Exposing Liberal Hypocrisy and Conservative Close-Mindedness

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Walker
Posts: 6821
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Ad hominem

Post by Walker » Thu Jul 12, 2018 10:24 pm

uwot wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 9:43 pm
Here's why you are a fucking idiot:
Walker wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 12:29 pm
Van Jones is a slick poseur...
You let your personal view of someone determine how you respond to their arguments. That is what ad hominem means. So for instance, at 4 minutes into the clip, Van Jones makes the point that liberals often accuse poor white conservatives of being stupid, because they vote against their economic interests. Rich white liberals vote for things like Obamacare, which they will have to pay for, but probably never use, so it is clearly not in their economic interest. Rather than being accused of stupidity, such ideals are meant to be noble. As Van Jones says, in it's own way, it is just as noble to not take handouts and to want to stand on your own two feet. I learnt something from that. How about you?
I’ll tell you that Jones is about bias, since you can’t manage to struggle to an identified principle on your own, even in your own thread.

Here’s some red meat theater for the red state about bias, so you can continue on with knowledge, instead of whatever fantasy pops into your head.

The relentless application of logic, such as demonstrated in this video, can be rather heady to witness.

I must admit it is a nice balance to the Tomfoolery.

The outrage against the proceedings was based on the proclaimed sanctity of the FBI, rather than the law-constitutionality of the executive branch.

Six minutes of rationality.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... wHiIaUNvXw

*

Anyway, it was your choice to do what you must, which is to accept the offer.
Frankly, I don’t blame you.

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Exposing Liberal Hypocrisy and Conservative Close-Mindedness

Post by Greta » Thu Jul 12, 2018 10:55 pm

Walker, I understand that your Führer is somehow vitally important to your sense of identity as an unwanted middle aged white man.

However, even you should at least be able to admit that Trump must immediately:

- submit his finances for audit like all other Presidents

- properly separate his business dealings from his public duties, not just hand it all to his children to mind for him while Daddy's on a project

- allow the Russian probe to run its course without interference

- cease the intimidation campaign on Stormy Daniels.

After all, you would have demanded these things from Obama if the situation was reversed ... and you wouldn't want to be exposed as a hypocrite, would you?

Walker
Posts: 6821
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Exposing Liberal Hypocrisy and Conservative Close-Mindedness

Post by Walker » Thu Jul 12, 2018 10:58 pm

:lol:

Sorry my fault.

I can't tell if you're being silly or serious anymore.

You try to make this thread about me, requiring me to account for every inconsistency that you yourself perceive about Trump, when all Walker ever was or could be to you, is what you perceive.

I just find that funny.

Wonder how Van Jones got security clearance into the oval office.

I could care less that the press failed to vet Obama.
The fix was in.
Last edited by Walker on Thu Jul 12, 2018 11:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

uwot
Posts: 4370
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

******* *****

Post by uwot » Thu Jul 12, 2018 11:32 pm

Walker wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 10:24 pm
I’ll tell you that Jones is about bias...
And that is your unbiased opinion?
Walker wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 10:24 pm
Six minutes of rationality.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... wHiIaUNvXw
What on Earth has that got to do with Van Jones?

Walker
Posts: 6821
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: ******* *****

Post by Walker » Thu Jul 12, 2018 11:34 pm

uwot wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 11:32 pm
Walker wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 10:24 pm
I’ll tell you that Jones is about bias...
And that is your unbiased opinion?
Walker wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 10:24 pm
Six minutes of rationality.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... wHiIaUNvXw
What on Earth has that got to do with Van Jones?
I am biased against Jones.
For his politics.
Security clearances are also biased against his politics.
And, I’m starting to develop a big bias against morons.

He and Obama both pissed on their own credibility.

I’m not trying to fool you about the bias.

Van Jones is hiding his bias, and you like it.

Like I said in the beginning, why the hell should I listen to Van Jones define and advise?
No reason.

I’m not a fucking moron like you.

Figure the video out for yourself, see if does you some good.
Last edited by Walker on Fri Jul 13, 2018 12:25 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4778
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk » Thu Jul 12, 2018 11:53 pm

Trump must immediately:

- submit his finances for audit like all other Presidents

Ain't no law sez he has to.

Nobody but you is crowin' for that these days...move on.

- properly separate his business dealings from his public duties, not just hand it all to his children to mind for him while Daddy's on a project.

He has, to the degree he obligated to.

Nobody but you is crowin' for that these days...move on.

- allow the Russian probe to run its course without interference

What interference? Bob's doin' whatever the hell it is he's doin', spendin' big (taxpayer) bucks, indictin' folks left and right, and not a soul is standin' in his way.

Nobody but you is crowin' for that these days...move on.

- cease the intimidation campaign on Stormy Daniels.

Fuck her (Trump did).

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re:

Post by Greta » Fri Jul 13, 2018 12:00 am

Do you believe that there should now be no need for would-be Presidents to present their finances for audit?

Do you believe that there should now be no need for would-be Presidents to separate themselves from their businesses while in office to prevent conflicts of interest? (Giving assets to your children to mind would not be accepted as proper separation in any company in the world).

Do you believe that Presidents can simply sack any person employed to investigate him?

Do you believe that using state assets to harass Stormy Daniels before her testifying is proper?

Don't talk about liberal hypocrisy when your own is simply outrageous. As I said before, both sides are hypocritical because it's just one of many forms of deception used in power play. We can either play the games, ignore them or expose them.

Walker
Posts: 6821
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Exposing Liberal Hypocrisy and Conservative Close-Mindedness

Post by Walker » Fri Jul 13, 2018 12:17 am

You don’t know what you’re talking about.
There's no cause to dig into Trump's life.

Trump had a long public career before he was elected.

The people who elected him had a pretty good idea of who they were electing.

They had to.
He was the dark horse.

And, his popularity is increasing. That's because he's proving his mettle. :wink:

*

Obama, on the other hand, came out of nowhere.

He wasn’t elected because of his record.
He wasn’t elected because his past was known.
He wasn’t elected on his accomplishments, because he had none.
He wasn't elected because he was vetted by the press.

He was elected on personality, and undefined hopey-change.

He captured the gullible vote.
Last edited by Walker on Fri Jul 13, 2018 12:30 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4778
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk » Fri Jul 13, 2018 12:30 am

"Do you believe that there should now be no need for would-be Presidents to present their finances for audit?"

Why should any candidate submit to such a meaningless thing?

If it's that important, lobby for a law...oh, wait, you're not American...too bad for you.

#

"Do you believe that there should now be no need for would-be Presidents to separate themselves from their businesses while in office to prevent conflicts of interest? (Giving assets to your children to mind would not be accepted as proper separation in any company in the world)."

Not acceptable to you way the hell down under, mebbe not, but since not a soul in power 'here' currently seems to give a shit...too bad for you.

And: this whole conflict of interest thing is over-rated and overblown and certainly not taken into account by a number of democrats when they hold a seat and profit from the position.

#

"Do you believe that Presidents can simply sack any person employed to investigate him?"

You mean Jim? Mebbe you wanna review the latest on Jim before you hold his booting as anything but 'for cause'.

As for 'can' Trump? Yep, Trump can. 'Should' he? Moot, cuz he hasn't.

#

"Do you believe that using state assets to harass Stormy Daniels before her testifying is proper?"

Meh, the amount that gets wasted on crap (like the current special counsel) and I'm suppsed to sweat some whore's difficulties?

Nah, I won't.

Besides:I wonder what state and fed assets Billy C. used in coverin' up his extramaritals?

#

"Don't talk about liberal hypocrisy when your own is simply outrageous"

They're ALL lars, cheats, and hypocrties, Gret, across the board, Left, Right, Middle, but you just wanna call out the ones you don't care for ('oh, FOX news is awful [and it is] but I won't say a damned thing against the crap foisted up by CNN [but you should]').

#

"expose them."

Yeah, ALL of 'em, not just the ones you despise.

Me: as I've said before, as long as Trump does what I hired him to (and he is) I don't give a good goddamn how dirty he is or how he profits 'under the table', and, I don't care how noble and pure Obama was cuz he fucked me, hobbled me, and treated me like a dog, all in service to his (not my) ideals.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4778
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

and, cuz they were so damned good the first time around...

Post by henry quirk » Fri Jul 13, 2018 12:38 am

(C)onservatives want...control of women's reproduction, sexuality, personal body chemistry, gender expression, artistic expression, plus they tend to throw a LOT more people in prison.

And 'progressives' want to abort babies (I don't care if I'm crowning, abort it!), make sex inconsequential (I share bodily fluids with people I wouldn't give fifty cents to cuz it's just sex), alter personal body chemistry (smoke that weed, Jimmy!), reduce gender to a mere fad (to hell with my XY, I'm a girl!), make art just another avenue of official propaganda (I'm sorry, you're novel doesn't meet our social justice standards), and punish all non-progressives (you won't acknowledge this six-foot albino man is a dwarf black woman? Hater!).

Folks like me, however, just wanna take over the world and leave all of you alone.

#

Folks like Lacewing (and Greta) are quick to point out Trump is a big fat liar.

It pains me to admit they're right...

http://www.politifact.com/obama-like-health-care-keep/

...Trump said I could keep my healthcare plan, I lost my healthcare plan, Trump lied.

Oh...wait...

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re:

Post by Greta » Fri Jul 13, 2018 12:53 am

H: Why should any candidate submit to such a meaningless thing?

G: So you believe that audits to determine legality and whether claims are true of prospective leaders are meaningless. Noted.

G: Do you believe that there should now be no need for would-be Presidents to separate themselves from their businesses while in office to prevent conflicts of interest? (Giving assets to your children to mind would not be accepted as proper separation in any company in the world)."

H: Not acceptable to you way the hell down under, mebbe not, but since not a soul in power 'here' currently seems to give a shit...too bad for you.

G: Ok, you are extremely naive and have no concept of governance. Noted.



G: Do you believe that Presidents can simply sack any person employed to investigate him?

H: You mean Jim? Mebbe you wanna review the latest on Jim before you hold his booting as anything but 'for cause'.

G: Ok, it's clear that process and the systems of government are meaningless to you. No point trying to explain.



G: Do you believe that using state assets to harass Stormy Daniels before her testifying is proper?

H: Meh, the amount that gets wasted on crap (like the current special counsel) and I'm supposed to sweat some whore's difficulties?



Never mind. You are too dumb to bother wasting time with :lol:

Walker
Posts: 6821
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Exposing Liberal Hypocrisy and Conservative Close-Mindedness

Post by Walker » Fri Jul 13, 2018 1:03 am

Greta, seriously as an aside, if you honestly want to understand some things about conservatism in this changing world, you could do worse than reading Heather MacDonald. It may sound like advice, and why should you listen to me, but I think she writes to your understanding. She writes on many topics and every once in awhile I read something current.

Here's one I haven't even read yet.
She is consistently logical, so it's probably pretty good.

“Emergency” at Yale: Qualified Judge Named to Court!
In a letter quivering with victimology, students and alumni denounce Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination.
Heather Mac Donald
July 12, 2018
Politics and law
Education
https://www.city-journal.org/html/yale- ... 16026.html

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4778
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

see, Dal? this here is what I'm talkin' about...

Post by henry quirk » Fri Jul 13, 2018 1:32 am

"You are too dumb to bother wasting time with."

凸(-_-)凸

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2813
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: unenforceable demands of information from Trump

Post by -1- » Fri Jul 13, 2018 1:54 am

Greta wrote:
Fri Jul 13, 2018 12:00 am
Do you believe that there should now be no need for would-be Presidents to present their finances for audit? Whatever on Earth for? It's a private matter. How much anyone earns is a business for him/herself and for the Revenue service. Nobody else has a right to demand to know.

Do you believe that there should now be no need for would-be Presidents to separate themselves from their businesses while in office to prevent conflicts of interest? (Giving assets to your children to mind would not be accepted as proper separation in any company in the world). How do you think this ought to be accomplished? One has constitutional right to his or her own property. There is no way to enforce this idea.

Do you believe that Presidents can simply sack any person employed to investigate him? Depends on the hiring/ firing contract. The president can't fire just anyone. He can't fire the president of general motors, he can't fire Bill Gates, he can't fire any congresspersons. He can fire his secretary, or anyone whose employment contract allows this move.

Do you believe that using state assets to harass Stormy Daniels before her testifying is proper? by proper you mean moral, or you mean possible (as in "allowed"), or do you mean it is compatible with Miss Manners' Etiquette?

Don't talk about liberal hypocrisy when your own is simply outrageous. As I said before, both sides are hypocritical because it's just one of many forms of deception used in power play. We can either play the games, ignore them or expose them.
I don't mean to sound like a Trump supporter, but there is enough dirt on the man to besmeacher him for those, that you don't need to drum up stupid, unfounded arguments to show he is bad.

Stick with the facts, I say. There is more than enough of those to badmouth The POTUS.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4778
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

"Stick with the facts, I say."

Post by henry quirk » Fri Jul 13, 2018 2:24 am

Hey, -1-, help Greta out: post some of them facts.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests