Journal smittyoneeach's Journal: Bollocks Beyond Belief 42
"President Boner?" wait, had I not been assailed for "various types of childish insults" in your opening paragraph?
Boner is the closest word spell check knows to the speaker's last name. It is still far closer to his actual name than any of the long childish insults you constantly feel obliged to sling at the current presidential administration.
quite counter to the urgency of your calls for Obama to be thrown out over Benghazi (in spite of you having no evidence to support a case for such action against him for it)
There is in fact plenty of evidence for reasonable people who sanely view the facts with open eyes to conclude that grounds for impeachment exist.
That is something you take on faith, as you are clearly not of that group of people.
You put yourself in the position of defending
No. Once again, I am not defending anything.
Now, I figure that, as long as I'm paying a politician far, far too much money for him to do little more than sodomize my country's future, I should at least be allowed to call him things like "Occupy Resolute Desk", or "No-talent Rodeo Clown", or "Keystone Keynesian".
I don't even mind being chided for "various types of childish insults". This is an accurate reflection of the value of these lame little emotionally satisfying riffs.
However, what you're NOT going to see me do is defend them (why should I?), and then turn around and say I'm not defending anything. Especially when that object of the defense is a one trick pony whose sole trick is winning elections (and admittedly good trick).
This administration shall come to be viewed as almost the nadir of American History. The sad little throne sniffers wasting effort defending it are a truly sorry lot, indeed.
Wow that's a lot of JEs for little ol' me! (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
that is worse editing than your friends at Fox News
is erroneous. (a) I've no friends at Fox News, and (b) I really didn't interact with the quoted material beyond the "emphasis mine" which I noted in the JE.
You were defending idiocy then, and are doubling down now.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
You were defending idiocy then
Smitty that simply is not true, and anyone who reads the actual comment can see that. You are doing yourself no service to lie about it. I don't know why you have suddenly embraced creative editing as a way to get a "point" across, but it is below you.
and are doubling down now.
Doubling down on what exactly? You are accusing me of something that you cannot support.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
LOL. It's there for all to see, in blazing unicode
Is it IN the unicode itself? It certainly isn't in the text. If you believe it to be IN the unicode, then it would seem you have a conspiracy theory involving me as well. If you are creating new conspiracy theories that quickly you might want to consider seeking psychiatric evaluation.
But I don't anticipate honest dealings from you on anything.
Well, certainly when you ignore the text I actually write and substitute in whatever you want, there is no reason for you to expect honesty. If you actually go back and read what I wrote (I won't say re-read this tim
Re: (Score:2)
Holy crap -- your OCD is even stronger then what red4man suggested.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
You're a liar.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
You're a liar.
You're a liar.
From my tiny window into the discussion (Score:2)
No. (Score:2, Troll)
Pudge's claim has more weight.
In relation to the comment he replied to [slashdot.org] he cannot possibly prove there to be a lie in the statement. You can accuse me of lying in other parts if you want - even though you cannot possibly support such a claim - but in the comment he replied to there is no way to accuse my statement of being a lie.
Of course, we've seen before that he is willing to twist the meaning of "lie" in order to suit his aims, but by any reasonable person's understanding of what it means, he cannot possibly support that asserti
Re: (Score:3)
In relation to the comment he replied to [slashdot.org] he cannot possibly prove there to be a lie in the statement.
Obviously, another lie. You wrote:
I'm so very excited to see a fake conservative come back to spout nonsense.
It's a lie that he's a fake conservative, and a very clear lie.
Of course, we've seen before that he is willing to twist the meaning of "lie" in order to suit his aims, but by any reasonable person's understanding of what it means, he cannot possibly support that assertion.
Unless by "his aims" you mean "demonstrating dishonesty," which is how I use it, you're lying. And the second part, I've already proven is a lie.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
I'm so very excited to see a fake conservative come back to spout nonsense.
It's a lie that he's a fake conservative, and a very clear lie.
I have made my claim for him being a fake conservative. You have offered no counter claim other than your own opinion. You can disagree with my statement - in spite of the evidence I have given to support it - all you want, but you cannot call it a lie.
Of course, we've seen before that he is willing to twist the meaning of "lie" in order to suit his aims, but by any reasonable person's understanding of what it means, he cannot possibly support that assertion.
Unless by "his aims" you mean "demonstrating dishonesty," which is how I use it, you're lying. And the second part, I've already proven is a lie.
That is the problem; you are not demonstrating dishonesty. You are asserting that you believe that anyone who disagrees with you is being willfully dishonest simply because you believe that to be so. You have not demonstrated dishonesty in any way, shap
Re: (Score:2)
I'm so very excited to see a fake conservative come back to spout nonsense.
It's a lie that he's a fake conservative, and a very clear lie.
I have made my claim for him being a fake conservative.
Yes, you made your claim. It's a lie.
You have offered no counter claim other than your own opinion. You can disagree with my statement - in spite of the evidence I have given to support it
You're lying. There is not a single jot of evidence provided here to back up your lie.
That is the problem; you are not demonstrating dishonesty.
You're a liar. Whether or not you are being dishonest, I think you are, and it is my aim.
You are asserting that you believe that anyone who disagrees with you is being willfully dishonest simply because you believe that to be so.
You're a liar. I have never, in my life, asserted anything remotely similar to that.
You have not demonstrated dishonesty in any way, shape, or form.
Shrug, I just did, by pointing out the fact that you lied when you said you provided evidence here backing up your claim.
Just because you disagree with someone does not mean that person is being dishonest.
You're lying by implying this claim contradicts anything I've ever said or expressed.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
I'm so very excited to see a fake conservative come back to spout nonsense.
It's a lie that he's a fake conservative, and a very clear lie.
I have made my claim for him being a fake conservative.
Yes, you made your claim. It's a lie.
It is my opinion, which I supported with facts. That does not in any reasonable way qualify as a "lie". Just because you happen to disagree with it does not change its position relating to reality.
You have offered no counter claim other than your own opinion. You can disagree with my statement - in spite of the evidence I have given to support it
You're lying. There is not a single jot of evidence provided here to back up your lie.
Pudge, you are lying. First, your assertion that I have not backed up my claim of the fake conservative is a lie, as I have backed that up previously. Second, your continued assertion of it being a lie it itself a lie, even by the definition of lying that you are trying to claim you are operating within here
Re: (Score:2)
It is my opinion
I don't believe you. I believe you don't believe it, and are just saying you do. I think you're lying that it is your opinion.
... which I supported with facts.
You're lying. You provided no evidence of any kind, let alone factual evidence.
First, your assertion that I have not backed up my claim of the fake conservative is a lie, as I have backed that up previously.
I said quite explicitly that you did not provide that evidence "here." If it is not provided here or not linked to from here, it cannot be considered as evidence, obviously, since I have no idea what it is or where to find it. So no, you have not backed up this claim with evidence. You even admit yo
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
It is my opinion
I don't believe you. I believe you don't believe it, and are just saying you do. I think you're lying that it is your opinion.
As usual, you have no reason whatsoever to support your opinion other than that it is your opinion. Being as you entered into yet another conversation with me under your own wild-assed assumption regarding the truthfulness of my statements, you came in 100% wrong and unwilling to consider any alternate possibilities.
You cannot make your assumptions become reality just by repeating them. I wrote what I believe, regardless of how much you wish that not to be true.
... which I supported with facts.
You're lying. You provided no evidence of any kind, let alone factual evidence.
You are lying, yet again. I have supp
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Pudge, you'd have a better chance if you went to Niagara Falls and started yelling at the water to stop falling then you will ever have in getting through to this putz. It's utterly hopeless, and damn_registrars is too close-minded and quite frankly incapable of understanding any thought outside of his limited, spoon-fed liberal world view. He's like an even more dishonest, annoying version of Rachel Mad
Re: (Score:1)
"fake conservatism"... he called me that because he can't believe that anyone would think the way I do
No. I call you that because you have, on many occasions, spouted off arguments that you "supported" with evidence that countered the same argument. I know full well that there are plenty of people that do believe in the "arguments" you post here but why would you post them - and then blatantly disprove them - on slashdot if not to make them look silly?
While Pudge is a bad copy of Rush Limbaugh, you are a cartoonish copy of Stephen Colbert.
That said, you do keep the laughs coming - and for that I t
Re: (Score:2)
you have, on many occasions, spouted off arguments that you "supported" with evidence that countered the same argument
You're lying.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
you have, on many occasions, spouted off arguments that you "supported" with evidence that countered the same argument
You're lying.
I was referring to my friend the fake conservative there. That is one of the key differences between him and you; he makes a claim and then - at least on occasion - offers "evidence" for it. You, on the other hand, insist that what you say is God's Own Truth because it came from you. Now of course, the fake conservative likes to offer evidence that counters his own argument - which is why I call him the fake conservative - but he at least offers something beyond his own word.
I would not accuse you o
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Your inability to see that is what makes you a weapons-grade idiot.
Furthermore, your obviously incorrect assertion that I am not a conservative is completely ludicrous, and I think, despite your limited mental facilities, you know this. It's an ad hominem attack -- you've never once been able to beat me (or any other conservative here) in a debate, so you resort to Alinsky tactics. It's the only tool you have in your tool belt.
Well, outside of a belt sander, apparentl
Re: (Score:2)
As usual, you have no reason whatsoever to support your opinion other than that it is your opinion.
You're lying. The fact that your "opinion" is so easily refuted -- which I did -- is very strong evidence that it is not really your opinion, or anyone else's.
Being as you entered into yet another conversation with me under your own wild-assed assumption regarding the truthfulness of my statements
You're lying. They are observations, not assumptions.
you came in 100% wrong and unwilling to consider any alternate possibilities.
You're lying.
You cannot make your assumptions become reality just by repeating them.
You're lying by implying this represents anything I've ever expressed or implied.
You're lying. You provided no evidence of any kind, let alone factual evidence.
You are lying, yet again. I have supported that notion with evidence in the past.
You're lying. Evidence not presented or cited here is, by definition, not provided to support a claim made here.
If you actually had evidence, you'd just present it. I didn't say you have no evidence, or
Re: (Score:2)
you have, on many occasions, spouted off arguments that you "supported" with evidence that countered the same argument
You're lying.
I was referring to my friend the fake conservative there.
I know. And I say you're lying, that he has not, on many occasions, done what you said. My evidence is that despite me pointing out the fact that you have not provided the evidence here in this discussion, and despite people here denying that such evidence exists, you have chosen to not provide any such evidence. If it existed, I believe you would provide it. Therefore, I assert that you're lying that he has done this on many occasions.
That is one of the key differences between him and you; he makes a claim and then - at least on occasion - offers "evidence" for it.
This is the most bizarre accusation you make against me. If I have
Re: (Score:3)
As usual, you have no reason whatsoever to support your opinion other than that it is your opinion.
You're lying. The fact that your "opinion" is so easily refuted -- which I did -- is very strong evidence that it is not really your opinion, or anyone else's.
That is nonsense. You have done nothing, whatsoever, to refute my opinion. All you have done is claim yours to be superior, with absolutely zero factual evidence to support your argument.
Being as you entered into yet another conversation with me under your own wild-assed assumption regarding the truthfulness of my statements
You're lying. They are observations, not assumptions.
No, they are assumptions. You assumed there to be an absence of truthfulness in my statements. You cannot observe such a thing based on those statements alone, and just because you claim otherwise does not make it so.
You cannot make your assumptions become reality just by repeating them.
You're lying by implying this represents anything I've ever expressed or implied.
Wrong. I am describing exactly what you have written. You came in to the discussion and made some b
Re: (Score:1)
I think the academic exposure may give him occasional pseudo-estrogen flourishes; this may be the source of feminine speculation.
Re: (Score:3)
If it existed, I believe you would provide it.
The evidence does exist, I have provided it, and you have not read it. Those are the facts. I can't make you read it. Just because you choose not to read it doesn't negate its existence. Continuing to lie about its existence also will not make it go away.
If I have any reputation, it probably includes that I go into sometimes excruciating detail to back up my claim
Not in any discussion with me, you most certainly do not. You have essentially never in discussion provided meaningful evidence of any of your statements beyond repeating them as if repetition will somehow make them true.
I provide more evidence than almost all people, especially including everyone in this discussion, such as you and RailGunner and smitty.
Except that in this discussi
Re: (Score:2)
I really hate to necro a thread, but I just wanted a bookmark for this cute little bit of fanfiction.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
ignore the text I actually write and substitute in whatever you want
I defy you to point to where I substituted a single character in this JE. I noted, as one does when quoting, that I added emphasis.
But do keep going. Your childish whining is the height of amusing. If you want peace, I'd be happy with that, too. But if you want, I can continue mocking your buffoonery. You tell me. I'm here for you.
Re: (Score:3)
ignore the text I actually write and substitute in whatever you want
I defy you to point to where I substituted a single character in this JE. I noted, as one does when quoting, that I added emphasis.
You substituted in what you wanted by changing the order of things, and pretending that what I wrote was in reply to what you wanted it to be in reply to, rather than what it actually was in direct reply to. You didn't have to substitute the characters themselves, as you opted instead to substitute the context that you wanted.
It's really quite simple. Go back to the comment I actually wrote [slashdot.org] where I plainly stated that I was not defending anything. Then come to the start of this silly JE that you jus [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:3)
And now add another layer of defense upon your previous claim of non defense.
It is really, really, sad to see you lowering yourself to creative editing.
I'm striving to match your creativity, sir, but clearly I'm going to require a trip t
Re: (Score:3)
I quoted about half of your reply
And by doing so you - either by accident or otherwise - dropped important context and substituted in your own.
I did nothing whatsoever to reorder your words
That is not true. In your JE you once again claimed that I was
defend them (why should I?), and then turn around and say I'm not defending anything.
If you had fairly read and quoted what I wrote you could not possibly come to that conclusion.
But repetition and slander seem superior to truth in your realm.
That is ridiculous. You are repeatedly lying about me, attempting to fabricate "truth" out of thin air because what I say does not match your assumptions about me.
And now add another layer of defense upon your previous claim of non defense.
It is not merely a claim, it is a fact. It is a fact that I am not defendi
Re: (Score:3)
It is a fact that I am not defending the administration
It is equally a fact that I have never sought extra-legal removal of any public official in general, or #OccupyResoluteDesk in particular. It is equally a fact, I'll venture, that Phil Robertson fears very little (at age 67, and as a Christian, not fretting his inevitable demise), and thus calling any utterance of his "homophobic" is probably wrong.
Now, I don't care either way. We can continue this sophomoric back-and-forth. While I can respect your humanity, you opinions seem a flaming raft if illiberal c
Re: (Score:3)
That's fine. If you want to try to defend yourself on your quest to end the presidency early, allow me to posit a question to you again.
If an independent investigator were to be called up by congress (I recognize their right to do this) in the very near future, the most likely outcome - based on what we know to date - is that said investigator would
Re: (Score:3)
I've offered an olive branch in the past
The closest you have offered so far to an olive branch is to just stop talking. That does not lead to an improved understanding of anything. In fact the lack of discussion is part of why our government is so utterly dysfunctional.
I realize that you're not terribly excited about facts there in Propagandareich, but I did literally offer an olive branch [slashdot.org] last month. You can twist it like corkscrew pasta; any less would be totally out of character for you, but there it is.
If you want to just let it all go, that's OK with me.
I can't force you to read the comments I write. I can't force you to reply to the comments I write. I can't force you to write JEs about me either. You can walk away at any time if you don't want to have a discussion.
If this finger-pointy business is what does it for you, then fine. I could enjoy something a little less poo-flingy, and a little more edifying. My chief point here is that, while I don't take you seriously, and don't think you're arguing in good faith the bulk of the t
Re: (Score:3)
I've offered an olive branch in the past
The closest you have offered so far to an olive branch is to just stop talking. That does not lead to an improved understanding of anything. In fact the lack of discussion is part of why our government is so utterly dysfunctional.
I realize that you're not terribly excited about facts there in Propagandareich, but I did literally offer an olive branch last month. You can twist it like corkscrew pasta; any less would be totally out of character for you, but there it is.
Your "olive branch" was both
And
It was an offer of peace no more so than were the disease-infected blankets the US Army gave to the Native American tribes.
My chief point here is that, while I don't take you seriously, and don't think you're arguing in good faith the bulk of the time
Nobody is forcing you to read my comments to to reply to them. If you feel that is an accurate portrayal of what I write then why do you even bother replying to it? You have the freedom to ignore it.
there really is no animus on my end
This, like many things you have claimed for yourself rece
Re: (Score:3)
This, like many things you have claimed for yourself recently, is not supported by your writings historically.
Chiefly because you insist on rejecting the plain words I have said, preferring your own imaginations about those plain words.
Re: (Score:3)
there really is no animus on my end
This, like many things you have claimed for yourself recently, is not supported by your writings historically.
Chiefly because you insist on rejecting the plain words I have said, preferring your own imaginations about those plain words.
When the words that you choose are directly chosen to insult or belittle me, you are not able to support your claim of showing no animus on your end. You have intentionally and directly insulted me and tried to portray me as a caricature of a liberal or "progressive", rather than actually reading the words I write. What I have written about you is directly supported by your own words, while what you write about me is contrary to what I write.
Shorter d_r: irony is lost on me (Score:3)
there really is no animus on my end
This, like many things you have claimed for yourself recently, is not supported by your writings historically.
Chiefly because you insist on rejecting the plain words I have said, preferring your own imaginations about those plain words.
When the words that you choose are directly chosen to insult or belittle me, you are not able to support your claim of showing no animus on your end. You have intentionally and directly insulted me and tried to portray me as a caricature of a liberal or "progressive", rather than actually reading the words I write. What I have written about you is directly supported by your own words, while what you write about me is contrary to what I write.
No, really: if I was incapable of taking the forgiveness Christ has shown me, and transferring it to you, I wouldn't bother attempting a dialogue with you. You have, in this JE and thread, a tiny hint at what you've tried to do to me [slashdot.org]. Teasing you about the way you defended sophomoric behavior, and then claimed that you were not, is about as close as I can venture to the kind of dishonesty I've both experienced at your hand, and previously let go.
Was I being obtuse? Sure. Was this JE built on a bloody-minde
really? (Score:2)
the whole thing has been aught but an extended troll,
You really went to great lengths just to troll me? Well, I guess everyone needs a hobby. I might suggest a different one.
That said, the way you were flip-flopping even in your apparent admission of trolling me suggests you had more skin in the game than that, but the way you intentionally butchered my statements makes it hard to decide whether to believe anything you just said. I guess in a way that does support your claim of trolling.
Re: (Score:1)
You really went to great lengths just to troll me?
Have we been doing anything else for months now?