Who IS this guy?!

'Niceguy' Eddie

Political Talk Show Host and Internet Radio Personality. My show, In My Humble Opinion, (original, huh?) airs on Tuesdays at 10:PM and Saturdays at 8:PM, Eastern time on RainbowRadio.

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

Brick-and-Happy-Gun logo (above) by Munky Wrench, of Bent Wrench Studios

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

Saturday, April 25, 2015

Spell Check, People!

OK... I am completely aware that I'm not exactly allergic to typo's myself, but if you're gonna build a sign and then go and buy four different colors of paint...?


BEHOLD: The wit of Conservatives! 

147 comments:

  1. "OK... I am completely aware that I'm not exactly allergic to typo's myself,"

    Which explains why you went to video instead of spending (and promoting the American economy) $50 on a 'speech to text' program.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yes, liberal, it does.

    ReplyDelete
  3. In the other scenario, of course, you could accuse someone of being stupid for spending money unnecessarily.

    It's sort of difficult to support the notion that people who pass up every opportunity to spend fifty dollars on something are somehow hypocritical for doing so. That won't stop you from asserting it, but it's difficult for rational people to do.

    ReplyDelete
  4. So, you're in favor of ruining the American economy? Never expected that one from the atheist.

    ReplyDelete
  5. If people don't need the software enough to stay in business, then it was just a poor business idea. If they have enough clients to get by without me, then the "American economy" isn't ruined. Either way, that's not my responsibility.


    On the other hand, if wealth is distributed more evenly, then it would be easier for many people to spend money on software that they may or may not need. Would you support measures to redistribute wealth among the population, such as a minimum wage increase?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Are your dopey on purpose? Seriously.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Ed, you must realize that Barbie is an idiot. I have tons of fun just messing with him. I love the way he constantly says: "anything else" or how he corrects my grammar as he loses yet another argument. You may be a dick at times, but at least you can be human and honest. Barbie is never either.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The copy/paste doesn't seem to work from my home computer in your new system, so I'll fly by wire.


    The substantive difference is that taking quotes and bringing them verbatim is very difficult from a video. Do you know how many times a video would have to be replayed in order to the quote exactly right? And, the $50? How much did you spend on the video camera and software to make it work?


    As for the rest of what you wrote ( I did read it) I don't plan on responding to all of it other than to say I understand the balance between family and work and fun on the computer. I don't get that balance correctly all the time either. Many times the computer takes control, many times the family takes control and many times work takes control. So I appreciate what you say and respect you for it. I do hate it when you go on a rant and start cussing at me for no reason. It makes me respond in kind and generally gives me a bad attitude about you and your mission. The few times you are honest and human kind of make up for it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't affect me. Conservatives have feelings too, you know. Don't tell Barbie that, he'll tease me to no ends if he reads that LOL.
    So, what may seem like "petty sniping" isn't that at all, (well, not totally) it is usually a response to the way I am treated.

    ReplyDelete
  9. If he had to spend money on the video camera, then he was promoting the economy.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I understand you have a disability when it comes to reading, so I'll look past that as I explain my point was that it is more difficult to quote someone exactly from a video than it is from written words. If you want to continue to act(?) dumb I'll just treat you that way.

    ReplyDelete
  11. You asked how much he spent on the camera and software.
    You: "And, the $50?"

    If you can comprehend what you hear, then you can paraphrase and address what he says in good faith. So, that's not much of a hurdle. Essentially, you're whining because of selfishness.

    ReplyDelete
  12. What would that have to do with being able to take quotes exactly as they are from a video as compared to written word?

    ReplyDelete
  13. I addressed that. My previous comment, though, was about your "And, the $50?" line.

    ReplyDelete
  14. No, you addressed "good faith". Since you correspond in neither good faith nor with a comprehensive ability, you have not addressed that. Since so many of your replies are "I didn't use that exact word" then saying I can reply "in good faith" is inaccurate when having a discussion with a person with your conversational skills (or lack thereof).

    ReplyDelete
  15. No, my previous comment was about your fixation on the economy. In one post, you're complaining that he isn't spending money, then in another you act as if the cost is comparable. That's clearly inconsistent.

    If you can paraphrase what is said accurately, then there is no problem. The issue is when you put quotation marks around your misrepresentations as if that's what was actually said. Claiming that I used the word "deviant" when I hadn't, for just one example, warrants a correction. And when you insist on defending that sort of behavior, then it shows that you aren't acting in good faith.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Ok, paraphrasing, I never supported the execution of anyone other than those who earned that penalty. To label me as supporting that is not discussing in "good faith". Thanks for playing.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Except that your quotes clearly favored allowing the police to shoot unarmed criminals. You haven't shown how that interpretation was in any way flawed, so you can't assert that it wasn't made in good faith.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Not in the context I used them in. If you want to use out of context interpretations to come to your inaccurate conclusions then you go right ahead and do that. However, that would still be not discussing in "good faith".

    ReplyDelete
  19. You were invited to show how the context changed anything, and you didn't make an attempt to do so. That excuse is null and void.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Look, idiot, I provided the exact quotes and your responses to them and then explained the difference between your conclusion and my statements. How that didn't do what was asked is not open to discussion. Please try to discuss in "good faith" and leave your misrepresentations out of it.
    End of any further discussions on your idiocy unless (as Eddie can do) you want to discuss honestly.

    ReplyDelete
  21. You made assertions, but you didn't show any alternative meaning to what you said. So, simply saying that you meant some other unspecified thing doesn't mean anything at all, obviously.

    You're the one who brought this up. I was simply pointing out that if Eddie spent money on a webcam that he was promoting the economy, where previously you were concerned that he wasn't spending enough money.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Well, let's chalk this up to one of those times that we're going to have to agree to disagree there, William. You've misstated my own position back to me too many times now for me to give you the benefit of the doubt there. And call it my "Liberal Bias" if you wish, but as a referee, I'm calling most of these rounds, if not all, in his favor. If you would stick to debating this issue issue at hand in the "big picture" sense instead of having every conversation devolve into stupid word games about who said what and they "really" meant, all in a pretty sad, ad hominen effort to make Liberals look the way you so desperately need them to, I might feel differently. But then, if I really thought you ever had it right, or had a good point, you couldn't take so much satisfaction in tweaking the "Liberal," could you?

    ReplyDelete
  23. I'll tell you one thing, Eddie, when I say (paraphrasing) 'a dangerous criminal who is injured doing their dangerous criminal activity is to be expected' and it is interpreted as me supporting executing unarmed people I will take exception to that. If you agree with his interpretation then you have many of the same problems he has.
    And my entire point in that article (... and another...) was that the situation that guy was ACCIDENTLY killed in was in NO WAY comparable to the other situations of "unarmed black man killed by police" and should not have been included in your whines about police brutality. If you stick to the cases (current Baltimore one) that actually address that problem then ok, but if you're going to include dangerous criminals who get killed as a result of their OWN activity then I will say there is no comparison.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Your original comments didn't rely on the death being accidental, and that would be an assumption on your part, anyway. You even prove my point by reiterating the sentiment that the police don't need to act responsibly as long as they're dealing with "dangerous criminals".

    ReplyDelete
  25. My original comments didn't need that if you go by your "good faith" inclusion for interpreting videos and commenting on them. If you had watched the video, the guy obviously meant to use his taser, but that doesn't change the fact that the criminal was killed trying to perform his dangerous activity which is COMPLETELY different than how ALL the others were killed. While I support penalizing cops who do wrong, I do not support bundling all dangerous criminals who get killed while they are doing their dangerous crimes into the "unarmed black man killed" bucket as Eddie does.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Your original comments do need distinctions if you have them in mind. And, again, you're assuming that it's genuinely an accident.

    How did the police "do wrong" in that case, since you don't want people like Harris to go to prison? And how would being "dangerous" (while running away) change the "unarmed" status? Hint: it doesn't.

    ReplyDelete
  27. The copy/paste doesn't seem to work from my home computer in your new system, so I'll fly by wire.



    I think

    ReplyDelete
  28. Yet you suggested that both myself and Brabatio were "OK" with mentally ill people being executed. Which neither of us believe, but which you kept insisting we did simply because you could make some convoluted case that it's what we "said." Sorry,Will, but there's a bit of a "comes around / goes around" situation here.

    ReplyDelete
  29. "YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW MUCH FUN I THINK IT WOULD BE FOR THE THREE OF US TO GO OUT FOR A FEW BEERS AND DEBATE POLITICS ALL NIGHT!"


    I would prefer a round of golf. I once belonged to a simulated football league that had a chat forum. I would argue to no ends with a Jewish guy and a Palestinian guy. Turned out we all were able to meet up for a round of golf. I expected them to beat the hell out of me with my own golf clubs but they turned out to be friendly guys and we had a good time. I still don't agree with their politics, but at least we got along for that one day. :)

    ReplyDelete
  30. NO WE DID NOT! *I* said that it was the MOST LIKELY OUTCOME. That, given the situation, it was almost guaranteed to end with the man pointing a gun at one of the cops, who would THEN be justified in shooting him. (Regardless of any other considerations, if you point a gun at a cop? You get shot. I'll never argue against THAT.) AND if he gets shot, he likely dies. He DIDN'T die here, so... a bit of the wind is taken out of the outrage sails. How you conclude from that that we're "OK with EXECUTING him?" I have no idea. You're either just being an asshole, or you truly believe it, in which case you'r an idiot. And you could have avoided EITHER at ANY TIME by simply accepted what we said in response to it at FACE VALUE: That we are not OK with "executing" ANYONE. But, no, you kept going back in an absurd effort to "prove" to us that we were. And from that point on, the conversation is derailed. And you do that a LOT.

    ReplyDelete
  31. He was unarmed because he just sold the gun to the cops. The cops didn't know if that was the only weapon he had. They had him on the ground (with one cop over him) yet the struggle that continued apparently warranted the guy needing to be tased. I asked on that other thread if you knew how people high on drugs acted (and got no response), this guy had already proven to be a meth dealer, which means he was probably a meth user. People high on meth can do some amazing physical activities. The cops had in no way fully contained this PROVEN dangerous guy so it was NOT the same as the others.
    And the guy wasn't "put down" by the cops. It was a fucking accident. Didn't you even watch your own video? It wasn't at all like ANY of the other killings so I was justified in my whine about you including it as one of the situations that warrant that kind of complaint.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Well... I really don't enjoy golf unless there's much beer involved... so... maybe that's what a compromise looks like?

    ReplyDelete
  33. If his plan was to sell the gun, then it was never a factor. It's not as if he was "disarmed" or something, he was selling the gun intentionally. Your reasoning is bankrupt.

    ReplyDelete
  34. "NO WE DID NOT!"

    Well, there you go, Eddie. You take exception to my "misinterpreting" you view, yet you fully support Barbie misinterpreting mine. Why do you think I phrased it that way? Now perhaps you'll understand my frustration with Barbie for completely misinterpreting what I actually said.

    ReplyDelete
  35. You would have to show misinterpretation on my part, which you haven't done.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Me too. That's why I still shoot in the 90's.

    ReplyDelete
  37. "How you conclude from that that we're "OK with EXECUTING him?" "

    You know that Barbie said that if the public was in danger it would have been ok to kill the guy. That is different than what you are saying and equal to what I was saying yet you both say what I said was out of line and equivalent to "executing" a guy. And, both of you seem to infer that I support doing that for no good reason. Which was NOT the case in that article (... and another...).

    ReplyDelete
  38. No, I specified immediate danger, which is not at all consistent with your concept that selling drugs or guns qualifies by itself.

    Your "no good reason" phrase could use some clarification. If your idea of "good reason" is that someone previously had a weapon on them, most people would strenuously disagree with your standard.

    ReplyDelete
  39. If you hadn't told him that, he would have struggled forever, and wondering how I was able to copy and paste while he could not.

    ReplyDelete
  40. "How did the police "do wrong" in that case, since you don't want people like Harris to go to prison?"

    Again, where did I say "I don't want" people like Harris to go to prison. If you read what I wrote ... (yet again) ... I said if a criminal is killed doing his criminal activity, then that criminal should accept that some kind of danger that could occur in the course of his criminal behavior. That is obviously NOT saying "I don't want" him (or people like him) going to prison.


    So, like I showed Eddie, if you take my comments out of context and misinterpret them, then you are in the wrong. Even HE started playing those stupid "word games" (that he complained about me playing) when I took his comment out of context and misinterpreted it.
    Amazing how easy it is to show a liberal that what THEY do they consider OK, but if anyone else does the SAME THING, then it is not OK. Nothing hypocritical about that, huh? Maybe Eddie will explain how his "word games" are more acceptable than my "word games". Somehow, I think he will notice that and choose not to say anything.

    ReplyDelete
  41. You said that liberals were ruining the country in the context of wanting to put people like Harris in prison. Hence, you strongly oppose putting people like Harris in prison, obviously.

    I'm taking your comment in context. You're the one who's trying to separate it and pretend that the context doesn't have any bearing on your meaning.

    ReplyDelete
  42. "Hence, you strongly oppose putting people like Harris in prison, obviously."

    And just as obviously, if you misinterpret what I say then I am not responsible for your conclusion. Just like I showed Eddie, he made a statement and I came to the "hence" conclusion. He started playing the "word games" that he complained about me playing. Sorry, Barbie, just because it is YOU playing these games doesn't make it acceptable.

    ReplyDelete
  43. You're not demonstrating any misinterpretation.

    ReplyDelete
  44. I have so. But Eddie complained that I was playing "word games" and because of that he considered you correct. UNTIL I showed how HE played the "word games", I haven't heard from him since. That actually means you are in the wrong by changing what I DID say into what you THINK I said.

    ReplyDelete
  45. You haven't shown any change, though. I've quoted you directly, and it plainly demonstrates your meaning.

    It's not clear where any of that actually happened with Eddie, but it wouldn't have any impact on what you originally said, anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  46. "I've quoted you directly, and it plainly demonstrates your meaning."

    If that is true, then you can bring the direct quote of mine that shows I said I "support executing" people.


    BTW, it is absolutely clear what happened with Eddie. And, it has a lot of bearing on your dishonest habits.

    ReplyDelete
  47. I've brought the quotes on the relevant thread. You can address them there. It's not clear why you're putting "support executing" in quotes, since I never claimed you used that phrase.

    No, it's not clear what you're talking about regarding Eddie, and anything that happens with him doesn't have any bearing on me at all.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Oh ... now you want to go back to the other thread. I put it in quotes because you asked why I "support executing" people without a trial. When I never said I "support executing" people without a trial. It was YOU who called it executing, not me. And I've never supported execution without a trial and I've never expressed such. YOU cannot show that I have. All you have is your illogical MISINTERPRETATION.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Well, you always say to go back to other threads when I bring up your hypocrisy, so you can do the same when you bring this up for no discernible reason whatsoever. That's fair.

    I know I called it "executing". I never claimed that you used that term. You have, however, clearly expressed disdain for the idea of putting people like Harris in prison, and you have justified violence against people simply because of criminal behavior and the mere possibility of being armed. When you act as if unarmed criminals bear responsibility for being killed by police, then you're clearly supporting their execution. Otherwise, the responsibility would belong to the police.

    ReplyDelete
  50. What I've CLEARLY expressed is that if a violent criminal is in the middle of committing a violent crime they must accept the possibility of what may happen. Even YOU'VE said if the public is in danger, then it is acceptable to execute the unarmed criminal. Well, selling drugs and guns to the police then running down a PUBLIC street (no one knowing if he had more guns) is putting the PUBLIC IN DANGER. So, by YOUR logic, you support executing people without a trial.

    ReplyDelete
  51. I never said it was acceptable to execute an unarmed criminal. Danger would mean immediate, not selling drugs or anything like that. By that logic, you think drunk drivers should be shot.

    ReplyDelete
  52. "By that logic, you think drunk drivers should be shot."


    So do you. Unless you don't think drunk drivers aren't an "immediate" threat to the public.

    ReplyDelete
  53. "So do you. Unless you don't think drunk drivers aren't an
    "immediate" threat to the public."

    Obviously, they couldn't be. Once they're pulled over, they're no longer driving, and therefore not an immediate threat. But thanks for admitting that you favor executing drunk drivers.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Not after they are pulled over.

    ReplyDelete
  55. So what do you propose, shooting at a vehicle while assuming that the driver is drunk?

    ReplyDelete
  56. Is that what you propose?

    ReplyDelete
  57. Obviously not, since I'm the one distinguishing between legitimate, necessary use of deadly force and executions. You're the one who believes that crimes such as selling drugs is somehow relevant to deadly force, so you must feel the same about drunk driving.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Well, if you feel drunk drivers are an immediate threat then you feel the same way as I do.
    You didn't think this one through at all, did you?

    ReplyDelete
  59. I don't feel that drunk drivers are an immediate threat, as I already made clear.

    So, again, are you proposing that the police make assumptions about drunk driving and then fire at the moving vehicle?

    ReplyDelete
  60. You said they aren't an immediate threat "once they are pulled over", by your logic that means they ARE an immediate threat before they are pulled over. Again, by your logic, that means you support executing people without a trial.

    ReplyDelete
  61. No, it doesn't mean that at all. Before they're pulled over, then they can't be positively determined to be drunk, so they can't be determined to be any sort of threat.

    See the difference between that and someone firing a gun in the air when approached by police yet, or do you need more help?

    ReplyDelete
  62. Why are they being pulled over then? Where in the case in question, the violent criminal has just sold a gun to the cops and previously sold meth to the cops (known dangers). Do YOU see the difference?

    ReplyDelete
  63. They're being pulled over for a traffic violation and/or for suspicion of drunk driving.

    "Where in the case in question, the violent criminal has just sold a gun to the cops and previously sold meth to the cops (known dangers)."

    How does that justify deadly force, if the criminal is unarmed?

    ReplyDelete
  64. So you support cops executing people based on assuming they are criminals?

    Wow, don't you hate it when your own words are used against you?

    ReplyDelete
  65. What do you imagine you're talking about?

    ReplyDelete
  66. You've been snookered again. LOL You complain about me supporting executing criminals before a trial (your misinterpretation of what I said), but you support executing criminals who are assumed to be criminals before they have a trial (my misinterpretation of what you said).
    My how your own logic comes back to bite you in your own ass quicker than you thought possible.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Your assertion that I "support executing criminals who are assumed to be criminals" (which doesn't even make sense, if you actually read it) hasn't been substantiated.

    Again, how would selling drugs or guns justify deadly force, if the criminal was unarmed? You're deflecting, and not even doing a very good job at it.

    ReplyDelete
  68. How would drunk driving justify deadly force, if the drunk driver hasn't been shown to be driving drunk? Unless you feel drunk drivers are NOT an immediate threat to the public?
    What I'm doing is using your own logic against you and you call it "deflecting". LOL Does that mean you've been deflecting all along?

    ReplyDelete
  69. "How would drunk driving justify deadly force, if the drunk driver hasn't been shown to be driving drunk? Unless you feel drunk drivers are NOT an immediate threat to the public?"


    It doesn't justify deadly force, obviously. I've said more than once that it's not an immediate threat.


    Again, how would selling drugs or guns justify deadly force, if the criminal was unarmed?

    ReplyDelete
  70. You only said that drunk drivers weren't an immediate threat AFTER they were pulled over. Never anything about before they are pulled over.

    ReplyDelete
  71. I already addressed that, as well. They can't be determined to be drunk before they're pulled over.

    Again, how would selling drugs or guns justify deadly force, if the criminal was unarmed?

    ReplyDelete
  72. Well, that would mean you don't think drunk drivers are an immediate threat to the public.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Which I've explicitly said, yes.


    Again, how would selling drugs or guns justify deadly force, if the criminal was unarmed?

    ReplyDelete
  74. So, you're saying someone selling guns to the public isn't an immediate threat to the public? And someone driving drunk isn't an immediate threat to the public? Ok, that makes sense. (note the sarcasm)

    ReplyDelete
  75. Yes, that's what I'm saying, as slow as you are to the concept. How are you countering that, in order to show how selling guns justifies deadly force when the criminal is unarmed?

    ReplyDelete
  76. Well, if he's selling guns, how do you KNOW he's unarmed? That kind of contradicts itself. If he's selling guns, obviously he's armed.

    ReplyDelete
  77. The police never know that someone is unarmed until they're under control. And no, it doesn't contradict itself at all. If someone is selling a gun, they obviously aren't carrying that gun around to use as a weapon, because they know they won't be leaving with it. Why would it even be loaded, since it would be handed over to someone else during the transaction?


    So, no, the possibility of being armed doesn't justify deadly force. Why would selling drugs or guns justify deadly force, if the criminal turns out to be unarmed?

    ReplyDelete
  78. If you're going to assume the gun is empty, then it would only be empty in the criminals attempt to keep from getting robbed after he sells the gun. I could also assume the criminal carries another gun to protect himself from that happening too.

    ReplyDelete
  79. "I could also assume the criminal carries another gun to protect himself from that happening too."

    So you think that the police should use deadly force based on assumptions, now? Hilarious.

    ReplyDelete
  80. No, he would have to be searched. The situation, at hand, he had not been searched and had already been deemed "armed and dangerous" by police.

    ReplyDelete
  81. If someone could be searched, they could also be placed under arrest instead of being shot. So, how would the possibility of being armed be relevant to justifying the use of deadly force?

    ReplyDelete
  82. He had not been searched. Check the report.

    ReplyDelete
  83. He was also on the ground with another officer on top of him. So what?


    What does selling guns or drugs have to do with justifying deadly force, if the criminal is unarmed? Try to focus.

    ReplyDelete
  84. He was also (apparently) struggling enough to need to be tased. And, that's when the accident happened. Armed and dangerous and struggling. yes he very well could have proven to be an immediate danger to the public. In which case you support executing him without a trial ... as you've stated.

    ReplyDelete
  85. So he could have been tased and not shot. Deadly force isn't preemptive, so it doesn't really matter if he "could have proven" to be a danger at some point in the future. And no, I never said that anyone should be executed without a trial. That's a term that you're applying to justifiable deadly force, not me, so I'm not accountable for your actions.


    You said that selling drugs and guns were "known dangers", but you haven't explained how those "known dangers" justify deadly force.

    ReplyDelete
  86. That's right, he could have been tased. Which the officer was getting ready to do when the ACCIDENT happened. Again, check the report.

    ReplyDelete
  87. If he could have been tased, then the idea that he could have been armed obviously doesn't justify deadly force.

    You're assuming that it's an accident, and you're also making a larger point that doesn't rely on an accidental death. You said that selling drugs and guns are "known dangers", but you've failed to explain how they justify deadly force.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Yes, I'm assuming it was an accident. There is nothing else to suggest otherwise after the officer yelled "taser" then shot his gun. If you want to assume that he pulled his gun on purpose and yelled "taser" to fool everyone, then you would have a point about you calling it an execution. You haven't shown anything to support that theory, though. So, yes, I'm flying with it was an accident.

    Concerning "known dangers" ... what the hell do you know about that? You claim drunk driving isn't an immediate threat to the public. When every 2 minutes a person is injured in a drunk driving crash and that drunk driving costs the United States $199 BILLION per year or that every DAY 28 people will die from drunk driving crashes in America.

    http://www.madd.org/drunk-driving/about/drunk-driving-statistics.html

    ReplyDelete
  89. I didn't call this incident an execution. And drunk driving is a problem, but it's not something that requires deadly force. The same way that selling drugs or guns doesn't require deadly force.

    You failed to address my previous post, and the question that you've dodged multiple times already. As it stands, you would rather see an unarmed criminal shot than arrested, by your own words.

    ReplyDelete
  90. I have dodged that question because I have NEVER said I would rather see an unarmed criminal shot than arrested.

    ReplyDelete
  91. You wouldn't explain your own comment about "known dangers" because you didn't explicitly say that you would rather see an unarmed criminal shot than arrested? You do realize that makes no sense, I hope.

    ReplyDelete
  92. As it stands I NEVER said that, while you claim I did. Time for you to prove what you say and not skirt the issue (like usual).

    ReplyDelete
  93. You have never quoted me as saying I "would rather see an unarmed criminal shot than arrested". YOU are the liar.

    ReplyDelete
  94. I didn't claim that you used that exact phrase, nor do I need to.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Yes you do. You said those were my own words. MY words NEVER said that. Back up what you say or back off saying I said it.
    You: As it stands, you would rather see an unarmed criminal shot than arrested, by your own words.

    ReplyDelete
  96. I said "by" your own words, not "these were your own words". Notice that I didn't put quotation marks around anything in your quote, so I didn't claim that you used that phrase.

    You've been corrected. You're welcome.

    ReplyDelete
  97. And you've been proven a liar. YOU'RE welcome.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Since I didn't say that you used that exact phrase, your claim of a lie was debunked. Try to keep up.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Since you said those were my "own words", you have been proven to be a liar. None of those words have been used by me describing that situation.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Since I said "by" your own words, your expectation of an exact quote is simply your misunderstanding, which is not my responsibility. It's been explained to you, so taking "own words" out of context at this point only shows that you aren't acting in good faith.


    It's amusing that you pretended to be a victim on this thread, and you're now validating Eddie's doubt of you. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Well, by your words you support executing drunk drivers unless they've been pulled over. Those were your words. So, your word games can be played against you at the same time.

    ReplyDelete
  102. I've already made it clear that I don't support any such executions, especially since I brought up the drunk driving example to highlight the flaw in your view that selling drugs or guns somehow justifies deadly force by itself. So, no, what you're claiming were my words is your willful misrepresentation.

    Try again?

    ReplyDelete
  103. "Your words show otherwise."
    My words show no such thing. You're making an assumption that was already addressed in full, and which never had any merit to begin with. It's inconsistent with my point, and I also explained that there's no way to positively determine that anyone is drunk before they're pulled over.
    Where you're failing here is that you can't provide any explanation for what you said, so the only way you can continue to claim that you're being misrepresented is by misrepresenting me and creating a false equivalence between the two. Notice, though, that I not only have an explanation which dispels your claim, but that it's already been provided to you in previous posts.

    ReplyDelete
  104. Again, using your logic, if drunk drivers aren't actually drunk until it
    has been determined, then you support the guy being shot AFTER it was
    determined that he was a danger to the public.
    Any misrepresentation
    that is happening is only an equal to your misrepresentations that have
    occurred earlier. If you don't like being misrepresented then you should
    think about NOT misrepresenting others.

    ReplyDelete
  105. You aren't using my logic at all, though. I explicitly said that deadly force shouldn't be used against drunk drivers.

    "Any misrepresentation that is happening is only an equal to your misrepresentations that have occurred earlier. If you don't like being misrepresented then you should think about NOT misrepresenting others."



    Thanks for confirming my theory about your behavior. Just for fun, though, let's have a hypothetical where I somehow did misrepresent you. Even in that scenario, I wouldn't know how to correct the behavior, because you haven't explained how you were misrepresented. So, even if that was the case, it's still your failure that's leading to the problem at this point.


    Essentially, it seems that you're now trying to extort silence from me whenever you make an outrageous comment, because if I point out the inescapable nature of what you say, you'll manufacture some meaning for something that I say. Obviously, that's not going to work against me. I'm not afraid to let you reveal your lack of morals even further.


    If you really thought that you were being misrepresented, you would be able to provide an alternate interpretation for your original comments. And you haven't done so.

    ReplyDelete
  106. I've only explained the misrepresentation a zillion times. You claim I support killing unarmed black men without a trial, when I said dangerous criminals put themselves into that position by doing what they do and that they should expect the possibility of their own harm while they are doing what they do. So, there is no "hypothetical", you've actually done it and do it on a regular basis. Then to top it off, when your logic is used against you, you flip flop your story so you somehow think you are being consistent. Like when you claim drunk drivers are only a danger to the public AFTER they've been pulled over. Then you claim drunk drivers are no threat at all to the public. Wow! talk about lack of morals. Nobody in America thinks drunk drives are not a danger to the public. And since you've previously stated that you only support executing people if they are a danger to the public you are being completely immoral in your stance on drunk driving.

    Your lack of intelligence is glaring. Don't blame me for it. Try to do better in the future. Perhaps a drunk driver will run you down and you'll witness first-hand haw dangerous they are before they are pulled over. Only a moron would think drunk drivers are not dangerous before they are pulled over. You ARE that moron. Thanks for playing little ball-less man.

    ReplyDelete
  107. Wait a minute. Now I get why you think drunk drivers aren't dangerous. You ARE one and since you haven't been caught you feel they aren't dangerous. Wow, who'd a thought I'd be arguing about drunk driving with a drunkard. I guess I should have expected that from you. Liberals are usually that way. Come to think of it ... Eddie drinks heavily too. No wonder he supports your positions so blindly.

    ReplyDelete
  108. "You claim I support killing unarmed black men without a trial, when I said dangerous criminals put themselves into that position by doing what they do and that they should expect the possibility of their own harm while they are doing what they do."

    Those are completely consistent with each other, of course, since you're putting the responsibility on the unarmed criminal and not the police. And, of course, you oppose incarceration, which only leaves execution as an option. So, you weren't misrepresented at all, despite your assertions. You have no alternate explanation, since what you're saying is consistent with my description of your views.

    "Like when you claim drunk drivers are only a danger to the public AFTER they've been pulled over. Then you claim drunk drivers are no threat at all to the public."

    I didn't claim either of those, as you know.

    "And since you've previously stated that you only support executing people if they are a danger to the public you are being completely immoral in your stance on drunk driving."



    I stated no such thing, because I never supported any executions by police officers. Shootings that are done in the cases of immediate threats such as people firing weapons in the air when approached by police aren't executions. You're using that term on your own, and it doesn't reflect on anything that I've said.


    Since you haven't demonstrated any misrepresentation on my part, and you're making up things that I've supposedly stated and claimed, you don't really have anywhere to go from here. Try again, or would you like to embarrass yourself further?

    ReplyDelete
  109. "Those are completely consistent with each other, of course, since you're
    putting the responsibility on the unarmed criminal and not the police"

    The responsibility IS on the dangerous criminal. If they are a danger to the public then, by your words, you agree.

    " And, of course, you oppose incarceration, which only leaves execution as an option."

    I don't oppose incarceration. I said they are overcrowded. That's just ANOTHER of your misinterpretations.

    "I didn't claim either of those, as you know."

    Sure you did, you liar. You claimed both. More examples of your lies.

    "I stated no such thing, because I never supported any executions by police officers."

    By your words, you support executing people if they are a danger to the public. Obviously you would want to retract that once I point it out, but it's too late, you've already expressed your support for executing people without a trial.

    " Would you like to try a different path, or would you prefer to embarrass yourself further?"

    No, I'll stay on the same path. Since you HAVE misrepresented my words and I've proven it over and over, there is no embarrassment for me. What liberal would except responsibility for what they say? I expect your reactions when it is pointed out you misrepresent others statements.

    ReplyDelete
  110. "The responsibility IS on the dangerous criminal."

    No, the police still need to act responsibly.

    "If they are a danger to the public then, by your words, you agree."

    An immediate danger, which doesn't apply to unarmed criminals at all.

    "I don't oppose incarceration. I said they are overcrowded."

    You claimed that liberals were ruining the country because we thought incarceration was an alternative to people like Harris getting shot. That goes well beyond talking about overcrowded conditions.

    "Sure you did, you liar. You claimed both."

    Prove it. I can guarantee that you'll have to make wild assumptions and ignore context in order to make the claim, just as you already have.

    "By your words, you support executing people if they are a danger to the public."

    No, stopping an immediate threat to the public wouldn't be classified as "executing". That's your attempt at a false equivalence, and not based on anything that I said.

    "Since you HAVE misrepresented my words and I've proven it over and over, there is no embarrassment for me."

    You've proven my point by reiterating that it's the fault of an unarmed criminal if he's killed by the police.

    "What liberal would except responsibility for what they say?"



    You haven't accepted responsibility for your comment about liberals supposedly ruining this country by accepting incarceration as an option. On the other hand, I've addressed every accusation you've made against me. I win.

    ReplyDelete
  111. "No, the police still need to act responsibly."

    I'm not saying they don't. But by your words the dangerous criminal is exempt from harm caused by their dangerous activities.

    "An immediate danger, which doesn't apply to unarmed criminals at all."

    That counters your words from earlier. Are you flip-flopping again?

    "You claimed that liberals were ruining the country because we thought
    incarceration was an alternative to people like Harris getting shot"

    That's not what I claimed. That's simply ANOTHER of your misinterpretations.

    " I can guarantee that you'll have to make wild assumptions and ignore
    context in order to make the claim, just as you already have."

    Or make misinterpretations, like you do?

    "No, stopping an immediate threat to the public wouldn't be classified as "executing"."

    By your words, that's not how you claimed it. Flip-flopping yet again?

    " On the other hand, I've addressed every accusation you've made against me."


    By flip-flopping. You lose

    ReplyDelete
  112. "I'm not saying they don't."

    Then you should have no problem with criticism of police who kill unarmed criminals.

    "But by your words the dangerous criminal is exempt from harm caused by their dangerous activities."

    No, I never suggested that, obviously.

    "That counters your words from earlier."

    Prove it.

    "That's not what I claimed."

    Yes, it is.

    "Or make misinterpretations, like you do?"

    You haven't shown any misinterpretations on my part.

    "By your words, that's not how you claimed it."



    Prove it.

    ReplyDelete
  113. "Yes, it is."

    Prove it.

    ReplyDelete
  114. I did, on the relevant thread and on this one as well. You have no other interpretation for what you said for anyone to consider, so all you've done is make empty denials.

    I'll take your silence on every other point as an admission that you made up all of your claims of what I said.

    ReplyDelete
  115. I checked that relevant thread and I see no proof made by you. And, you certainly have not done that on this one.

    I'll take your lack of proof as an example that you just make shit up and misinterpret all you want and call it acceptable.

    ReplyDelete
  116. Your unwillingness to admit what you say doesn't reflect on me. When you have an alternative meaning for what you said, then you can present it. Even then, you can't blame anyone for reading the plain meaning of your words at this point in time.

    ReplyDelete
  117. Yours or anyone else's misinterpretation of what I obviously say is none of my concern. Since you can bring no proof of what you claim I said, then you are admitting your errors.

    ReplyDelete
  118. I brought your quote on the other thread. If you're going to claim that your refusal to admit your clear meaning constitutes "no proof", then you can never even attempt to hold anyone accountable for what they say, ever again. Because nobody ever will have to give you "proof".


    You might want to step back and think about that for a moment.

    ReplyDelete
  119. "I've checked that other thread and you brought no proof of your interpretation being equal to what I said."

    There's no other possible interpretation for what you said, as far as you've shown.

    "The facts are that (on that other thread) I brought several items of proof to show that your misinterpretations were, in fact, incorrect."

    No, you didn't.

    ReplyDelete
  120. Yes I have, you liar.
    Hell, even on THIS thread I explained your confusion. Which you admitted to.
    Me:Oh ... now you want to go back to the other thread. I put it in quotes
    because you asked why I "support executing" people without a trial. When
    I never said I "support executing" people without a trial. It was YOU
    who called it executing, not me. And I've never supported execution
    without a trial and I've never expressed such. YOU cannot show that I
    have. All you have is your illogical MISINTERPRETATION.

    And here it groups several together:

    Me:

    william 14 days ago

    "So you're not accountable for what you say?"
    What have I said that you haven't misinterpreted and came to a wrong conclusion? Why should I defend myself to people like YOU? Let someone with a little intelligence question me and I'll respond in kind. When I get someone stupid questioning me then you get what you deserve.
    "No, you have not."
    Sure I have: http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com...
    and here also: http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com...
    and here also: http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com...
    Notice a pattern there? I'm responding to an intelligent poster.


    And that was after you asked for the same proof you are asking for now. What a fucking liar you are. A misinterpreting liberal liar. Go figure...never saw that one coming, huh? A liberal who lies?

    ReplyDelete
  121. Then the funny thing is that you think drunk drivers aren't an immediate threat AFTER they are pulled over. Hence you think they are BEFORE they are pulled over. Which means by your words you support executing people without a trial. Making my interpretation of what you said to be accurate.

    You: Obviously, they couldn't be. Once they're pulled over, they're no
    longer driving, and therefore not an immediate threat. But thanks for
    admitting that you favor executing drunk drivers.

    ReplyDelete
  122. "Hell, even on THIS thread I explained your confusion. Which you admitted to."


    I admitted to no such thing. Since I never claimed that you used the word "executing", you're not actually contradicting my interpretation. You're making a straw man argument about me supposedly accusing you of using a word that you didn't actually use, which wouldn't be a matter of interpretation at all.


    You clearly opposed incarceration by presenting it as an unacceptable alternative to shooting people like Harris. You can whine about an accusation that I didn't make as long as you like, but you can't come up with another interpretation for what you said.

    ReplyDelete
  123. "Then the funny thing is that you think drunk drivers aren't an immediate threat AFTER they are pulled over. Hence you think they are BEFORE they are pulled over."

    No, that's a leap of logic on your part. I didn't say that they had to be an "immediate threat" at any point in time, while you seem to assume that I did. In fact, I made it abundantly clear that a threat couldn't be determined before any driver is pulled over.

    "Which means by your words you support executing people without a trial."



    That's also wrong, since even if it was a justifiable shooting, it wouldn't be an "execution". That's your conflation, and solely your responsibility.


    You've failed to prove that I said what you claimed that I did. You did ignore context and make assumptions, just as I predicted, though.

    ReplyDelete
  124. Where did I oppose incarceration? You are a liar if you can't bring that proof. Keep digging that hole deeper.

    ReplyDelete
  125. I said "by your words". Did I put something in quotations that you are concerned about? After all, "by your words" seems to mean anything you want it to. According to your logic.

    ReplyDelete
  126. I brought the quote on the relevant thread and explained it multiple times here.

    ReplyDelete
  127. Yeah? Where? I don't see it. Bring the link or STFU.

    ReplyDelete
  128. "After all, "by your words" seems to mean anything you want it to. According to your logic."


    That's another straw man argument. You would have to explain how your interpretation is reasonable, which you can't do. You haven't provided any alternative to the interpretation of your comments as supporting police shootings of unarmed criminals, while your interpretation of my comments is completely inconsistent with the context of my argument and relies on absurd leaps of logic on your part.


    Try again?

    ReplyDelete
  129. You don't see what? You've been to the other thread, and I explained it a couple of comments up. I'm not going to repeat myself when you can't be bothered to address it the first time. Everyone can see that I've made my point, even if you want to keep kicking and screaming over it.

    ReplyDelete
  130. Well, punk, you keep expecting me to repeat myself. I've proven you wrong over and over again and yet you continue to ask for proof. So, yes bring your proof or STFU. What a crying little bitch you turn out to be;

    ReplyDelete
  131. I expect you to provide an alternate interpretation for what you said. Since you can't do that, you confirm that my interpretation was correct.


    Remember, you're the one who brought this up out of nowhere on this thread. If you want to pursue your claim, go back to the other thread and reply to me there. Your lack of self-awareness is almost alarming, considering the crybaby nature of all of your comments on this thread.

    ReplyDelete
  132. No, what I'm gonna do is stick with what I DID say and let your misinterpretations fall on the floor. So if you're afraid to address what is being discussed here and now, then, by all means run away. I expect little girls to do that.

    ReplyDelete
  133. I've addressed what you've said. You can let your original words stand as they are, which means that everyone knows that you think unarmed criminals should be shot instead of incarcerated.

    ReplyDelete
  134. The only problem is that I never said that. That is your illogical misinterpretation of what I actually DID say. So, yes, I will let my words stand on their own. And, let yours fall on the floor.

    ReplyDelete
  135. I know you never said those exact words. That's why it's an interpretation. Since you've provided no alternate meaning, my interpretation stands. Eventually, you may grasp the concept here, although it seems doubtful at the moment.

    ReplyDelete
  136. That's right, your misinterpretations stand on their own and fall on the floor. Since I don't support what you claim I do, then I have no problems at all.

    ReplyDelete
  137. You asserting that you believe something contrary to what you clearly said is meaningless.

    An analogy for you, circa 1938;
    A: We need a "final solution" for the Jewish problem.
    B: So you support genocide?
    A: I didn't say "genocide", did I?
    B: What else do you mean?
    A: You misinterpreted me, liberal. STFU.

    Hint: you're person "A" in the analogy.

    ReplyDelete
  138. Why should I address misinterpretations? You must be a complete moron to think anyone would do that. When you address what I did say and not what you make up then we can have a discussion. But, if you keep relying on your misinterpretations then you get to live in your lies.

    ReplyDelete
  139. I did address what you said, and its undeniable meaning as well.


    You're responding to the same comment you did six hours ago, in case you were unaware.

    ReplyDelete
  140. You're making the same false claims you made days ago, in case you were unaware.

    ReplyDelete
  141. You would have to show how, and you haven't done so.

    ReplyDelete
  142. OK, THAT’S ENOUGH!

    You’re done. Both of you. I’m declaring an END to this
    conversation.

    Mother. Fucker! 160+ posts and neither one of you have accomplished dick (other than irritating the crap out of ME) the entire time! What the hell do you think you’re going to accomplish now? You’re giving me heartburn! You’re worse than my god-damned kids!

    And with that in mind:

    I DON’T CARE who’s toy it is!

    I DON’T CARE who had it first!

    And I DON’T CARE who’s turn it is now!

    I JUST WANT QUIET! So if you two don’t SHUT THE FUCK UP –
    BOTH of you – I’m taking the damn toy away and NO ONE will have it!

    1) This thread is now closed.

    2) If this conversation spills over into any other threads, I will delete the comments.

    3) Any, and I do mean *ANY*, BITCHING ABOUT THIS and I will delete the comment.

    4) If I have to keep deleting your comments, I’ll just ban your ass instead.

    I hope you’re listening because I’m not going to say it again, and I’M NOT IN THE MOOD TO BE TESTED ON THIS!

    So proceed with caution.

    Jesus. Fucking. Christ. How many HUNDREDS of posts has it been? Mother. Fucker.

    E-N-O-U-G-H.

    ReplyDelete