The Marjorie Taylor Greene thread.

[wareyin]

Non sequitur. Your reply is not related to the question - no one is making that claim. You, however, made the claim that the legislation being discussed said "for legal purposes, anyone who declares himself to be a Woman is one".

You're not getting off that easy. Since your claim was made as a statement of fact, and in quote marks, the only way to support that claim is to find that exact statement in the text of HR5. I will accept wording that means or implies the same thing.

If you can't find it, you need to withdraw your claim and admit you were wrong.

To be fair, i don't think he was saying it as a statement of fact, i think that was his transparently BS excuse as to how MTG could be against a bill for trans rights (she is) and not against trans rights (which requires ignoring her years long public history of being against trans rights).

Distracted1 is wrong, anyway, of course. Then again, a self proclaimed lifelong Democrat who spends so much time attacking Dems while defending MTG and Trump is almost always not going to be telling the truth about something.

 

[smartcooky]

To be fair, i don't think he was saying it as a statement of fact, i think that was his transparently BS excuse as to how MTG could be against a bill for trans rights (she is) and not against trans rights (which requires ignoring her years long public history of being against trans rights).

Then maybe he ought to be more careful about what he claims is in a bill before the house/senate, because using quote marks when referring to the content of a document definitely implies it to b a direc,t word-for-word excerpt from that document.

 

[Distracted1]

Then maybe he ought to be more careful about what he claims is in a bill before the house/senate, because using quote marks when referring to the content of a document definitely implies it to b a direc,t word-for-word excerpt from that document.

For being so hung up on the literal meaning of things, your reading comprehension is low.

 

[Distracted1]

To be fair, i don't think he was saying it as a statement of fact, i think that was his transparently BS excuse as to how MTG could be against a bill for trans rights (she is) and not against trans rights (which requires ignoring her years long public history of being against trans rights).

Distracted1 is wrong, anyway, of course. Then again, a self proclaimed lifelong Democrat who spends so much time attacking Dems while defending MTG and Trump is almost always not going to be telling the truth about something.

There has been discussion of Trump in this thread?
Or is it simply tribal knee-jerk reaction that anyone pointing out faulty reasoning on one side of an issue automatically becomes the caricature of the person on the "other side" one prefers to argue against?

Oh, how we love to criticize the right for not policing its own bad logic- yet look at your reaction to a Democrat attempting to do just that.

 

[wareyin]

There has been discussion of Trump in this thread?
Or is it simply tribal knee-jerk reaction that anyone pointing out faulty reasoning on one side of an issue automatically becomes the caricature of the person on the "other side" one prefers to argue against?

Oh, how we love to criticize the right for not policing its own bad logic- yet look at your reaction to a Democrat attempting to do just that.

No, the discussion where you defended Trump was in the CPAC thread. I hope that helps you.

 

[newyorkguy]

Then maybe he ought to be more careful about what he claims is in a bill before the house/senate, because using quote marks when referring to the content of a document definitely implies it to b a direc,t word-for-word excerpt from that document.

'He' could, of course, explain what the quotation marks were meant to convey. Explain something like, 'No, I'm sorry if they were taken as direct quotes from the bill; they weren't. I was just being sarcastic.' But that would require a willingness to get down and discuss this with other posters, explain and defend his reasoning. Not just vent, which is all I see. Example:

"...imply tribal knee-jerk reaction that anyone pointing out faulty reasoning..."

Ah, the internet. Don't you just love it?

 

[Dr. Keith]

For being so hung up on the literal meaning of things, your reading comprehension is low.

And you seem to be the Distracted1. Focus. Simple questions, easy answers. It is all in your hands.

 

[Belz...]

dubalb is as patient as he is long-suffering.

*dudalb.

 

[Distracted1]

'He' could, of course, explain what the quotation marks were meant to convey. Explain something like, 'No, I'm sorry if they were taken as direct quotes from the bill; they weren't. I was just being sarcastic.' But that would require a willingness to get down and discuss this with other posters, explain and defend his reasoning. Not just vent, which is all I see. Example:



Ah, the internet. Don't you just love it?

Had the poster who demanded a specific response chosen to read the post thoroughly, the first thing he might have noticed was that it was referring to "a" piece of legislation.

They might then have taken the simple step of asking what the quotes were meant to convey in that context. Instead a demand for a response to their misinterpretation of the post was made, along with instructions for the exact form that that response needed to take.

I have no obligation to respond to such a demand, nor to educate the poster making the demands as to the various uses of quotation marks in casual written discourse.

ETA, and no, I feel no regret for using the terms "knee-jerk" and "tribal" in a thread where "Hateful", "Bigoted", and "disgusting" are being thrown around.

 

[Distracted1]

No, the discussion where you defended Trump was in the CPAC thread. I hope that helps you.

You are welcome to link to, or name the number of, the post wherein that occurred, Or you could withdraw the "lie" (as we have taken to calling opinions that we disagree with of late).

 

[wareyin]

You are welcome to link to, or name the number of, the post wherein that occurred, Or you could withdraw the "lie" (as we have taken to calling opinions that we disagree with of late).

You don't recall being extremely upset that people would describe those who literally built a golden statue of Trump as "worshipping" him? It was in that conversation that you claimed to be a lifelong registered Democrat despite your actions in this thread and that one. Ring a bell yet?


Eta: don't worry, long experience dealing with posters like 16.5/the big dog claiming to be Democrats as well despite constantly promoting and defending Republican people and positions while attacking and mocking every Democratic politician or policy made the shenanigans easy to spot.

 

[smartcooky]

Had the poster who demanded a specific response chosen to read the post thoroughly, the first thing he might have noticed was that it was referring to "a" piece of legislation.

They might then have taken the simple step of asking what the quotes were meant to convey in that context. Instead a demand for a response to their misinterpretation of the post was made, along with instructions for the exact form that that response needed to take.

I have no obligation to respond to such a demand, nor to educate the poster making the demands as to the various uses of quotation marks in casual written discourse.

ETA, and no, I feel no regret for using the terms "knee-jerk" and "tribal" in a thread where "Hateful", "Bigoted", and "disgusting" are being thrown around.

I also gave you the option of at least showing where what you said was implied. You failed! You ran away from the hard question (which is exactly what I expected) and now you're trying to justify that running away with more waffling and BS (which was also entirely predictable)

Your claim, that legislation before the house stated "for legal purposes, anyone who declares himself to be a Woman is one" was always a bunch of BS and you know it. There is nothing in HR5 (or any piece of legislation) that even remotely implies this.

... you lied!

 

[Distracted1]

I also gave you the option of at least showing where what you said was implied. You failed! You ran away from the hard question (which is exactly what I expected) and now you're trying to justify that running away with more waffling and BS (which was also entirely predictable)

Your claim, that legislation before the house stated "for legal purposes, anyone who declares himself to be a Woman is one" was always a bunch of BS and you know it. There is nothing in HR5 (or any piece of legislation) that even remotely implies this.

... you lied!

Reading.
Comprehension.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Reading.
Comprehension.

If he is getting it so wrong maybe you could go back and point out what you were actually trying to say.

 

[Distracted1]

You don't recall being extremely upset that people would describe those who literally built a golden statue of Trump as "worshipping" him? It was in that conversation that you claimed to be a lifelong registered Democrat despite your actions in this thread and that one. Ring a bell yet?


Eta: don't worry, long experience dealing with posters like 16.5/the big dog claiming to be Democrats as well despite constantly promoting and defending Republican people and positions while attacking and mocking every Democratic politician or policy made the shenanigans easy to spot.

I probably do not recall being "extremely upset" about that because in the 14 years I have been visiting this forum I have rarely become "extremely upset" by other posters' ignorance. Such as labelling the creation of a tacky statue "worshipping".

It would be interesting, however, if you were to spell out how my pointing out the hyperbolic nature of that characterization of the CPAC attendees (displayed by referring to them as "worshipping" a tacky statue) equals "defending Trump" as you claimed I was doing in your earlier lie.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

I am fully willing to believe that you were not intentionally defending trump in that thread.

However in this thread, you are defending the indefensible opinions of a transphobic bigot.

 

[Pacal]

I probably do not recall being "extremely upset" about that because in the 14 years I have been visiting this forum I have rarely become "extremely upset" by other posters' ignorance. Such as labelling the creation of a tacky statue "worshipping".

It would be interesting, however, if you were to spell out how my pointing out the hyperbolic nature of that characterization of the CPAC attendees (displayed by referring to them as "worshipping" a tacky statue) equals "defending Trump" as you claimed I was doing in your earlier lie.

Regardless of whether or not the tacky statute of Trump is equal to worshipping him, since the election we have seen from Trump supporters a degree of adulation and groveling to Trump that is quite something. The CPAC meeting was full of that sort of idiocy. So yeah I am quite convinced that a great many Trump supporters can by now accurately be described has worshippers of Trump. He is now surrounded by what can only be described has a cult of personality. And yes Marjorie Taylor Greene is one of the cultists.

 

[wareyin]

I probably do not recall being "extremely upset" about that because in the 14 years I have been visiting this forum I have rarely become "extremely upset" by other posters' ignorance. Such as labelling the creation of a tacky statue "worshipping".

It would be interesting, however, if you were to spell out how my pointing out the hyperbolic nature of that characterization of the CPAC attendees (displayed by referring to them as "worshipping" a tacky statue) equals "defending Trump" as you claimed I was doing in your earlier lie.

Man, right wingers just can't help but completely "misinterpret" any sort of communication they're involved in, huh? Before we go into the weeds with your latest "hey look, a squirrel" defense, let's get back to the bit you're trying to district from at the moment: MTG's longtime anti-trans activism that you, in your right wing anti-trans stance, are attempting to wave away as not being anti-trans but anti-some part of the protection from anti-trans-discrimination bill that she was publicly against before it was written.

Then, after you rewrite history enough to justify that bit of right wingerness, we can circle back to how creating a god-damn golden idol is the ******* biblical definition of worshipping, jesus ******* christ!

 

[smartcooky]

Reading.
Comprehension.

Yup, yours definitely needs work

If he is getting it so wrong maybe you could go back and point out what you were actually trying to say.

Fat chance!

 

[CORed]

You, however, made the claim that the legislation being discussed said "for legal purposes, anyone who declares himself to be a Woman is one".
hdraw your claim and admit you were wrong.

I am curious as to why this would be a problem (questions directed at Distracted1 more than quoted poster). Is there some test that needs to be conducted to determine if somebody is "really" transgender, or "just pretending?". Should it be legal to discriminate in housing, employment, or public accommodations against somebody who is "just pretending" and therefore not a "real" transgendered person? If so, why? Or is the contention that all transgendered people are "just pretending", and therefore need to be shunned by all right-thinking people?