Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

False FlagFollow

#27 Mar 03 2017 at 10:44 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,296 posts
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
I'm sorry your soul is so empty. I'm saddened that you care so little for anything outside yourself. Perhaps, one day, you'll learn to value people as people and not things.


And here come the personal attacks. Right on schedule. It's like there's a script you follow or something:

1. Make wild accusation
2. When it's refuted, deny it and demand proof.
3. When proof is provided, argue it's not sufficient.
4. When even more proof and solid argument is provided, start calling the other guy names.


You can't counter the position so you attack the person. You really don't get that this only shows your own weakness, right? If you have a point to make, make it. If your strongest argument is to attack or make fun of the other guy, you've already lost.Sigh...
I note with some interest that you in no way refute what I wrote, there.Smiley: laugh


gbaji wrote:
And if you had a decent amount of self reflection, you might just ask why you hold the position(s) you do in the first place.
I hold that the greatest gift one can give is to lay down his own life for another and all that implies. You, on the other hand, would never consider doing such a thing as it is anathema to all you hold dear.

THAT'S the difference between you and me.


____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#28 Mar 03 2017 at 11:42 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,355 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
I hold that the greatest gift one can give is to lay down his own life for another and all that implies.


While I hold that the greatest gift one can give oneself it to lay down, and take a nap!
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#29 Mar 06 2017 at 8:47 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,733 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
THAT'S the difference between you and me.
There's also no need for self reflection when he just repeats the party line.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#30 Mar 06 2017 at 1:17 PM Rating: Excellent
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,296 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
THAT'S the difference between you and me.
There's also no need for self reflection when he just repeats the party line.
I'm strangely compelled to save him from damnation.Smiley: nod
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#31 Mar 06 2017 at 3:24 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,920 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
I'm sorry your soul is so empty. I'm saddened that you care so little for anything outside yourself. Perhaps, one day, you'll learn to value people as people and not things.


And here come the personal attacks. Right on schedule. It's like there's a script you follow or something:

I note with some interest that you in no way refute what I wrote, there.Smiley: laugh


Interesting that you failed to make the same observation with regard to your own post.

Quote:
I hold that the greatest gift one can give is to lay down his own life for another and all that implies.


That's wonderful and all, but I'm not sure how that is in any way related to behavior in which you make incorrect claims about someone's position on a political issue (like insisting that "most conservatives" claimed that Obama was not a US citizen, for example), and use it as some kind of straw man in a political discussion. Surely you don't view that action as "laying down your life"?

Quote:
THAT'S the difference between you and me.


No. I'd say that the biggest difference between you and me (at least in terms of political discourse) is that I at least make an effort to make a point, stick to that point, and defend that point. Whereas you tend to make a point, then when it's refuted, pivot to another point, then when that's refuted, just pivot to yet another point, and then when that's refuted and the other guy observes that you're evading any sort of challenge to your position, you start calling that person names and making claims about their personality, morals, ethics, etc.

It's a pretty standard patterns though, and you're not remotely the only person who follows it. But it's still pretty blatantly there. I've observed it many times over the years. I mean, I get it. It's an effective debating tactic. What I don't get is that when I press on it and try to dig, there never seems to be anything underneath the debating tactic. You use such tactics to influence other people to believe something. But it's never the reason you yourself believe it. What I've wondered for years is if people who do this honestly do have a "real" reason for holding a position, but steadfastly refuse to talk about it, preferring instead to use debating tricks to try to win people over, or if they actually don't have any reason at all for said position, but were just influenced by someone using such tactics previously and just never went back to examine it for "the truth".

____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#32 Mar 06 2017 at 3:33 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,296 posts
Could it be, gbaji, that sometimes I'm making a serious point and sometimes just poking you with a stick and you can't discern which is which?
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#33 Mar 06 2017 at 3:37 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,296 posts
ALSO:

gbaji wrote:
(like insisting that "most conservatives" claimed that Obama was not a US citizen, for example)
Go ahead and quote my post that said "most".

It's almost like you lie and then insist that what you say is true. You are an exemplary conservative, sir.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#34 Mar 06 2017 at 6:19 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,920 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
ALSO:

gbaji wrote:
(like insisting that "most conservatives" claimed that Obama was not a US citizen, for example)
Go ahead and quote my post that said "most".

It's almost like you lie and then insist that what you say is true. You are an exemplary conservative, sir.


Seriously?

Friar Bijou wrote:
Really? You can't think of a prominent American that most conservatives repeatedly claimed wasn't American? Did your dope dealer drop a brick of cocaine on your head?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#35 Mar 06 2017 at 7:29 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,355 posts
Alternative Facts.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#36 Mar 06 2017 at 8:18 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
34,920 posts
I'm sure he'll just claim that this was an example of him poking me with a stick, and I'm just too dumb or whatever to realize it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#37 Mar 06 2017 at 11:48 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,296 posts
gbaji wrote:
I'm sure he'll just claim that this was an example of him poking me with a stick, and I'm just too dumb or whatever to realize it.
Actually, I'll admit I fucked up and rate you up.


Happy now?









"Many" will work. Or did I hallucinate story after story from the right claiming that BS?
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#39 Mar 07 2017 at 8:16 AM Rating: Good
******
49,733 posts
gbaji wrote:
You use such tactics to influence other people to believe something.
You almost exclusively use hypotheticals, anecdotes and rhetorical questions incorrectly as evidence and facts and you're telling anyone that they use trick tactics to influence people? There aren't enough onions and ogres.
gbaji wrote:
I'm just too dumb or whatever to realize it.
Well, you did spend a page ranting about the historical accuracy of a mummy joke, so there is precedents.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#40 Mar 07 2017 at 8:35 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Friar Bijou wrote:
"Many" will work. Or did I hallucinate story after story from the right claiming that BS?

They weren't questioning Obama's citizenship, they were "just asking questions". Right, Gbaji?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#41 Mar 07 2017 at 9:14 AM Rating: Excellent
It's going to go to the supreme court any day now.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#42 Mar 07 2017 at 11:43 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,237 posts
Speaking of birtherism and other ongoing feuds: one legal scholar has posited that accusing a past President of an impeachable offense (assuming it's proved baseless) may itself be an impeachable offense. This article doesn't quote that scholar, and I can't remember his name off the top of my head; but the article does contain the gist of his speculation.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#43 Mar 07 2017 at 12:03 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,228 posts
Samira wrote:
Speaking of birtherism and other ongoing feuds: one legal scholar has posited that accusing a past President of an impeachable offense (assuming it's proved baseless) may itself be an impeachable offense. This article doesn't quote that scholar, and I can't remember his name off the top of my head; but the article does contain the gist of his speculation.


Basically all arguments for impeachment are irrelevant, as they are unenforceable.

Right make might, Might makes right. Unempeachable legal theory.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#44 Mar 07 2017 at 12:21 PM Rating: Good
******
49,733 posts
You can gauge how inept the policy "he" is working on by the ridiculousness of the rectal spew of the mouth he releases to try to distract from it.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#45 Mar 07 2017 at 1:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,237 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Samira wrote:
Speaking of birtherism and other ongoing feuds: one legal scholar has posited that accusing a past President of an impeachable offense (assuming it's proved baseless) may itself be an impeachable offense. This article doesn't quote that scholar, and I can't remember his name off the top of my head; but the article does contain the gist of his speculation.


Basically all arguments for impeachment are irrelevant, as they are unenforceable.

Right make might, Might makes right. Unempeachable legal theory.


So GOTV for 2018.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#46 Mar 07 2017 at 2:50 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,228 posts
Samira wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
Samira wrote:
Speaking of birtherism and other ongoing feuds: one legal scholar has posited that accusing a past President of an impeachable offense (assuming it's proved baseless) may itself be an impeachable offense. This article doesn't quote that scholar, and I can't remember his name off the top of my head; but the article does contain the gist of his speculation.


Basically all arguments for impeachment are irrelevant, as they are unenforceable.

Right make might, Might makes right. Unempeachable legal theory.


So GOTV for 2018.


Usual political methodology, refinement targeted propaganda, GotV etc, refinement would Ideally be bribery of key demos would be employed in a less opaque fashion. There needs to be some decent synthetic tradgedy to exploit, that's been kinda missing from the lefts marketing. There is talk about Income inequality as the vector, but that's a term that doesn't resonate well with the people you need pickups of.

Picking a likeable candidate would help too. Some fault lies in badly litigated ACA.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#47 Mar 07 2017 at 7:16 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,920 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I'm sure he'll just claim that this was an example of him poking me with a stick, and I'm just too dumb or whatever to realize it.
Actually, I'll admit I fucked up and rate you up.


Happy now?


Smiley: yippee

Quote:
"Many" will work.


I do find it amusing how frequently the words "many" and "most" are swapped around, based on which is more convenient for the argument of the moment. I seem to recall seeing a number of posts on this forum claiming that Trump had falsely claimed that "most" illegal immigrants were violent criminals, rapists, murderers, etc, when the actual word he used was "many". Can't blame people for this though, since that's how the media mis-quoted him as well (well, they didn't put the word in quotes, so technically they didn't, but that's a distinction without much of a difference).

Quote:
Or did I hallucinate story after story from the right claiming that BS?


You didn't hallucinate. The question is whether your perception of the percentage of people who believed that Obama was not even a US citizen was remotely accurate. And I'd argue that there were many times more articles, blogs, posts, etc from folks on the Left making fun of "birthers" than there were from the birthers themselves. One side made this an issue to be determined in the court of public opinion, and it wasn't the side questioning whether Obama had actually provided sufficient proof of natural born citizenship.

And I'll point out again that most of those who were labeled as "birthers" (like myself), did not believe that Obama wasn't a citizen, nor even that he wasn't a natural born citizen (go back and read my posts on the subject), but rather believed that a constitutional requirement to hold the office of the president should not be treated as a joke to be laughed at, and that if there is any question at all, it should be followed up on, and resolved in the most above board manner possible. Obama did every thing he could to stretch the birther thing out as long as possible, precisely because it gained him support as long as it was out there and his surrogates could use it to point at conservatives and make fun of them for it. Which, btw, also required spreading the false claim that "most conservatives" believe <insert ridiculous thing here>. You find something that can be made to look ridiculous, and you tie it as broadly as possible to your political opponents. That's all this was for Obama and the Left.

So yeah. If your perception was out of whack with reality, it wasn't the folks on the right who were responsible. You were told the same incorrect thing you just repeated earlier (that "most conservatives" believe this). That's why you believe it. Someone one generation back told you the same thing. Then you repeat it. Then someone who hears you repeats it again. That's how that works.


Unfortunately, along the way, we've now got multiple court precedents that establish that no US citizen has any standing to challenge a president's natural born citizenship status. Not during the election. Not during the transition. Not even after the inauguration. Heck. Not even a member of the military, ordered to fight in a war, and to pass on orders that might later be determined to be invalid, has standing under our existing case precedent. Um... Great job guys. In your hast to make conservatives look dumb, you've managed to totally ***** up a pretty important bit of our law (it's in the freaking constitution, right?). But let's not let the possible future backlash get in the way of scoring some cheap political points today, right?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#48 Mar 07 2017 at 8:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Unfortunately, along the way, we've now got multiple court precedents that establish that no US citizen has any standing to challenge a president's natural born citizenship status. Not during the election. Not during the transition. Not even after the inauguration. Heck. Not even a member of the military, ordered to fight in a war, and to pass on orders that might later be determined to be invalid, has standing under our existing case precedent. Um... Great job guys. In your hast to make conservatives look dumb, you've managed to totally ***** up a pretty important bit of our law (it's in the freaking constitution, right?). But let's not let the possible future backlash get in the way of scoring some cheap political points today, right?

Yeah, the frantic conservative effort to make a court case out of this WAS very poorly thought out and implemented. "The Left" didn't really have anything to do with Orly Taitz harassing the courts and losing case after shoddy case. Justices Alito and Thomas* both separately rejected motions by Taitz to overturn her frivolous lawsuit fines, for heaven's sake. Liberal Conspiracy! Smiley: laugh

In the case of Cook, the lawsuit had no standing because the military had already discharged him. In the case of Rhodes, the judge basically ruled that the entire lawsuit was steaming garbage.

*In Gbaji's defense, the case DID make it to the Supreme Court, in a fashion. Granted, the question wasn't "Is Obama a citizen?" but rather "Are these Birther lawsuits so mind-numbingly retarded that this woman should have to pay $20,000 for wasting everyone's time with them?" The answer from our nation's greatest conservative legal minds was "Yes. Yes, they are."

Edited, Mar 7th 2017 8:53pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#49 Mar 07 2017 at 9:05 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,920 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Yeah, the frantic conservative effort to make a court case out of this WAS very poorly thought out and implemented.


Yeah... "frantic". Can't help but frame things in an emotional way, can you? The point is that the conservative approach was to work within the legal system, not go running around in the streets rioting and protesting. They actually attempted to use the courts to make their point, you know, like how our legal system is supposed to work. Which is in stark contrast to the liberal method of trying it in the court of public opinion, deliberately misrepresenting the other "sides" position, mocking that straw man, making sure to paint them in the worst light possible, going so far as to create an offensive label and threaten to apply it to anyone who dared even consider that they might just have a valid point, and otherwise doing everything they could, not to actually address whether we ought to have an actual process for determining whether an existing constitutional requirement to hold the highest office in our government has been met, but to just use the question itself as political fodder.

You honestly don't see a problem with the liberal methodology here? Do you get that the exact same form of belittling could be used to attack *any* position? There was nothing innately incorrect with the idea that we should maybe be able to ask that a person running for the office of president provide more than an electronic document via a third party on the internet. But that got lost in the "guilt by association" process used here, where anyone asking for that was labeled as a birther and assumed to be a part of the most nutty fringe possible.

You know, like you have done repeatedly to me. On this very forum. I have *never* argued that Obama was not a US citizen. Yet, because I agree that there is some validity to "the people" being able to require some greater form of documentation to establish natural born citizenship than what was presented, I'm lumped in with the craziest "birther" and my position on the issue is effectively ignored.

And yeah. I have a problem with that methodology. I have had a problem with it for a couple decades when the Left has done it. And I have a problem with it right now when Trump does it. The only real difference here is that I've been aware of how cheap and stupid this is for a long time, while many of you are just realizing it for the first time, since this is the first time a prominent member of the "other side" has actually used such tactics. And like I said earlier, you should be prepared to see more of this.


Quote:
"The Left" didn't really have anything to do with Orly Taitz harassing the courts and losing case after shoddy case.


Again. Stop with the emotional associations. The choice, by multiple judges, to dismiss every single case on standing, has zero to do with the qualifications, skills, or quality of the lawyer bringing the case. And that's yet more of the same problem. You're so focused on making fun of the person, that you're failing to see the actions by the courts, and how that affects precedent over time. It's not about who brought the case Joph. That you think so just shows how incredibly misaligned your thinking is on this.


Quote:
Justices Alito and Thomas both separately rejected motions by Taitz to overturn her frivolous lawsuit fines, for heaven's sake. Liberal Conspiracy! Smiley: laugh


Which is no way invalidates my position on this issue, or the position of many conservatives who are honestly concerned that this process has weakened a provision in the constitution.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#50 Mar 07 2017 at 9:14 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,920 posts
Jophiel wrote:
In the case of Cook, the lawsuit had no standing because the military had already discharged him.


The military discharged him because he raised the issue of the president having met the natural born citizenship requirement though. One can argue that this was done deliberately to avoid him actually having standing in the case.

Which is a lot like how local and state governments in the south would avoid challenges to their racist laws. They'd drop the charges or fines on anyone who looked like they might mount a legal challenge, and thus remove their standing to sue. It's a common tactic used to protect laws that those enforcing them know likely will not stand full court scrutiny. Those who comply get affected by the law and have to continue living under it. Those who fight, get their charges dropped. And the law stays on the books.

Quote:
In the case of Rhodes, the judge basically ruled that the entire lawsuit was steaming garbage.


Which is a ruling on merit, not standing. But instead of going through the actions of actually determining the merits of the case and generating a real ruling, he chose the cheap way out by dismissing on standing.

Um... Which is *not* how judges are supposed to act. He's entitled to his own opinion, but he's not allowed to rule on that opinion prior to evidence being presented. And in this case, the entire point of dismissing on standing was to prevent the evidence (Obama's long form birth certificate) from having to be examined. Which, in case you missed the point, was the entire and only thing the vast majority of those you label as "birthers" wanted. We just wanted one judge to look at the document in question and make a ruling. We'd have been happy as clams with that, no matter what the ruling was.

Remember when Obama finally released his long form birth certificate, and the entire issue went away (aside from the incredibly tiny conspiracy theory folks who always linger)? That's what tells you that this wasn't pushed by a majority who believed he wasn't a citizen (or even a natural born citizen). It was being pushed by people who wanted us to go through the legal process to make the determination. We were satisfied with the answer once the process was done.

Because that's how nations with laws actually uphold them. The alternative is the court of public opinion. Which is a really really poor way to do things.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#51 Mar 07 2017 at 9:27 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,296 posts
Just curious, gbaji...do you have you long form birth certificate?

I lost my original years and years ago yet strangely, the one I can go get at the county courthouse seems to be acceptable for all federal purposes.



So...without the original "long" form...I can't be President?
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 64 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (64)