Rove: Stomp on Birthers and "9-11 Deniers"
Amen. We don't cover the Birthers around here, but they're right up there with the Truthers in terms of brainpower. In fact, one of the original Birthers was also a major Troofer: Phil Berg. A recent poll indicated that as many as 51% of Republican primary voters believe Obama was not born in the United State. Now, as Rove indicates, that's probably about as likely as the polls from a couple years back that indicated something like half of all Democrats were 9-11 Troofers. But any number much over 10% is a cause for concern.
Labels: 9-11 Deniers, Karl Rove, Obama Birthers
posted by Pat @ 10:50 AM
120 comments
120 Comments:
Philip Berg's illiterate and incompetent lawsuit was rejected by responsible members of the truth movement long before it was thrown out of court. Rodriguez claimed that he fired Berg before that happened. For a while Berg continued to hang around the truth movement, pleading that he'd meant no harm, he just wasn't very bright. That didn't go over very well and he moved on to illiterate and incompetent birther lawsuits.
There are no responsible members of the truth movement, just varying degrees of idiots.
"responsible members of the truth movement"
Love that oxymoron!
As in,
"sober members of a bachelor party in Vegas"
"modest female member of Kardassian family"
Brian,
What makes a member of the truth movement responsible or irresponsible?
Truthers and Birthers are the same in that they're looking for a "serious" reason for why they hate the president. Nobody became a truther who didn't already despise Bush, and nobody became a birther who didn't already despise Obama.
Also, Brian, there are no such thing as "responsible" truthers. You are all either insane, ignorant, or charlatans.
The goat molester whines, "...Philip Berg's illiterate and incompetent lawsuit was rejected by responsible members of the truth movement long before it was thrown out of court."
This is another example of the "No true Scotsman" logical fallacy.
It's also a prime example of the goat molester's inability to learn.
That guy who did the egg "experiment" was a responsible "Truther" while the guy with the stackable office trays was irresponsible.
Greg, a responsible member of the truth movement checks facts and avoids false claims and does not lie. Irresponsible truthers do not check facts, make careless assertions, and lie. Philip Berg, for example, lied in the first paragraph of the Rodriguez v. Bush lawsuit when he claimed that Willie Rodriguez had "single-handedly rescued fifteen (15) persons".
GutterBall, your inability to comprehend the inapplicablity of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy to the present instance is an embarrassment. I did not make an unreasoned assertion. Mr. Berg has not participated in any 9/11 truth event that I know about in the past four years. You may as well invoke the "No True Scotsman" agument to claim that disbarred lawyers are still lawyers and defrocked priests are still priests. Some associations, affiliations, and conditions are conditional. The nationality of one's birth is not. You have the mind of a child.
The goat molester whines hysterically, "...GutterBall, your inability to comprehend the inapplicablity of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy to the present instance is an embarrassment. I did not make an unreasoned assertion. Mr. Berg has not participated in any 9/11 truth event that I know about in the past four years. You may as well invoke the "No True Scotsman" agument to claim that disbarred lawyers are still lawyers and defrocked priests are still priests. Some associations, affiliations, and conditions are conditional. The nationality of one's birth is not. You have the mind of a child."
And that's proof positive that you don't understand the meaning or application of the "No true Scotsman" logical fallacy.
You embarrass yourself with every post, goat molester.
So tell us, goat molester: Do you want do die stupid?
Birthers and Truthers actually worry me less than the fact that people are still listening to Karl Rove.
Brian,
So then, there is no such thing as a responsible truther. I just wanted you to verify that.
Greg, a responsible member of the truth movement checks facts and avoids false claims and does not lie.
Like I said, no such thing as a responsible truther.
You may as well invoke the "No True Scotsman" agument to claim that disbarred lawyers are still lawyers and defrocked priests are still priests.
Or to make the claim that a failed janitor who was thrown out of the truth movement for being a sex stalker gets the final say in who is and isn't a truther.
Oh wait....
You have the mind of a child.
Says the unemployed loser who lives with his parents despite being in his late 50s.
Brian, your endless babbling is so entertaining. Please, never change.
GutterBall, oh child-minded one, the one who doesn't understand the No True Scotsman fallacy is you. The fallacy is one cobbled together to defend an overbroad generalization. I didn't make any overbroad generalizations.
The goat molester whines hysterically, "...The fallacy is one cobbled together to defend an overbroad [SIC] generalization. I didn't make any overbroad [SIC] generalizations."
See what I mean? The goat molester doesn't grasp the meaning or application of the "No true Scotsman" fallacy.
But not to worry, folks, the goat molester is not stupid. He's possessed by a retarded evil spirit.
The fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion. In this case, since I made no assertion, I can not modify the subject of the assertion.
You're not very smart, are you?
The goat molester whines, "...since I made no assertion, I can not modify the subject of the assertion."
Still babbling and pretending to grasp the concept, goat molester?
I grasp the concept just fine, GutterBall. You're just playing with the words of the title. You're the kind of fool who votes for the "Freedom and Tax Reduction Initiative" just because you're in favor of freedom and tax reduction.
"...I grasp the concept just fine, GutterBall."
No you don't, goat molester. And the proof's in the pudding.
"...You're just playing with the words of the title. You're the kind of fool who votes for the 'Freedom and Tax Reduction Initiative' just because you're in favor of freedom and tax reduction."
Still babbling, goat molester?
Your apparent belief that bare assertions are a credit to your case only discredit you, GutterBall.
The goat molester whines, "...Your apparent belief that bare assertions are a credit to your case only discredit you, GutterBall."
Says whom? A failed janitor, sex stalker, and all-purpose prevaricator with zero credibility?
I don't know what makes you so stupid, goat molester, but, no doubt, it works.
Your apparent belief that bare assertions are a credit to your case only discredit you, GutterBall.
My, such squealing!
Brian, Guitar Bill has pwn3d you. Everybody reading this blog is laughing at you. You lose, just as you lost the game of life a long time ago.
But please, keep squealing here. It's hilarious. Nothing's funnier than a failed janitor babbling about invisible widows and their phantom questions.
GuitarBill and Ian, just shut the fuck up.
Honestly, what you are doing is on the level of highschool bullying; When the bullies are too stupid to respond something intelligent, they just say "freak" or "goat fucker" in your case, and everybody laughs - Who is the stupid one here, the ones laughing or the one bashed?
Really, just. Stop. Trolling.
And James + Pat, you guys have actually produced some high quality debunking. Don't bitch around, block retards like these two.
You may as well invoke the "No True Scotsman" argument to claim that disbarred lawyers are still lawyers and defrocked priests are still priests.
This incredibly stupid statement illustrates Brian's inability to discern fact from opinion.
Lawyers and priests are sanctioned by state bar associations and churches, respectively. These organizations have the power to grant and remove the right to act in these capacities. Therefore "defrocked" and "disbarred" are facts.
There is no such organization for 9-11 Truth. No one has the official right to declare someone a Truther or not a Truther. Therefore a declaration like "responsible truther" is merely the opinion of the person saying so.
In fact, forget the professions and just look at the terms. "Bar" and "frock" suggest official processes, while "responsible" is a highly subjective term.
That Brian think his opinion carries the same weight as a state bar association says a lot about his worldview.
dumdiedeldum,
Bite me. If Brian doesn't want to have people mocking him, he could always stop posting the same debunked gibberish with a healthy dose of "you girls are afraid of the facts" as he's been doing for two years.
High School bullying? Please. Brian is old enough to be my father. Also, I don't e-mail him or call him or harass him in any way. He's fair game on this blog, which is where I make fun of him. If he stopped posting, I'd stop mocking him.
dumdiedeldum,
I'm just hoping GuitarBill and Ian are doing a great community service by keeping Brian glued to his computer, rather than harassing others, both on the internet or in the real world.
They are also continuing to answer the very same idiotic arguments one gets from the so-called 'sane' truthers (none of whom have the balls to come and debate here).
I say, keep up the good work, gentlemen.
When the bullies are too stupid to respond something intelligent
Intelligent? From Brian?
You sound like a truther.
This comment has been removed by the author.
TR, your legalistic invocation of bar associations and church establishments has nothing to do with the issue. Obviously the truth movement has no such institution.
I only said that Berg's nonsense was rejected by responsible truthers. GuterBall's characterization of that fact as a "No True Scotsman" argument was a straw man non sequitur.
Re the debate about truthers being responsible or not, here is the latest headline from the members of 911oz:
'Dr Frank Legge on Visibility 9-11: Mounting Evidence Shows Boeing 757-200 Impact with Pentagon Probable'
Probable?????
There 'aint no such thing as a 'responsible' truther.
"...I only said that Berg's nonsense was rejected by responsible truthers. GuterBall's characterization of that fact as a "No True Scotsman" argument was a straw man non sequitur."
You wouldn't know a fact, straw man, or non sequitur if they jumped up and bit you. In fact, you constantly resort to all the aforementioned logical fallacies.
Have you no shame, goat molester?
Paul w, given the paucity of evidence given us, "probable" is the responsible position.
GutterBall, that you leap to innuendo and personal attack suggests that you can not defend your position with facts or logic.
"...GutterBall, that you leap to innuendo and personal attack suggests that you can not defend your position with facts or logic."
Since when do "facts or logic" have an affect on a failed janitor, sex stalker, and all-purpose prevaricator with zero credibility?
Again, have you no shame, goat molester?
" responsible members of the truth movement"
You do realize, do you not, that you are quite insane?
"Brian,
What makes a member of the truth movement responsible or irresponsible?"
Brian does, of course.
9-1/2 years later, the responsible Troofers are almost ready to accept that a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon. But not necessarily Flight 77. That will take them another 5 years.
Pat, for 9-1/2 years responsible truthers have accepted that there is much evidence that flight 77 hit the Pentagon, and little evidence that it did not. Some others, like myself, did not consider the issue worth investigating and so left the door open for the possibility that claims that the hole was too small and the plane parts did not match a 757 were true.
Obviously the truth movement has no such institution. I only said that Berg's nonsense was rejected by responsible truthers.
Ah yes, the typical Brian Good "I read what you said, but you're wrong, and I'm right, even though my response proves your point and that I didn't understand it at all" response.
Have I mentioned lately that you're insane?
The goat molester--insane, arrogant and dishonest.
What a charming combination.
Paul, I know how frustrating it can be to debate truthers.You can debunk their phonecall and pyroclastic clouds stuff again and again, and still they'll repeat it as if they were never proven wrong on this subject. One can be intrigued to stop actually responding and start flaming as these guys do.
But just read the comments, first snug.bugs posts and then Ian and GuitarBill. I mean, really, read them. Who seems to be the idiot here, incapable of arguing and being rational? One clue: It isn't snug.bug.
I haven't read all their "debates" *caugh* for the last two years, nor do I know the circumstances that created this atmosphere, but quite frankly: Anybody who doesn't know about it will conclude that these two are just what I said: Highschool bullies who have learned how to use the Internet.
High School bullying? Please. Brian is old enough to be my father. Also, I don't e-mail him or call him or harass him in any way. He's fair game on this blog, which is where I make fun of him. If he stopped posting, I'd stop mocking him.
"It's a fair game. If this looser stopped coming to this school and living in this town when we're at it, I would stop mocking him."
Please.
I'm just hoping GuitarBill and Ian are doing a great community service by keeping Brian glued to his computer, rather than harassing others, both on the internet or in the real world.
Really, no comment.
Who seems to be the idiot here, incapable of arguing and being rational? One clue: It isn't snug.bug.
Based on that statement, I'm going to say "you."
Triterope, I give you another clue:
There's one guy that at least seems give arguments and stays calm, while the other keeps bitching and repeating the same insults.
And a third guy, reading all that and drawing conclusions.
dumdiedeldum,
The first paragraph of your 01:32 post says it all. There is no more new troof, and that which went before has been battered to death. All that's left is to point and laugh at troofers.
And don't worry about Brian (snug.bug). He loves every second of it. A third guy would do well to consider why Brian keeps on coming back for more.
"...I haven't read all their 'debates' *caugh* [SIC] for the last two years, nor do I know the circumstances that created this atmosphere...[blah][blah][blah]."
(Assuming that you're not the goat molester masquerading as "dumdiedeldum," which I wouldn't put past the goat molester for a nanosecond).
That's right, spelling bee champ, you haven't read all the debates--not by a long shot. And that's why I advise you to sit on your hands, because your worthless, uninformed opinion isn't welcome.
The fact is the goat molester has been proven wrong over-and-over-and-over again, only to return and repeat the same idiotic lies and half-truths as though they were never debunked. The goat molester simply will not admit that he's wrong, and instead resorts to hair splitting, quote mining and logical fallacies (and that's just the tip of the iceberg of intellectual dishonesty we've encountered when dealing with the goat molester). In addition, he constantly attempts to deliberately hijack each and every thread with the thoroughly debunked nonsense he spews like a fire hose. This is, by definition, internet troll behavior. Thus, if he suffers abuse at our hands, he has no one to blame but himself--and frankly, I have no pity for the son-of-a-bitch. After all, sane people have little or no tolerance for an habitual liar, and the goat molester constantly tests our limits of tolerance.
"...But just read the comments, first snug.bugs posts and then Ian and GuitarBill. I mean, really, read them. Who seems to be the idiot here, incapable of arguing and being rational? One clue: It isn't snug.bug."
That statement alone is proof positive that you're either [1] completely uniformed and blissfully ignorant as concerns the history of SLC; [2] a internet neophyte who's unfamiliar with common troll tactics; or [3] a liar.
The goat molester wore out his welcome years ago, and it's a wonder that we don't heap more abuse on his sorry ass.
There are several very compelling reasons why the goat molester was kicked out of the 9/11 "truth" movement, and those facts alone should suffice to tell you all you need to know about him.
My advise to you is simple: Get a clue before you comment and betray your boundless ignorance for all to witness. We can relegate you to the dust heap just as easily as the insane goat molester.
"a responsible member of the truth movement checks facts and avoids false claims and does not lie. Irresponsible truthers do not check facts, make careless assertions, and lie."
The first 1 is a contradiction, the second is the truth about Truthers.
My advise to you is simple: Get a clue before you comment and betray your boundless ignorance for all to witness. We can relegate you to the dust heap just as easily as the insane goat molester.
You sound just as these Anonymous guys when a journalist wrote something negative about them - "We can bash you too, so shut up. Therefore our argument is right, quod erat demonstrandum". Wow, you just won this debate! Incredible, these are rhetorical abilities the world has never seen before!
Honestly, do you really think this kind of childish behavior helps your cause?
And that's why I advise you to sit on your hands, because your worthless, uninformed opinion isn't welcome.
You just have to read through ONE "debate" between you three and you have the information that you need, man. Just try to read it yourself with a certain distance - You keep repeating and repeating and repeating yourself, calling him a "goat molestor" which, quite frankly, IS trolling at its finest, or should I say, dumbest?
Anyway it is nice to hear from someone that you're a complete internet beginner and has no idea about trolling although you're in the Internet for quite a few years, and know what trolling is, and there're different kind of trolls. Yes, it might be that snug.bug is using one strategy, however you are even lower than that - While he is staying calm and even answering (supposedly) sanely to your stupid insults, you seem like - and now I'm repeating myself too - a highschool bully which really is the lowest form of human behavior.
You can only do one thing with a real troll: Ignore him. I'm kinda breaking the rules here by speaking to you but, quite frankly, I can't stand reading bullshit like this.
You give credibility to truthers because everyone reading this stuff would say "oh gee, these so called debunkers really don't seem to have any arguments at all, they just bitch around. What jerks - Let's see what kind of evidence these truthers have." At least the ones which aren't comporting like an asshole as you are.
Now we don't need even more truther desinformation spread around, do we?
Do we want the "sane ones" to behave themselves as you are?
"...Honestly, do you really think this kind of childish behavior helps your cause?"
I don't have a "cause," douche bag. But I certainly know when I'm being conned by 9/11 troofer.
"...You just have to read through ONE "debate" between you three and you have the information that you need, man. Just try to read it yourself with a certain distance - You keep repeating and repeating and repeating yourself, calling him a "goat molestor" which, quite frankly, IS trolling at its finest, or should I say, dumbest?"
And I suppose, in the rarefied air you breath, that calling someone "GutterBall" is reasoned debate? You're a hypocrite, goat molester--not to mention a transparent fraud.
"...While he is staying calm and even answering (supposedly) sanely to your stupid insults, you seem like - and now I'm repeating myself too - a highschool [SIC] bully which really is the lowest form of human behavior."
Do you honestly believe that misspelling common words will fool me and cause me to believe that you're anyone other than the goat molester?
If you had a brain in your head, goat molester, you'd admit that I proved you don't understand the application or meaning of the "One true Scotsman" logical fallacy a in recent, albeit previous, thread. As per your standard operation procedure, you commit the same logical fallacy in a new thread in order to hijack the new thread with off-topic nonsense. And now, as per standard troofer trolling procedure, you've created a sock puppet in order to make it look like you have support in the blogosphere.
Pathetic, but all too predictable.
The remainder of your idiotic and transparently fraudulent argument doesn't merit discussion, and I'll not dignify your latest fraud with a comment, goat molester.
Are you not able to tell that I'm not a native english speaker?
Pathetic, really. It's spelled "high school", not "highschool"? "Cough", not "caugh"? Good to know, at least I learned something usable here. If you like to, point out all the other errors I make, it's always good to correct spelling errors.
I don't have a "cause," douche bag.
Yes you have, to bash someone.
I guess you know how snug.bug looks in person, right?
Well then: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tc6_0g1aZ90 (Uploaded the first shot, this is really not worth my time repeating this all over again just to make it look better).
Nope, not any "goat molestor", just a guy who tries to provide some constructive criticism. Well then, let's see if you'll be able to actually respond to my last comment, now that you know you're talking to a real person.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dammit, you got me!
Let's see if this video is explaining it more clearly:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1rRF7yPbo4
Halt's maul, dummkopf!
Well, Herr Streicher, the video you provide proves absolutely nothing.
Let's assume for the sake of argument, that you're telling the truth.
How did you manage to miss the thread where I proved the goat molester doesn't understand the meaning or application of the "One true Scotsman" fallacy?
Not paying attention, Herr Streicher?
That said, how can any reasonable person expect me or Ian to tolerate the goat molester's intellectual dishonesty, thread hijacking and bad faith debating tactics?
Heuchler!
Halt's maul, dummkopf!
Well, Herr Streicher, the video you provide proves absolutely nothing.
It's spelled "Halts Maul, Dummkopf!"
Man, what do you need for you to understand that I am *not* snug.bug?
Streicher - You don't mean that guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Streicher , do you?
I could take that as an insult ;-)
Actually I read that one, which was interesting too: I learned what that the "No true Scottman" fallacy is. As you can see, posting here is good for something.
That said, how can any reasonable person expect me or Ian to tolerate the goat molester's intellectual dishonesty, thread hijacking and bad faith debating tactics?
I don't, just saying that your stupid flaming isn't helping anybody.
Yes, he might be thread hijacking in some cases (or even many cases, I dunno), so what? Take for example this one: snug.bug simply answered to a blog post, no hijacking here. So why blame flame him here as a goat molester? Look at only the top two of your comments: Without using the "goat molester" thingy, they even look like at least modestly rational answers, however you completely ruin it.
As for his statement (first comment here): Well, there are some truthers who consider themselves more responsible than others, that's their views on themselves. This all just shows that terms like "truther", "responsible truther" and so on are very subjective and based upon your personal point of view. It proves nothing more, nothing less.
You say there are no responsible truthers: I don't know, never looked into John Golds stuff, which I heard people talking about several times, for example. I have seen the latest Loose Change and the wargames part seems very interesting - However my previous experiences with the claims of these movies show me that what seems plausible at first sight is proven wrong when you look closely at the evidence; this guy: www.911mysteriesguide.com/911_Mysteries_Viewers_Guide.doc has made similar experiences, just read the opening paragraph; plus, I think somewhere I read that the wargames have been already debunked. I'm gonna look into all this when I'm bored.
Thank you Mark Roberts, 911 Myths and all you guys for your debunking efforts; even though I don't always like your style I can understand why you act as you do.
OK, I trailed way off, sorry for that.
Several errors in my last comment, I apologize; it's 12:00 pm here.
Once again, what I'm trying to say is that your flaming helps nobody.
dumdiedeldum
Um, what exactly is your point?
If others come here looking for an answer to the truthers lies and deceit, and don't like some of the posters, they are free to go elsewhere.
After all, this site has many links to other excellent debunker sites.
If you want to complain to GB and Ian, fine, but cut the crap; this is not a showcase for debunkers, it's just a blog that has an interest in the 911 conspirators.
Brian has been posting here for some time, and is free to leave (unlike the victim of a school bully) but chooses to stay and argue.
As both Pat and James allow freedom of speech and generally have a hands-off approach here, it means we all follow our own style.
Deal with it.
You say there are no responsible truthers: I don't know
Says a lot, really.
If you had even a basic understanding of this issue, you'd understand that being a truther means ignoring reality, misquoting, taking things out of context, lying and insulting the many people who died, such as the pilots, who are generally seen as cowards or in of the plot.
It also means ignoring a rabid fundamentalist religious movement that has no compulsion in slaughtering any man, woman or child that does not agree with its beliefs.
Oh, and being a truther also means accepting a clutch of Holocaust deniers and Anti-Semites.
Fuck 'em.
"...I could take that as an insult ;-)"
And you should take it as an insult.
"...I don't, just saying that your stupid flaming isn't helping anybody."
And the goat molester's constant repetition of lies, propaganda and logical fallacies garnished with repeated attempts to hijack SLC's content with off-topic nonsense is helpful? How?
And you can shove the lecture, Suzy homemaker. Your one-sided argument is as transparent as it is poorly thought out and dishonest.
"...As for his statement (first comment here): Well, there are some truthers who consider themselves more responsible than others, that's their views on themselves. This all just shows that terms like "truther", "responsible truther" and so on are very subjective and based upon your personal point of view. It proves nothing more, nothing less."
Wrong again. Clearly, you're unaware that the goat molester was kicked out of the 9/11 "truth" movement. It's no secret that he's an intolerable liar, sex stalker and all-purpose asshole. For a person of the goat molester's ilk to claim the credibility necessary to define who's a "responsible truther" (no such thing) and who's not, stretches credulity to its limits.
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!.
"...You say there are no responsible truthers: I don't know, never looked into John Golds stuff, which I heard people talking about several times, for example."
Another example of the breadth and depth of your ignorance, Herr troofer? Jon Gold is a proven ass munch. In fact, he's a grandstanding fool who hides behind his feigned concern for "the victims", while he disseminates lies and propaganda on behalf of the "truth" movement. That said, a cursory examination of the SLC archives will prove to anyone with an ounce of intellectual honesty that Jon Gold is a scat muncher of Goodian proportions.
"...I have seen the latest Loose Change and the wargames part seems very interesting"
And there you have it, folks. As predicted, he's a troofer (or, perhaps, a former troofer).
And it took you how many years to come to the determination that 9/11 "truth" is "proven wrong when you look closely at the evidence"?
Suffice it to say, I'm not impressed.
Here's a clue for you: When you've endured 8 years of debunking the repetitious lies, distortions and insanity of the 9/11 "truth" movement, get back to us and expound on the concept of "helpful." My guess is that, given some hard fought experience, you'll change your tune dramatically.
Several errors in my last comment
Actually, there are so many errors in all your comments that you could probably just skip posting altogether.
If you had even a basic understanding of this issue, you'd understand that being a truther means ignoring reality, misquoting, taking things out of context, lying and insulting the many people who died, such as the pilots, who are generally seen as cowards or in of the plot.
Here it is in a nutshell:
- Watched LC, thought it had some interesting points
- Read the LC viewer guide, felt lied to.
- Was semi-actively reading truther and debunker material, including this blog.
More on this below.
Another example of [...] your ignorance, Herr troofer?
Yep, as I already wrote, I have only heard the name a few times and have little to no idea what kind of stuff he is promoting.
Wrong again. Clearly, you're unaware that the goat molester was kicked out of the 9/11 "truth" movement.
Yes I was, doesn't change a lot though as I was criticising your, err, "style".
For a person of the goat molester's ilk to claim the credibility necessary to define who's a "responsible truther" (no such thing) and who's not, stretches credulity to its limits.
I came new in this blog and was immediately attacked by you, and than it took me two (!) videos for you to at least accept the possibility that I'm not Brian Good, or at least you're "presuming it for the sake of argument".
And you talk about being blindfolded, not accepting evidence and repeating the same debunked stuff over and over again?
That reminds me: Who again is talking about Cointelpro and desinfo agents all the time? Right.
And there you have it, folks. As predicted, he's a troofer (or, perhaps, a former troofer).
And it took you how many years to come to the determination that 9/11 "truth" is "proven wrong when you look closely at the evidence"?
After my first month I was pissed off, until now I'm getting angry when hearing the same stuff over and over again: Explosions in the basement, pyroclastic flows, molten metal, hijackers still alive, the list could go on to infinity.
When you watch the latest LC, you get basement explosions and molten metal presented to you as strong evidence - Really, it sucks.
There are still, however, questions that I don't know the answers for, and arguments which I haven't looked into anymore closely than just skipping through it.
There might very well be counterarguments for these, I just haven't read the debunking yet. Again, from my experience, there are always rational explainations for this stuff; it's just that I haven't seen them yet, as I already wrote.
Here's a clue for you: When you've endured 8 years of debunking the repetitious lies, distortions and insanity of the 9/11 "truth" movement, get back to us and expound on the concept of "helpful." My guess is that, given some hard fought experience, you'll change your tune dramatically.
Had a few little "debates" with friends who were sucked into trutherism, and it always bugs me how well the strategies work: First they fire argument after argument at you which seems very reasonable at first, giving people the right mindset, and when it is not even possible to debunk even one argument; they just end up saying that you've been lied to and are too stupid to accept it; or, they simply don't accept your debunking; or, they say afterwards "I still believe that they did it"; and if you're not a wandering dictionary you can't possibly know the answers to all their claims.
Yes, this can be frustrating. If it made you this bitter, perhaps you should stop doing this altogether - But it is your choice.
GutterBall, I admit it when I'm wrong. I don't have to do so often because, unlike you, I avoid making claims I can't prove.
I keep coming back for more because it's so easy. All I have to do is sit back and let you show your ignorance and discredit yourselves.
The "No True Scotsman" fallacy is simple to understand. It's the case of someone who makes an unreasonable statement, and then to avoid being wrong, simply modifies the statement.
GutterBall simply infers the meaning from the title, sees the apparent similarity to the "No True truther" argument, and ignores the fact that the title and the actual fallacy are two different things. He's mistaking the map for the territory, as incompetent sophists often do.
"...GutterBall, I admit it when I'm wrong."
You do nothing of the sort. Proof?
Link please.
"...I don't have to do so often because, unlike you, I avoid making claims I can't prove."
Yeah, I suppose that's why I always provide links that substantiate everything I say, while all you ever offer is your opinion--that is, when you're not quote mining, telling bald-faced lies, or blatantly misrepresenting your source.
"...I keep coming back for more because it's so easy. All I have to do is sit back and let you show your ignorance and discredit yourselves."
Making more unsubstantiated claims, ass-face?
"...The "No True Scotsman" fallacy is simple to understand. It's the case of someone who makes an unreasonable statement, and then to avoid being wrong, simply modifies the statement."
Wrong again, fucktard.
"...GutterBall simply infers the meaning from the title, sees the apparent similarity to the "No True truther" argument, and ignores the fact that the title and the actual fallacy are two different things. He's mistaking the map for the territory, as incompetent sophists often do."
Yes, that's why I provide a link to the Wikipedia page that explains the "No true Scotsman" fallacy, while all you offer is your idiotic opinion while you misrepresent the content found therein. You're a sophist by definition--not to mention an habitual liar, sex degenerate and all-purpose scat muncher.
GutterBall, I admit it when I'm wrong. I don't have to do so often because, unlike you, I avoid making claims I can't prove.
Bullshit.
You were proven completely wrong in yoru claim that impeachment would remove a President's pension. You absolutly refused to admit yoru error, despite being given the chance to admit you misspoke and meant to say conviction would remove a President's pension.
When given the specific sections of the US Constitution that explained it in clear evidence you even admitted to not being willing to read the evidence that proved you wrong. Claiming that somehow a newpapers use of a legal term in a legal situation trumped the US COnstitution's meaning.
You have no intellectual honesty, certainly not enough to admit an error you've made.
No idea why that didn't use my name, but the above comment is mine.
Ugh, this is jrebori682, not sure why the site is using that instead of my screen name
I was using "impeachment" in the broadest sense, which means the entire process of removing someone from office. It is used in that way by WaPo and NYT and there is nothing incorrect about it. You just want to have a semantic quibble to try to play gotcha on a trivial and irrelevant technicality.
If you are talking about the legality of removing a President's pension, the WaPo and NYT's use of the word, which is incorrect anyway, has zero relevance. What matters is the legal meaning of the word.
Which you admitted you refused to even bother reading, despite being given the citation to verify it.
That is not a technicality, it is intellectual dishonesty. You refused to admit your error, still refuse to admit your error, and have proven the falsehood of your claim "I admit when I am wrong".
It is a clear example of the disregard you have for actual facts and truth.
jrebori682,
The goat molester NEVER admits that he's wrong. He's incapable of admitting an error no matter how many times he's proven wrong, because his uber-fragile, yet larger than life ego won't permit it. Throw intellectual dishonesty into the mix, and you have the most bull-headed, habitual liar, who ever took a breath.
The "No True Scotsman" fallacy is simple to understand. It's the case of someone who makes an unreasonable statement, and then to avoid being wrong, simply modifies the statement.
Not even close.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I was using "impeachment" in the broadest sense...
In all fairness there are 2 senses in which the term impeachment is used.
1. is the process similar to a grand jury in which the House determines if there is enough evidence to go to trial.
2. is the word ignorant people throw around because they have no idea WTF they are talking about and then start backpeddling as well as making excuses when they get called out.
The "No True Scotsman" fallacy is simple to understand. It's the case of someone who makes an unreasonable statement, and then to avoid being wrong, simply modifies the statement.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrjwaqZfjIY
No evidence has been provided that post-term impeachment does not strip a president of his pension. You provide only an interpretation of the Constitution by an anonymous internet poster with no credentials whatsoever. My information from impeachment activists was that post-term impeachment would remove the president's pension. If they are wrong, so be it, but I wouldn't take your word for it. It's a trivial issue which you try to make something of only because you
want to play gotcha.
"...If they are wrong, so be it, but I wouldn't take your word for it. It's a trivial issue which you try to make something of only because you want to play gotcha."
Projecting and habitually lying again, goat molester?
You're a psychopath, who belongs in an institution for the criminally insane.
No evidence has been provided that post-term impeachment does not strip a president of his pension. You provide only an interpretation of the Constitution by an anonymous internet poster with no credentials whatsoever.
Bullshit on both counts.
Since I provided the citation of the actual text from the US Constitution and not an interpretation. The clear language describes the process. Impeachment does not remove a president from offfice, therefore does not strip them of their pension.
One other point, President Clinton was impeached. He is still getting his pension. Maybe you just aren't old enough to remember that event?
You are lying about what was provided as evidence, but since you refused to actually read the Constitution and announced that you hadn't, I'm not surprised.
Since conclusive evidence was provided that impeachment does not remove a president's pension rights, the fact that the impeachment may take place after his term is over in no way would grant impeachment more power. So there is no logical reason to prove something already rendered moot.
My information from impeachment activists was that post-term impeachment would remove the president's pension.
Maybe instead of listening to your activist friends claims, you should have taken 10 minutes to read the relevant passages of the US Constitution. It is pretty plain english, doesn't require a law degree to grasp. Of course, that would require you to practice critical thinking, something you obviously lack.
If you believe your own proven disregard for basic facts, simple research, and intellectual honesty is trivial, be that as it may. But I will continue to point out that you are not man enough to admit an error each and every time you make the discreditted claim that "I admit when I am wrong"
Maybe facts and truth are irrelevant to you, they are to many truhters, but they aren'ty to me.
"No evidence has been provided that post-term impeachment does not strip a president of his pension"
Negative proof fallacy. There is also no evidence that they are not required to wear a pretty pink bonnet with a teal bow on alternating Sundays beginning with the first weekend after Memorial Day and ending on Labor Day. I guess that must be true too.
Actually, Grandmastershek, his claim isn't even strong enough to be a negative proof fallacy.
Since it has been proven repeatedly that impeachment does not remove a president from office, and since the law requires that the pesident be removed from office to lose the pension, it is irrelevant if they are impeached prior to or after serving their term.
Impeachment doesn't ever remove the pension from a president.
But snug.bug apparently can't make that simple connection until someone points it out to him.
By one definition, Clinton was impeached. By another widely-used definition, the one I was using, he was not impeached because he was not convicted and he was not removed from office.
It's an entirely trivial, irrelevant point. This is a 9/11 forum, not an impeachment forum. You are only desperately searching for material for an ad hominem attack.
GMS, what you call a "negative proof fallacy" can also be characterized as 47b's "failure to prove his case".
See what I mean?
He'll never admit that he's wrong. He'll lie and split hairs for all of eternity before he'll admit he's wrong.
Thus, we have more proof that the goat molester is a pathological liar.
Ban him! Get him out of here. After all, this is a blog, not an INSANE ASYLUM.
I'll admit that I'm wrong when I'm shown to be wrong.
I said that even after leaving office, impeachment would still strip the president of his pension. I believe I got that information from David Swanson, I don't remember. Maybe it's wrong, but I'm not going to take an anonymous internet poster's interpretation of the text of the constitution on his say-so.
In any case it's an example of your desperate ad hominem attacks. You can't refute me on 9/11 because you don't know what you're talking about, so you have to try to play gotcha with an obscure constitutional matter.
"...I'll admit that I'm wrong when I'm shown to be wrong."
Another bald-faced lie. You've been proven wrong so many times it's ridiculous.
Not only are you proven wrong, you're a proven habitual liar, sex stalker, failed janitor and shameless quote miner.
Grade: F-
GutterBall, your bald assertion can not be very impressive when you make silly claims like "sex stalker" and "failed janitor" with no proof whatsoever.
By one definition, Clinton was impeached. By another widely-used definition, the one I was using, he was not impeached because he was not convicted and he was not removed from office.
You are discussing legalities. When you do that, you use the legal definitions. The source for those definitions is the US Constitution in the case of impeachment of a US President. By that definition, the only one that matters, Bill Clinton was indeedd impeached.
I believe I got that information from David Swanson, I don't remember. Maybe it's wrong, but I'm not going to take an anonymous internet poster's interpretation of the text of the constitution on his say-so.
Why would you take David Swanson's word for it? I didn't ask you to take mine. I pointed out to you the actual sections of the US Constitution that are germane. Are you incapable of reading them yourself? They aren't complicated, the language isn't even that archaic.
They prove you completely irrefutably wrong.
In any case it's an example of your desperate ad hominem attacks. You can't refute me on 9/11 because you don't know what you're talking about, so you have to try to play gotcha with an obscure constitutional matter.
What is relevant for our purposes here about this is that it proves to all who care to look that you have zero credibility or honesty. That you are unwilling to do the most basic research, even after it is spoon fed to you. Therefore, all your claims should be seriously doubted until and unless you provide corroborating evidence.
Perhaps the failing lies in your education. My grammer school history courses contained a lesson on impeachment and removal from office as regards Andrew Jackson. He was the first President impeached, and he wasn't removed from office either.
Why shouldn't I take David Swanson's word for it? If you would link to a credible source that shows that he's wrong, I'll admit he was wrong. But some anonymous internet poster at SLC who thinks he's a constitutional scholar is not a credible source.
"...GutterBall, your bald assertion can not be very impressive when you make silly claims like "sex stalker" and "failed janitor" with no proof whatsoever."
Really? No kidding?
Then why did you FAIL to sue Kevin Barrett and Willie Rod for publishing the following expose--you lying scumbag?
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!.
You're a joke.
You didn't sue them for one simple reason: They're telling the truth, and you know it.
Why shouldn't I take David Swanson's word for it?
Because if that is what he claimed, and you have provided no evidence he did, he is wrong.As you would know if you bothered to read the document.
If you would link to a credible source that shows that he's wrong, I'll admit he was wrong. But some anonymous internet poster at SLC who thinks he's a constitutional scholar is not a credible source.
Unfortunately for you, I never made an claim about my credentials except to claim I had actually read the Constitution. And had you bother to read the passages I've repeatedly cited, you would have found the proof.
But since you are incapable of finding facts for yourself, I'll go so far as to actually quote the 2 relevant portions. They are short, clear, and for you, devastating.
Article I, Section 2:
"The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."
Article I, Section 3:
"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present."
Gee, look at that, The House impeachs, but the Senate tries, convicts, and removes from office.
How are you going to spin that away?
You refused to look at the document, despite being repeatedly told where it was to be found.
You are intellectually dishonest, lazy, and unwilling to do the most basic cursory reasearch.
You have no credability remaining.
GutterBall, why didn't I sue Willie and Kevin? Because I don't know how and don't really wish to learn, and because knowing how those bullies operate I feared that innocent third parties might get hurt. I knew that time would show those two for what they are, and I was right about that.
47b, I really am not interested in pursuing a pissing contest with you about an irrelevancy.
So you're admitting that you don't think you're a constitutional; scholar? So why would I waste my time on the constitutional interpretations of an anonymous internet poster who doesn't even claim to be a constitutional scholar?
"...GutterBall, why didn't I sue Willie and Kevin? Because I don't know how and don't really wish to learn...[blah][blah][blah."
You don't have to "learn" anything, 'tard. As anyone with an IQ approaching room temperature will tell you, all that's necessary is to hire a lawyer.
On the other hand, it shouldn't surprise me that you're so arrogant as to consider walking into a court of law with the foolhardy intention of presenting your own case without the assistance of a legal professional. As they say, you have a fool for a client.
GutterBall, the other reason I didn't want to sue is that very likely I would only get countersuits because of what I've said about Kevin and Willie--and though what I said was true and what they said was not, defending myself would be very expensive.
Kevin Barrett is a lying, bigoted, wife-beating scumbag, and a negligent scholar. William Rodriguez is a lying con artist who traveled the world on a phony hero tale. That is the truth and they will not sue me for saying so as long as I don't sue them.
"...Kevin Barrett is a lying, bigoted, wife-beating scumbag, and a negligent scholar."
Another pack of lies. What should we expect from the goat molester?
Yeah, I guess that's why Barrett was a Fulbright Scholar. The alleged "wife beating" charges against Barrett have never been proven in a court of law. In fact, there's ample reason to believe that his wife cooked up the story. So far, his wife has a temporary restraining order against Barrett, but he's never been convicted of domestic violence. Thus, your charges that he's a "wife beater" are unsubstantiated, just like the trash you peddle on SLC.
Yes, Barrett is a liar. Then again, all 9/11 "truthers" are liars, yourself included.
And you're still a sex stalker, failed janitor and loser in his late 50's who still lives with this parents.
Can you say "LOSER"?
GutterBall, Barrett is a liar. He lied four times in the first four minutes of his interview with Russia Today. He lied to Noam Chomsky when he claimed that he had lost a tenure-track job for his political beliefs. Barrett never had a tenure track job to lose.
The wife-beating allegations were, according to the Baraboo News Republic 9/16/08, made by Barrett's wife, who alleged that he had tried to pound her head on a tile floor. That's not wife-beating?
Barrett recently featured on his blog a picture of Ann Frank with the words "I LOVE HITLER" superimposed. He has called for 500,000 zionists to be imprisoned in concentration camps, and claimed that 9/11 was done "by, and for, zionist Jews". He also characterized the holocaust as "Toasting 6 million Jews".
He's a liar, a bigot, a wife-beater, a scumbag, and a lousy scholar--as a glance at his books will show.
He's a bigot
This comment has been removed by the author.
"...GutterBall, Barrett is a liar."
When did I claim he's not a liar? After all, he's a troofer.
"...The wife-beating allegations were, according to the Baraboo News Republic 9/16/08, made by Barrett's wife, who alleged that he had tried to pound her head on a tile floor. That's not wife-beating?"
If she's telling the truth, yes, it's wife beating. There's only one problem, Barrett has never been convicted of wife beating. And wife beating isn't hard to prove. Thus, the question remains: Why was she unable to prove her allegations? After all, if she's telling the truth, Barrett would have done time.
"...Barrett recently featured on his blog a picture of Ann Frank with the words "I LOVE HITLER" superimposed."
When did I claim that he's not an anti-Semite? No one disputes that he's a Jew Hater. Barrett's anti-Semitism, however, doesn't prove he's a wife beater.
So far, the wife beating allegations are unproven--period.
The Baraboo News Republic printed the allegations, and Barrett did not sue them.
I believe a domestic violence case requires a complaint from the victim, and that if Mrs. Barrett declined to press charges there would be none. A Moroccan woman who speaks English poorly and has two kids would be unlikely to leave her American husband no matter what a lout he was unless she was willing to go back home to Morocco.
"...The Baraboo News Republic printed the allegations, and Barrett did not sue them."
Barrett can't sue a newspaper for printing his wife's unproven allegations. Get a clue, goat molester.
"...I believe a domestic violence case requires a complaint from the victim, and that if Mrs. Barrett declined to press charges there would be none. A Moroccan woman who speaks English poorly and has two kids would be unlikely to leave her American husband no matter what a lout he was unless she was willing to go back home to Morocco."
That's speculation, at best.
And your argument is utterly destroyed by the knowledge of his wife's restraining order, which she was granted by the court. Clearly, she left Barrett, of that there's no doubt.
Thus, there's no threat of deportation. As usual, your argument doesn't hold water.
She didn't leave Barrett. They separated for a while.
OK, I can't prove Barrett's a wifebeater. All I can prove is that his wife says he is.
I never said there was a threat of deportation. You're an idiot.
"...She didn't leave Barrett. They separated for a while."
Obviously they're separated. How else do you explain the restraining order?
Duh!
"...OK, I can't prove Barrett's a wifebeater [SIC]. All I can prove is that his wife says he is."
In other words, he said, she said.
That Barrett was never convicted, but his wife insisted on separation and a restraining order, indicates that someone is being less than truthful. As I said before, domestic violence is easy to prove. All you need are a camera to record the injuries, a doctor's certification of the injuries, and the willingness to prosecute. Again, why was she unwilling to prosecute? Something stinks in Denmark.
"...I never said there was a threat of deportation. You're an idiot."
Then why did you write the following?
"...A Moroccan woman who speaks English poorly and has two kids would be unlikely to leave her American husband no matter what a lout he was unless she was willing to go back home to Morocco."
She's not compelled to return to Morocco unless there are immigration issues. In which case she could be deported. Otherwise there is absolutely no reason for her to return to Morocco. And any immigration lawyer can confirm that my take on the situation is correct.
On the contrary, you're an idiot, as I've proven repeatedly.
47b, I really am not interested in pursuing a pissing contest with you about an irrelevancy.
Your lack of honesty and research skills are not an irrelevancy.
So you're admitting that you don't think you're a constitutional; scholar? So why would I waste my time on the constitutional interpretations of an anonymous internet poster who doesn't even claim to be a constitutional scholar?
It isn't the constitutional imterpretation of anyone. It is the plain clear english language of a handful of sentences. Anyone with a high school education should be able to understand them with ease.
Are you unable to grasp the meaning of such simple sentences without the aid of an expert? Were you not instructed in Civics in school? Is this what you think is meant by "admitting when you are wrong"?
Let's enumerate what we have proven here that is relevant to discussions on this board.
1) You do not bother to read even the most basic of evidence presented to you, even when you are told exactly where to find it.
2) You refuse to admit your errors even when they are so glaringly obvious they can not be spun.
3) You are unable to modify your beliefs when new evidence is presented that disproves prior beliefs.
4) You seem to believe, though I may be mistaken about this since you have refused to state what in fact you would accept as proof you are wrong, that an appeal to authority (My credentials, David Swanson's credentials, some unknown "impeachment activists" credentials) will trump a plaintext reading of the legal document ruling the actions you are talking about.
(by the way, that aside about not being sure, that's called "intellectual honesty", admitting to the limits of what I can prove. YOu should try it.)
I told you why she's unwilling to prosecute. She's Moroccan, she speaks English poorly, she lived in a hick town in Wisconsin, she has two kids who probably don't speak Arabic, and she didn't want to go back to Morocco and admit that her family was right when they objected to her marriage to this American clown with all these degrees and no job.
If you think life as a single Arab mother in a racist hick town in Wisconsin when you have no marketable skills other than cooking and cleaning is a pleasant prospect, you should think again.
47b, I really am not interested in pursuing a pissing contest with you about an irrelevancy.
So you're admitting that you don't think you're a constitutional; scholar? So why would I waste my time on the constitutional interpretations of an anonymous internet poster who doesn't even claim to be a constitutional scholar?
Is that an example of you admitting when you are wrong?
I never made claims to be a constitutional scholar. I simply read the clear english sentences. They aren't complicated as anyone can see. You refused to read them, or couldn't understand them. In fact, you had earlier admitted you didn't bother to read them. You simply assumed it would say what some "expert" you knew of had told you it said.
That lazy approach to research is endemic among "truthers'.
Ergo, you are either an incompetent researcher, or intellectually dishonest. Either of those cases pretty much makes any claim you make unbelievable with out corroboration.
"...I told you why she's unwilling to prosecute."
Yes, you "told" me, but you didn't prove anything. How many times must I tell you that your opinion is worthless, and therefore unwelcome? As I've said before on numerous occasions, I don't want your opinion, because you're a proven habitual liar with a hidden agenda.
The remainder of your post is speculation, which, once again, is substantiated by nothing more than your worthless opinion.
Why not admit that you have no idea what happened between Barrett and his wife? Why not admit that you haven't a clue what motives his wife may or may not have to stay in the United States?
What kind of an amoral busy body violently inserts himself between a man and and his wife in order to wage a smear campaign? Answer: The goat molester.
Get a life--you creep.
There's only one reasonable explanation for your behavior: You'll go to ANY LENGTH to smear and defame anyone you perceive as an enemy. In fact, you're a ruthless, habitual liar with the morals of an alley cat.
Again, seek psychiatric intervention.
47b, if you think the Constitution is "plain English sentences" then you have no idea how much grief those sentences have given the Supreme Court. Hey, Ted Olson even got them to construe "equal protection under the law" (XIV Amendment) as "not counting the votes".
It's not lazy of me to decline to engage in a Consitutional pissing match with someone who thinks interpreting the document is easy.
It's a peripheral matter, and you were only trying to play "gotcha" on an irrelevancy.
GutterBall, I don't have to prove anything. I just get you talking and let you make a fool of yourself, and once in a while point out just exactly how stupid some of the stuff you say is.
I never said I know what happened. I said she claimed he was a wifebeater. You know he's a liar, but how about her? Can you prove she's lying?
I don't have to smear or defame Barrett, Willie, or you. I just stand back and let you defame yourselves.
"...GutterBall, I don't have to prove anything."
And you never have proven anything, because lies can't be substantiated.
Duh!
"...You know he's a liar, but how about her? Can you prove she's lying?"
I don't give a fuck if she's lying. Only an insane busy body and consummate horse's ass, like yourself, gives a damn about the details of a marriage that are none of your business.
"...I don't have to smear or defame Barrett, Willie, or you."
Then why do spend so much time and effort stalking, smearing and defaming Kevin Barrett and Willie Rod? Your own words, actions and activity in this respect bring the lie to your denial, Pinocchio.
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!.
47b, if you think the Constitution is "plain English sentences" then you have no idea how much grief those sentences have given the Supreme Court. Hey, Ted Olson even got them to construe "equal protection under the law" (XIV Amendment) as "not counting the votes".
I never said interpreting the document is easy. I specifically said the sentences pertaining to the process of impeachment and removal from office are easy to read and interpret. That other sesctions can be difficult or ambiguous is irrelevant in this matter.
It's not lazy of me to decline to engage in a Consitutional pissing match with someone who thinks interpreting the document is easy.
It's a peripheral matter, and you were only trying to play "gotcha" on an irrelevancy.
It is intellectually lazy to refuse to read a document simply so you can keep your fingers in yoru ears, your eyes clamped shut, screaming "I'm right!!!" as loud as you can, hoping it will change the facts to fit your imagination.
But again, you prove the lie of your claim you are interested in truth of any sort.
GutterBall, Barrett's wifebeating is certainly my business when he makes libelous claims about my personal life. He's a hypocrite.
I only brought up Barrett's wifebeating late in the thread in response to your absurd assertion that the fact that I don't sue him for his libels (which Ian repeated in post 12) shows that they are true.
So now, by your logic, since Barrett doesn't come around and threaten to sue me, then the wifebeating claim must be true. But you're not remaining consistent at all.
I don't spend much time on Kevin and Willie anymore. They used to come up in the news now and then. Not so much lately. I haven't even checked in weeks.
"...GutterBall, Barrett's wifebeating [SIC} is certainly my business when he makes libelous claims about my personal life."
You're so illogical it's astounding.
If Barrett made "libelous claims" about your personal life, you have every right to sue him in a court of law. That he made allegedly "libelous claims" in no way gives you the right to stick your foul, filthy, lying nose in to their marriage.
You're a petty little man, aren't you goat molester? I've met gossiping women who have more dignity and decorum than you'll ever possess--and that's not a compliment, dufus.
"...I only brought up Barrett's wifebeating late in the thread in response to your absurd assertion that the fact that I don't sue him for his libels (which Ian repeated in post 12) shows that they are true."
Another lie and straw man argument.
That's not what I said. I never claimed that your refusal to sue "shows that they are true." My statement was pure speculation, based on your refusal to defend yourself.
Furthermore, you've never proven that Barrett is guilty of domestic violence. You're repeating hearsay and gossip as though it's gospel.
"...So now, by your logic, since Barrett doesn't come around and threaten to sue me, then the wifebeating [SIC] claim must be true. But you're not remaining consistent at all."
No, wrong again, idiot.
Your idea's about Barrett's marriage are irrelevant. Your accusation of "wifebeating" [SIC] is proven false by his wife's failure to convict Barrett for domestic violence in a court of law.
"...I don't spend much time on Kevin and Willie anymore."
Really? You just spent a third of this thread ranting about Barrett and Willie Rod, which, of course, brings the lie to your argument.
Have another heaping bowl of FAIL, goat molester.
GutterBall, of course I have the right to sue him. I don't because he'd simply defend his lies by countersuing me for telling the truth. The lawyers would get rich.
I'm not sticking my nose in his marriage. I simply called him a wifebeater.
You wrote at 15:20 "You didn't sue them for one simple reason: They're telling the truth, and you know it."
That is an assertion. That is a claim. You can't remember what you said from one day to the next.
Why should I want to prove Barrett is guilty of domestic violence? The newspaper says his wife says so, and that's good enough.
Thanks for the bowl of FAIL, GutterBall. Of course every post you write is a bowl of FAIL, so maybe you should start giving them to somebody else. I've been flushing them down the toilet.
"...That is an assertion. That is a claim. You can't remember what you said from one day to the next."
No, wrong again. I'm well aware of what I said. And those two sentences are speculation.
"...Why should I want to prove Barrett is guilty of domestic violence? The newspaper says his wife says so, and that's good enough."
This is another example of your sloppy "scholarship" and intellectual dishonesty.
That the newspaper reported his wife's unproven allegations isn't proof of anything. Again, it's a case of he said, she said. In other words, the content of the newspaper is hearsay--nothing more, nothing less. Newspapers, moreover, don't establish guilt or innocence--you cretin. The establishment of guilt or innocence is the realm of the courts, not a newspaper.
Now, perhaps hearsay is "good enough" for you, but the remainder of us who possess something called intellectual integrity know better than to swallow the scurrilous bilge you spew like a fire hose.
The remainder of your argument is nothing more than you patting yourself on the back without a shred of justification.
The newspaper report is proof that she claimed he beat her, so yes it is proof of something.
Your inability to see that is proof you're an idiot.
"...The newspaper report is proof that she claimed he beat her, so yes it is proof of something."
Wrong again, idiot. You're a typical troofer: Your standards of evidence are so low as to be non-existent.
The newspaper report isn't proof of anything. Anyone can make an accusation--you fucking idiot. It's another thing entirely to prove that the accusation is true.
And Barrett's wife has never proven that her allegations against him are true.
No conviction in a court of law, no cigar. Barrett's wife, like you, is just blowing smoke up our collective ass.
OK, GoiterBoob, by your standards there's no proof that al Qaeda did the 9/11 attacks.
You really are a twit.
You haven't proven anything, goat molester.
All you've managed to prove is that you're a shameless, habitual liar.
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I didn't lie about anything. By your standards, the fact that Barrett doesn't sue me for libel when I call him a wifebeater proves he's a wifebeater.
You don't like women much, do you? You put down the widows and you think Barrett's wife is a liar.
"...I didn't lie about anything."
Riiiiiiight. And that explains why I've caught you lying and quote mining on so many occasions that you're the laughingstock of SLC.
You lie about everything; that's why you're labeled an habitual liar.
"...You don't like women much, do you?"
I like women just fine.
The fact remains that newspapers don't determine guilt or innocence, and they never will.
As usual, you never admit that you're wrong.
FACT: Barrett has never been convicted of domestic violence.
FACT: Barrett's wife has never had her husband charged with domestic violence.
FACT: A court of law determines guilt or innocence, not a newspaper.
Grade: F-
Thus, not only are you stupid, you're arrogant.
Arrogant and stupid. What a charming combination.
It's no wonder that everyone hates you, including the 9/11 "truth" movement. No one wants to associate with an arraogant, stupid asshole. I'm willing to bet that even your mommy is sick of you.
I only admit that I'm wrong when I'm wrong. And every single time you call me a liar you're lying. Page 383 of the McCoy book is a case in point.
It's true, a lot of people hate me for being right. Willie Rodriguez, Kevin Barrett, Ian, you.
"...I only admit that I'm wrong when I'm wrong. And every single time you call me a liar you're lying. Page 383 of the McCoy book is a case in point."
Trying to change the subject again, goat fucker?
Question: Why do you go ape shit when your own dirty, filthy tactics are used against you?
Because you're a pussy who can dish it out, but you can't take it. Right, princess?
"...It's true, a lot of people hate me for being right. Willie Rodriguez, Kevin Barrett, Ian, you."
I don't hate you, fuck face.
I loath you, just as I loath all habitual liars.
I only admit that I'm wrong when I'm wrong
And not even then
You didn't show me wrong. You offered an unqualified constitutional interpretation as a pseudonymous blogger, offering no authority whatsoever on the issue. I don't know if I was wrong or not, and wasn't willing to take the time to find out.
I'm not going to litigate the issue in the courtroom-of-the-mind of an anonymous internet poster who won't even invent a memorable handle, but instead hides behind a set of numbers as an identifier.
"...I'm not going to litigate the issue in the courtroom-of-the-mind of an anonymous internet poster who won't even invent a memorable handle, but instead hides behind a set of numbers as an identifier."
Translation from Goat MolesterSpeak: I'll never admit that I'm wrong--ever!
It's true, a lot of people hate me for being right. Willie Rodriguez, Kevin Barrett, Ian, you.
I don't hate you, Brian. I laugh at you. Also, you're never right.
Post a Comment
<< Home