Re: Not like the Nazis ...




On 1/29/06 23:14, in article tk4rt15u5827ros8qh5preepfe5lpej1kc@xxxxxxx,
"Phil Earnhardt" <pae@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 23:02:39 GMT, Wage Peace <whatif@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 1/29/06 15:06, in article l57qt112vi9acds4f20r2c45mcmd146s76@xxxxxxx,
>> "Phil Earnhardt" <pae@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 19:29:15 GMT, Wage Peace <whatif@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> OTOH, the Dean Democrats have committed themselves to no victory in
>>>>>>> Iraq. Dean is the only one who has publicly said it, but the
>>>>>>> Democratic Party has implicitly stood by their leader's statements --
>>>>>>> they have left him in power. For sure I haven't heard any Democrats
>>>>>>> squaking about Dean's defeatist statement:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "The idea that we¹re going to win this war is an idea that
>>>>>>> unfortunately is just plain wrong."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.seixon.com/blog/archives/2005/12/howard_dean_woa.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not being a Democrat, I have no need to "squak" about it. In this day
>>>>>> and age, Democrats & Republicans are interchangeable: if you're educated
>>>>>> and verbose, you lean Democrat; if you're God-fearin' and mean, you lean
>>>>>> Republican.
>>>>>
>>>>> With all due respect, that characterization sounds completely wrong --
>>>>> and it doesn't ring true with what happens here.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dean had never ever publicly said the comment he made near the end of
>>>>> that fateful WOAI interview; I'm convinced he never meant to publicly
>>>>> say it. His "correction" was completely wrong. He was most definitely
>>>>> NOT taken out of context; anybody reading the transcript can verify
>>>>> that for themselves.
>>>>>
>>>>> Liberals are coy to tell us what they really believe. Look at Jim's
>>>>> behavior here: he snipes in the discussion, but will not engage in a
>>>>> give-and-take of questions and answers.
>>>>> Shawn Hines has failed to defend his conjectures about Bush and Hitler.
>>>>
>>>> Amazing. Though I am amused, I am also amazed at your insistence on lying
>>>> in every single post you make. And in this case the lie is so transparent
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> Unless you define "defend" as repeating myself until you decide to agree
>>>> ...
>>>
>>> One example of a failure to defend is posting as set of conjectures in
>>> one message and then failing to defend them in any follow-up postings.
>>>
>>> You failed to ever respond to
>>> 1133971520.609014.11430@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx or to
>>> lfkfp1hifqhe5dskp4o0fm90samm3vk19b@xxxxxxx
>>
>> You should be more clear. Perhaps you mean that I "failed to defend" what I
>> said in the posts you referred to ...
>>
>> (Just trying to give you the benefit of the doubt ...)
>>
>> To say that I "failed to defend them in any follow-up postings" is a blatant
>> lie, Phil. Shame on you.
>
> Then please tell us where you think you have defended them: which
> message-ids. That should be easy.

Do your own homework. Here's a hint: read any of my responses to you in
the past month, you will find several posts where I have not only stood by
what I said, but even repeated it.

You are free to disagree. But you really ought to stop lying.
>
>> I have repeatedly stated that I stand by
>> everything I have said - and have even repeated what I said and meant.
>
> Yes, you've said that. Where do you think you actually do it?
>
> What message-ids?

LOL. I should spend my time finding "message-ids" for the benefit of
someone who pretends not to be able to google when it suits him?

If you can't find the posts, just follow the thread backwards. Even you can
do that without help ...

>> Stop confusing your unwillingness to read and accept with lack of content.
>
> Read what??? What message-ids?
>
>> And the fact that I don't respond to every post and every question you
>> present
>
> Actually, you ditch most of them. And postings like this one from you
> are essentially content-free: you tell us about what you think you
> have done, but provide no evidence to back that up.

Hmm. The characterization "most of them" is more telling of your habit of
demanding answers to pointless and obfuscating questions than to anyone's
"failure" to respond. Perhaps if you learn to focus on important issues
rather than meaningless non-sense you would get more of the answers you so
desperately seek ...

> Such postings have absolutely nothing to do with the actual political
> debate.
>
>> is only because to do so would be a pointless waste of time, since
>> you will only do your best to obfuscate and distract from any real issues
>> with petty accusations and phony concerns.
>
> No. The only way anyone could even potentially obfuscate or distract
> from a discussion on the real issues would be if you were *actually
> talking* about the real issues. You are not.
>
>> You're quite transparent, after all.
>>
>>>
>>>> Given your inability to accept factual information that doesn't fit your
>>>> agenda (and that of your master), your definition of "defend" would be
>>>> completely suspect in any case.
>>>
>>> If you think that actually happens, you need to demonstrate it
>>> factually. Where? What posting?
>>
>> To quote you, "pick one."
>
> It's your conjecture, Shawn. You need to back it up.

I'm following your example. Apparently you can't handle that ... tough.
You can keep lying and I will continue to point out your lies.

>>> If those things were actually happening you would be able to give
>>> references in the record. You cannot!
>
> [Silence. No response. No specifics. No message-ids.]
>
>>>>> AFAICT, he has essentially abandoned any political discussion here; the
>>>>> exception is his so-called silent posts.
>>>>
>>>> Incredible. Phil, [ad hominem attack snipped.]
>>>
>>> I'm sorry, Shawn. Any sort of substance in your debate evaporated a
>>> long time ago; all we're left with is off-topic and ad hominem
>>> attacks. You don't seem to have the stomach to actually have a real
>>> political debate here.
>>
>> LOL. I guess that explains the snip.
>
> Yes. Ad hominem attacks serve no purpose -- especially for someone
> claiming that they are striving to "wage peace."
>
>>> Why did you fail to ever defend your Jayne conjectures that you made
>>> back in December, Shawn?
>>
>> ??? Jayne conjectures? WTF are you talking about?
>
> The thread you abandoned back in December about Bush/Hitler. Both
> 1133971520.609014.11430@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and
> lfkfp1hifqhe5dskp4o0fm90samm3vk19b@xxxxxxx were follow-ups to your
> posting; you failed to respond to either.

I see. I did post that list of comparisons. And as far as I can tell,
those comparisons accurate. You are free to disagree. I see no point in
arguing with you about them - since you are not going to change your mind,
and neither am I. Facts and history are on my side.

Suffice it to say that I maintain that the DIS-similarities do not over-rule
the similarities, and it is the similarities that are the object of my
disdain. It is the similarities that are getting people killed every day.

>> But since you're asking such questions, why did you fail to back up your
>> claim that I had posted "hundreds" of silent posts back in December, Phil?
>
> I don't recall making such a claim in December. Do you have a
> message-id?

Actually, you got me. It might have been before December. Are you sayimg
that you didn't make such a claim? Or are you, as usual taking the coward's
way out by feigning ignorance?
>
> Should I pull a Shawn Hines and call you a liar?

Help yourself. The difference is that you actually DO lie. With every
post.

>> Why did you fail to defend your actions in snipping the Constitutional
>> provisions I posted that supported my position (and undermined yours), Phil?
>
> IIRC, my reply was asking you to explain why you construed the
> invasion of Iraq as "illegal" but not the invasion of Yugoslavia.

No Phil. Answer the question: Why did you fail to defend your actions in
snipping the Constitutional provisions (as well as the UN Charter) that
supported my position and undermined yours?

>> Why did you fail to answer my question back in December: What do you think
>> will be the result of the Iraqi elections, Phil?
>
> Where did you ask that?

In a discussion with you about the Iraqi elections.

> As it stands, the question is way too vague.

Really? It seems - at worst - less vague than your insistence on having
those who oppose the war say what they should have done instead of invading
Iraq ...

Again, can you be man enough to live up to your own standards? Apparently
not.

Just answer the question. Thanks!

>> Oh and one more question: Why do you lie so damn much?
>
> Thanks for sharing. You may believe that, but you fail to produce any
> evidence.

LOL. You are right. There's no need for me to produce any evidence that
you lie. You keep doing it. The evidence is there for all to see.

Wage Peace

> --phil
>

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Not like the Nazis ...
    ... >> one message and then failing to defend them in any follow-up postings. ... What message-ids? ... What posting? ... >But since you're asking such questions, why did you fail to back up your ...
    (rec.arts.marching.drumcorps)
  • Re: Well done the bhoys and ghirls....
    ... defend him. ... Actually I'm not defending Paddy at all (I've already said his posts ... Will is on a list of your buddies that's all. ... Why don't you just ask Paddy to keep on posting his "blatantly homo ...
    (uk.sport.football.clubs.celtic)
  • Re: Well done the bhoys and ghirls....
    ... defend him. ... Actually I'm not defending Paddy at all (I've already said his posts ... Will is on a list of your buddies that's all. ... Why don't you just ask Paddy to keep on posting his "blatantly homo ...
    (uk.sport.football.clubs.celtic)
  • Re: WHERE OH WHERE HAS DOGGY GONE?
    ... posts since then. ... I fail to see how 5 months of posting "helped put us on ... the map". ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: ^..^ The Ides Of December 2005 ^..^
    ... >> harry's been posting here a lot longer than you have. ... Marilee has ... I find it amusing that it thinks that Harry's posts are off-topic. ... "I disapprove of what you have to say, but I will defend to the death ...
    (rec.arts.sf.fandom)
Loading