A new fraud by the local loony right...

jj

Penultimate Amazing
J
Joined
Oct 11, 2001
Messages
21,382
A new, clearly dishonest behavior has just showed up here. When one points out a fact about the present political climate, the lunatic right puts lies in one's mouth, and then starts screaming disingeniously about how one has asserted that it's all Bush's fault.

In short, they lie outright about one's position, and then run with their lie.

I submit that people who commit such outright frauds and deceptions should be universally shunned.

See http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1389930#post1389930
 
jj said:
...but I think the present political climate of "might makes right" contributes a great deal to the problem.
Click to expand...

Bolding mine.

I don't know how else to interpret that except you declaring this to be Bush's fault.

Maybe if you explained how you really meant it and added that you don't really think Bush had anything to do with it?
 
jj said:
A new, clearly dishonest behavior has just showed up here. When one points out a fact about the present political climate, the lunatic right puts lies in one's mouth, and then starts screaming disingeniously about how one has asserted that it's all Bush's fault.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you could cite where someone has done that?

After all the dishonesty you spewed in this thread http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=50675, you're hardly one to talk.
 
Art Vandelay said:
Perhaps you could cite where someone has done that?

After all the dishonesty you spewed in this thread http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=50675, you're hardly one to talk.
Click to expand...

I cited such a place.

Furthermore, your claim that I exhibited any dishonesty whatsoever in the thread you quote is purely your own fantasy. Your action is nothing more or less than deliberate, willfull vilification, as well as your own sad, pathetic attempt at a fraudulent tu quoque argument, in favor of a nasty case of moral relativism.
 
Mycroft said:
Bolding mine.

I don't know how else to interpret that except you declaring this to be Bush's fault.

Maybe if you explained how you really meant it and added that you don't really think Bush had anything to do with it?
Click to expand...

That's your problem, sir, not mine. I can not account for your misbehavior, your misinterpretation, or your actions surrounding them.
 
ImaginalDisc said:
Universally shunned? Are we Amish? Even if everything you say is true, you just address the person's arguements, and keep the thread topical. I'm sure every poster here has been unfraily messed with (in their view) at least once. Let's shun shunning, alright?
Click to expand...

In my opinion, some argumentitive behaviors are beyond hope.
 
jj said:
That's your problem, sir, not mine. I can not account for your misbehavior, your misinterpretation, or your actions surrounding them.
Click to expand...

Well, if words you write are being interpreted in ways other than how you mean them, then it's your problem.
 
jj said:
I cited such a place.
Click to expand...
No, you didn't. You provided no quote, and your link goes to your own post.

Furthermore, your claim that I exhibited any dishonesty whatsoever in the thread you quote is purely your own fantasy.
Click to expand...

Here are seven dishonest posts by you:
jj said:
Well, yes, that does appear to be all they have to offer, more vilification of Clinton, and a morally relativistic argument that "he did it too".

What's more interesting is that it appears that the law at least attempted to change between Clinton's time and 'W's, so they are blowing smoke when they argue that, as well.

Of course, both attempts would appear to violate the constitution, ignoring FISA.

But how does what Clinton did excuse Bush? It doesn't. Any attempt to suggest otherwise, which is all that anyone's offered here in defense, is simply arguing for moral relativism and legal relativism.
Click to expand...

jj said:
Lurker, the point is simple, it's 'We will raise the spectre of Clinton, the spectre we manufactured from whole cloth, and ran a ridiculous, absolutely idiotic impeachment over, after a Starr chamber inquisition that spent 5 years, and even after violating every right of the president, found nothing wrong, over and over and over, until we have a big enough majority to just arrest all those nasty commie pinko symps and shoot them, and then we'll live in utopia".

THAT is the point these people are making, regardless of what they think they are saying.
Click to expand...

jj said:
Come now, grammy, when Gore came up, the "spectre of Clinton" was what you guys raised loud and clear.

It's about "use Clinton any time a democrat makes a decent point", and little else, Grams.
Click to expand...


jj said:
Clinton/Gore did not change the law. The Republican Congress did.
Click to expand...
Clinton signed it. Get over that.
Click to expand...

jj said:
No, my words don't make it [http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1388994#post1388994]
so, the OP and reactions make it so. I merely point it out, grams.
Click to expand...

jj said:
Gosh, look at the moral relativism here.

You guys have to realize, you'll eventually have to stop shrieking CLINTON CLINTON CLINTON CLINTON every time somebody catches your guys breaking the law, cheating, etc.

Heck. He got a blow job. Ken Lay messed over all of California, but all we hear is CLINTON CLINTON CLINTON!

The guy was an idiot. Yeah, everybody knows it, but using CLINTON to vilify GORE is frankly dishonest.
Click to expand...

jj said:
Let's see, now, who screamed "Clinton" in this thread?

Oops. Get your act together, Vandelay, first you publically accused me of unprofessional behavior in a forum that can be read by anyone in the world with a computer, and now you try to duck the fact that the only reasoning we see in this thread is "CLINTON CLINTON CLINTON".

Gore is Clinton no more than Bush is Cheney, Rove, Abramoff, or any such thing. Seems when somebody says one thing, you're all over CLINTON CLINTON CLINTON but when somebody says something else, oops, now it's not so good.
Click to expand...

In the entire thread, you posted only one post that wasn't dishonest.

Your action is nothing more or less than deliberate, willfull vilification, as well as your own sad, pathetic attempt at a fraudulent tu quoque argument, in favor of a nasty case of moral relativism.
Click to expand...
This entire thread is a deliberate, willful vilification, and your accusation of "tu quoque" is simply a pathetic attempt to distract from your hypocrisy. This is not a tu quoque argument, which makes it yet another piece of dishonesty from you. According to your logic, once anyone accuses anyone something, they are completely immune from anyone else making that accusation, because that would be "tu quoque". Your only response to my pointing out your dishonesty is simply to call me names.
 
Mycroft said:
Well, if words you write are being interpreted in ways other than how you mean them, then it's your problem.
Click to expand...
Yep. Something I have learned in my career, and it was a hard lesson to learn. We aren't entitled to demand people understand us. We are instead responsible to deliver our message in a way that gets across the way we want it to.
 
Mods, could we please consider moving this histrionic JJ vs. Earth battle royale to Flame Wars where such personal issues belong?
 
Art Vandelay said:
No, you didn't. You provided no quote, and your link goes to your own post.



Here are seven dishonest posts by you:
Click to expand...


First, my link goes to a thread. Your argument otherwise is pure disingenuity as far as I'm concerned.

Second, you have yet to show that what I said, the facts you misrepresent as "dishonest posts", are anything but true, and furthermore, the presentation and continued debate proves my point.
 
Art Vandelay said:
Can anyone explain why this isn't in AAH?
Click to expand...

And, ladies and germs, a call for censorship.

I didn't name any people, I pointed out clear, easily demonstrated behaviors, yet you would attempt to silence me.

Not only will you falsely accuse people of lies, you also attempt to entice the powers that be to silence people.
 
Mycroft said:
Well, if words you write are being interpreted in ways other than how you mean them, then it's your problem.
Click to expand...

Let's see, if you invent, from whole cloth, something I didn't say, it's MY problem.

No, Mycroft, it's not. It's reflective, reactive vilification by the usual suspects.
 
Freakshow said:
Yep. Something I have learned in my career, and it was a hard lesson to learn. We aren't entitled to demand people understand us. We are instead responsible to deliver our message in a way that gets across the way we want it to.
Click to expand...

So, when one uses a clear wording, and somebody else MAKES IT ALL UP, and then proceeds apace, it's the fault of the person who used clear, simple words?

Interesting rationale, indeed, indeed.
 
jj said:
Let's see, if you invent, from whole cloth, something I didn't say, it's MY problem.

No, Mycroft, it's not. It's reflective, reactive vilification by the usual suspects.
Click to expand...
A simply explanation would have clarified the matter. I certainly couldn't quite figure out exactly what you were trying to say.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom