Well, MediaMatters did an excellent write up to Sean Hannity's continued Islamophobic attacks on Congressmen Keith Ellison, and Ellison's response that Hannity should be ashamed at being so immoral by saying so may things on the air that aren't true. Haniity, for his part, just amped up his attacks, but here's a list of 10 Examples of Sean Hannity saying things that aren't true.
If you don't want to read the whole post, here's the short list. If you [Conservatives] doubt any of these, don't bother arguing them here unless you first check out the citations and background evidence that MMFA presents. I grow weary of replying to such arguments with "read the fucking article."
10. Hannity Hyped RNC's Doctored Audio Of Supreme Court Arguments. [Media Matters, 3/30/12]
9. Hannity Distorted CBO Data To Attack Obama. [Media Matters, 2/2/12]
8. Hannity Falsely Claimed A White House Adviser "Advocated Compulsory Abortion." [Media Matters, 9/9/09]
7. Hannity Falsely Claimed Obama Called The Death Of Four Americans "Just A Bump In The Road." [Media Matters, 9/25/12]
6. Hannity Spread False Report That Egypt Was Considering Necrophilia Bill. [Media Matters, 4/30/12; Huffington Post, 4/26/12]
5. Hannity's Special On "Liberal Bias" Featured Wildly Distorted And Out-Of-Context Quotes. [Media Matters, 4/24/11]
4. Hannity Cast Doubt On Scientific Consensus About Climate Change. [Media Matters, 12/4/09, 1/13/10, 8/27/10, 11/19/10, 6/24/11]
3. Hannity Fueled Myth That Obama Is A Muslim. [Media Matters, 3/24/11, 3/21/12]
2. Hannity Fed The Birther Movement. [Media Matters, 3/28/11, 4/20/12]
1. Hannity Ignored Overwhelming Evidence To Repeatedly Claim Obama's Policies Have Not Helped Improve The Economy. [Media Matters, 1/13/10, 7/14/11, 2/2/12]
And remember... This is a man who's paid approximately $20,000,000 per year - enough to hire over 500 School Teacher, about 230 Engineers, or 80 Medical Doctors.
And as interesting as I'm sure it will be to see some anonymous Conservative poster try to debunk ANY
of these as not being actual false hoods, I defy that same poster, or indeed
any Conservative to give me a similar list for say, Rachael Maddow, or Keith
Olberman, or Ed Shultz, or Chris O'Donnell, or MMFA for that matter!
(Remember when William tried that? He posted one example of
MMFA ADMITTING they got something wrong, one example that was clearly a true
statement, and one that was said (by some RW website) to contain misinformation,
which turned out to be taken verbatim from the subject's own tax returns!)
I'm sure any Conservative could come up with a list of 10
examples of things that were said by one of these people that were LIBERAL, but
I'll vote a strait Republican ticket in the 2014 mid-terms if they can come up
with a list of 10 examples of things that were said by one of these people that
were actually FALSE.
Lots of luck!
"And as interesting as I'm sure it will be to see some anonymous Conservative poster try to debunk ANY of these as not being actual false hoods, I defy that same poster, or indeed any Conservative to give me a similar list for say, Rachael Maddow, or Keith Olberman, or Ed Shultz, or Chris O'Donnell, or MMFA for that matter!"
ReplyDeleteOne on of the recent threads at MMfA I had a similar argument with someone who claimed that the idiotic bellyaching about Michelle Obama's appearance at the Oscars was just part of the game, both sides have their views, etc. I promptly called "false equivalence" on it, subsequently explaining (in part) that there's no parallel to Limbaugh, Savage, et al (don't think I specified Hannity, oddly). Of course, the reaction is to the effect of "I could bring examples..." but when pressed, they don't. Of course there are some instances that a conservative can point to, but they simply don't come close in amount or degree to what people like Hannity do.
It goes well beyond any problem of accuracy into the realm of integrity. If someone makes a mistake, fine. Even if they don't correct it (which, of course, they should), it doesn't mean it was an intentional lie. With people like Hannity, there's no way to give anyone the benefit of the doubt. There's simply too much, to an extreme degree, and all towards a common goal of demonizing the opposition in the most blatant ways possible.
There's simply nobody like that on the left, as far as I've ever seen.
More than anything else, back in the early days, it was what brought me around to accpeting the Liberal Positions and Argument:
DeleteLiberals bring evidence to proove that you're wrong.
Conservtaives bring evidence to proove that you're Liberal.
And no, you're aboslutely right, there's no equivalency at all.
When they stop telling lies about us, we'll stop telling the truth about them!
Isn't Olberman a tax evader? I thought I remember him being in the news around 2008 (or so) for not paying his fair share of the national debt. Now he is one of your top heroes.
DeleteDidn't David Chalian get in trouble, during the republican convention, for making racist statements? Now, isn't he vice president at Politico? Wow, they sure got the right man for thier organization.
Didn't Dan Rather forge documents just to cause Bush to lose an election? Wasn't he forced out of his job because of that bit of dishonesty?
Sorry, barbantio, you wanted 4 examples but I only brought 3. Gosh, that will mean you can claim there are only 3 crooks among those godly liberals pundits.
I'll bet that happens within 3 or 4 sentences of any reply given this statement.
Where did I ask for four examples? Where did I say Olbermann was one of my heroes? I didn't even know you were talking to me until you intentionally mispelled my name again.
DeleteBut if you are talking to me, let me repeat:"Of course there are some instances that a conservative can point to, but they simply don't come close in amount or degree to what people like Hannity do."
So, thanks for proving my point.
You know, this is an interesting subject. The left always whines about the right. And, of course, vice-a-versa. You can access (on the internet) any number of left wing pundits who fail and right wing pundits who fail. Is there really any purpose to that?
DeleteI don't usually see people make arguments that I've explicitly addressed.
DeleteYou can't cite the same amount of people who "fail" on the left as on the right. Especially since the degree of inaccuracy doesn't allow a reasonable person to believe that it's unintentional. Are we supposed to believe Hannity or Limbaugh just make that many innocent mistakes that all happen to support their rabid ideologies?
You're also implying that internet sources are equally valid. Newsbusters, for instance, claims that anything in the media that doesn't support conservative causes is evidence of "bias" against conservatives. I'm really not exaggerating. So, their citation of what they classify as "left-wing" (including Matthews, who was cited in your link below) is not necessarily accurate. Obviously, if conservatives have to lie in order to propel their agenda, then certain websites have to follow suit in order to help the cause.
You're just pushing more of the same false equivalence.
Enjoy this Comic about GOP Manufactured Scandals
ReplyDeleteThis is a good site that shows the dangers of listening to and paying attention to liberal pundits: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/02/rough-week-for-liberals-three-deranged-far-left-killers-make-the-news/
ReplyDeleteSorry, I realize this isn't the subject, but you did ask for examples of the dangers of liberal pundits, right? Well, there you have a couple that show liberal pundits tell people to kill just like right-wing pundits do. So, now you've gotten 6 examples. Just 4 more and you vow to vote republican.
Where do those examples show how liberal pundits told people to kill? Your wording is very specific, putting blame on liberal media figures, while your link does not support it.
DeleteAnd that is EXACTLY what right wingers say about the left's supposed 'connection' of right wingers to other similar situations.
DeleteAnon,
DeleteWere you born this stupid, or did you have to work at it?
So... A couple of "liberal" guys do some bad stuff. So fucking what?! You want me to bury you with examples of that sort of thing coming not only from teh Right, but from peolpe who ACTUALLY MATTER and are EMPLOYED by the Republican Party?
Go here: http://armchairsubversive.blogspot.com
Or here: http://www.republicanoffenders.com
I gave 10 example of a SINGLE Conservtaive Broadcaster (just one of MANY) ACTIVELY LYING TO THE PUBLIC. You're still at -ZERO- examples of a Liberal doing the same. (I would be generous to concede even Dan Rather, and that story has far more to it that the RW suggests, and, no, the documents weren't "forged." That's a lie.)
And where do you get the idea that Politico is some LIBERAL outfit? Do you see them in MY Hall of Fame? MMFA goes after them ALL THE TIME. You lot just see them as Liberal because what they do resembles journalism slightly more that than the crap they put out over at, well, Gateway Pundit, for example. Something isn't "Liberal" just because so hard-right propaganda mill SAYS it is, because they occasionally disagree.
BTW... You don't listen to Limbaugh, but you read crap like the Gateway Pundit? Dude: It's all the same RW crap! A quick look over their headlines and "intellectually dishonest" is about the BEST thing I can say about them. You people wouldn't know a reliable source of information if it slandered you!
You still have yet to show me a single example of what I asked for: A LIBERAL PUNDIT DECIEVING THE PUBLIC BY BROADCATSING A DEMONSTRABLE FALSEHOOD. (Or, if I'm feeling generous, I'll give you 1.)
Olbermann evaded taxes? OK, whatever. So did Romney. I don't care. Show me when Olbermann LIED TO THE PUBLC ON THE AIR and it would be relevant.
False equivalence. They can say the same thing, without merit. Your goal was to make a dishonest argument, in order to demonstrate that conservatives claim liberals make a dishonest argument against them? Bizarre, to say the least.
DeleteAnd what does this have to do with Hannity, by the way? Even if your argument was valid, what does it change regarding a serial liar who gets support from conservative media?
Eddie, your article is full of ONE person doing bad stuff. I guess I was born dumb because I don't see a difference between bad lefties and bad righties. Do you?
Delete"You still have yet to show me a single example of what I asked for: A LIBERAL PUNDIT DECIEVING THE PUBLIC BY BROADCATSING A DEMONSTRABLE FALSEHOOD." .. Yes, I did. The Dan Rather reference takes care of that. Oh you mean 'current' ones. Well, I made your excuse for you. You're welcome.
Rather doesn't cut it. He lost his job for unprofessional reporting (note Hannity is still employed), but the content of the memos was substantiated. He was conned, not a forger.
DeleteRather is a good example of left wing pundits LYING to promote their ideals. Eddie asked for one example and I provided it. Losing a job or still having a job was NOT one of the parameters for acceptability. He deceived the public and it changed the way an American Presidential election progressed. He was the worst of the worst. He used his position of public trust to further his hatred of a political party.
DeleteExcept that, as I said, the memos were substantiated. The information was accurate, the problem was that he didn't properly verify the memos themselves. He was conned, which anyone familiar with the story is aware of. It quite conveniently helped Bush, who was under fire for his laughable military record.
DeleteThe point about getting fired doesn't have to do so much with the parameters as it does with the general difference between the two sides. If Rather was a serial offender, then why would he have lasted as long as he did? Meanwhile, honesty is no requirement - at all - for people like Hannity. It's a disqualifier, if anything.
Rather was wrong, but it's a stretch to attribute it to hatred of Republicans. Being over-aggressive in chasing and promoting a story is more like it.
"If Rather was a serial offender, then why would he have lasted as long as he did?" ... for the same reason limbaugh has lasted so long. Like minds think alike. Is that why you are defending Rather? Because you think lying is ok as long as it promotes your party? He LIED to the American public and those LIES changed the course of the US Government. He should have been jailed not just fired. He was a life-long crook and liar. You don't just become a liar on a whim. And you are defending him as being "over-aggresive"
Delete"BTW... You don't listen to Limbaugh, but you read crap like the Gateway Pundit?" ... Where do you get that from, eddie? You aren't going to say that linking an article means I am a life-long subsriber, are you? I thought only brabantio acted that way. Perhaps you are him? I've noticed he's changed age and occupation over the past year. Maybe you just use that name so no one else sees the stupidity being brought by him and now you.
Delete"I've noticed he's changed age and occupation over the past year."
DeleteOh, this should be hilarious. You have substantiation for that, I presume?
"... for the same reason limbaugh has lasted so long. Like minds think alike."
DeleteThat makes no sense. Rather was an anchor. Limbaugh is on conservative radio. There isn't any self-perpetuating liberal bubble similar to what the right does, and there never has been.
"Is that why you are defending Rather?"
There used to be a claim that Dan Quayle made a comment about Latin America regarding his regret that he didn't learn Latin in high school. He never said it. I defend Quayle from that lie the same way I defend Rather from the claim that he's a forger.
"He LIED to the American public and those LIES changed the course of the US Government."
Bush was elected. What's the supposed change?
"He was a life-long crook and liar. You don't just become a liar on a whim. And you are defending him as being "over-aggresive""
That's logically bankrupt. Current behavior doesn't prove past behavior. You're still not addressing the facts of the case. It was admitted that he was lied to during the course of his gathering of the story. He was conned. Do you actually know anything about it, or are you just parroting people who falsely claimed he was a forger?
You mean "I" am required to substantiate claims I make? Why am I required and you are not? Are you saying that I cannot lie and mislead (without explanation) like you do?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteYou left that one reply for two posts, and I thought you were referring to the second one. Apparently you have nothing more to say about Rather.
DeleteYes, if you claim that I've changed age (people do have birthdays, so I have to assume you mean an impossible shift in age) and occupation over the last year, then you should back that up. That's not a hypothetical, that's something you're saying is verifiable. Does the difference need to be explained to you? Or are you just making a general baseless assertion? You've never...I repeat, never proven a lie on my part. You say it often, but you've never substantiated that.
So, is that all that was, just a childish attempt at false equivalence? You claim that I lie, so you're going to make up random falsehoods whenever you feel like it? I would think that if you really believed that, you would strive to do better, to show how you have better values and morals instead of lowering yourself to what you seem to think is the abyss of liberalism.
But, maybe you just don't have that level of maturity. And maybe you don't really believe I'm lying. Thoughts?
"That's not a hypothetical, that's something you're saying is verifiable." ... What you're crying about is not "hypothetical" either. You claim there WILL be an expense. Provide how much that expense is. You claim there WILL be clogged court systems. Provide the proof that will happen.
DeleteWhen you do that, you will get the info you ask for.
"You claim that I lie, so you're going to make up random falsehoods whenever you feel like it?" ... Why not? You do it with (apparently) complete support of all the other democrats who post here. What makes you think I can't lie about facts whenever I want ... just like YOU DO.
"... What you're crying about is not "hypothetical" either. You claim there WILL be an expense."
DeleteFuture tense, or predictions, relies on hypothetical arguments. It hasn't happened yet, so it's conjectural. You're claiming something that's already happened, which is directly verifiable.
"Provide how much that expense is."
It would depend on the benefits claimed and the people claiming them. You're not explaining how that's supposed to be quantified.
"You claim there WILL be clogged court systems. Provide the proof that will happen."
Still no such thing as "proof" of a hypothetical, no matter how many times you make the irrational demand.
"Why not? You do it with (apparently) complete support of all the other democrats who post here. What makes you think I can't lie about facts whenever I want ... just like YOU DO."
What "facts" have I lied about? I said from the start that concerns about polygamy are hypothetical, so they're opinion. There's no alternative. There are no facts either way, so there was never anything for me to lie about. Again, you love to say that I lie, but you can never substantiate it. Ever. Not one goddamn time. Prove me wrong, if you can.
Besides that, I thought you followed the Bible. It says in there you're not supposed to lie, in case you never read it (like I have). So, if you really want to argue that it's fine for you to break a commandment because you claim that I do, then you're proving that your morals shift based on circumstances.
Is that really where you want to go, since you're so proud of your supposedly consistent morals? Think carefully.
"Future tense, or predictions, relies on hypothetical arguments." ... You haven't claimed hypothetical continually. You have continued to say these things WILL happen based on your bigoted stance on polygamy.
Delete"It would depend on the benefits claimed and the people claiming them. You're not explaining how that's supposed to be quantified." ... Do I have to explain everything to you? Really?? Give me the 'high' cost and the 'low' cost. Let's find out how accurate you are with your bigoted fears of an alternative lifestyle.
"Still no such thing as "proof" of a hypothetical, no matter how many times you make the irrational demand." ... Perhaps you shouldn't have made such an irrational claim. There is NO proof it will happen and NO proof it will not happen. It is ALL in your bigoted fear of an alternative lifestyle.
"Besides that, I thought you followed the Bible." ... Yes, I do follow the Bible. Changing the subject again? I know it says you should not lie. However, YOU do NOT follow the Bible, so you lie as often as you want. But, that's mainly from being a democrat.
You see, the problem (abuse) is that I HAVE shown you to be a liar. Several times.
Now, back to Dan Rather. How can you say his dishonesty doesn't count? He did exactly what Eddie is whining about republicans doing. And HIS actions changed the course of American History. At what point has ANYONE cared what Hannity or Limbaugh say? Have THEY changed the course of American History with their lies? Dan Rather did ... and you defend him? Really?
"Except that, as I said, the memos were substantiated." ... They were FORGED. It has been proven over and over. Are you bringing more lies again? Perhaps you can prove your statement THIS TIME? I'd like to see you try to prove that Rather didn't provide forged documents. And that aint any "hypothetical" either.
Delete"... You haven't claimed hypothetical continually. You have continued to say these things WILL happen based on your bigoted stance on polygamy."
Delete"Things WILL happen" is a hypothetical. Because it's not actually verifiable, since polygamy is still illegal.
"... Do I have to explain everything to you? Really?? Give me the 'high' cost and the 'low' cost."
For who? All government employees? You can't even explain the relevance, so your attempt to waste my time is transparent. If you explain what difference it makes, and what exactly you're looking for, then we can move forward.
"... Perhaps you shouldn't have made such an irrational claim. There is NO proof it will happen and NO proof it will not happen."
I was hoping you would say something like that. Remember, you brought up the subject of polygamy. Did you not know it was illegal? Did you not comprehend that any discussion of legalization would automatically involve a hypothetical situation? If you didn't want to talk about something that couldn't be proven either way, then you should have thought about that before you brought this up.
"Changing the subject again? I know it says you should not lie. However, YOU do NOT follow the Bible, so you lie as often as you want."
Of course, "changing the subject", meaning anything that's inconvenient to you. You have barometer morals, by your own admission. So much for your claims of consistency. Unless you can point to the footnote in the Bible that says "unless someone else bears false witness", you're done.
"You see, the problem (abuse) is that I HAVE shown you to be a liar. Several times."
Point one:"problem" and "abuse" don't mean the same thing in every context. Point two:you've never demonstrated a lie on my part. Note you assert it, again, with no evidence.
"How can you say his dishonesty doesn't count? He did exactly what Eddie is whining about republicans doing."
It's a weak example because there are several other players involved, who bear responsibility as well. If you're familiar with the story, you know this.
"And HIS actions changed the course of American History."
This still makes no sense. If anything, it helped Bush.
"At what point has ANYONE cared what Hannity or Limbaugh say?"
You don't care. So what? Are you going to tell me that people with that broad an audience don't have an impact on the national discourse? Give me a break.
"Dan Rather did ... and you defend him? Really?"
I said he acted professionally. Attributing it to vindictive partisanship is harder to establish. That's not really much of a defense as much as it is a distinction, since what he did was still wrong.
"... They were FORGED. It has been proven over and over."
Actually, I'm not sure even that's fully established, since there were machines that could have printed that font at the time. It's also more difficult to determine since copies were analyzed and the originals destroyed. But the point I'm making is that the content was genuine, which is what really makes the entire story suspect. Why would the legitimate content be forged onto new paperwork? It makes no sense at all. If Rather had access to that information, then a relay of that information is still a story. He wouldn't need it on paper, so what's the point? It's a completely unnecessary risk. Then the source of the memos admitted that he lied about the documents. Like Eddie said, there's more to it than the right wing likes to claim.
"I'd like to see you try to prove that Rather didn't provide forged documents."
Compare to:"Didn't Dan Rather forge documents just to cause Bush to lose an election?" Can you spot the difference? I can.
That should read "acted unprofessionally", of course, in accordance with what I said earlier.
Delete"For who?" ... Just do it. God can't you do anything without someone explaining everything to you?
Delete"Did you not know it was illegal?" ... Yes, I know it's illegal. So is gay marriage. What part of 'gay marriage CURRENTLY cloggs the court system' while you fear a miniscule amount of polygamists may cost your your retirement do you NOT understand?!?
"Actually, I'm not sure even that's fully established, " ... Of course not, you're a sheeple.
"Compare to:" ... What? Are you denying that was his motivation? I see why Eddie lets you on his site, you're so easily manipulated.
"... Just do it."
DeleteNo. Explain the relevance, and then we'll move forward. I'm not obligated to obey nonsensical commands from you.
"... Yes, I know it's illegal."
Then you must have known that the discussion was hypothetical. So why did you bring it up, then act shocked that there weren't facts laying about the place?
"So is gay marriage. What part of 'gay marriage CURRENTLY cloggs the court system' while you fear a miniscule amount of polygamists may cost your your retirement do you NOT understand?!?"
You never proved any such problem with gay marriage, nor did you address the point that legalizing it would end any court action, as opposed to the onset of such action with the legalization of polygamy. I can restate this point over and over, if you feel the need to keep dodging it.
"... Of course not, you're a sheeple."
An adult could actually try to contest the point.
"... What? Are you denying that was his motivation?"
Compare "provide forged documents" to "didn't Dan Rather forge documents". And yes, there's a serious question regarding his motivation, for reasons cited and which you're getting an early start ignoring.
"I'm not obligated to obey nonsensical commands from you." ... You're not obligated to provide proof of the claims you make-up? Ok, at least we have that 'standard' figured out.
Delete"Then you must have known that the discussion was hypothetical." ... So, you'll just make shit up in order to have an excuse to whine about alternative lifestyles. You are the ultimate hypocrite.
"... You're not obligated to provide proof of the claims you make-up?"
DeleteNothing I've said relies on specific costs. If you have evidence to the contrary, bring it.
" ... So, you'll just make shit up in order to have an excuse to whine about alternative lifestyles."
Hypothetical discussions involve...ready? Hypotheticals. Would you like to go around the carousel again on this, or what?
"Nothing I've said relies on specific costs. " ... yet another non-truth (lie). You claimed the sudden and huge increase in court cases will clogg it up and then you added that ALL THOSE PEOPLE who will be "scamming the system" will COST the US taxpayers a bundle.
DeletePeople who use hypotheticals every day are able to give hypothetical costs of various possiblities within the hypothetical. People like you use them to give excuses why you can't fullfill their obligations. You must be a democrat.
"... yet another non-truth (lie). You claimed the sudden and huge increase in court cases will clogg it up and then you added that ALL THOSE PEOPLE who will be "scamming the system" will COST the US taxpayers a bundle."
DeleteWhy does that rely on specific costs? If people add a bunch of dependents into the system, then there's an increase in costs. Why, especially at this point in time, would we consider that without extremely compelling reasons to do so? The "rights" of people to have as many spouses as they like is not particularly compelling. If you want to argue that payment for housing, food and medical coverage is negligible, I'd like to hear it. Especially since the problem is that you don't know how many people are going to do it, with how many spouses. Going off of your number of 100 people, my hypothetical increase meant 30,000 people. Compared to the pool of government employees, that's a pretty damn low percentage. Even housing and food alone (for me, never mind people who have COLA) is $1300 per month. So you do the math, bearing in mind it's an extremely low estimate, not even including medical costs or COLA.
Notice that you already had access to those numbers, by the way. Does it make a difference?
"Why does that rely on specific costs?" .. Because you used it as a reason to deny consenting adults the right to marry.
Delete"If you want to argue that payment for housing, food and medical coverage is negligible, I'd like to hear it." ... When you can show the taxpayer will be making those payments, I'd like to see it.
".. Because you used it as a reason to deny consenting adults the right to marry."
DeleteAs a principle, sure. I didn't determine a cut-off point where some amount of extra cost was acceptable, though, so specifics don't make or break my argument.
"... When you can show the taxpayer will be making those payments, I'd like to see it."
I assume you mean I have to prove that people will take advantage of an opportunity to get money from the government (as opposed to asking for proof that taxpayers pay for government employment, which it also sounds like)? If you don't think that's the case, then you must think that welfare recipients should write their own checks. Nobody does the wrong thing, so it shouldn't be a problem, right? Tell me where you differ from that position, if you do.
"I assume you mean I have to prove that people will take advantage of an opportunity to get money from the government (as opposed to asking for proof that taxpayers pay for government employment, which it also sounds like)?" ... Under what circumstances are such a large population of polygamists going to have the government pay for their "housing, food and medical coverage" that it would be an incredible expense to the taxpayers?
Delete"If you don't think that's the case, then you must think that welfare recipients should write their own checks. Nobody does the wrong thing, so it shouldn't be a problem, right? Tell me where you differ from that position, if you do." ... Are you now calling all polygamists welfare recipients and all welfare recipients scam artists? Wow, you are really a bigot. It's also very racist at it's core. Do you really want to go down that road?
And, if you fear how much money welfare recipients receive, then you should just cut them all off. That way you can save your pressious money for the multitude of court cases already causing a financial drain on our system by those demanding gay marriage.
"... Under what circumstances are such a large population of polygamists going to have the government pay for their "housing, food and medical coverage" that it would be an incredible expense to the taxpayers?"
ReplyDeleteUnder the circumstances that you're going to give benefits to people who simply take on more spouses. Do you not realize that if I wanted to (and I don't), I could make a profit on that? Simply arrange to take a cut of the housing payments given to my new wives. Why the hell can't I do that? Take 20% from three new wives, that's disposable income of $600 a month. And here's the kicker;I have no interest in having multiple wives. I'm not inclined towards polygamy. Could you prove that, from an outside perspective? Why no, no you could not. You can't prove that I don't genuinely love those women. Again, it's not just about "polygamists", the way you're using the term. It's about people who take advantage of the opportunity.
"... Are you now calling all polygamists welfare recipients and all welfare recipients scam artists?"
No, it's a comparison, intended for you to explain your view on human nature. Since that's been straightened out for you, kindly answer the question.
"And, if you fear how much money welfare recipients receive, then you should just cut them all off."
Saying that they shouldn't write their own checks doesn't indicate "fear" of how much money they receive.
"Again, it's not just about "polygamists", the way you're using the term. It's about people who take advantage of the opportunity." ... It is the way YOU are using polygamy. YOU are saying that polygamists WILL scam the system, and welfare recipients WILL become polygamists just so they can scam the system more.
ReplyDeleteYour math means nothing out of context like that. Where is the evidence that the taxpayer will be paying all the money to house/feed/provide medical of all polygamists.
"Saying that they shouldn't write their own checks doesn't indicate "fear" of how much money they receive." ... yes it does.
"... It is the way YOU are using polygamy. YOU are saying that polygamists WILL scam the system, and welfare recipients WILL become polygamists just so they can scam the system more."
DeleteNo, because the point is that people who have no legitimate interest in polygamy will pretend to. It's not even a comment about genuine polyamorists. As for welfare recipients, some people will surely do that. Some people do rip off welfare, so that's a legitimate concern. Thanks for making that point in my favor. So, can I take it that you support letting welfare recipients write their own checks, since opposition of that seems to be bigoted in your view?
"Your math means nothing out of context like that. Where is the evidence that the taxpayer will be paying all the money to house/feed/provide medical of all polygamists."
What "context" do you need for the clear possibility of personal profit? And where did the phrase of "all" polygamists come from? Taxpayers pay for military benefits, so if I (or anyone else) wanted to make that profit, then the taxpayer would cover it. How the question supposedly became coverage for "all" polygamists is a mystery.
"... yes it does."
No, it does not. I can support welfare and not want people to have extra loopholes to exploit at the same time. Prove otherwise, if you can.
"As for welfare recipients, some people will surely do that. Some people do rip off welfare, so that's a legitimate concern." .. But, gays NEVER are on welfare and so they NEVER scam the government, right? That is why you support gay marriage rights? Because THEY would NEVER scam the government or be on welfare?
Delete"And where did the phrase of "all" polygamists come from?" .. When YOU said they "People like to have control and power, so if you give multiple spouses equal standing, they will fight for said control and power at the opportunity.". That means when someone marries more than one person "THEY WILL" fight. You didn't say "some" or "a few" or "many". You said "THEY WILL FIGHT". No questions asked ... "they will fight".
"Taxpayers pay for military benefits, so if I (or anyone else) wanted to make that profit, then the taxpayer would cover it." ... I hate to do this. But, let's go over that slowly. How many polygamists will be in the US military? Of those, how many will be forced to scam the government by "human nature". That will obviously be a very small number. Now, how much is the taxpayer going to pay for housing/food/medical benifits for those NOT in the US military?
".. But, gays NEVER are on welfare and so they NEVER scam the government, right?"
DeleteWhat special benefits would they get that they couldn't get through heterosexual marriage?
"That means when someone marries more than one person "THEY WILL" fight."
No, any more than saying that if you allow welfare recipients to write their own checks, "people will overpay themselves". It doesn't imply "everyone". Besides that, as if that really had to be explained, not all polygamists are going to work for the government, so your question doesn't make sense on any level.
"How many polygamists will be in the US military?"
Are you asking for facts in a hypothetical discussion?
"Now, how much is the taxpayer going to pay for housing/food/medical benifits for those NOT in the US military?"
So, your argument is that because some people don't get benefits, the people that do aren't relevant? I'd love for you to explain what you were thinking when you typed that out.
"So, your argument is that because some people don't get benefits, the people that do aren't relevant? I'd love for you to explain what you were thinking when you typed that out." ... No. My argument is that a small number of polygamists will be in the military and a smaller number of those will scam the system and an even smaller number of welfare recipients will become polygamist just to scam the system making your stated fear of legal polygamy based on cost to taxpayers and court conjestion completely unfounded and ultimately based solely on your bigoted hatred of an alternative lifestyle.
Delete" ... No. My argument is that a small number of polygamists will be in the military and a smaller number of those will scam the system and an even smaller number of welfare recipients will become polygamist just to scam the system making your stated fear of legal polygamy based on cost to taxpayers and court conjestion completely unfounded and ultimately based solely on your bigoted hatred of an alternative lifestyle."
ReplyDeleteSo, how does "Now, how much is the taxpayer going to pay for housing/food/medical benifits for those NOT in the US military?" support that argument? You're talking about two completely independent concepts here. The number of polygamists outside of the system doesn't change the number inside the system and vice-versa. All you're doing is restating your claim and pretending that you're substantiating it.
Also, I'm eagerly waiting to hear what special benefits gay couples get that heterosexual couples do not. I'm also going to ask, again, whether you support legal polygamy or not, and if not on what grounds do you oppose it? If you're going to claim "bigoted hatred" for opposition, that suggests you support changing the law.
"Also, I'm eagerly waiting to hear what special benefits gay couples get that heterosexual couples do not." ... Why are you changing the subject again? Who has said ANYTHING about "special" benefits? Are you so demented that you cannot follow the conversation? Or are you just upset because I just finished wiping the floor with you in this discussion? Don't you hate it when it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are a bigot?
ReplyDelete"... Why are you changing the subject again? Who has said ANYTHING about "special" benefits?"
ReplyDeleteThis is what you said, a few posts up (which is therefore relevant, since you said it):".. But, gays NEVER are on welfare and so they NEVER scam the government, right?" How is that supposed to differ from heterosexual couples? The only way it makes sense is if there's some special benefit to gay marriage, because otherwise what's the motivation to enter a gay marriage as opposed to a traditional marriage?
"Don't you hate it when it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are a bigot?"
Do you support polygamy?
"Do you support polygamy?" ... No, I think it is an immoral lifestyle.
Delete"The only way it makes sense is if there's some special benefit to gay marriage, because otherwise what's the motivation to enter a gay marriage as opposed to a traditional marriage?" ... Context, try to follow along.
"... No, I think it is an immoral lifestyle."
DeleteSo, you're bigoted against polygamists.
"... Context, try to follow along."
I'm pretty sure you can't explain how that's supposed to make any sense at all.
"So, you're bigoted against polygamists." ...I've been called that many times because of my religious beliefs. Nothing new under the sun.
Delete"I'm pretty sure you can't explain.. " ... I'm pretty sure you wouldn't understand, even if I did explain it to you. I'm, also, pretty sure everyone else understands it.
"...I've been called that many times because of my religious beliefs."
ReplyDeleteIs that supposed to be a denial?
"... I'm pretty sure you wouldn't understand, even if I did explain it to you."
Try me. Or are you afraid?
"Is that supposed to be a denial?" ... I take it you are not capable to comprehend what you read?
Delete"Try me. Or are you afraid?" ... Not afraid, just knowledgable and experienced with the limits of your ability to understand what is written. Instead of me doing everything for you, just go back and re-read slowly and attempt to figure it out yourself. You'll never improve if everyone continues to do everything for you. I understand that's how democrats work, but in this instance you really need to achieve something on your own. Good luck with that.
"... I take it you are not capable to comprehend what you read?"
DeleteYour comment was vague. Would you rather that I assume your meaning, or ask?
"Instead of me doing everything for you, just go back and re-read slowly and attempt to figure it out yourself."
I've read it. Your reply makes no sense. You might as well have said "rutabega" and then said I wouldn't understand. It's simply a tactic for you to get out of addressing the question. Thanks for proving me right, though. I said you couldn't explain how it was supposed to make sense, and you can't do it.
"Your comment was vague." ... no, it was quite clear I was pointing out the hypocrisy of your stance on marriage rights. You want one abnormal behavior to be given priority over another. Not only priority, but you don't even want the two abnormal behaviors to have the same rights. Even though it has been demonstrated that both abnormal behaviors are not different enough for you to justify your bigoted/hypocritical stance on marriage rights. In fact, they are so similar that the ONLY issue you can bring is a 'numbers game' that, in itself, doesn't justify your position.
DeleteRutabega
"... no, it was quite clear I was pointing out the hypocrisy of your stance on marriage rights."
DeleteNo, the reference was to your comment about being called a bigot because of your religious views. You can pretend to not be able to remember a few posts back, but I don't forget that easily.
"Even though it has been demonstrated that both abnormal behaviors are not different enough for you to justify your bigoted/hypocritical stance on marriage rights."
It changes the entire framework of marriage, while all laws that apply to that have been based on "two consenting adults". Your pretense that the impact will be minimal and knee-jerk denials to the contrary don't constitute a demonstration otherwise. You also can't address the argument that polyamorists can still get married to one person and have an arrangement with others, while gay people (in most states) can't get married at all. The only thing that's really similar is your "abnormal" designation.
"but I don't forget that easily." ... Yes, apparently you DO.
Delete"It changes the entire framework of marriage, while all laws that apply to that have been based on "two consenting adults"." ... this shows what a liar you are. ALL the laws that apply are based on "One Man / One Woman". You couldn't bring a viable argument if someone did it for you (which is the preferred method for the democrat).
"You also can't address the argument that polyamorists can still get married to one person and have an arrangement with others, while gay people (in most states) can't get married at all." ... Are you going to mention the "arrangement with others" that gays have also? No, you would never mention that, because that would show what a hypocrite and bigot you are.
"The only thing that's really similar is your "abnormal" designation." ... NO. They are both sexual perversions (something you cannot deny). They are both abnormal, but it's the sexual perversion part that makes them what they are.
"It changes the entire framework of marriage, while all laws that apply to that have been based on "two consenting adults"." ... So does gay marriage. You know the "ONE MAN/ONE WOMAN" thing and all. What part of that do you not understand?
ReplyDeleteWhat are "polymorists"? I know you're such a stickler for grammatical perfection.
"... So does gay marriage. You know the "ONE MAN/ONE WOMAN" thing and all. What part of that do you not understand?"
Delete"Two consenting adults" is the framework in question. Not "ONE MAN/ONE WOMAN". No other laws are affected by gay marriage, because the "two consenting adults" framework is the same. What part of that don't you understand?
You're still dodging the question about whether or not you were denying being a bigot. I'm genuinely curious why your religious views give you immunity from being a bigot, if you think your objection to polygamy is somehow acceptable.
"What are "polymorists"?"
That would be your misspelling of the word that I spelled correctly. I like how you put it quotes, though, as if you relayed it accurately.
""Two consenting adults" is the framework in question. Not "ONE MAN/ONE WOMAN"." ... That's the "framework" that you choose to use. I use another,(IMHO), more reliable method.
DeleteLooks like you'll never budge from your bigoted views, either.
"You're still dodging the question about whether or not you were denying being a bigot." ... That HAS been answered already. Go back and do your own reading.
"... That's the "framework" that you choose to use."
DeleteBecause we're talking about a legal framework. Why would the law distinguish one man and one woman from "two consenting adults" when looking at any consequences to existing laws regarding marriage? Nothing changes. By your logic, interracial marriage wouldn't fit the framework because someone could have said the framework was specific to people of the same race. Your prejudices don't carry over to the objective arena, sorry.
"... That HAS been answered already. Go back and do your own reading."
On this thread? No, it wasn't. You questioned my comprehension and then pretended that my "vague" charge was regarding something else. Feel free to point out what you think was your answer.
Did you figure out where you got "polymorists" [sic] from? Maybe the copy and paste function on your computer is dropping letters randomly. You should look into that.
"By your logic, interracial marriage wouldn't fit the framework because someone could have said the framework was specific to people of the same race." ... You know, you've derogatorily brought up inter-racial marriage a couple times, now. Do you have a problem with races too? Wow, a bigot and racist. Didn't see that one coming ;) The way you're going, you may want to reconsider religion. You're certainly needing something to bring your morals back into kilter.
Delete"On this thread?" ... Doesn't have to be "this" subject. We've carried the same conversation over 3 different articles. BTW, you're floundering badly. This just takes the cake that you think I haven't admitted to being deemed a bigot by democrats for my views on sexual perversions.
" ... You know, you've derogatorily brought up inter-racial marriage a couple times, now. Do you have a problem with races too?"
DeleteIs that supposed to make sense? Obviously, since I'm criticizing your logic, I wouldn't be saying anything against interracial marriage. That's why your logic would be a problem, since I support them. Funny you talk about diversions on another thread, then you vomit out that inanity to avoid addressing the point here.
"... Doesn't have to be "this" subject."
Well, where and when are you talking about, then?
"This just takes the cake that you think I haven't admitted to being deemed a bigot by democrats for my views on sexual perversions."
I didn't ask about whether you were "deemed" a bigot. I asked whether you were or not, and if not, what makes your religious objections unquestionable. Glad to clarify that for you.
"Obviously, since I'm criticizing your logic, I wouldn't be saying anything against interracial marriage." ... Then perhaps you should explain (in full) why you continue to use the phrase derogatorily.
Delete"then you vomit out that inanity to avoid addressing the point here." ... The only "point" that I'm avoiding addressing is the point that you are a bigot who hates inter-racial marriage and loves sexual perversions enough to ONLY demand that ONE sexual perversion get marriage rights, not other sexual perversions. I guess the OTHER point is that you are a hypocrite.
"I didn't ask about whether you were "deemed" a bigot." ... Yes, you did.
"Glad to clarify that for you." ... The only thing you've clarified is that you are a racist, hypocritical bigot. Personally, I think that kind of person deserves to be in jail. But, being a democrat, you'll probably be exalted by your peers. That's what makes so many of these articles so funny. This one (for example) is about 'republican scum being bad', but there is an obvious ignorance of 'democrat scum being bad'. AND, the democrats refuse to admit their own guilt, rather they will make excuse after excuse after excuse. What's your excuse THIS TIME?
"... Then perhaps you should explain (in full) why you continue to use the phrase derogatorily."
DeleteFirst, try to explain how it's been used "derogatorily". You have to substantiate the charge before I have to defend myself from it.
"... The only "point" that I'm avoiding addressing is the point...(etc)"
No, you tried to claim that "one man/one woman" was a legal framework. It isn't. You've been avoiding that by claiming that pointing out that your logic could be used towards racist ends is somehow racist in itself.
"... Yes, you did."
Really? Show the quote. Or is this another case of you thinking God will forgive you for lying because you're talking to an evil Democrat, and that makes everything you do just fine?
"you tried to claim that "one man/one woman" was a legal framework. It isn't." ... you tried to claim that "2 men" was a legal framework. It isn't.
Delete"... you tried to claim that "2 men" was a legal framework. It isn't."
ReplyDeleteNo, I said "two consenting adults". Nice try.
Speaking of your inexplicable interpretations, where's that quote of me asking you if you were "deemed" a bigot? You seemed quite sure of yourself, and yet, no substantiation of your claim. Odd.
"No, I said "two consenting adults". Nice try." ... Jeez, Louiz, you've been such a stickler for CONTEXT I thought you would be able to grasp that statement. I guess I overestimated your abilities.
Delete"... Jeez, Louiz, you've been such a stickler for CONTEXT I thought you would be able to grasp that statement."
DeleteThere's no "CONTEXT" that suggests I separated "2 men" as a concept for a legal framework. Everything I've said has been consistent with the claim that both heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage fit into the same legal framework, which is why gay marriage would create no new legal issues. Would you like to show what context shows otherwise, in your view?
It seems unlikely.
And still no "deemed" quote? I wonder why.
"There's no "CONTEXT" that suggests I separated "2 men" as a concept for a legal framework." ... The LEGAL framework is "1 man/1 woman". You have insisted the laws say "2" people. Um, it doesn't say that and you have no evidence to back that up. THAT is the CONTEXT that YOU are ignoring. And you will continue to ignore it because the LAWS back my stance, while yours are merely based on bigotry and hatred of a sexual perversion.
Delete"And still no "deemed" quote?" ... this is coming from someone who says something and then DENIES saying it during the next post. (http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2013/02/human-sexuality-is-complciated.html?showComment=1363623448411#c6679862585002389155)
You sir(?) are a moron. A lying, bigoted moron
"... The LEGAL framework is "1 man/1 woman"."
DeleteNo, that's the tradition. The laws are based on the concept of two consenting adults, which is the framework. It's quite simple to substitute "two men" or "two women" for "husband and wife", with no changes in the effect or scope of the law.
"You have insisted the laws say "2" people."
No, I said that was the framework. Every law about marriage is designed with that in mind. I never said it was specifically listed.
"THAT is the CONTEXT that YOU are ignoring."
How is that "CONTEXT"? You keep using that word nonsensically.
"And you will continue to ignore it because the LAWS back my stance, while yours are merely based on bigotry and hatred of a sexual perversion."
How do the laws back anything you've said?
"... this is coming from someone who says something and then DENIES saying it during the next post."
What, exactly, do you claim to be pointing to? And how does it relate to your claim regarding the "deemed" quote?
"No, that's the tradition." ... No, that's the LAW. I found a couple of articles that can explain it a bit better for you. Neither are great articles, but they can help you understand your bigotry a little better. Maybe even get you to admit it so you can get help before you go off and shoot a bunch of people because of your ingrown hatred of others.
Deletehttp://www.frc.org/marriage AND http://protectmarriagewa.com/initiative.html
"How do the laws back anything you've said?" ... Because I brought proof that the laws state 1 man / 1 woman in marriage. You have nothing but "tradition". Yet, you want to change the "tradition" of marriage to something non-traditional. You are so hypocritical: you want to use "tradition" to allow gay marriage, but you refuse to allow "tradition" to be the reason to prohibit it.
"What, exactly, do you claim to be pointing to? And how does it relate to your claim regarding the "deemed" quote?" ... Since you are having such a hard time understanding the English language, let's do it this way: I read an article that scientists claim to have found the "God particle". They went on to explain how it works and how everything started with that ONE particle. Then they say that the ONE particle collided with OTHER particles and created man and earth. I guess those scientists don't realize how stupid they look when they claim to have found the ONE particle that started it all and it completely relies on ANOTHER particle(s) to produce anything. Ahh, so much for the "God particle" in the big bang THEORY.
"... No, that's the LAW."
DeleteIt's not the framework. It's how the law has been applied due to tradition.
As to your articles, It's not clear what they're supposed to explain. The FRC (again, really?) is simply working from the planted axiom that a man and women is "fundamental" to marriage. That's not a legal argument. Did you notice that? It doesn't explain any legal ramifications, it basically just says they don't like it. The second one isn't even an article, it's proposed law. Did you even look at it? A law can be proposed about anything, it doesn't bear any credibility all by itself.
"... Because I brought proof that the laws state 1 man / 1 woman in marriage. You have nothing but "tradition". Yet, you want to change the "tradition" of marriage to something non-traditional."
Nobody was questioning that the laws currently involve heterosexual couples. "Tradition" isn't an argument for opposing change, so what you think you're establishing by talking about "non-traditional" is unexplained.
"You are so hypocritical: you want to use "tradition" to allow gay marriage, but you refuse to allow "tradition" to be the reason to prohibit it."
Where did I say "tradition" is a reason to allow gay marriage? And even if that were the case, why would it be hypocritical to say that one concept can either support or oppose an argument, not do both simultaneously?
"... Since you are having such a hard time understanding the English language, let's do it this way:..."
What the hell does the "God particle" have to do with your claim that I said something in one post and denied it in another? Is that your attempt at the Chewbacca defense, or what?
"Nobody was questioning that the laws currently involve heterosexual couples." ... Yes. You are.
Delete" why would it be hypocritical to say that one concept can either support or oppose an argument, not do both simultaneously?" ... When you rely on that argument as your only remaining point for gay marriage but you deny it is a viable reason to oppose gay marriage you are being hypocritical.
"... Yes. You are."
DeleteWhere, precisely, do you get that claim from? Let's see quotes.
"... When you rely on that argument as your only remaining point for gay marriage but you deny it is a viable reason to oppose gay marriage you are being hypocritical."
First off, you didn't answer the question as to why the same concept would be used in two opposite ways simultaneously. We're both going to argue "tradition" for opposite positions? That makes no sense. Secondly, I'll ask again how I'm relying on "tradition" to support my argument, especially since it's now magically my "only remaining point". Lack of harm and lack of choice were apparently dropped in some uncitable post, I guess. Third, tradition is never a reason to oppose anything where rights are concerned. You could claim that homogenous marriages regarding faith were tradition as well, do you want to argue that people should have never been allowed to marry outside of their religion?
Did you forget to explain your "God particle" argument? I was really looking forward to that.
"Where, precisely, do you get that claim from? Let's see quotes." ... One of the many spots is here: "No, I said that was the framework.". That is where you deny '1 man/1 woman' is the written law and declare it as only a "legal framework". However, I showed it IS the law and you needed to change the parameters and make other claims.
Delete"We're both going to argue "tradition" for opposite positions?" ... That's because you are a doofus. What "tradition" has there EVER been with gay marriage? So, YOU cannot use "tradition" accurately in ANY discussion on gay marriage rights.
"Did you forget to explain your "God particle" argument? I was really looking forward to that." ... What do you need to know? I thought it was pretty simple, scientists claim they found the "God particle" and then they claim the "God particle" NEEDS ANOTHER PARTICLE to form the universe and all life within it. So much for the big bang theory being feasible.
"That is where you deny '1 man/1 woman' is the written law and declare it as only a "legal framework"."
DeleteI notice there's no context as to what "it" is. Are you referring to this?:
You:"You have insisted the laws say "2" people."
Me:"No, I said that was the framework. Every law about marriage is designed with that in mind. I never said it was specifically listed."
If so, how the hell does that say that "1 man/1 woman" is the "framework"? I was addressing what you said, which was about two consenting adults. Further, from the same post:"No, that's the tradition. The laws are based on the concept of two consenting adults, which is the framework." So, where did I say that the actual law didn't specify one man and one woman? I said quite plainly it was the tradition, as contrasted to the framework of the law.
"What "tradition" has there EVER been with gay marriage?"
I didn't say there was one. I'm trying to get you to explain your charge of hypocrisy, because it makes no sense. In fact, I asked you to explain how I wanted to use "tradition" to support gay marriage, and you're just making your position less lucid.
"So much for the big bang theory being feasible."
What does this have to do with anything we've been talking about?
"What does this have to do with anything we've been talking about?" ... As much as YOU change the subject, what do you care?
Delete"... As much as YOU change the subject, what do you care?"
DeleteI don't recall you ever showing how I "change the subject". You just whine when I point out something that's inconvenient to your argument. I'll remind you that the entire "polygamy" discussion, drawn onto multiple threads, was brought up by you.
Once again, you admit to doing the same thing you accuse me of doing, and then pretend there's some equality there. It's not a good strategy for you.
"It's not a good strategy for you." ... It's better than your bigoted strategy to refuse marriage rights to an alternative lifestyle that you don't approve of. That would be considered hypocritical, also, because of the reasons you use to oppose polygamy. Hey bigot, you better stop posting or you'll just make yourself look worse than you do already.
Delete"... It's better than your bigoted strategy to refuse marriage rights to an alternative lifestyle that you don't approve of. That would be considered hypocritical, also, because of the reasons you use to oppose polygamy."
DeleteI have no problem with polyamory. It's also not hypocritical because there's a difference between polygamy and gay marriage. If they were the same, and the same concerns could possibly apply to gay marriage, then I would oppose that too.
Of course, you can't address that except to stomp your feet and insist it's not true. Much like you can't address the fact that you admit to poor behavior while only accusing me of doing the same, while acting as if that makes you superior to me. Feel free to keep at it, a good laugh is always appreciated.
" It's also not hypocritical because there's a difference between polygamy and gay marriage." ... No there isn't. Both are sexual perversions. The only difference is that democrats love one perversion and hate the other. BTW, it is obvious you have "a problem" with polygamy. That's why you apply a standard to them and not to others.
Delete"No there isn't. Both are sexual perversions."
DeleteEven within your framework (which I don't buy into), there's a difference. By your logic, you could say there's no difference between a Pembroke Welsh Corgi and a Great Dane, because they're both dogs.
Legally, there's a difference between polygamy and gay marriage because polygamy allows one to have multiple spouses. Gay marriage does not. That is a "difference". Look up the word if it's giving you trouble.
"Legally, there's a difference between polygamy and gay marriage because polygamy allows one to have multiple spouses." ... That's not a difference. Kind of like your lame dog analogy. Are you ever going to actually defend your position? Or just continue to live in denial?
Delete"Even within your framework (which I don't buy into), there's a difference." ... You know why you don't "buy into" my framework? Because MINE IS CORRECT. I have proven it and you cannot accept it. You know why? Because you are an atheist with serious pride issues while being a bigoted hypocrite. You haven't been able to defend ANY of your positions without running around in circles whining about semantics and acceptance. And I don't expect you to change now. Bring the best diversion you can. Since you have so much practice at it.
" ... That's not a difference. Kind of like your lame dog analogy. Are you ever going to actually defend your position? Or just continue to live in denial?"
DeleteI have to post that whole thing just to demonstrate how hilarious it is for you to issue an empty denial, then talk about me living in denial.
"... You know why you don't "buy into" my framework? Because MINE IS CORRECT."
You've proven that homosexuality is unacceptable because it's a perversion? Didn't you just ask for "proof" of my "stance" on another thread?
"Because you are an atheist with serious pride issues while being a bigoted hypocrite."
Is there something objectively wrong with being an atheist? You sound awfully pious there. Also, I'm not seeing the middle ground between accepting your ludicrous arguments and having "pride issues". Would you care to explain where that middle ground might be?
"You haven't been able to defend ANY of your positions without running around in circles whining about semantics and acceptance."
So, if you completely misrepresent what I say, and I point it out, that's not actually defending my position because it involves "semantics". Got it.
"You've proven that homosexuality is unacceptable because it's a perversion?" ... No, doofus, I've proven that the "framework" of marriage is "1 man/1 woman" as the LAW states. You are having trouble comprehending that. Trust me, I never had a doubt in your abilities to do just that.
Delete"Is there something objectively wrong with being an atheist? " ... Didn't I just give you 3 fucking reasons why it is wrong? Do you have NO abilities to read at all? (prideful, bigoted, hypocritical)
"So, if you completely misrepresent what I say, and I point it out, that's not actually defending my position because it involves "semantics". " ... When that happens you let me know. Until then you are running around in circles whining about semantics and acceptance.
You are such a child (intellectually) compared to me. I hope you enjoyed the time that I allowed you to glean intelligence from me, but I'm moving on to other subjects. I grow board toying with you. A fitting analogy would be like a man with a laser pointer and playing with the cat using it. Your intelligence level is of the cat and mine is of the man. While you could do this all day long, I get bored of your simplicity.
"... No, doofus, I've proven that the "framework" of marriage is "1 man/1 woman" as the LAW states."
DeleteMoron, here's the conversation:
You:"No there isn't. Both are sexual perversions."
Me:"Even within your framework (which I don't buy into), there's a difference."
You're "changing the subject" to bring up anything besides the difference between homosexuality and polygamy. You also have proven no such thing regarding "1 man/1 woman", because the distinction was already made between framework and tradition.
"... Didn't I just give you 3 fucking reasons why it is wrong? Do you have NO abilities to read at all? (prideful, bigoted, hypocritical)"
Have you denied being any of those things? Also, what would they have to do with atheism as a concept? And, of course, you haven't substantiated any of those charges against me, even on a personal level.
"... When that happens you let me know."
You've insisted that I said that religious displays violate the principle of "captive audience" (I didn't), and that I asserted that genetics influence the "formative years" (I didn't). You also claimed that I "admitted" breaking the law. Again, I didn't. I'm sure I can find more, but that's just off the top of my head. And now you know.
A parting gift for you, these two comments of yours in tandem (emphasis mine):
"I hope you enjoyed the time that I allowed you to glean intelligence from me..."
"I grow board[sic] toying with you."
That really says everything that needs to be said about you. Toddle off, now.
"Have you denied being any of those things?" ... Have I been asked to? You haven't denied being a child-molestor, either.
Delete"Also, what would they have to do with atheism as a concept?" ... Everything, can't you read?
"That really says everything that needs to be said about you." ... Gosh, you got me. I meant to say "beard" ... I grow a beard waiting for you to answer simple questions.
BTW, as far as your "I didn't" go ... you did. And, each one is still posted in the articles where you said them. Now, run along little child. This area is for grown-ups. Since all you're doing is copying what I say. You must not have too much intelligence if I have to tell you what to say.
"... Have I been asked to?"
DeleteYes, I've asked you about your bigotry and hypocrisy specifically several times. You tend to respond with something along the lines of "I never said I wasn't." Do you deny any of those things?
"... Everything, can't you read?"
I can see that you're not specifying what links those traits to atheism.
"... Gosh, you got me."
As always.
"... I grow a beard waiting for you to answer simple questions."
I thought they were "hard" questions. You can't even seem to keep track of that much. Incidentally, you still would have meant to say "a beard", not "beard", because "I grow beard" is idiotic. Your claim of intellectual superiority is still lacking, even as you think you're being clever.
"... you did. And, each one is still posted in the articles where you said them."
As is my explanations of how I said no such things. Your fantasy that you've shown anything of the sort is laughable.
"Yes, I've asked you about your bigotry and hypocrisy specifically several times." ... No, you've asked about bigotry ONLY. If you have proof of something more, then bring that proof. I feel silly asking YOU for proof. Sorry, it won't happen again.
Delete"I can see that you're not specifying what links those traits to atheism." ... the way YOU and your ilk act and display yourselves.
"As always." ... So easy to toy with. Did you catch my SIC words on the other thread? Good boy!
"I thought they were "hard" questions." ... Yes, I know you do. That's why you can't answer them.
"Your claim of intellectual superiority is still lacking, even as you think you're being clever." ... It sure is making you waste your time. So, my claim is accurate. Unless you want to actually answer a couple questions. I didn't think so, mr simpleton.
"Your fantasy that you've shown anything of the sort is laughable." ... That's how stupid and dishonest you are. I didn't say that I've "shown anything of the sort". I said your statements are still posted for everyone to read. And you didn't ask me to provide proof of that because you know it's true.
"... No, you've asked about bigotry ONLY."
DeleteSo your point is that I didn't "ask"?:http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2013/02/what-clever-sounds-like-to-stupid-person.html?showComment=1365392617793#c7214348297218582136
"... the way YOU and your ilk act and display yourselves."
That's not specific.
"Did you catch my SIC words on the other thread?"
I ignored them. Are you pretending that you intentionally misspelled the word now?
"... Yes, I know you do. That's why you can't answer them."
Note the quotation marks, indicating your phrasing.
"... It sure is making you waste your time."
Is that your goal? I have plenty of time here.
"I didn't say that I've "shown anything of the sort". I said your statements are still posted for everyone to read."
That's meaningless, unless you explain what's wrong with my statements. That would be you showing how they mean what you claim. But thanks for admitting that you haven't done that, so now they can be taken for their obvious meanings instead of your convoluted bullshit reasoning.
"And you didn't ask me to provide proof of that because you know it's true."
That was just stupid. If there were no comments for you to distort, we wouldn't be talking about them. Obviously my statements are there, they just don't mean what you dishonestly claim.
"That's not specific." ... How specific do you want me to get? I think I was very specific. You atheists are prideful, bigots and hypocrites. I have never met an atheist who isn't each of those. How specific do you NEED me to get?
Delete"I ignored them." ... Ha ha. No you corrected them. See, that proves my point from above. You atheists lie like a rug and are proud of it.
"Is that your goal? I have plenty of time here." ... Of course you do. You've already admitted to scamming our government while in your position in the Army. Why would anyone expect anything less from an atheist. That's the way you people work. That's why there aren't very many of you. And that's why you are all stuck commenting at liberal blog sites ... because no one else accepts and welcomes bigots and liars as much. Even when compared to republicans.
"You atheists are prideful, bigots and hypocrites."
ReplyDeleteSo, theoretically, what's the connection between that and atheism, and why is it that you have all the same traits?
"... Ha ha. No you corrected them."
No, I didn't.
"... Of course you do. You've already admitted to scamming our government while in your position in the Army."
You're proud of that lie, it seems. Again, what you say applies to you, while you can't prove it (at all) against me.
I notice you avoided another question;"Is that your goal?" Proof of your hypocrisy. You're a bigot just for the generalizations you vomit out all the time, and you're too proud to admit you're wrong, even on something as simple as one of your throwaway insults such as being drunk.
You must be an atheist.
"So, theoretically, what's the connection between that and atheism, and why is it that you have all the same traits?" ... Reading comprehension 101: "are" is the connection.
DeleteNo, we're not talking about parsing sentences, we're talking about you justifying your claims about atheists.
DeleteObviously you lack that capacity.
When you justify your claims about polygamy I will justify my claims about atheism. Did you just demand that I answer your question while you ignore mine?
DeleteYou have a vested interest in ignoring my justifications. When you can answer the simple question of why you think we have laws if you really think people are so pure of heart, then maybe you can claim some basis for criticism. Until then, you're dead in the water.
DeleteMaybe when you explain how you are immune to "human nature". Aren't you claiming that you don't violate any military laws? That means you have no "human nature", correct? How does that work?
DeleteDoofus
"Aren't you claiming that you don't violate any military laws? That means you have no "human nature", correct?
DeleteI never said I was immune to human nature. UCMJ is not an arena where I fall victim to any negative inclinations, though.
See how that works? And besides that, the individual is irrelevant. I don't have to prove that you do anything notably wrong in order to talk about how human nature affects our society and system of law. It's a bad idea to leave your car unlocked with valuables in it not because one specific person is going to steal, but because someone is going to. It's one of those "big picture" things, if you've ever heard of that before.
Now, since that's been clarified, you can finally explain why you think we have laws, if you really think people are so pure of heart.
" It's one of those "big picture" things, if you've ever heard of that before." ... I've heard of it. But, I don't think it can be a realistic approach to how human nature works.
DeleteLet me explain, you support gay marriage rights. You also oppose polygamy marriage rights. You use the reason of "human nature" to oppose polygamy because you fear so many of them will start sueing each other because that's the way things are. You also deny that gays will be affected by human nature and that the MILLIONS of gay marriages will not affect the court system in the slightest. You think ONLY the polygamist will cause congestion in the court system. Since there will be hundreds of polygamists getting married (in your hypothetical) and all those divorces and fights for control of the hierarchy within the family will simply overwhelm the court system. Yet, at the same time you feel that the MILLIONS of gay marriages will cause NO additional court cases. Then you have the nerve to say that future laws cannot control excessive court cases in polygamy but it can for gays.
Yeah, let's look at that "big picture".
"UCMJ is not an arena where I fall victim to any negative inclinations, though." ... Pride comes before the fall. But, given your history of lying, I don't think anyone can seriously believe your statement about being immune to committing a crime while in the military.
"... I've heard of it. But, I don't think it can be a realistic approach to how human nature works."
DeleteI'm not talking about how it works. I'm talking about the effects of it.
"You also deny that gays will be affected by human nature and that the MILLIONS of gay marriages will not affect the court system in the slightest."
Why do you keep saying that I "deny that gays will be affected by human nature"? I've never said that, I've never suggested it, and you keep repeating it after multiple corrections. In all seriousness, what the hell is wrong with you? As to your second half there, it's exactly the same as if everyone was straight. You have yet to explain how you can draw a line there. Again, if everyone were to "choose" to be straight, are you going to complain about resulting divorces? If not, why not? And if so, what would you do about it?
"Since there will be hundreds of polygamists getting married (in your hypothetical) and all those divorces and fights for control of the hierarchy within the family will simply overwhelm the court system."
No, "hundreds" is your assertion, not mine.
"Yeah, let's look at that "big picture"."
Did any of that "explain" your previous comment, and how?
"... Pride comes before the fall. But, given your history of lying, I don't think anyone can seriously believe your statement about being immune to committing a crime while in the military."
By all means, email the DOD and send them a link. I'm sure they can track my posts. Tell them you think that I violated UCMJ because I used the phrase "human nature". Let me know what they tell you.
Meanwhile, you've never shown a lie on my part. Not...one...single...time. Feel free to push the issue, if you think you have a case otherwise.
I really don't think you will.
"I'm not talking about how it works. I'm talking about the effects of it." ... Semantics. Your way of avoiding the point?
Delete"No, "hundreds" is your assertion, not mine." ... Really? I've been asking this since the beginning. How MANY does your "hypothetical" include? If you can't (or are afraid) to give me a number then I am forced to use the one I have in order to complete your hypothetical.
"Meanwhile, you've never shown a lie on my part." ... Actually, I've shown where you've lied several times. Living in denial doesn't take your lies away. In fact, you are lying every time you mention all people are affected by "human nature", but you deny you are affected by it. Also, you deny that gays are affected by it. Again, how does that work?
"Again, if everyone were to "choose" to be straight, are you going to complain about resulting divorces?" ... Then there would be a shit-load of new cases out there. Just because you are too stupid to realize that gays getting married is NOT the same as straights getting married. Any marriage that happens after right now is a NEW possible case in the court system, whether they are straight or gay. NEW marriage means NEW cases.
"If not, why not? And if so, what would you do about it?" ... That is your typical reply. Strawman argument and changing the subject in one sentence. You are truly a professional at avoiding answering questions that point out the failures of your assertions.
"... Semantics. Your way of avoiding the point?"
DeleteWhat point would that be? And no, the difference between how something works and its effects is not semantics.
"If you can't (or are afraid) to give me a number then I am forced to use the one I have in order to complete your hypothetical."
Really? Because you said yourself it's not quantifiable, so it's hard to see how you're "forced" to do any such thing. And this is completely separate from your suggestion that the number is in any way associated with anything I've said, anyway.
"... Actually, I've shown where you've lied several times."
Actually, you haven't. You say it often, but your logic is always self-serving and convoluted, at best.
"In fact, you are lying every time you mention all people are affected by "human nature", but you deny you are affected by it."
I've never claimed I wasn't affected by human nature. I also don't think I said that every single person on Earth was affected. It's more general than that, as has been explained to you.
"Also, you deny that gays are affected by it."
Not only have I not said that, but you've been corrected on that point multiple times. Your continued claim shows your lack of honesty, not mine.
"... Then there would be a shit-load of new cases out there."
Then there's no difference, obviously. Unless you want to explain how you can deny the "new" straight marriages, you can't very well deny gay marriages based on the notion that they're "new" costs.
"... That is your typical reply. Strawman argument and changing the subject in one sentence."
What's the "strawman" there, specifically? And how is it changing the subject to challenge you on your own argument?
I notice that you didn't bring anything to show a lie on my part, just your empty assertions. No links, nothing. And did you email the DOD yet, by the way?
"And this is completely separate from your suggestion that the number is in any way associated with anything I've said, anyway." ... You've said "human nature" will cause a number of people to scam the government. How many is covered in that hypothetical you keep referring to?
Delete"I've never claimed I wasn't affected by human nature." ... So, you admit to breaking military laws? Didn't you just deny that, earlier? Which is it: you DO or DO NOT break the law as defined within "human nature"?
"What's the "strawman" there, specifically?" ... What part of the discussion has been about those who "choose to be straight"? You have denied that people "choose to be gay", now you insist that people "choose to be straight"? How is that related to this discussion in any way? Seems to me that if you can't choose to be gay, you can't choose to be straight.
"... You've said "human nature" will cause a number of people to scam the government. How many is covered in that hypothetical you keep referring to?"
ReplyDeleteYou said it can't be quantified.
"... So, you admit to breaking military laws?"
No. Why does being affected by human nature specify breaking certain laws, in your mind?
"... What part of the discussion has been about those who "choose to be straight"?"
What does this have to do with a "strawman" argument? The point is that it makes no sense for you to complain about "new" costs when you believe that people can choose to be straight and create "new" costs that way as well.
"You have denied that people "choose to be gay", now you insist that people "choose to be straight"?"
Funny, William had the same problem. He could never distinguish when I was talking about his viewpoint as opposed to mine. A very strange mental incapacity to see in another poster on such a sparsely-populated site.
"The point is that it makes no sense for you to complain about "new" costs when you believe that people can choose to be straight and create "new" costs that way as well." ... That's right. New marriages by straight people will cause new court cases. I have stated that, before, and asked you why you don't oppose marriages in general because of the direct relationship of those numbers to the FEAR you have of polygamy. You avoided answering that question. Maybe you'll take the time to answer it now.
Delete"A very strange mental incapacity to see in another poster on such a sparsely-populated site." ... Um, there are THOUSANDS coming to this site every month. Is everyone supposed to think like you? So, which is it? People choose to be straight AND choose to be gay or not? Don't change the subject (again) just answer the question.
"... That's right. New marriages by straight people will cause new court cases. I have stated that, before, and asked you why you don't oppose marriages in general because of the direct relationship of those numbers to the FEAR you have of polygamy."
DeleteBecause I don't believe in throwing out the baby with the bathwater, remember? Apparently I didn't avoid answering the question, because I remember that better than you do.
"Um, there are THOUSANDS coming to this site every month."
And how many posters? No offense to Eddie, but obviously not many.
"So, which is it? People choose to be straight AND choose to be gay or not?"
Of course people don't choose their sexuality. You believe they do. Did you notice this sentence:"He could never distinguish when I was talking about his viewpoint as opposed to mine."? That would have answered your question if you had made an effort to comprehend it. It's not clear why you're even asking, since I've previously brought up the point about you supposedly choosing to be straight to demonstrate how absurd your claims are.
And, while you're pressing me to "just answer the question", I'll give you another chance at this one:"Why does being affected by human nature specify breaking certain laws, in your mind?"
"Apparently I didn't avoid answering the question, because I remember that better than you do." ... You did avoid the question. What do babies and bathwater have to do with the immense cost of marriages?
Delete"And how many posters?" ... What does posting have to do with it?
"Why does being affected by human nature specify breaking certain laws, in your mind?" ... It doesn't.
"You did avoid the question. What do babies and bathwater have to do with the immense cost of marriages?"
DeleteWow. The phrase means you take the bad with the good. You don't oppose something merely because of a negative aspect, when there's a benefit to it overall and the negatives don't outweigh the positives. Highlighted for you to notice.
"... What does posting have to do with it?"
Because I specified "posters", idiot.
"... It doesn't."
Good, then you have to retract your charge that I'm stealing by using government computers. Thanks!
"The phrase means you take the bad with the good." ... Then why do you oppose polygamy? You say you are willing to accept the bad with the good, yet you oppose polygamy in spite of the good and ONLY because of the bad. But, you can't even bring any evidence of the bad, you just make that shit up and run with it. That makes you a bigot.
Delete"Because I specified "posters", idiot." ... I didn't, idiot. And MY statement is what was being replied to. That means YOU changed the parameters when you couldn't sustain your own argument. That IS how you do things, isn't it?
"Good, then you have to retract your charge that I'm stealing by using government computers." ... No, I will not do that. You said "certain" in your question. I have NEVER claimed only certain laws were being broken by you or in certain ways. I said you are breaking laws because you are part of your claimed "human nature" aspect of your fear of polygamy. You say THEY will take advantage of the system because of human nature, but you say you could never do anything illegal in spite of human nature. Reading comprehension 101, you might want to sign up.
"You say you are willing to accept the bad with the good, yet you oppose polygamy in spite of the good and ONLY because of the bad."
DeleteWhat's the "good" of it? Be specific.
"But, you can't even bring any evidence of the bad, you just make that shit up and run with it."
I haven't made up anything, and you can't demonstrate otherwise. Your knee-jerk denials don't reflect on my argument.
"... I didn't, idiot. And MY statement is what was being replied to."
No, you replied to my statement, idiot. I mentioned "posters", so you don't get to suggest that "posters" are irrelevant to what I said. Read it again:"A very strange mental incapacity to see in another poster on such a sparsely-populated site."
"No, I will not do that. You said "certain" in your question. I have NEVER claimed only certain laws were being broken by you or in certain ways."
You are a liar:http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2013/02/republicans-are-scum.html?showComment=1364385067861#c6091170083564131495
"... You shouldn't be using government equipment to do personal business then. That is called "ILLEGAL" in the US for government employees to use government equipment for personal business."
"You say THEY will take advantage of the system because of human nature, but you say you could never do anything illegal in spite of human nature."
Also a lie. I've never said I could never do anything illegal. I'm saying I've never violated UCMJ. There is a major difference. Maybe with some help, you can figure it out.
"What's the "good" of it? Be specific." ... Loving relationships between consenting adults can be fulfilled.
Delete"such a sparsely-populated site." ... I, obviously, am referring to the number of people coming here. You're talking about one person. Apples/oranges.
What personal business did I specifically say?
"I'm saying I've never violated UCMJ." ... Oh I've got it figured out. You live 2 separate lives, one as Jesus and another as human.
" I've never said I could never do anything illegal. I'm saying I've never violated UCMJ." ... Difference between you not doing it and never doing it is different in what way? Are you saying you may still violate those laws or that you never have and never could?
"... Loving relationships between consenting adults can be fulfilled."
DeleteAnd legal sanctioning is required for that because...?
"... I, obviously, am referring to the number of people coming here. You're talking about one person. Apples/oranges."
Absolutely right. Except I said "posters" first, so you're the one who made the stupid comparison. Good job.
"What personal business did I specifically say?"
You were referring to posting on this site. What's your supposed point?
"... Oh I've got it figured out. You live 2 separate lives, one as Jesus and another as human."
So everyone who doesn't violate UCMJ is the equivalent of Jesus? Wow. UCMJ action is actually pretty rare, overall. That sounds like you're trivializing your lord and savior by comparing him to so many ordinary people.
"... Difference between you not doing it and never doing it is different in what way?"
The difference is that I have not violated UCMJ, which says nothing about a claim to never violate any law at any point in my life.
"Are you saying you may still violate those laws or that you never have and never could?"
Do you mean UCMJ as a whole, or your phantom articles regarding use of MWR computers for personal business? I don't see why I ever would violate UCMJ, but I wouldn't claim that I "never could". I love how you demand clarification of something that I never even came close to saying. As if your bullshit is suddenly something I'm responsible for. Hilarious.
I'll clarify that "absolutely right". I'm not talking about "one person", I'm talking about the number of posters. I'm not sure where you got "one person" from that, but on first reading I sort of glazed over that while laughing at your admission of making the "apples/oranges" comparison.
Delete"You were referring to posting on this site." ... I was? Bring full citation of that (prove what you claim).
Delete"So everyone who doesn't violate UCMJ is the equivalent of Jesus?" ... You are claiming you commit no crimes. There is only one person I know of who can also make that claim.
"I love how you demand clarification of something that I never even came close to saying." ... Claiming you never "have" violated a very thick book of rules and regulations, is very close to saying you never "could". One leads to the other.
"I'm not talking about "one person", " .... Hmm, you singled one person out by name. Do all posters have the same name?
"... I was? Bring full citation of that (prove what you claim)."
DeleteI posted the link above, with your quote. Here it is again:http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2013/02/republicans-are-scum.html?showComment=1364385067861#c6091170083564131495
"... You shouldn't be using government equipment to do personal business then. That is called "ILLEGAL" in the US for government employees to use government equipment for personal business."
Here's how it went;
Me:"This computer is difficult to edit with."
You:"... You shouldn't be using government equipment to do personal business then. That is called "ILLEGAL" in the US for government employees to use government equipment for personal business."
Me:"Apparently you aren't familiar with the acronym "MWR"."
You:"Ahh, so it's GOOD for morale when you government employees steal from the government? Times (and morals) sure have changed since I was in the Army."
I eagerly await your semantic contortions to explain how you were talking about something other than posting on this site.
"... You are claiming you commit no crimes. There is only one person I know of who can also make that claim."
I haven't violated UCMJ. There are other laws, you know. And besides that, some people really just don't commit any crimes. Do you really want to argue otherwise?
"Claiming you never "have" violated a very thick book of rules and regulations, is very close to saying you never "could". One leads to the other."
No, it doesn't. You can't justify that claim.
".... Hmm, you singled one person out by name. Do all posters have the same name?"
I said it was a sparsely-populated site. Meaning few posters. The contrast to your "visitors" figure is the number of posters, not you specifically. You are, as you are so very often, wildly confused.
"You shouldn't be using government equipment to do personal business then." ... If this blog site is YOUR personal business operation, then you got me. Otherwise, there is NOTHING that says I am referring to you 'posting' on this site as a crime. Because I (obviously) said "personal business". What "business" are you performing while posting?
DeleteYou see, you are not very smart, so I knew what you were going to be whining about. That's why I asked for proof. I didn't think you were able to distinguish "personal BUSINESS" from "personal USE". Did you find the link where I said "personal USE"? Because "posting" would be personal USE, unless you are getting paid for doing this.
"I said it was a sparsely-populated site. Meaning few posters." ... Just like the above comment, you really need to learn how to read and comprehend. You should SAY what you MEAN and MEAN what you say. You said it was sparsely populated site, but you never said anything about "meaning few posters". Since you singled out ONE particular poster at the "sparsely populated" site.
"... If this blog site is YOUR personal business operation, then you got me."
DeleteFunny, I don't remember you using the word "operation" before.
"Because I (obviously) said "personal business". What "business" are you performing while posting?"
The phrase "personal business" doesn't mean a job, jackass. Here's an even better question back to you:What the hell did you mean when you used the phrase? Be specific.
"I didn't think you were able to distinguish "personal BUSINESS" from "personal USE". Did you find the link where I said "personal USE"? Because "posting" would be personal USE, unless you are getting paid for doing this."
No, the phrase "personal business" isn't restricted to anything regarding money. You are woefully misinformed or making lame excuses for your behavior. I'm guessing the latter.
"You said it was sparsely populated site, but you never said anything about "meaning few posters"."
Wrong. I used the word "posters" myself. Hence, "sparsely-populated" would be relevant to that term. The word, again, is "context".
"The phrase "personal business" doesn't mean a job, jackass." ... Yes it does. Reading comprehension 101, you should consider taking that class.
Delete"... Yes it does."
DeleteNo, it doesn't. For instance, "raising my kids is my personal business". That doesn't mean there's payment involved. Besides, you're the one who used the phrase. If you think it means some financial enterprise, why did you use the phrase regarding my activity? What "business" did you think I was running when you said it?
I never said "payment" needed to be involved. Changing the parameters again? You're good at doing that. You're not so good at actually addressing the point. Have you signed up for Reading Comp 101, yet?
Delete"I never said "payment" needed to be involved."
DeleteYou didn't?:"Because "posting" would be personal USE, unless you are getting paid for doing this." Now you're down to distinguishing between "payment" and "paid"? By all means, explain the difference between them. Talking about verbs and nouns isn't going to cut it, in case that's your plan.
"You're not so good at actually addressing the point."
So using the word "payment" instead of "paid" is somehow dodging the point, yet you failed conspicuously to address this:"What "business" did you think I was running when you said it?" Remember, you said it meant "a job". What "job" did you think I was acting under when you wrote "personal business"?
"You didn't?" ... Are you using my 'hypothetical' as an 'absolute'? Reading Comp 101 is still taking sign-ups. Hurry, you really need it.
Delete"... Are you using my 'hypothetical' as an 'absolute'?"
DeleteHow is that a hypothetical when you're talking about me posting here? Are you talking about the possibility of me posting on this site, while you respond to my posts?
"How is that a hypothetical when you're talking about me posting here?" ... Look, would you sign up for that damn class and stop asking stupid questions? Get your head out of your ass and read the statement, doofus.
ReplyDeleteI read what you wrote. Answer the question.
DeleteIf you can't read what is written, then you are too dumb to explain it to.
DeleteIn other words, you can't defend your own words.
DeleteGot it.
Brother, I've defended them time and time again. Get a clue, for God's sake.
DeleteReally? You answered this?:"How is that a hypothetical when you're talking about me posting here?"
DeleteShow me where.
"Show me where." ... Here, then there. Since that seems to be all you have left, I will take that as you submitting to my superior intellect and giving up.
Deletehttp://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2013/03/remember-my-republicans-are-scum-post.html?showComment=1367155816711#c740724297494560110
http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2013/03/remember-my-republicans-are-scum-post.html?showComment=1367234420096#c4109848944110428050
No, moron, the question involved your claim that you didn't say payment had to be involved. Here, I'll help you out:
DeleteYou:"I never said "payment" needed to be involved."
Me:"You didn't?:"Because "posting" would be personal USE, unless you are getting paid for doing this." Now you're down to distinguishing between "payment" and "paid"?"
You:"... Are you using my 'hypothetical' as an 'absolute'?"
So, your citation of posts you made before that exchange makes no sense. What the hell is your "hypothetical" supposed to be, exactly?
Eddie gets paid when you post here. It is a business. Eddie gets paid when he posts here. That means posting at this site is a business (in this situation). Some blog sites don't have so many commercial advertisements. This one does. It is a business.
DeleteSo, here's what you said before:"Otherwise, there is NOTHING that says I am referring to you 'posting' on this site as a crime."
DeleteAnd:"I never said "payment" needed to be involved."
And now:"Eddie gets paid when you post here."
Also earlier, from me:"I eagerly await your semantic contortions to explain how you were talking about something other than posting on this site."
So now, you are talking about me posting on this site, not a "job" that I happen to have. How is that "illegal", again?
"How is that "illegal", again?" ... When have I said that posting here is illegal? Does the Army know about your paranoid delusions? Perhaps they should. Which base are you at again, I'll call them.
Delete"... When have I said that posting here is illegal?"
DeleteWhen you replied to my comment about the computer I was using (to post here) with an accusation of "illegal" activity. And you just explained that comment by talking about me posting here ("Eddie gets paid when you post here").
So, if you're not talking about me posting here in the context of your charges of UCMJ violations, then what the hell are you talking about?
"Which base are you at again, I'll call them."
Funny, you haven't had any problem telling me where I live up until now. Why the change?
"When you replied to my comment about the computer I was using (to post here) with an accusation of "illegal" activity." ... So, I didn't actually say posting here was illegal, then did I? I said the method you use could be. You must be a 20 watter.
Delete"Funny, you haven't had any problem telling me where I live up until now. Why the change?" ... It's difficult dealing with liars, like you, so I needed to tread lightly while I watch you flounder with each of my statements. Now that I've proven you lie like a whore on Bourbon street, it doesn't really matter. I don't expect anything from you expect further lies. Once a liar always a liar. I wonder how much credibility you have left at this site after the way I corralled you into lie after lie.
"... So, I didn't actually say posting here was illegal, then did I? I said the method you use could be."
DeleteYou said more than that, because when it was pointed out that I was posting from an MWR, you continued to say I was stealing from the government. So, are you now admitting you were wrong, that you had no basis whatsoever to make the accusations you did? I'm not sure why else the word "could" is now in your claim.
" ... It's difficult dealing with liars, like you, so I needed to tread lightly while I watch you flounder with each of my statements."
So you talked out of your ass to accomplish some means that you can't exactly explain. Of course, that's very believable. Note the sarcasm.
And you've still never demonstrated a lie on my part. You love to say it, but proving it seems way beyond your grasp.