Bloggingheads Community

Bloggingheads Community (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/index.php)
-   Diavlog comments (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   Can You Spare Some Change? (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=2094)

TwinSwords 09-11-2008 07:57 AM

Re: Scheiber obviously hasn't met dishonest nutjobs like kidneystones and mvantony
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by mvantony (Post 90699)
I don't care why you think I'm a "nutjob," but it would be interesting to hear why you think I'm dishonest.

Because you said,

Quote:

I was surprised to see Obama go that far. He seems to be cracking a bit.
You said this even though you were aware of at least the possibility that Obama did not "go that far," or intend his remark to be any kind of suggestion that Palin is a pig. You're dishonest because you are pretending that something untrue was true, and you were doing it out of your own partisan self interest.

Later, after the post quoted above, you admitted as much yourself, by saying:

Quote:

I agree that he may not have been referring to her

TwinSwords 09-11-2008 09:51 AM

Re: Scheiber obviously hasn't met dishonest nutjobs like kidneystones and mvantony
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by mvantony (Post 90722)
No, I believed, and believe, that there's little or no possibility of that. (See here; and look for the words 'zero' and 'very little'.) I may be wrong, but I don't believe I am.

Well, no disrespect, but frankly you'd come out looking better if you were lying than if you really honestly believed Obama was referring to Palin when he didn't even mention her. I mean, if you can now accuse people of attacking people they don't even name or allude to, you can make any accusation you want. I find it hard to believe, quite frankly, that you really believe there is next to a zero percent chance that Obama wasn't calling Palin a pig.

Honestly, I am convinced you know better; I am sure you recognize there is far more uncertainty (at least) than you are admitting. And yet you have a preferred narrative: the same one you are advancing in this thread, the unsubstantiated claim that Obama was referring to Palin.

Perhaps there is a more favorable explanation, having to do with the fact that you're not an American. Perhaps where you live, "lipstick on a pig" isn't a common, every day expression used constantly, including thrice by the man you are serving, McCain. If you've never or rarely heard that expression, that might explain your belief that Obama just has to be referring to Palin whenever he uses the word "pig."



Quote:

Originally Posted by mvantony (Post 90722)
Yes, I understand what 'dishonest' means. I wanted to know on what basis you were making your judgment.

The only "reason" you've given for your judgment is this:

Yeah, exactly. You started out claiming something was true despite the fact that you can't possible prove it's true. Then, later, you admitted it might not be true, despite your contrary insistence just minutes earlier. You've conveniently staked out both sides of the issue, though clearly you prefer the impossible to prove assertion that Obama was attacking Palin.


Quote:

Originally Posted by mvantony (Post 90722)
By the way, I'm not a Republican, I'm not American, and I have no strong preference as to who I'd like to see become US president. These days, I'm leaning a little bit toward McCain/Palin, but if Obama were to move more in the direction Gary Hart was suggesting, that could change.

If you behave as the functional equivilent of Republican, you will be treated, by me, at least, as a Republican. If you carry water for smear merchants and liars, you will be regarded as a smear merchant and liar. I did review some of your posts after posting my response above and determined that you do not appear to have a history of wingnuttery (and therefore I removed that part of my post), but I'm not going to undertake a research project every time I post a reply, and as I said: If you mouth Republican talking points and advance a Republican smear campaign, responses to you will be made as if you are a Republican. I think this is eminently fair.

Really, what's the difference between an ACTUAL Republican and someone who merely does all the same things a Republican does? Maybe we can agree you're a sort of faux Republican advancing Republican talking points to Republican advantage.


Quote:

Originally Posted by mvantony (Post 90722)
Perhaps before accusing someone of dishonesty you should have a better idea of what you're talking about?

Yeah, perhaps I should. Perhaps you should take your own advice before you assert that there is next to a 0% chance Obama wasn't attacking Palin.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:47 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.