Dear Fake-Patriots,
POSTED BY: STDOUBT
UPDATED: Wednesday, June 11, 2025 02:40
VIEWED: 17112
PAGE 10 of 13
Quote:It's an unreasonable assumption because it's been clearly disproved by facts that prove that the Dems WERE cheated out of elections. There may be many reasons why they don't respond as you assume they should- from collusion (as DT thinks) to failure of will to long-term strategy. That doesn't change the facts.
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.
---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen: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.
The "fixated" comes from the impression I get that in your view, no one can have an honest difference of opinion about Bush/Blair/whoever. Anyone who disagrees with you must be lying, or twisting the facts, or have an agenda to discredit you. I know you've accused me of all these things. I respectfully decline the honor. Hell, I didn't vote for Bush in either election.
But, then, you're the person who thinks accusing someone of "Spouting Drivel" is not an insult.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Geezer, I accuse you of lying and twisting facts because it appears that you do so. I just spent the last several posts pointing out examples of it in detail.
---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:No, I didn't say the system doesn't work! There you go putting words in people's mouths again!
Okay. You don't think the system works.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.
So I don't think that Bush is as evil as you do. I don't think the house is on fire. You do. If I don't think the house is on fire I'm not going to get out the hose and try to put the fire out. Why should I? If you think the house is on fire, get the hose. Why should I tell you to do this if I don't think you need to?
We have a differnce of opinion. It's not a plot. Sheesh.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer, I accuse you of lying and twisting facts because it appears that you do so. I just spent the last several posts pointing out examples of it in detail.
How Orwellian. Lying and twisting facts = not agreeing with your opinion.
Got to go buy flowers for the front yard now. See you later.
ps. Yes I'm really going to buy flowers, not to a secret cabal meeting.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Deleted in favor of the next post, which pretty much says it all!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The man who repeatedly uses ad hominem, innuendo, and straw-man devices is calling for an honest differnce of opinion??? I'd welcome it, if I could get it!
... in your view, no one can have an honest difference of opinion about Bush/Blair/whoever. Anyone who disagrees with you must be lying, or twisting the facts, or have an agenda to discredit you. I know you've accused me of all these things. I respectfully decline the honor. Hell, I didn't vote for Bush in either election.
Quote:Name calling??? You're resorting to name calling?? You neglected to respond to the many posts in which I pointed out instances of that kind of dishonest discussion. And you haven't demonstrated that I'm wrong. In fact, I think you just proved my case.
How Orwellian. Lying and twisting facts = not agreeing with your opinion.
Case closed!
---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
The "fixated" comes from the impression I get that in your view, no one can have an honest difference of opinion about Bush/Blair/whoever.
I'm not the one accusing everyone who has a difference of opinion too me of trying to insult me. Maybe your impression is merely your impression, rather than anything real.
Quote:
Anyone who disagrees with you must be lying, or twisting the facts, or have an agenda to discredit you.
Quote me, in context, where I've said any of that. I'll take no quotes which I can't reasonable argue against or demonstrate as out of context as you rescinding this statement.
Quote:
I know you've accused me of all these things.
Of what? Lying, spin etc? Quote me.
You know I can say Geezer constantly accuses me of being a horse molester, doesn't make it true. I'd appreciate it if before you accuse me of something you back it up.
Quote:
But, then, you're the person who thinks accusing someone of "Spouting Drivel" is not an insult.
But then your the one who thinks the current situation in Iraq and WWII are the same.
I attacked your point, and trying to compare the Second World War to the current situation in Iraq (which is exactly what you did) is drivel.
I'd also point out that I haven't attacked you personally or your character at all, where as you have attacked me personally and my character in nearly every post, and certainly at every oppertunity. Like the final statement of your post, or the proceeding paragraph full of unsupported unsubstantiated accusations.
Lying/Spin/Partisanship/Insulting/Having an agenda to discredit you/twisting the facts being an Anti-American who hates freedom, you know you've accused me of all these things. Many of them in the post I just replied to.
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Citizen- Geezer doesn't know how to have a clean discussion. If he would just STOP with the stupid tricks people might actually take him seriously. Don't take it personally.
---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
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: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.
“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
Just this bit right now, maybe when I have a few days, the rest.
My quotes from the Webster's II New Riverside University Dictionary, copyright 1984 by Houghton Mifflin Co, ISBN 0-395-33957-X, are the complete definitions shown there. It's the dictionary sitting next to the computer, and the one I use every day. If you feel like going in search of the specific definition that supports your point, go ahead. I'm perfectly happy with this one. But please don't accuse me of editing what is written in Webster's II to support my point. I didn't. Go be parinoid some more.
(Ha. My evil plan is working. SignyM, Rue, and Citizen are spending so much time and bandwidth criticising my every utterance that they can no longer provide their vital anti-Bush, anti-American message to the masses. Soon we will...Damn, did I say that out loud? Oops.)
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME