Trump: acquitted

[henry quirk]

I would hope that with the impeachment attempt fizzled out (was there ever any doubt about the acquittal?) that democrats will stop relying on it to fuel their campaigns, and maybe try to appeal to moderates for once. The behavior of Speaker Pelosi the night before, however, doesn't inspire any confidence in me. The agenda seems to be more of the same.

The dems are hangin' themselves and ensurin' my employee gets another four years in the Big Chair, ensurin' the House flips to the Red, and ensurin' the Senate gets redder.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

"yanks don't even know what a communist is."

Oh, I know the spiel: Bernie is Democratic Socialist, and, socialism and communism aren't the same.

Yeah, sure, okay, fine...

All Western democracies are 'communist' by your reckoning. Any country that has good universal healthcare and education is 'communist' in your book. You clearly have a very high opinion of 'communism'.

Yes, of course, sure...

Such a cliche.

[FlashDangerpants]

Politifact dis-embeds quotes, deprives them of proper context, solely to discredit, and therefore has no credibility.

But, but ... when Immanuel Can does exactly that, you describe it as "persistent, not dishonest"

[henry quirk]

Politifact dis-embeds quotes, deprives them of proper context, solely to discredit, and therefore has no credibility.

But, but ... when Immanuel Can does exactly that, you describe it as "persistent, not dishonest"

Not exactly the same.

Try again.

But, don't rush...I'm headin' home and I don't post & drive.

[henry quirk]

All Western democracies are 'communist' by your reckoning. Any country that has good universal healthcare and education is 'communist' in your book. You clearly have a very high opinion of 'communism'.

Yes, of course, sure...

Such a cliche.

yes, I'm so predictable

[FlashDangerpants]

Politifact dis-embeds quotes, deprives them of proper context, solely to discredit, and therefore has no credibility.

But, but ... when Immanuel Can does exactly that, you describe it as "persistent, not dishonest"

Not exactly the same.

Try again.

But, don't rush...I'm headin' home and I don't post & drive.

Not exactly? Ok, I guess he does it when he is losing an argument but his sin-of-pride won't let him retract even the least important point. It's usually part of his 3-way escape routine where he changes the subject, raises the stakes until he gets an insult out of you, and then declares the conversation over by way of ad-hominem. So I can see how the motive is technically different from what you describe.

But on the other hand.... He doesn't merely ignore the relationship between two paragraphs, an act that could be considered lazy and stupid (like it is when Age does it). Mannie is willing to go so far as to to argue against half of a sentence. So any mitigation you could offer on his behalf has to be weighed against that additional thing.

On the whole, if the Politifact thing has to remove a source of all credibility, then the other thing has the same effect, and the self-consistent superman cannot defend it again without inconsistency.

[Immanuel Can]

...he gets an insult out of you, and then declares the conversation over by way of ad-hominem.

An easy fix. Just stay relevant and don't insult anyone. Problem solved.

Mannie is willing to go so far as to to argue against half of a sentence.

It's my best quality.

[Skepdick]

Mannie is willing to go so far as to to argue against half of a sentence.

It's my best quality.

You and Harry both.

Because I am a liar (is that true or false)?

I am a liar

yep

[henry quirk]

Nope.

Here's why...

Mannie is one guy, speakin' for hinself, on a forum he does not control, in threads anyone can read.

If he dis-embeds with bad intent, anyone can scroll up and see for themselves the context.

Politifact holds itself out as a watchdog, a watchman, a guardian, in a site they control.

When they dis-embed, they offer a token explanation for why they rate a quote as they do, and the reader can accept their assessment or do the research themselves (which, of course, if they were willin' to do they wouldn't be turnin' to Politifact in the first place).

Again: I know for a fact a great many of the Trump quotes rated as false are true cuz I was a witness to many of them, in context, by way of C-SPAN. This means Politifact is a either a poor watchman or just a crap lie-site.

Either way: Politifact lacks credibility (for me; you can assess them as you like).

Mannie, on the other hand, is not a malignant personality (in my view, you can assess him as you like), but even if he were, he's, again, just one guy, speakin' for hinself, on a forum, in threads anyone can read.

So, yeah, not exactly the same (in motive and scope).

So sayeth the (still) utterly self-consistent Superman.

[Immanuel Can]

Mannie is one guy, speakin' for hinself, on a forum he does not control, in threads anyone can read.
If he dis-embeds with bad intent, anyone can scroll up and see for themselves the context.

It's funny how many people forget there's that little blue arrow up there.

You wouldn't think it was a very sophisticated realization, in the age of iPhones and cyber text ...but apparently, there are some people who just can't find it. So they accuse people of not representing their views fully, on a site where one little click reveals all...

People are silly sometimes.

[FlashDangerpants]

Mannie, on the other hand, is not a malignant personality (in my view, you can assess him as you like), but even if he were, he's, again, just one guy, speakin' for hinself, on a forum, in threads anyone can read.

So you are making excuses for Mannie's habit of quoting ot of context and arguing against strawmen. That is exactly such an excuse.

The dishonest tactic that you are saying makes some other outfit reprehensible, is ok for this other person to do because he isn't reprehensible.





He's a crook, but he's your crook.

[FlashDangerpants]

Mannie is one guy, speakin' for hinself, on a forum he does not control, in threads anyone can read.
If he dis-embeds with bad intent, anyone can scroll up and see for themselves the context.

It's funny how many people forget there's that little blue arrow up there.

You wouldn't think it was a very sophisticated realization, in the age of iPhones and cyber text ...but apparently, there are some people who just can't find it. So they accuse people of not representing their views fully, on a site where one little click reveals all...

People are silly sometimes.

So that time when I wrote a sentence with a comma in the middle that says something along the lines of 'if what I wrote could be interpreted as X, then I was careless in what I wrote.' And then you quoted and responded to just the X bit, as if I wasn't explicitly rejecting that X because you had deleted the bit that said so.... that was my fault for expecting better of you? Because everyone should know that you regularly try to get away with this sort of dishonesty, so everyone else has to reference back all the time just to keep you from lying.

You are a gaslighting little shit stain aren't you.

[Immanuel Can]

So that time when I wrote a sentence...

You should find it.

I have no recollection of the incident, but I'm happy to respond to it.

Try clicking the little blue arrow.

[henry quirk]

Mannie, on the other hand, is not a malignant personality (in my view, you can assess him as you like), but even if he were, he's, again, just one guy, speakin' for hinself, on a forum, in threads anyone can read.

So you are making excuses for Mannie's habit of quoting ot of context and arguing against strawmen. That is exactly such an excuse.

The dishonest tactic that you are saying makes some other outfit reprehensible, is ok for this other person to do because he isn't reprehensible.

He's a crook, but he's your crook.

I said what Mannie does and what Politifact does are not exactly the same. I've defended that assessment. You haven't countered it. I'm done.

[FlashDangerpants]

Mannie, on the other hand, is not a malignant personality (in my view, you can assess him as you like), but even if he were, he's, again, just one guy, speakin' for hinself, on a forum, in threads anyone can read.

So you are making excuses for Mannie's habit of quoting ot of context and arguing against strawmen. That is exactly such an excuse.

The dishonest tactic that you are saying makes some other outfit reprehensible, is ok for this other person to do because he isn't reprehensible.

He's a crook, but he's your crook.

I said what Mannie does and what Politifact does are not exactly the same. I've defended that assessment. You haven't countered it. I'm done.

But they are both quoting out of context to distort another person's words into something that better suits their own wants. One perhaps has a political agenda to smear a republican, while the other is just running down the clock on other people's patience as a debate tactic. It's not a pursuit of accurate truth either way.

I'm quite willing to withdraw the specific "exactly the same" charge, my real interest lies in a specific similarity. They are both dishonest. You may believe that this dishonesty is forgivable because I'm so mean I deserve to be fucked with that way. But that doesn't make out of context quoting an honest tactic, it is never that.