on that, too.

Here's my response to this part of your post: But you use every opportunity to discourage involvement. Unless specifically challenged you simply never bring up direct action. My summary of your typical response (It's not that bad, it's happened before, trust the system, others do it, it's for a good cause.) is accurate and your typical reponse is defensive of status quo and non-action. I stand by my opinion.

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

SIGNYM

Saturday, April 29, 2006 1:17 PM

Quote:
SignyM, if you're going to attack me, please do it to my face.

Sure, happy to:

Quote:
“You've passed the test and your Fascista membership card is in the mail... -Geezer
STDOUBT is a fascist, ad hominum (OK, one could say that STDOUBT engaged in the same behavior- that doesn’t make in-kind response right either)-signy
But what better way to make it clear that the "warning signs of Fascism" could be applied to almost anybody, making them less than useful?-Geezer

The criteria as a whole make it plain that they characterize a system, not a person. Since most criteria DON'T apply to individuals it's clear that you simply took the oppty to attack STDOUBT personally. ad hominem

Quote:
Most symptom tests give a pass-fail number, i.e. "If you have more than 8 of the 14 symptoms, contact a doctor immediately". Is there a make/break for this test, or does meeting any one condition lead irrevocably to Fascism? geezer
Trivialization, how to “score” the test-signy
Hardly trivial to me. without some concrete criteria, almost any country could be labeled fascist or given a pass depending on how loosely or strictly the test is applied.-Geezer

Really? Such as? Unless you detail your points, you're just trivializing.

Quote:
I also wonder if there are similar tests for, say, Communism, Socialism, Liberal Democracy, etc., so we can spin their OK.-Geezer
Innuendo, disguised as “equal time” .That assumes that the cited article is spin, and only spin.-signy
Hardly innuendo. I come right out and say I consider the article spin. And I do.

You call it spin, but you don't prove it spin. That is simply unsupported opinion at best, slipped in as a conclusion. Innuendo.

Quote:
“Then I went looking for "Dr. Lawrence Britt"...and can't find a thing about him other than he writes for the Council for Secular Humanism and the Rochester City newspaper, and has written a book entitled "July 2004" which is #1,273,771 in the Amazon.com books sales ranking. No evidence anywhere he's a Doctor of anything.-Geezer
Ad hominem-signy
How ad hominim? Come here, Webster's II:
Ad hominem - Appealing to personal prejudices or emotions rather than to reason. I report exactly what I found by Googling Mr. Britt's name. I was interested in the "Doctor" bit because an article authored by "Dr. Britt" would be assumed to be within his area of expertise, and therefore carry more weight.

First of all, you chopped Webster's definition. A full defintion is right here: A (fallacious) ad hominem argument has the basic form 1. A makes claim X 2. There is something objectionable about A 3. Therefore claim X is false. Britt is not a doctor, his book is sold poorly, therefore his article is wrong. Ad hominem ("against the man")

Quote:
“Free Inquiry is apparently the house organ of the Council for Secular Humanism.” -geezer
So??? innuendo- signy
Back to Webster's II:"House Organ n. A periodical published by a business organization for its employees or clients." No innuendo there either, Just noting who publishes "Free Enquiry". Sheesh.-Geezer

Yeah, and back to chopped defintions. "Where the worlds of publishing and politics meet, "house organ" is frequently used in a pejorative sense for a magazine or newspaper that is overly partisan for a political party, corporation, or ideology. Innuendo.

Quote:
"Looks like Mr. Britt's worldview falls right in with the "Bush is Evil" crowd here” -Geezer
Ad hominem. And FINN-PLEASE NOTE, HE IS REFERRING TO PEOPLE HERE, not just to Dr Britt.-signy
So if I said your worldview seems to me to fall right in with Rue and Citizen, then that would be ad hominem? When I say "...crowd here." that's who I'm referring to...you guys on FFF.

If I said that your worldview falls in with the "Bush is God" crowd here, is that a substantive argeument? Once again you argue the man, not the argument. Clearly ad hominem. And prolly innuendo, because you imply w/o proving that the "Bush is evil" crowd is wrong.

GEEZER

Saturday, April 29, 2006 2:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
You're basing your conclusion on a belief/assumption about what you think Dems would/should do which is far shakier grounds than exit polls, statistical analysis and historical fact.

I'm assuming that any party which thinks they were cheated out of the presidency by election fraud would be doing everything legally possible to prove it, including plastering the entire country with lawsuits. If you can tell me why this is not a reasonable assumption, go ahead.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Saturday, April 29, 2006 2:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Here's my response to this part of your post: But you use every opportunity to discourage involvement. Unless specifically challenged you simply never bring up direct action. My summary of your typical response (It's not that bad, it's happened before, trust the system, others do it, it's for a good cause.) is accurate and your typical reponse is defensive of status quo and non-action. I stand by my opinion.

Okay. You don't think the system works. Do you have viable alternatives to propose? Something that actually has a chance of happening, not "Bush should resign"?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Saturday, April 29, 2006 3:05 PM

Quote:
Okay. You don't think the system works.

No, I didn't say the system doesn't work! There you go putting words in people's mouths again!

God what IS it with you, Geezer? Reading your posts is like watching someone with a serious compulsion... to wreck trains. Over and over. What I mean is that the system doesn't work if people fall asleep at the wheel. Which you seem intent on encouraging, especially when Bush is involved.

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

PREV PAGE 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT PAGE