The wrong side must not win
POSTED BY: canttakesky
UPDATED: Monday, August 26, 2024 17:12
VIEWED: 8309
PAGE 6 of 10
CTS, I didn't lie, I misremembered. But you're a stone-cold bitch, and a dishonest one at that. At least I had the decency to go look up the thread. Now, will you ever take back all of the bleating and complaining that people LIE about what you say? Guess not. You're just like rappy that way.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:People who misremember apologize for misremembering and mischaracterizing the other person's position.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
CTS, I didn't lie, I misremembered.
If it were truly a genuine mistake, apologize. I will acknowledge and forgive the mistake and take back what I said about your lying.
If not, it was a lie that you got caught at.
Hehe. And I'm the "dishonest" one. Funny how projection works.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Magons, I would say you see us pretty damned accurately.
The issue as I see it is that america has moved quite far right. I don't see extremism in both parties, I see extremism in the republicans. I see that that far right christian ideology as being the prevalent force, and that ROmney himself probably more of a pragmatist business bent has had to embrace that ideology.
And I agree with Quote:
Maybe Romney/Ryan would make things no different than Obama has. But you see, we already KNOW what Obama as President would do, because he's already done it--or tried to. Obama was really big on bipartisanship, which may be one of the reasons the Repubs reacted as they did. Given they knew his willingness to compromise, they certainly did a great job of making him compromise his socks off, and then voting against anything anyway. But what he TRIED to do had merit in it.
it is dangerous to caste the two candidates/parties as being the same. They may not represent what you want from a government, and the best you may be able to do is choose the one that will do the least harm.
All we know about Romney/Ryan is what they SAY they will do. If they're only saying it to get elected, that's one thing. But what they've SAID, if it's the path they truly intend to follow, isn't healthy for the country in my opinion. I wasn't particularly disappointed by Obama since I didn't expect much, tho' he did disappoint me when it came to Gitmo, Patriot Act and a few other things. But I also know what he actually TRIED to do, and some of those programs I approve. I'm not willing to take the chance that Romney/Ryan are saying they'll do what they will just to get elected and, once in office, will do the right thing. For one thing, there's too much in their background (especially RYAN!) that indicates they'd try to do exactly what they say.
While I definitely agree that big money in politics is what creates a LOT of the problems with governing once elected, I don't see any conspiracies. I think lobbyists get what they want out of either side sometimes, but working together is just too out there for me...if they worked together, the Repubs wouldn't have spent so MUCH time, energy and money to obstruct Obama. If the idea is that Obama and the Repubs were working together just to put on a show, I reject that idea.
When you look at the past, there have been MAJOR differences between what Republicans have done and what Dems have done. There are opposing ideologies behind each party, and whoever they get elected follows those ideologies as best they can. It's perfectly clear from our history. I reject the notion the whole thing is a conspiracy.
As to Quote:
You have to look at results. Actions, not words.
Is Guantanamo closed? Do we have nationalized health care? Have we stopped murdering innocent civilians overseas? Have we stopped spying on and violating our own citizens?
I think the actions speak pretty well that there's no conspiracy. Obama has managed, for the first time in history despite virtually every President talking about it, to START us on the way to nationalized healthcare. We are still at war in only one place, and have a (supposed) timeline to get out of that one--which, from what they have said, Romney and Ryan don't WANT to do (pull out). There's even been hints in what they've said that they might try to involve us in OTHER wars, which Obama has worked not to do (Libya, for example). Gitmo, spying and civil-rights violations? The first; Obama TRIED to close Gitmo:Quote:
For more than two years, the White House’s plans had been undermined by political miscalculations, confusion and timidity in the face of mounting congressional opposition, according to some inside the administration as well as on Capitol Hill. Indeed, the failed effort to close Guantanamo was reflective of the aspects of Obama’s leadership style that continu
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
CTS.. Apologize? After you jumped down my throat and called me a liar? Yanno, I dislike you intensely. I find you to be so intellectually dishonest that you give rappy a run for his money, and I have a hard time, sometimes, just being civil to you. You, OTOH, get your panties in a bunch over little things, and the FIRST thing that you do is whine and complain that people done you wrong, especially that they "misrepresent" you. Wow. Poor misunderstood you. 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You lied, Sig, and you did it on purpose, with malice aforethought.
Spinning, projecting and sympathy baiting just makes it worse.
Seriously, let it go.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No, I did not.
You lied, Sig, and you did it on purpose, with malice aforethought.
But now YOU assume you know what was going on in my head too???? Pulling the old Geezer trick of TELLING me what I meant?
If I really were trying to lie, I wouldn't have promised to look it up. I wouldn't have found the thread, and I wouldn't have LINKED it either, you fucking idiot. So if you don't trust me, and if I don't have a history of being straightforward and saying things as I see them, and if none of that history matters... then use your head and some logic. Because if I REALLY wanted to lie??? I would have done NONE of those things. Or you can go fuck yourself. Whichever.
And the only thing I'm letting go of is caring about your opinion of me because clearly you have not a friggin' clue of who I am and what I'm all about, and your insight and judgment is for shit.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh yeah, cause I obviously can't see your blatantly glaring personal grudge here, and have no experience whatsoever with you carrying it into discussion after discussion, nor with your overblown and hysterical denials when called out on it.
You got a really serious personal beef with someone else who dared to repeatedly call into question your science-as-religon dogma and whom you attack on sight with misrepresentations, distortions and outright lies (in this case) every chance you get, and then you want to shill denial at someone who has actually sat here and watched you do this time and time again ?
Oh I think not - you wanna argue a point, you argue the fuckin POINT, right ?
You don't bring in some side argument for the specific reason of setting up a verbal onslaught at someone who did no more than question your preciously held beliefs, as you did theirs, and I make no statement to the validity of either cause that ain't the goddamn point.
Do you at any time realize the hypocrisy of your own actions here ?
Sure, I hold grudges, but I don't for a second pretend innocent mistake when called on them.
And I certainly don't attempt to do so once the credibility of the pretense has slipped far into the negative.
You owe an apology here, a real one, not no halfassed backhand, and you need to acknowledge ownership of your own conduct, because your intentions were VERY clear in advance to anyone who's been around here long enough to know of your pet grudgematch, which is most of us.
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
YES, I dislike CTS intensely. I believe I have made that perfectly plain. So what?
But do you HONESTLY believed I lied? That I accurately remembered what she said from a 4-page thread that was several years old, and decided to say something else? Seriously???? And THEN linked it???
Really???
I don't like CTS, and I disagree with her on a whole bunch of things, but is that the same as lying? And if not, then why would you accuse me of it?
I misremembered. I SAID I did. What should I apologize for? For misremembering? For not liking CTS? For disagreeing with her? For thinking the worst of her? For linking the definitive thread? Because her panties got in a twist? I'm sure NOT going to apologize for lying because that I did NOT do.
And the rest of the stuff... that's what people deal with here in this forum. We don't all agree, we don't all like each other, and we don't all remember perfectly. The best we can expect sometimes is a frosty civility and certain amount of intellectual honesty. I'm sure not going to apologize for that either.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
What should I apologize for? For misremembering?
Yes, for misremembering and accusing me wrongly.
It's called common courtesy. It looks something like this.
Siggy: You said Somalia is a great example of anarchy.
CTS: No, I did not.
Siggy: Yes, you did. You want to make me dig it up and prove it?
CTS: Yes, dig it up and prove it.
Siggy: Oh, I dug it up, and I was wrong about that. Sorry.
But what actually happened was:
Siggy: You said Somalia is a great example of anarchy.
CTS: No, I did not.
Siggy: Yes, you did. You want to make me dig it up and prove it?
CTS: Yes, dig it up and prove it.
Siggy: Fine, here it is. You think you deserve an apology, you stone cold dishonest bitch?
The apology is for accusing me of saying something I didn't and more importantly, REFUSING to accept my denial of said accusation. In other words, when I said, "No I did not say that" and you refused to accept it, you effectually called me a liar first.
It is one thing to misremember. It is another thing to INSIST, despite my protests and denial, that I lied about not having made such statements. When you insist, falsely and without proof, it certainly appears that you are intent on misportraying my character--in other words, intent on lying about me. So yes, you called me a liar indirectly. I called you a liar back; I was just more upfront about it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:Quote:Hitler and Stalin are clearly not the same. But I would be hard-pressed to vote for either of them.
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
but both sides are clearly not the same.
I'd rather have a third or fourth choice. And I think that is the point of this piece.
You DO have a third or fourth choice.
You can vote for a third-party candidate. You can't hope to make much difference, but you can do it as a protest. I am. You can write in Mussolini, or Franco, or Mao, or Jesus, or Mickey Mouse, or anyone you want. Vote for a dead guy if you want. Or gal.
You can do nothing at all. You can stay home and say it's not even worth trying, because everyone sucks anyway. Just please don't bitch about what you get as a result, because there isn't a bit of difference anyway, right? ;)
You have lots of choices and options. And every time you don't exercise them, you run the risk of losing them.
Don't like your choices? Too bad. Suck it up and run for office yourself. Change things.
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"
Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME