Journal damn_registrars's Journal: How to enrage a hack in zero easy steps 46
I would ponder writing this up as a book, as I have volumes of experience with the matter. However I'm not sure I can make zero steps long enough to warrant binding into a volume.
8 letters (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well... It's shorter than "Whitewater".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Touché. :)
Re: (Score:1)
Shrug. You're an expert on that. You clearly don't believe most of what you write -- like in our Benghazi discussion, where you literally had no arguments against what I wrote in the end, but still claimed some sort of victory -- and are only engaging to excite yourself. And you're not even fooling anyone ... which means you're a cheap date, even for yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Are you capable of resisting the opportunity to come and present your opinion as god's own truth?
Keep up the charade if you like. Anyone can read the discussion, and if they did, would be well aware that you had no answer to my points about Benghazi. I mean, you tried, of course, but in doing so you only exposed your ignorance further, like when you said there was a three hour pause in the attacks between the consulate and the annex. I mean, this was your huge point for awhile: there was no reason to expect further attacks, no reason for American troops to go to the annex, because the annex hadn't b
Re: (Score:2)
Go ahead, write another reply where you accuse me of lying (which will, as per your usual,
Re: (Score:1)
I've asked you before why you persist with such obvious lies, but I think I get it now. You're pretending to be President Obama. Like when yesterday, Obama said that he'd said all along that he had put a disclaimer about insurance companies possibly canceling your insurance on his oft-repeated promise that "If you like your insurance, you can keep it. Period." I mean, it's an obvious lie. He didn't do that. He many many times said "period," with no "unless." But he makes this lie anyway, as though an
Re: (Score:1)
he blew holes into your argument that the goddamned uss enterprise could sail through with room to spare
I never made such an argument, and he blew holes in not a single thing I wrote. And this is really simple: simply quote what I wrote, and then quote him blowing a hole in it. Very very simple.
Note that he didn't do that, and you didn't either, and there's a reason why, and we all know what it is: you can't.
Re: (Score:1)
indeed another way to state it is that you never made an argument at all.
An obviously false way to state it, sure.
except for damn near every single thing you wrote.
We are collectively unsurprised that you provide not a single example.
the way you evaded truth and shat all over logic in this discussion
Ibid.
besides the obvious demonstration of [him] blowing your argument to kingdom come is already on display for all of us to see
Ibid.
Re: (Score:1)
Wow, you provide no substance to back up your claims. I'm completely shocked!
Re: (Score:1)
Oh and by the way -- maybe you're new to English, I don't know, but -- I never claimed any particular gender for him. It is perfectly acceptable in English to use the masculine pronouns as gender-neutral when the gender is unknown. I could also use the plural pronouns (them, they, their) but I find them to be cumbersome.
Re: (Score:1)
Still no substance. I wonder why?
I'll give you a hint, because you seem to really think you're making a case, even though you're not. If you think I should've cited something that I didn't, then tell me what. That said, he never asked for any citations that I might have left out, either implicitly or explicitly. If he had even said "no, their was no fighting at the annex for the hours before 4 a.m.," I'd have provided the citation for it. But when things are easy to Google and no one is directly questi
Re: (Score:1)
Pudge, you're devolving. Soon you will become a jellyfish. I am beginning to believe that you handed off your account to some punk.
Re: (Score:1)
Substance, wherefore art though?
Re: (Score:1)
:-) Yes, my question exactly... Let us know if you ever come up with any....
Performance art? At least Smitty has some talent in that department. You and d_r should do your best to hang on to your day jobs.
though? or thou?
Re: (Score:1)
:-) Yes, my question exactly... Let us know if you ever come up with any....
I offered many points, based on the facts, of why he was wrong that there was not enough time to send more people in to Benghazi. I pointed out there was several hours between the first and final assaults, that the WH had information necessary to know what was going on, and that the attacks didn't stop, continued at the annex, and the folks there still needed rescuing ... and at the end, two more Americans died, while help never came.
You can choose to pretend that's not substance, but no one is fooled.
Re: (Score:1)
You offered points based on press releases, not facts. You base your beliefs on the person making the statements without bothering to verify. When Bush lied us into war in Iraq and Afghanistan you were all gung ho. Obviously you are part of the cult of personality. Like Reagan said, "Facts are stupid things". And since you worship him, you take that as biblical truth.
You're right. No one is fooled by your BS. The pretender is you!
Re: (Score:1)
You offered points based on press releases, not facts.
You're lying. I based it on journalism reports, almost all of it from 60 Minutes, CNN,com, and factcheck.com. Of course, you know this isn't true: if it were, you would offer an example of something I said that isn't easily verifiable.
You base your beliefs on the person making the statements without bothering to verify.
You're lying. I cross-referenced and verified everything I posted with at least one additional source.
When Bush lied us into war in Iraq and Afghanistan you were all gung ho. Obviously you are part of the cult of personality.
You're lying. First, Bush didn't lie to get us into Afghanistan. That's retarded.
Second, to Iraq, the facts actually prove the opposite of your claim: despite my general
Re: (Score:1)
Hm ... scanning for facts that contradict anything I wrote ...
You guys realize you're a parody of yourselves, right? You perpetually insist I am wrong without actually referencing anything I wrote and showing how it is wrong.
And we all know why: because you can't.
Re: (Score:1)
...almost all of it from 60 Minutes...
Exactly! Thanks AGAIN for making my point [cnn.com], sir. What you call 'journalism', we call something else. You get your 'info' from hacks with an agenda. Same goes for your take on Afghanistan and Iraq... and so many other things... You are a goof... and a war monger. You serve the empire well. You appeal to authority to curry favor and privilege.
Re: (Score:1)
you're very cute with your "na na na na boo-boo" technique where you accuse us of doing what you consistently do.
You're lying.
also did you see that the story about benghazi that you are basing you latest argument on was just admitted to be crap [cnn.com]?
You're lying. One part of it -- whether this security contractor was in a certain place at a certain time -- was wrong, but nothing I wrote about was in any way related to that (in part because he said little I cared about it in this context, and in part because I already knew there were questions about where he was and when). Nothing in this story you link to, in any way, contradicts or diminishes what I wrote. You're just lying, as usual.
Most of what I wrote actually came from the link in
Re: (Score:1)
You're just lying, as usual. [slashdot.org]
You didn't diminish anything I wrote. You didn't subvert it in any way. You simply point out that information I didn't use, at all, was called into question and is likely wrong (which is part of why I didn't use it).
If you could call into question anything I wrote, you would. You would quote me, and then show that what I said was incorrect or not verifiable. You can't do that, so instead, you resort to all manner of fallacy to dishonestly try to diminish my points.
And we all
Re: (Score:1)
Most of what I wrote actually came from the link in the story you link to: CNN's own "Benghazi attack timeline."
And you believe THEM??? You're a rodeo clown...
Re: (Score:1)
You realize you linked to them to try to attack me, right?
Re: (Score:1)
Serendipity. The apology is a lie :-)
Re: (Score:1)
Since I'm hanging around, What is CNN's source for this mystical 'timeline' you brought up? The Pentagon? Am I supposed to believe them? And Afghanistan. Whose conspiracy theory are you pushing? The government's? Yeah right, like there's no incentive to lie there. You are so full of it, it's *coming out your ears*... Once again, the retard is you, and all the other believers. You have nothing. You're like the damn cops and prosecutors who falsify and even make up evidence against someone who 'fit a descript
Re: (Score:1)
What is CNN's source for this mystical 'timeline' you brought up? The Pentagon? Am I supposed to believe them?
Wow. A question that is almost about substance. Good job.
So, there's many sources. Which part of the timeline do you want to know about? Each part is sourced differently.
And Afghanistan. Whose conspiracy theory are you pushing? The government's? Yeah right, like there's no incentive to lie there.
Um. If you're saying Bush lied to get us into Afghanistan, you are the one pushing a conspiracy theory. Literally and explicitly. Maybe you're right, but the burden of proof is clearly on you.
You are so full of it, it's *coming out your ears*
And yet, you're the one who still refuses to provide a single argument against anything I've said.
Re: (Score:1)
Nope, he's the one who engaged in malicious prosecution with false evidence until proven otherwise with a proper, public cross examination of its source, which he refused to allow, thus the conclusion it must be false. He is the one who condemned many thousands to death and much suffering. And he reopened a very important opium connection worth many billions of dollars every year. The sword of Damocles is over his head, not mine. That's the only proper way to treat t
Re: (Score:1)
he's the one who engaged in malicious prosecution with false evidence until proven otherwise
Well, no, in fact, that is a perfect example of where you have to prove he did any of those things. You're the one making allegations; those allegations are not based on any obvious or well-known facts; the burden of proof is completely on you.
That's the only proper way to treat those in positions of power.
Ignoring logic and reason and proper procedure is the only proper way to treat those in positions of power?
Are you trying to get people to not take you at all seriously? If so, mission accomplished.
And since you're so confident, name your sources from the 'timeline'
Cite the things you don't know or question, and I'll provide the sou
Re: (Score:1)
and yet, when you run around shouting that the current administration was intentionally lying to the American people, there is no burden of proof on you whatsoever.
You're lying, of course. I accept that burden of proof, and in my view, I met it.
Perhaps you are referring to the fact that some A.C. dishonestly pretended to want to engage in a discussion of the evidence, and so I didn't provide it ... to him. But I did provide it, and I never once implied, in any way, that the burden of proof was not on me. You're simply lying.
only someone who hasn't read this or the other discussions where you have been thoroughly logically trounced and discredited would come to that conclusion
Such as ... ? That's never actually happened. And you either won't provide a link (because you can't), or you'll provide a link where I actua
Re: (Score:1)
You got it backwards. His allegations must meet the burden of proof, and they have failed. All your pro war talk is based purely on bigoted speculation. There is no publicly available evidence to back any of it up, only official statements which you choose not to challenge in your appeal to authority, and because you are a bigot, like everyone else that is pro war.
Re: (Score:1)
And another thing. You are a liar. I never said you were a mouthpiece for Bush. I said you are a mouthpiece for empire. Bush was just following orders, and is actually irrelevant, as is Obama.
Re: (Score:1)
And ANOTHER thing... Nice cop out on the sources. You seem to act like you have actual knowledge of what happened. Swine indeed you are.