Who IS this guy?!

'Niceguy' Eddie

Political Talk Show Host and Internet Radio Personality. My show, In My Humble Opinion, aired on RainbowRadio from 2015-2017.

Feel free to contact me at niceguy9418@usa.com. You can also friend me on Facebook, follow me on Twitter, and Tumblr, and support my Patreon. Also, if you don't mind the stench, you can find my unofficial "fan club" over HERE. ;)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sunday, May 6, 2012

Right on so many levels...


I'll try to respond to some of the comments tomorrow night. Gotta get posting again too. Too tired right now. The kids and I moved a bunch of rocks (sandstones / flagstones?) from the back yard to the front yard today and built a sweet rock wall with it, bordering up the dirt aoround our cherry tree.  Wife is happy with it, but I am very tired right now. Good night.

60 comments:

  1. I admit, I don't listen to the conservative point of view. It's because when I tried that 20 years ago, they were wrong all the time.

    Being wrong all the time must have a consequence -- you don't get to talk anymore, even if you're later right. Without that consequence, what's the disincentive to being wrong?

    I almost wish MMFA didn't debunk conservatives. Conservatives don't deserve to be debunked. They haven't earned the right.

    If some pundit roundtable features 5 liberals and one conservative, that show would be conservatively biased. The conservative doesn't have the right to be there.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can certainly appreciate that sentiment. I do follow the ever-evolving American conservative narrative. Not because there's any merit in it, but because it seems, to me, irresponsible not to.

      Contemporary conservatism isn't so problematic because it's always wrong. That's a surface manifestation of the real problem, which is that it has no connection to reality and is openly hostile to it. What's called "conservatism" today is largely ugly, reactionary sentiment, reproducing itself like a cancer, in a sealed environment. Having eschewed reality, it gets everything wrong because it has no basis, other that occasional blind-hog luck, for getting anything right.

      Delete
    2. "I admit, I don't listen to the conservative point of view. It's because when I tried that 20 years ago, they were wrong all the time."

      You must not listen to any points of view, then. Since there isn't any viable left-wing POV's available. Left-wingers usually just post an opinion then claim that it debunks everything that doesn't agree with it. That's ok, though, facts show up and demonstrate the left-wing opinion to be wrong most of the time, but fortunately for the left-winger they blame everyone else for not agreeing with their incorrect opinion and it gives them a self-impression of being right. So, as long as the left-winger is happy it doesn't really matter whether they are right or wrong ... what matters is that the left-winger thinks they are right and that makes them automatically right (in their minds).

      Delete
    3. I think William just proved Classic's point. Well done.

      Delete
    4. Dude, you're a conservative posting in a liberal forum. That means you're here to teach. So teach. Where are the examples? Where are the facts? Where are the arguments?

      Why would you come here and just dribble conservative words on the floor? We're already mentally inserting the words "William thinks conservatives are good" into every thread. That job's done already without you even being here.

      I don't always provide examples and facts, but I'm not here to teach. I'm here to demonstrate to liberals that they don't always take things far enough.

      In case you want a fact out of me, here's one -- every republican in the country predicted that Clinton's 1993 budget would kill jobs, and they were all proven wrong.

      Delete
    5. I know you already know this, but you're watsing you're time, Steeve. You could name literally ANY issue, and we both know the only evidence that supports the conservative position was manufactured, whole cloth, by Conservatives. They don't listen to scientists, becuase Liberals do. They don't liste to economists (except supplier-siders) because that's what Liberals do. William was desribing CONSERVATIVES, rather well I might add, and he DOESN'T EVEN KNOW IT.

      How do I KNOW Conservatives are always worng? Shoot... The two issues I'm most Conservtaive on - Gun Control & the Death Penalty? I KNOW that my positions aren't suported by evidence! I KNOW that they'r counterproductive and wrong! I just don't care. They're an EMOTIONAL stance, and not ones that I can let go of. The difference between me and a Conservative? I'M AWARE OF THIS.

      William's cluelessness about... well, pretty much EVERYTHING, is truly astounding. You're rigth though: He's here to teach. Unfortunately, all he's taught us is just how deeply entreched the Conservtaive problem IS in the minds of the Right.

      Delete
    6. Steeve, what do you mean I'm here to teach? You're wrong, I'm here for the same reason you are ... to express my opinion. Funny thing is that left-wingers feel their opinions are worthy all the attention that it can get, while right-wing opinions are lies and misinformation. Can't teach the un-teachable. If you let pride continue to block your progress, then no matter how much teaching you receive you'll still not learn anything. That's true for both sides of the fence, not just yours.


      As for Clinton. Do you really want to go there?

      Delete
    7. " They're an EMOTIONAL stance, and not ones that I can let go of."

      That's funny. If a conservative says that kind of thing they get called a 'bigot'. But, when a liberal says it, they consider themselves "aware". Good example of what I just said, thanks Eddie.

      Delete
    8. William, were you born stupid or did you have to work at it?

      Delete
    9. Oooooo, sorry Eddie ... too close to home with that one? Or is that the best liberal retort you could come up with?

      Delete
  2. "Can't teach the unteachable"

    I'm unteachable, but I'm not the only one here. You're here to teach the teachable. Either that or you've never thought about it. You can express your opinion in front of a wall, so that's not why you're here.

    And yes, I would like to go to the subject of how Clinton's job creation embarrassed every conservative in the country.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I'm unteachable"

      I know. That's what I just said. Why is it that liberals won't believe what is said unless they say it themselves?



      "And yes, I would like to go to the subject of how Clinton's job creation embarrassed every conservative in the country."

      The data I see shows both Reagan and Nixon/Ford beating what Clinton did. But, like I said, liberals aren't much for facts, they prefer opinion to lay their claims on. Maybe you have some better data than I got? Maybe you'd like to bring that data? Maybe you'll just go on some other rant about "william" because you can't find any data that supports your opinion.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms

      Delete
    2. "Maybe you have some better data than I got?"

      No, yours will do just fine.

      It can't even read a chart--what a shocking surprise. Or perhaps we're just seeing those conservative optics at work.

      It's the usual conservative math at work. The cited chart's cumulative numbers by the first baseline:

      16,102,000 jobs - Reagan
      11,254,000 jobs - Nixon/Ford
      22,740,000 jobs - Clinton

      And by the second:

      16,855,000 jobs - Reagan
      12,614,000 jobs - Nixon/Ford
      20,166,000 jobs - Clinton

      It looks at these numbers, and declares "The data I see shows both Reagan and Nixon/Ford beating what Clinton did."

      Says everything about it anyone needs to know.

      Delete
    3. Also, even if Clinton did roughly as well as Reagan and Nixon, it would still embarrass every conservative in the country. Raising taxes on the rich is supposed to severely damage job creation, not have zero impact on it. Republicans can't say the word "taxes" without the prefix "job-killing". Where's the killing? Where is it? Has anyone ever seen it? Why would a major political party, as its primary focus, be worried about something that has never once been seen in real life?

      It's like their opinion on the subject is objectively far less valuable than what someone like Krugman says.

      Delete
    4. "It's the usual conservative math at work."

      Read the "ave annual increase" percentage in the first chart. Of course numerically Clinton will show up as better, because there are more people available to work. Of course that means he also had more people to be unemployed (which he had very low PERCENTAGE numbers for).

      Thanks for giving the perfect example of liberals taking stats out of context to pat themselves on the back.


      "Why would a major political party, as its primary focus, be worried about something that has never once been seen in real life?"

      I don't know. But, I'm not a republican or democrat so I can't speak for why your parties act the way they do.

      Delete
    5. So you agree that "job-killing taxes" have never been seen in real life?

      Can you speak to the phenomenon of the republican party lying about their #1 concern as a news event? Seems like a pretty big deal. Can you tell your friends that the core message of the republican party is fake? They don't know. Really, they don't.

      Delete
    6. "So you agree that "job-killing taxes" have never been seen in real life?"

      What's one look like? I'll tell you if I see one.


      "Can you speak to the phenomenon of the republican party lying about their #1 concern as a news event?"

      I'm not a republican. It doesn't matter to me if they lie. Just like it doesn't matter to me when the democrats lie. They are politicians, I EXPECT them to lie. That's their job ... to lie. Why do you think so many aspire to be liberal politicians? And the ones who are refused become republicans.

      "Can you tell your friends that the core message of the republican party is fake?"

      Why would my friends care? And what proof do you have it is fake?

      Delete
  3. "Also, even if Clinton did roughly as well as Reagan and Nixon, it would still embarrass every conservative in the country. Raising taxes on the rich is supposed to severely damage job creation, not have zero impact on it."

    Every Republican in congress, in 1993, said the Clinton hike on the wealthy would kill the economy, and every one of them voted against it on those grounds. A helpful collection of some of their comments:
    http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2010/08/10/173450/1993-quotes/

    The Heritage Foundation, with its "dynamic" scoring, had this to say:

    "The Clinton tax hikes on income would have a devastating impact on long-term economic growth. In particular, the increase in the tax burden would reduce savings and investment, thus hampering the economy's capacity to generate new jobs and higher wages. Specifically, higher tax rates on income would punish productive economic activity, reduce tax revenues, lead to increased federal spending and higher budget deficits, reduce job creation and penalize small business."

    ...which, of course, turned out to be wrong in every particular. Heritage has used its "dynamic" scoring model for decades, and in all that time, has never once been able to produce predictions via the numbers it generates that even remotely resemble reality.

    It's worth noting that Paul Ryan's "plan" is built on Heritage growth numbers gleaned via this same model.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Every Republican in congress, in 1993, said the Clinton hike on the wealthy would kill the economy,"

      It's starting to sound like Brabantio and Eddie, assuming and stating facts without any facts to back them up with. And is it really necessary for it to continue believing what the heritage foundation says? I thought it was a liberal, yet uses the heritage foundation for knowledge and insight and references.

      Delete
    2. As usual, my post went so far over your head as to achieve orbit.

      Delete
    3. You've got to give William points for consistency, though. He never misses an opportunity to misunderstand an argument.

      Delete
    4. And, I also never miss an opportunity to read the lies and misinformation brought by liberals. What proof does classicliberal have that "Every Republican" SAID the Clinton hike would kill the economy? I like how you liberals will lie and misinform in order to make your points. You can't beat consistency like that. Even Eddie is afraid to comment on his lie about "EIGHTY PERCENT".

      I may misunderstand your arguments, but it is probably because liberals lie to make your points.

      Delete
    5. "Every Republican in congress, in 1993, said the Clinton hike on the wealthy would kill the economy, and every one of them voted against it on those grounds."

      Every Republican except one: Mark Hatfield of Oregon, voted for the Clinton budget. As a result, the GOP attempted to strip him of every committee membership he held.

      So much for "principle".

      Delete
    6. I'm sure you meant every republican voted against that budget but one. However, even Hatfield eventually voted against it. But classicliberal is stating (as fact) that ALL of the republicans "said" the hike would kill the economy. I'm simply waiting for him to provide the proof of all those statements. Of course Hatfield also makes his second part of that statement a lie, too. Sorry, classicliberal, are you lying again to prove your point? I think I said liberals usually do that, so it wouldn't surprise me.

      That's the MO of classicliberal, he spouts but doesn't prove. He feels there is no need to prove what he says, he must think everyone should automatically believe him because HE said it. That's a liberal for ya. They're funny that way.

      Delete
    7. And this is the MO of William. Nitpick irrelvencies, miss the point, ignore the MEAT of the argument and the big picture stuff, and act like he won, becuase somebady made a general statement rather than quote a precies figure THE EXACT NUMBER OF WHICH WOULD BE IRRELEVANT.

      That's why these thing go on forever and say absolutely nothing. He has nothing to offer as a direct counter argument, so he "disproves" things that are not even central to the point.

      Delete
  4. "I may misunderstand your arguments, but it is probably because liberals lie to make your points."

    Wrong. You misunderstand our arguments, willfully or not, because you are so indoctrinated by right wing dogma that you can't see reality, or engage in rational discourse.

    You may remember (look it up if you don't) an exchange between you and me concerning a conversation I'd had with my son. Well, triggered by the thread, "I'll make this easy" (I notice you've chosen to ignore the challenge I left for you there) I reminded him of the conversation, and asked him what he'd thought I was telling him, when I said the content of his dreams was his answer to questions about his orientation. He said, "That I'm straight." My answer, "Exactly. But you know, there's this guy I argue with online who interpreted that as my "giving you permission" to experiment with gay behavior. He was stunned, and asked, "How could he get that out of what you said?" My answer, which I reiterate here, is that you are so invested in your prejudices that you refuse to see what is in front of you, or have been so indoctrinated that you are incapable of seeing it. My son, being younger and less verbose, put it more succinctly. With a laugh, he said, "The guy's a jerk."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Wrong. You misunderstand our arguments"

      You mean the argument that Eddie brought that said "EIGHTY PERCENT" of banks with TARP loans had paid them off? Well, that "EIGHTY PERCENT" truthfully (factually) becomes FIFTY PERCENT when the truth is known. However, he has STILL refused to comment after I called him on that. How do you explain a liberal using false data to support their stance and refusing to correct the data after it is shown to be false?

      Delete
    2. No, I don't mean anything about Eddie. This is between me and you. Stick to the topic. I know that's asking the impossible of you, but you choose to come and attack "liberals." BTW, I don't object to being called a liberal, I'm quite happy to be one. I do object to you dutifully parroting right wing libels about us. But, of course, expecting honesty or independent thinking from you is like expecting philosophy from a turnip.

      Delete
    3. Here's a little thing about quotes, William, which you always manage to mangle. When you're going to truncate one, honesty (a foreign concept to you, I know) demands that you indicate you've done it. Since you didn't want to include "willfully or not, because you are so indoctrinated by right wing dogma that you can't see reality, or engage in rational discourse.", the honest (that word again) thing would have been to add the required three dots, as in, "Wrong. You misunderstand our arguments..."
      Try to keep up.

      Delete
    4. "No, I don't mean anything about Eddie. This is between me and you. Stick to the topic."

      Still upset about how YOU brought your son into these discussions? Still can't hold your own so you need your son to help you out?

      Tell me, WHAT topic are you discussing? You ramble and wander so much it's very difficult to follow what or who you're discussing any given moment. You start out on "attacking liberals" then quickly move on to "right wing libels" then move on to "quotes" then go back to the "right wing dogma" then for some reason have an issue about "honesty". Even when I mention Eddie's lie about "EIGHTY PERCENT" you complain to ME about how I should be more honest when discussing with you. Of course you give a complete pass to the dishonest statements by Eddie (that's what liberals do for each other). And all that is AFTER you bring your son back into the discussion. As if he doesn't already have enough on his plate dealing with his gay friends and all, you force him into a discussion between left and right wingers.

      I don't suppose you're just trying to change the subject because you don't want Eddie to look too stupid for his lie about TARP fund paybacks. It's been nearly a week and Eddie still hasn't answered to his lies. Perhaps he doesn't think he lied? Perhaps he thinks if he says something it automatically becomes truth? Perhaps he's embarrassed that he does what he whines about me doing. Perhaps ... perhaps ... perhaps

      Delete
    5. "(I notice you've chosen to ignore the challenge I left for you there) "

      I haven't ignored. I just haven't gone back to that article. Besides, why would I care about what you challenge anyone to do? You're having too much trouble having a discussion with a right-winger without bringing your son into it ... again. You must be extremely proud of him ... he's already turning into a 'good little liberal'. You've taught him how to call people names. The classic liberal trait: name-calling.

      Delete
  5. "As if he doesn't already have enough on his plate dealing with his gay friends and all..."

    EXACTLY what do you mean by that?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Aren't you the one who whines about people (me) not providing complete quotes? Good job.

      Delete
  6. Well, what do you know? A cowardly, and predictable, deflection. Read my post about truncated quotes again. You're either willfully misconstruing, or you're too stupid to have access to technology.

    I want to know EXACTLY what you mean by the part of the sentence I quoted (making clear, according to accepted practice, that I was truncating the sentence). When you've answered that, I'll deal with the rest of your post.

    Exactly what did you mean by, "As if he doesn't already have enough on his plate dealing with his gay friends and all..."?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What I meant was obvious. If you need someone to explain it to you, then I'll send you a quarter so you can call someone who cares.

      Delete
  7. What you meant was obvious? No, it's not. What IS obvious is that you either don't know exactly what you meant, perhaps because it was just an inchoate lashing out of your hysterical homophobia, or you're ashamed to own up to it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "What IS obvious is that you either don't know exactly what you meant, or you're ashamed to own up to it."


      OR, you simply do not have any reading comprehension abilities for the english language. Which is the more likely reason for your continued whines about how your are treated.

      Delete
  8. I'm going with you don't have the guts to tell the truth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But you show plenty of guts for lying. Keep up the good works.

      Delete
    2. What a brilliant comeback.

      I don't recall "whining" about anything, much less how I'm being treated. At least I believe that's what you meant. When you're going to make snide comments about someone else's command of the language, you should really proof-read, or get someone with more than two functioning brain cells to do it for you. Use that quarter.

      "Which is the more likely reason for your continued whines about how your are treated."

      Delete
  9. "I don't recall "whining" about anything, much less how I'm being treated."

    "I want to know EXACTLY what you mean by the part of the sentence I quoted (making clear, according to accepted practice, that I was truncating the sentence). When you've answered that, I'll deal with the rest of your post.
    Exactly what did you mean by, "As if he doesn't already have enough on his plate dealing with his gay friends and all..."?"


    Ah ha ha ha ha.... Thanks for that opportunity. No wonder you aren't able to discuss honestly with a right-winger, you can't remember what you whine about just a few posts after you whine about it.

    ReplyDelete
  10. So, requiring you to state exactly what you mean and holding you to rules of honest argument is "whining?" Well, since you're clearly not capable of honesty, even with yourself, you have to create a false narrative. I get it. Sad.

    But you might be able to turn that flaw to your advantage. Consider compiling a collection of your greatest word twists. You haven't got Bierce's brains or wit, but you might do a play on his "Devil's Dictionary". You could call yours the "Idiot's Dictionary." Start with 'self-proclaimed.'

    Speaking of which: According the position you took in argument with me a couple of months ago (re: Gingrich), you are now a 'self-proclaimed' mind-reader (re: Turner.) In your desperate attempt to tar Democrats as bigots, you've blown your prior argument out of the water. Or, if you prefer, your prior argument blows your present one out of the water. The fact is, both arguments (and this is an impressive accomplishment: speaking out of both sides of your mouth, and being wrong on both) leak like a decomposing dinghy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "So, requiring you to state exactly what you mean and holding you to rules of honest argument is "whining?" "

      Well, it appears that you are not holding yourself to those rules. Are you saying that only right-wingers are required to "state exactly what you mean" and only right-wingers are required to abide by the "rules of honest argument"? You bring partial out of context quotes and refuse to denounce lies brought in support of anti-Bush rants.

      Thanks for showing me that left-wingers do in fact hypocritically demand behavior from others that they are unwilling to do themselves.


      "Wrong. You misunderstand our arguments, willfully or not, because you are so indoctrinated by right wing dogma that you can't see reality, or engage in rational discourse."

      Here, I'll prove left-wingers use lies and misinformation and refuse to argue honestly. What part of Eddie's argument that "EIGHTY PERCENT" of the TARP loans have been paid off is being misunderstood? What part of classicliberal claiming that "Every Republican in congress, in 1993, said" Clintons plans would "kill the economy" is NOT a lie? Now bring your supposed "honest argument" that you DEMAND of others and tell me honestly about that "EIGHTY PERCENT" and "every republican said" lies that you support because they came from left-wingers. Because both Eddie and classicliberal refused to answer to the lies THEY made while ranting against republicans. Maybe steeve is correct ... I'm here to teach ... to teach that many of you left-wingers are hypocrites and liars and argue dishonestly.

      Or you can make another obscure reference (without supporting links) to a discussion from months ago where you supposedly said something important. Which is what I suspect you'll do.

      So, what's it going to be? Are you going to tuck your tail and run away like Eddie and classicliberal or you gonna answer to the lies that they won't?

      Delete
  11. This entire post is, to use an analogy I've used before today, classic fish-on-hook thrashing. You will do anything to keep from answering the relevant question, and confront your own undeniable bigotry.

    I will address one "lie," as you call it, however. You call Classic Liberal a liar for saying that every Republican said the Clinton plans would kill the economy, while noting that they ALL voted against those plans. I would venture to say that you don't know that he's wrong about speeches they made. You're challenging him to look up all the speeches from that time, all the statements, etc., that hundreds of politicians made, in order to keep an hysterical like you from calling him a liar. He would be stupid to do so. He either made an assumption (a far more defensible one than most of yours) or engaged in hyperbole. The votes cast prove him right in his argument, and you're like a dachshund nipping at his heels.

    But here, William, is a lie, and libel, rolled into one, from your computer:

    "He's a Democrat, and therefore representative of the way Democrats think."

    Anyone with two brains cells knows that's absurd. Howard Dean and Kent Conrad are both Democrats. Are you completely uninformed, or are you stupid and/or bigoted enough to hold that they think alike?

    Oh, and by the way, I did that quote from memory, not cut-and-paste. I fully expect you to call me a liar if there's one word wrong or out of place, even though the meaning of the quote is totally accurate.

    What "partial out of contest quote" are you referring to, and did the "partial out of context quote" change the meaning of your original? I truncated one quote, with attribution, because I wanted you to explain what you meant by using that SPECIFIC PHRASE, IN CONTEXT. And I did that because I knew that you would try to slither away from what you'd written. You've proved me right.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "Anyone with two brains cells knows that's absurd. Howard Dean and Kent Conrad are both Democrats. Are you completely uninformed, or are you stupid and/or bigoted enough to hold that they think alike?"

    It just seems to me that I've been directly linked to every wacko right-wing group handy (while stating my personal opinions) by the left-wingers posting at this site. Let's see ... right-wingers can be directly compared to every wacko group out there as long as a left-winger does it. But, left-wingers get all bent out of shape when one comparison is made of them. Way to out-class me in a simple discussion on 'party loyalty'.


    "I will address one "lie," as you call it, however. You call Classic Liberal a liar for saying that every Republican said the Clinton plans would kill the economy, while noting that they ALL voted against those plans."

    How about he just look up the speeches by Mark Hatfield. From what I read, he was NOT on the republican side of things until he was threatened with professional recourse if he didn't change his vote ... which he reluctantly did after those threats. So, perhaps you could help CL out a little and check on that yourself.
    Maybe he made an assumption maybe it was hyperbole. Either way he was wrong and refused to correct himself when it was pointed out. You even defend his stance by restating those assumptions or hyperbole. Again, way to out-class me in this discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Now that is funny. Gotta love your non-response response to the first line you quoted. The question wasn't my 'party loyalty' (you do love non-sequiturs, don't you?), but your statement that Turner, being a Democrat, spoke for all Democrats. This was, logically and demonstrably, untrue, and you had to know it. And that, Sweet William, makes your statement a lie. If you disagree with that, show me the logic that brings you to the conclusion. In the form of a syllogism, please.

    Yeah, I'll go back and check Hatfield's speeches, and I'll even do some Tennessee research, when you answer, with documentation, Brabantio's request that you name the "scientific proof" that was brought to show that women and blacks deserved civil rights, and most importantly, when you explain what you meant by, "...enough on his plate, dealing with his gay friends..."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Yeah, I'll go back and check Hatfield's speeches, and I'll even do some Tennessee research"

      No you won't. You wouldn't even if I did show there was scientific proof that females were born female and blacks were born black before DNA was around. But, gee ... science was so dumb before DNA that no scientist alive knew that females and blacks were born that way. So, I guess you're off the hook ... you can ignore another opportunity to show up a dumb right-winger who simply points out the idiocy of left-wing logic.

      Delete
    2. " Gotta love your non-response response to the first line you quoted. The question wasn't my 'party loyalty' "

      Gotta love your ability to comprehend what is written. "Party loyalty" is what this ARTICLE is about. But since you never actually discuss on-topic you wouldn't know what this article is about. You must really think the world revolves around you, huh? Don't worry, nothing unexpected there.

      Good think you are so intelligent and knew that. Now you can come back with some kind of brilliant response and out-class me again. I should be embarrassed trying to discuss with you. I am so out-classed by your brilliance and ability to follow what is written.


      Just in case (you probably need this): that is sarcasm. But, in all your brilliance ... you already knew that, didn't you?

      BTW, the topic hasn't changed, I just don't expect to hear from you or any other left-winger after I blew you out of the water while you defended left-wing liars and misinformers. I'm sure you've checked on those speeches and are too embarrassed to post again after supporting and defending that kind of person (liar/misinformer). Maybe cl is really a right-winger ... they get blamed for lying and misinforming all the time, you know.

      Delete
    3. I do love the way you thrash around, throw names, and declare victory when you can't back up something you've said. I'll repeat: "... your statement that Turner, being a Democrat, spoke for all Democrats. This was, logically and demonstrably, untrue, and you had to know it. And that, Sweet William, makes your statement a lie. If you disagree with that, show me the logic that brings you to the conclusion. In the form of a syllogism, please."

      A syllogism, William, is the basic building block of logic. It takes this form:
      Major premise: All reptiles are animals.
      Minor Premise: All snakes are reptiles.
      Conclusion: All snakes are animals.

      The kicker is, of course, that the premises have to be known to be factual, if the conclusion is to be accepted as factual.

      Now, let's be clear. I don't expect you to respond to this with anything but smoke and mirrors. After you've done that, I'll show you why, "He's a Democrat, therefore he speaks for all Democrats," would have a kid in his first week of Logic 101 rolling on the floor laughing, even if he'd never heard of Democrats before.

      Delete
  14. I see the guy who thought there were 57 states (during his initial campaign for the presidency) now thinks there were "Polish death camps". How can someone who is the head of the greatest nation in the world be so stupid? You'd think he is trying to out-do the Bush's. Is there no end to the mental blunders this guy makes? Maybe he's still using cocaine or pot. Perhaps he was drunk again.
    Oh well, what do you expect from a former "community organizer"? After all that drug use there can only be so many brain cells left that actually work. No wonder right-wingers would have preferred an old man and ditzy broad instead of Obama as president.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. William, if you were to increase your intelligence ten-fold, you'd still be light years behind the President whom you stupidly label, "stupid." But of course, you declare yourself victor in every argument you're in, so there's nothing new in this. Reading your exchanges with Brabs and CL, and chuckling at your "I win!!" score cards, reminds me of the old joke about Zorro and El Commandante (with you as the Commandante.) After a few moments of furious swordplay, Zorro launches a vicious, horizontal backhand, over El Commandante's parry and toward his neck. "Ha-HA!" crows the villain, "You missed!" "Oh, si?" says Zorro. "Shake your head."

      Delete
    2. I could mention how he has his list of terrorists that he will send drones to kill, if you want. That list includes children (did you know that?). Or I could mention how he acts like a republican the way he travels to our state for 1 day in order to raise millions in donations through high priced dinners.
      It must really burn you up knowing that the president you thought would be so different than Bush will attack any sovereign nation he wants in efforts to kill those terrorists too ... just like Bush. I bet you're seething inside knowing the guy you thought was a liberal acts just like a conservative when it comes to national security. Isn't that one of your biggest whines about Bush? ... How he attacked sovereign nations illegally in order to curb potential violence against American interests? Obama has been doing the same thing from day 1. Yet, you're proud of his actions. Hmmm ... go figure

      Delete
  15. I responded to a specific thing you wrote about the President, and you come back with a meandering slander about the way you think I think. You've consistently shown on this blog that you have a predetermined set of beliefs (those are called prejudices) about liberals and the way liberals think, and nothing can shake your faith in those fantasies: (" No, I'm right..."). I'm not about to waste my time trying to get you to rise above your bigotry, so believe what you like.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What is the title of this article that Eddie started? If you got a problem with me posting "on-topic" then take that up with someone who cares.

      Why don't you simply answer the question posed to you, unless you want to take this off-topic again and bring another of your family members into a political discussion. That seems to be you MO, bring your family into the discussion then whine about how others take advantage of that idiocy.

      Delete
  16. Go back to the beginning of our tete-a-tete. You responded to my comment to Classic Liberal about your misunderstanding (either willfully or because you're so programmed) our arguments. THAT"S the topic between us, and you prove your mendacity with every post. As far as Classic Liberal 'lying,' goes, I think Eddie said it as well as it can be said:

    "And this is the MO of William. Nitpick irrelvencies, miss the point, ignore the MEAT of the argument and the big picture stuff, and act like he won, becuase somebady made a general statement rather than quote a precies figure THE EXACT NUMBER OF WHICH WOULD BE IRRELEVANT.

    That's why these thing go on forever and say absolutely nothing. He has nothing to offer as a direct counter argument, so he "disproves" things that are not even central to the point."

    This is, of course, a description of classic right wing rhetoric: if 99 statements support a liberal position, and one undermines it, no matter how weakly, that one rules, and the other 99 are either lies or irrelevant. You've been well programmed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "THAT"S the topic between us, and you prove your mendacity with every post."

      This isn't about YOU. As much as you liberals think the world revolves around you ... it doesn't. I am talking about the subject of Eddies article. I DID say that, didn't I? What part of that could you not understand?

      Now, perhaps you will actually answer a question posed to you (I doubt it, but it's worth asking):
      Isn't that one of your biggest whines about Bush ... how he attacked sovereign nations illegally in order to curb potential violence against American interests?

      Delete
    2. "Isn't that one of your biggest whines about Bush ... how he attacked sovereign nations illegally in order to curb potential violence against American interests?"

      As expected, you give no reply to the actual concern about Bush illegally attacking sovereign nations while accepting, as legal, Obama attacking sovereign nations. Maybe you just don't feel comfortable discussing such nitpicked irrelevancies. Gosh I would hate to think you support a democrat when he attacks sovereign nations but denounce a republican when he attacked a sovereign nation based on what politics they adhere to. There's a word for that kind of support, but you think I use it too much when describing left-wing methods of conversation. Just because that description fits your stance on that subject means nothing, though ... huh?

      Unless, of course, you want to bring your family members back into the discussion.
      BTW, you've had plenty of time to investigate the Tennessee abstinence program and speeches made by Mark Hatfield. Well? Did I lie about either?

      Delete
  17. "BTW, you've had plenty of time to investigate the Tennessee abstinence program and speeches made by Mark Hatfield. Well? Did I lie about either?"

    Nope. As I said above, I'll do that when you can give a logical defense for, "He's a Democrat, therefore he speaks for all Democrats." That is, of course, an impossibility, but I'd like to see you try. I won't hold my breath, though. You're usually AWOL or wrong when it comes to backing up your claims.

    Don't assume that, because I'm not discussing it with you, I've taken no steps to protest the illegal drone program.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Nope. As I said above, I'll do that when you can give a logical defense for, "He's a Democrat, therefore he speaks for all Democrats." "

      You mean when you refer to my RW stances as similar to all other RW stances (such as the John Birch society) you are using "logic"? Since when are you allowed to generalize but others are not? Isn't that a bit hypocritical ... but wait .. you ARE a liberal, so that is to be expected (not wrong, mind you, just expected). Never mind. I guess I just whined to a blank wall.

      No reply is expected from you. Since you don't allow us to use the same logic that you use, I wouldn't expect you to logically answer anything.

      Delete
    2. Me: Well? Did I lie about either?

      You: Nope.


      Sorry, didn't mean to take your answer out of context in my previous statement.

      Delete