Speaking of dissections, I did just that with the disingenuous quote posted by the fact-free Bill Smith (post #63). Evidently you missed my comments. I'm eager to give you another crack at them, so...
Seems you have repeatedly missed my comments...
It is fascinating that you so often thrust yourself into discussions about the nature of critical thinking and logic. You are conspicuously devoid of critical thinking skills, and logic remains terra incognita to you. Let's take a look at the post from Bill Smith:
38 Become personal, insulting and rude as soon as you perceive that your opponent has the upper hand.
In becoming personal you leave the subject altogether, and turn your attack on the person by remarks of an offensive and spiteful character.
This is a very popular technique, because it takes so little skill to put it into effect.
"Put on the right face. Cultivate a condescending air that suggests that your personal opinions are backed by the full faith and credit of God. Employ vague, subjective, dismissive terms such as "ridiculous" or "trivial" in a manner that suggests they have the full force of scientific authority."
Hmmm you got off to a great start
"I believe this gem from Mike Rivero absolutely. Who wants to deny this Truth."
"Most people prefer to believe their leaders are just and fair even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which they live is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it. To take action in the face of a corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one's self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all."
The first clause of the opening sentence is false. Most people in the U.S. actively distrust politicians, regarding them as mediocre individuals highly susceptible to corrupting influences.
There we go once again, ignoring everything I have said a few times already, but let's think about this again for a second before I repeat what I said before. ALL JREF'ers are constantly going on and on and on how there are very very few "truthers" because 99.9% of the people believe the government.
So are you saying that is not true? I mean which is it? Do they trust the government or not? What's that? They do trust the government when it comes to 9/11? Or no they don't? Is it that they do not trust the government when it comes to the little things because those are easy to be mad about since doing nothing about really isn't that bad, but they say they trust their government when it comes to war and death because to voice opposition then does put you in danger.
Amazing how all JREF'ers here want so much to always strip down a complex issue to something very very simple. It is not simple. I've mentioned "double think" a number of times already, this form of thinking was not invented in George Orwells 1984 he only used it.
The cult that has sprung up around Barack Obama reflects the attitudes of a celebrity-crazed minority. The second clause illustrates perfectly what Dave Rogers is getting at. In order to acknowledge that a politician is lying, there must first be statements that qualify as lies.
Smoke and mirrors bud, your catchphrase "In order to acknowledge that a politician is lying, there must first be statements that qualify as lies." but it is only a catchphrase meant to hypnotize the unthinking into believing there have been no lies. The whole concept of someone lying by definition means there was a statement that qualified as a lie, but it is a nice catchphrase that will undoubtedly convince some here.
The misnamed "truth" movement
38 Become personal, insulting and rude as soon as you perceive that your opponent has the upper hand.
Sigh...the favorite of the JREF'ers
restricts itself entirely to baseless accusations of lying, without ever showing that any lies were actually told. We are asked to believe that a gigantic conspiracy that never leaks anything perpetrated a monstrous crime for no discernible motives. We are asked to pretend, against reason and sanity, that avowed enemies of America and the West simply do not exist. We are asked to swallow the preposterously improbable notion that all the thousands of people whose accounts of the events of 9/11 are consistent with the conclusion that Islamist terrorists hijacked planes are being magically controlled by unseen forces. Similarly, we are asked, on the basis of precisely nothing, to regard the researchers whose work provides a scientifically sound explanation for the collapses of the buildings as complicit in a mass murder.
WOW, now that paragraph has way too many disinformation tactics it would take too much to list them all out, but the entire paragraph could be called overall "smoke and mirrors"
What you frauds always neglect to do is provide any remotely plausible rationale for your posturing. You are the ones who refuse to think at all. You dismiss hard work done by serious scientists and engineers with a mindless sneer. You lack the intelligence to understand why your cherished myths are nonsense, and you refuse to make any effort to learn. You are easily manipulated by conscienceless scoundrels peddling worthless drivel. You exhibit the classic mob mentality. The statement that the Islamist attack on America was a "psyop" is sheer madness, the ravings of a fact-free lunatic. Nothing supports it; everything refutes it.
This paragraph exactly like the previous paragraph
It is an example of pop psychology at its worst to blather about reactions to propaganda without showing any examples of actual propaganda. The dishonest "truth" movement churns out much propaganda. Nobody can credibly say as much about the sane side.
LOL, yes seems your last 3 paragraphs were all identical in style and tactic, too bad you didnt actually say anything. All you did was smear, insult, insinuate and lie.
