"Anyone who would support her is way to far to the right for me to even listen too." - dirty dogWell you have your opinion, as wrong as it is. I might be more excited about the GOP if they had a candidate worth a shit. Like I said multiple times, Palins misspeak has little or nothing to do with how I think of her. She did that all on her own through her actions and positions.
This was in a post where you agreed with catnipdipper, who attacked me. The implication of this statement was that I was "too far to the right" on the account of my "support" for Sarah Palin.
If that were the case, you wouldn't have "read" my post and replied to me. But, since you did, either I'm not too far on the right, or you don't know what you're talking about.
Are you in the first grade, first of all I did not reply to you, I replied to Catnipper, whom if you took the time to look I have had many heated conversations. You drug me into this debate by called me a liberal.
dirty dog: Wow your guilty of doing just what you accuse Catnipper of doing,
Wrong. The only thing I'm doing is making an observation of a trend that I've noticed in almost 8 years of perpetual, online debating. I see that trend repeating itself here.
And this has to do with what your guilty of how, you accused Catnipper of knowing about you without knowing you. You dont know me but you take a post and because I disagreed with you lable me a liberal. Pot meet kettle.
WRONG again.
The concept behind this message board isn't that much different from the others that I've posted on since the end of the 20th Century. I may not have that many posts on here, compared to others here, but I'm capable of lurking, and tracking what other people do in this website. Even though I haven't posted on the majority of the threads here, I've read your posts.
The idea that you're an "independent moderate" is laughable at best, intellectually dishonest at best.
I called you a liberal on the account of your posts on this and on other threads. I look at your trend, and on what you say. I don't see any trend, in your comments, that marks you as an "independent, moderate."
Here's a list of statements that you've made, which put you consistent with others, that I've debated with, that have identified themselves as liberal:
"...should poor people jump at those minimum wage jobs that dont pay enough to support a family." - dirty dog
"he hates poor people and minorities because he feels that they are robbing the country of assets that he should be receiving because he is such a hard worker and white, he made it out of the middle class on his own and does not feel that anyone is entitled to a hand, because if he did it then they could also because 'no one helped me'. But the reality is he was helped from the day he was born white and male." - dirty dog
"You are a social class bigot like most of the republican party. Worst of all your not even educated on the issues your a sound byte debater. You wait until, Beck, Hannity, or Fox news reports it and then you simply repeat it without the benefit of understanding." - dirty dog
"Poor by choice huh, dude your a fuckin idiot and the kind of bigot that makes me want to puke, someday I pray that you know what being poor is all about." - dirty dog
So what your saying is that having the ability to see both sides of an issue and picking the side you find most appropriate is a downfall, thats typical of the problem in Washington. Quit taking what I said above out of context and morphing them to fit your agenda. ALso out of the over 1200 posts you chose those 3. You may want to look back and view my posts with Catnipper, Wellendowed, Longermonger and Bart1963. But since they dont fit your agenda you wont.
Crap like that doesn't come out of independents/moderate's mouths. The ones I've talked to would take issue with those statements.
So now your an expert on how people should think and reply. Man are you sure your not John Galt.
Both, online and face to face, I've found plenty of common ground and agreement with those in the middle, and with the blue dog liberals… I've found a lot in common with those who identify themselves as independent.
It's those on the far left that I find myself debating, it's those on the far left that chose to debate with me, and who insinuate that I'm on the far right.
I could go on, find more examples. But my statement still stands. I lurk a forum, get a feel of the people participating in that forum, before I jump in and debate. That's another combat related tactic.
Your actions, as well as those of other posters here, are actions liberals normally take. It's as they say, "If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, it must be a duck."
Spare me your attempts to deny that you're on the left… the far left based on the dirty dog quotes I've selected. Do continue to prove to me that you're a liberal, take it away dirty dog!
Dude you can talk around everything all you want, but I am not sure how many Liberals would have voted for Bush 1, GW Bush twice and McCain. If you had a brain you would not that I publicly in this forum debated many individuals in support of these conservative candidates, but the reality is someone who looks at each individual situation and measures the merrits of both sides of the argument before making a decision is contrary to the way you operate with your pre printed, tell you how and what to think party agenda mindset.
"a turd is a turd HFC even if you sprinkle powered sugar on it" - dirty dog
Yup, this "I'm an independent/moderate" claim of yours is nothing but an attempt to dump powered sugar on a turd.
Well reading is fundemental, try it sometime. Oh dude, damn seriously that was a turd, wipe the powdered sugar off your lipps. Oh I guess you used to eating all that shit your shoveling.
dirty dog: I guess now is when I should start chest beating and telling everyone where I have been and what streets I have walked, but I tend to keep my life a little more private.
First, you're still beating on your chest, gorilla style, when you brag about keeping your life a little more private.
Well actually I would prefer not to go back to prison, so I keep my mouth shut about what I have done and where I have been. There is enough information out here about me that I dont really need to express myself on that subject anymore.
Second, you conveniently ignore another liberal's statement, one that called into question how long I'd last on the streets. My reply, talking about where I've been, and what streets I've walked on, was very appropriate.
Honestly, I think your a pussy who brags about a lot of shit that cannot be verified, or are you another one of those John Galt double knot spies. Let me guess you are a part of seal team 6, oh shit your the one that got Bin Ladin. Is your real name Bourne.
dirty dog: Really, wow thanks for pointing media bias out to me,
You don't care about media bias if you're going to froth at the mouth over Palin's misstatements.
Actually I dont think I am frothing at the mouth, I knew she was a dipshit long before this comment, so until I saw 8 pages on the subject I payed it little attention.
dirty dog: by the way I dont think conservatives are stupid, I think people like yourself are.
Your idea of "stupid" is someone that refuses to join you in drinking the Kool Aid.
No actually I think those who drink the koolaid like yourself with your party agenda vote straight party ticket regardless of party. are the ones who are stupid and who are causing that Diahrrea they call washington. Where they spend all day sitting on the crapper refusing to take the toilet paper because the guy holding it belongs to the other party.
dirty dog: An opinion does not have to hold validity because it is an O..P..I..N..O..N.
So you're defending your pulling shit out of your ass then, got you.
Once again Dick Tracy your taking what I said out of context, this was in reponse to the comment that Thorough beat you 10-8 on the score card. You asked me to validate that, nothing came out of my ass (oh and by the way, with all this ass talk you must be pretty happy they did away with dont ask, dont tell), I gave my personal opinion, which was not portrayed as scientific or accurate.
dirty dog: Just for clarification, you state your not defending her, but you have spent 8 pages trying to convince everyone that she was right.......
What I said:
"The debate on this thread has little to do with Sarah Palin's relevance, and everything to do with whether she was wrong or not. Knowing the variables and factors at play during that time period would indicate that Sarah Palin was closer to the truth than her critics were. That's what this debate is about. Whether Sarah Palin is relevant or not is beside the point." - herfacechair
What part of that didn't you understand? That's the crux of my actions on this thread.
And you fart out your comments about me being "stupid."
Well stupid, if your defending what she said as being right then you are defending her. There is not way around that, so dont say your not defending her when you are. Whether she is relevent in politics has nothing to do with this, you are saying what she said was right, WHICH IS DEFENDING HER. Please tell me they dont allow you around ordinance.
dirty dog: do you really think anyone gives a shit, no one gives a shit, and that one incident is not why anyone would not support her, its her history of coming off looking like a retard which a lot of us can determine without the aid of the ultra biased left wing media, a turd is a turd HFC even if you sprinkle powered sugar on it, and Palin is a turd. Have a chipper day spanky.
If nobody gives a shit, they'd stop arguing this topic with me on this thread. But, we still have thorough9, you, etc., here, so, obviously, you guys give a shit.
Naw junior there are some of us who like to argue and mess with the self professed experts.
If I see your side of the argument lacerating individual liberal's who've done what you accuse Palin of doing, then I'd take you seriously, that this has nothing to do with people falling for media manipulation hook, line, and sinker. But you guys go on overdrive with Sarah Palin, ignoring mentions of Democrat misstatements.
I have eyes and ears and all I have to do is listen to her to know all I need to know. And again if you were to read all of my posts you would find that I have had much to say about liberals.
This thread opened with Sarah's comments about Paul Revere. A bunch of people jumped in and voiced their misconceptions, I jumped in and talked about things that her critics weren't aware off.
My argument isn't about ignoring her misspoken statements, which the media likes to air… while going overdrive hiding misspoken statements from liberals. This is about me correcting a common history misconception.
Thats all well and good, but I am not the media, take this argument to them.
You claim that you're an independent/moderate.
The independents/moderates that I do know, both online and face to face, don't speak with vitriol against Sarah Palin the way you do here, and they're willing to balance conservative misstatements with liberal misstatements… and recognize that people tend to do that. There's too much anti-conservative venom, not balanced against liberals, in your comments to see you as an independent/moderate… Originally Posted by herfacechair
- dirty dog
- 06-21-2011, 07:03 PM
- herfacechair
- 06-21-2011, 09:36 PM
dirty dog: Are you in the first grade,
Are you always this stupid, or are you putting an extra effort in today?
dirty dog: first of all I did not reply to you, I replied to Catnipper, whom if you took the time to look I have had many heated conversations.
You replied to Catnipper's post, a post he made in rebuttal to me. You jumped in and agreed with his post, then made a comment about someone being to the far right. This is called reading comprehension… something that requires more than a first grade education. You might fool a first grader with that comment, but you don't fool me.
dirty dog: You drug me into this debate by called me a liberal.
WRONG. You jumped onto this thread, made a comment in support of someone attacking me… drawing my fire on you as a result. Grow the fuck up and accept responsibility for your actions, instead of blaming me.
dirty dog: And this has to do with what your guilty of how, you accused Catnipper of knowing about you without knowing you. You dont know me but you take a post and because I disagreed with you lable me a liberal. Pot meet kettle.
You're comparing apples to oranges. Catnipper honest to God pulled shit out of his ass about who I was, and about whether I'd survive on the streets or not. He made an assumption about me without first researching the facts.
I looked at your posts, your argument trends, and called it as I see it. You're arguing, and behaving, just like the other liberals I've debated with for almost 8 years.
THAT'S the difference between us. There's no comparison between what you guys have done, and what I've done.
dirty dog: So what your saying is that having the ability to see both sides of an issue and picking the side you find most appropriate is a downfall,
Quit trying to kid yourself. The majority of the posters here see both sides of the issue… most tend to side with one and oppose the other. You picked the side of the argument that those on the far left make. Your mentioning Beck, Hannity and Fox, in the context that you use this, is consistent with what the left does.
dirty dog: thats typical of the problem in Washington.
Leave Washington DC out of this. The problem with you is that you insist on being someone that you're not. You're definitely not a moderate, nor an independent. Man up and make a claim that's consistent with your comments on this and other threads.
dirty dog: Quit taking what I said above out of context and morphing them to fit your agenda.
What you said is jam packed with what liberals argue. I didn't morph them into anything… I left them intact for all to see. I've lost count of how many times I've seen/heard people, who identified themselves as liberals, make those same arguments. I've yet to see someone, in the middle, make the same arguments that you've made.
dirty dog: ALso out of the over 1200 posts you chose those 3. You may want to look back and view my posts with Catnipper, Wellendowed, Longermonger and Bart1963. But since they dont fit your agenda you wont.
I've reviewed your posts in this forum, the vast majority of them places you on the far left. All I needed was those four, I could've expanded my last post, by pages, with examples of your statements that put you on the far left… like the ones that I used here.
The far left isn't beyond debating with people who are to the right of them on the political spectrum, but who still fall to the left of center. That's what's happening in your case… you attack from the left. The fact that you've countered someone on the left doesn't make you an independent.
dirty dog: So now your an expert on how people should think and reply. Man are you sure your not John Galt.
Again, I've been debating people, who've identified themselves as being on the far left, for almost 8 years. You're following their trend, and you're not the only one that tried to deny being a liberal either. This is a simple matter of calling it as I see it, based on years of debating with your kind.
dirty dog: Dude you can talk around everything all you want,
Don't mistake my making a judgment, based on a person's behavioral trend, as well as on the facts, as my "talking around everything."
dirty dog: but I am not sure how many Liberals would have voted for Bush 1, GW Bush twice and McCain. If you had a brain you would not that I publicly in this forum debated many individuals in support of these conservative candidates, but the reality is someone who looks at each individual situation and measures the merrits of both sides of the argument before making a decision is contrary to the way you operate with your pre printed, tell you how and what to think party agenda mindset.
You do realize that millions of democrats voted for those candidates, do you? That's IF you voted for those candidates. Again, I reviewed many of your posts, that were involved in a debate, and the vast majority of your posts places you on the far left. You'd also be a fool if you think that you're the only one that has "measured the merit" of both sides of the argument… again, that's something most everybody on this message board has done. Once they've measured the merit of both sides of the argument, they picked a side and ran with it. In your case, you've trended to the far left.
If you had a brain, you'd realize that I came to my own conclusions without being told what to think. I'm not telling people how they should think. I'm not debating to change a person's mind, likewise, I've never changed my mind based on what the opposition has said. However, I'm going to counter your statements, as well as the statements of other posters, if I disagree with them, and if their posts made addressing something that I said.
Again, I'm going to go from most the posts that I've read from you. So far, you've spoken like someone on the far left.
dirty dog: Well reading is fundemental, try it sometime.
I am reading your posts, with the intentions of understanding what you're saying. Don't mistake my refusal to believe your rubbish as my being "unable" to read or comprehend.
dirty dog: Oh dude, damn seriously that was a turd, wipe the powdered sugar off your lipps. Oh I guess you used to eating all that shit your shoveling.
Your depth perception sucks, and it appears that your common sense is shot. Otherwise, that warm feeling you're feeling all over your face is your poo… shit that you're constantly hacking up… and you seem to be hacking up an endless supply of it. I'm just looking down at you laughing at you wallow in your own shit, your poo is just blocking your view of me.
Oh well, at least we'll know that you won't have a drowning problem, as shit tends to float.
dirty dog: Well actually I would prefer not to go back to prison, so I keep my mouth shut about what I have done and where I have been. There is enough information out here about me that I dont really need to express myself on that subject anymore.
Do you hear the sound of bone pounding hair and fat? That's the gorilla chest stumping again.
Your statement is beside the point. You ranted about my talking about all the streets that I've been on, to counter someone's claim that I wouldn't make it. You turned around, and instead of lecturing the person that made that statement, you tried to twist and spin my rebuttal.
dirty dog: Honestly, I think your a pussy
Awesome, another Internet tuff guy.
dirty dog: who brags about a lot of shit that cannot be verified,
Been down this route before, so here goes:
http://www.collarchat.com/m_3193322/...tm.htm#3326822
"I am making an appearance to say that I have met HFC, he is human, and he is in the military. Infantry and all." - Aylee
This was someone on that board, who I met, who verified my statements of who I am, and what I did.
Reciting what I've done, in response to someone else's lack of knowledge of who I am, and what I do, isn't bragging. It's called rebutting. Simple reading comprehension would've told you that.
dirty dog: or are you another one of those John Galt double knot spies.
Never been a spy.
dirty dog: Let me guess you are a part of seal team 6,
I used to be in the Navy, but never was a SEAL. If you're going to say "SEAL Team 6," say it properly. They're not the "ARF, ARF, ARF" creature. Fucker. Show some respect dumbass.
They actually go by the name, "DEVGRU," which is short for Special Warfare Development Group. If you don't believe me, you're welcome to go to their compound at Fleet Combat Training Center, Atlantic Damneck.
Yeah, "seal," get the fuck out of here.
dirty dog: oh shit your the one that got Bin Ladin.
Look at the dates of the reviews I've done on ECCIE, then try again.
dirty dog: Is your real name Bourne.
Tell that one brain celled operation of yours to quit trying to take you over and to start doing its job… you're posting as if you're possessed by a retarded ghost.
dirty dog: Actually I dont think I am frothing at the mouth,
That has as much validity as an alcoholic saying that he isn't alcoholic.
dirty dog: I knew she was a dipshit long before this comment,
A comment that someone in the middle, a moderate, or an independent wouldn't say. However, those on the far left don't like her, and describe her similar to how you've described her here.
dirty dog: so until I saw 8 pages on the subject I payed it little attention.
Your comment on the first page of this thread:
"The GOP is hurting themselves with her running around, but then again, the Democrats cant seem to ignore her like a lot of Rep are LOL. " - dirty dog
That's the 7th post on this thread. Didn't seem like you paid "a little attention" to this one. It didn't take long for you to swoop in and fart your comments.
dirty dog: No actually I think those who drink the koolaid like yourself
Hate to break this to you skippy, but the guy you see, drinking Kool Aid in the mirror, making the same moves as you, is your reflection.
dirty dog: with your party agenda vote straight party ticket regardless of party.
I've voted for both, Democrats and Republicans, you dumbass. Unless things change, I'll be voting Libertarian next year.
dirty dog: are the ones who are stupid and who are causing that Diahrrea they call washington. Where they spend all day sitting on the crapper refusing to take the toilet paper because the guy holding it belongs to the other party.
ROTFLMFAO! I wouldn't be surprised if that were the last thing you saw before you got flushed. Your first sentence gave me the image of a 6 year old saying, "you're a poo poo head!"
NEWSFLASH: Washington gets away with what it gets away with because WE the PEOPLE let them get away with it. You do realize that your civic duties didn't stop at the voting booth, do you? Of course, with your "party line voter" comment, I doubt you knew that.
dirty dog: Once again Dick Tracy your taking what I said out of context, this was in reponse to the comment that Thorough beat you 10-8 on the score card. You asked me to validate that, nothing came out of my ass (oh and by the way, with all this ass talk you must be pretty happy they did away with dont ask, dont tell), I gave my personal opinion, which was not portrayed as scientific or accurate.
No, I didn't take anything out of context. Anybody that'd look at our exchange, and claim that anybody in the opposition prevailed, would have to be pulling shit out of his ass. Anybody, with critical thinking abilities, would see that I destroyed thorough9 in debate.
So, when you came back with that statistic, I pulled three Baghdad Bob comments, and told you that your boxing statistic reminded me of Baghdad Bob's comments.
The mere fact that you portrayed that as an opinion, without backing it with logic, opened the door for me to say what I said in response.
dirty dog: Well stupid, if your defending what she said as being right then you are defending her. There is not way around that, so dont say your not defending her when you are…., you are saying what she said was right, WHICH IS DEFENDING HER.
What you said:
"Just for clarification, you state your not defending her, but you have spent 8 pages trying to convince everyone that she was right......." - dirty dog
Hey dumbass, WHERE in MY post, do I STATE that I'm defending her?
Key word stupid, STATE. THAT's what I was arguing again. Take it away dirty dog:
"Quit taking what I said above out of context and morphing them to fit your agenda." - dirty dog
So go back and find me a quote where I STATE that I'm "defending" her.
What I said still stands:
"The debate on this thread has little to do with Sarah Palin's relevance, and everything to do with whether she was wrong or not. Knowing the variables and factors at play during that time period would indicate that Sarah Palin was closer to the truth than her critics were. That's what this debate is about. Whether Sarah Palin is relevant or not is beside the point." - herfacechair
Let me break this down for you. My MAIN thrust is to point facts out that people didn't know, facts that indicate that she was closer to the truth than her critiques were. Insinuating that my main focus was to defend HER would be as idiotic as saying that I moved into the right lane because I wanted people behind me to use the left lane… when I had moved into the right lane because I needed to be in that lane to catch my exit.
Reading comprehension, try it sometime.
dirty dog: Whether she is relevent in politics has nothing to do with this
That's what I said dumbass:
"Whether Sarah Palin is relevant or not is beside the point." - herfacechair
dirty dog: Please tell me they dont allow you around ordinance.
Your parents need to take you away from the computer before you hurt yourself some more.
dirty dog: Naw junior there are some of us who like to argue and mess
Take it away dirty dog:
"Dude you can talk around everything all you want," - dirty dog
Because this is the reason you gave for being here:
"You drug me into this debate by called me a liberal." - dirty dog
No, you don't enjoy arguing with people like me. You're here because it bothers the hell out of you that I've beat the opposition. You're here trying to get a result, on this thread, that you hoped the opposition would achieve.
Prediction… like the others that have done this in the past, you're going to fail.
Because, unlike you, online debating is one of my past times. Doing things like using your own words against you is like beating a man up with his own prosthetic limb. I mean, if this weren't fun for me, why would I do this, almost perpetually, for almost 8 years? It's because I'm the one, between us, that's actually having fun. You're fighting for a result that's not going to happen.
dirty dog: with the self professed experts.
Don't mistake my accurately pointing out, that I know more about the topic being debated, as my being a self-professed expert. That's me telling it like it is. In fact, all you have to do is research the topics that I suggested people research… towards the beginning of this thread. If you run into information that you didn't know, then my point stands.
dirty dog: I have eyes and ears and all I have to do is listen to her to know all I need to know.
Take it away dirty dog:
"Worst of all your not even educated on the issues your a sound byte debater." - dirty dog
Key word, SOUND BYTE. Your eyes and ears focused on sound bytes force feed to you by the liberal media.
dirty dog: And again if you were to read all of my posts you would find that I have had much to say about liberals.
I've read your posts long before I jumped in this thread to make comments. The vast majority of your posts are consistent with far leftist talking points.
dirty dog: Thats all well and good, but I am not the media, take this argument to them.
You saw something on a news sound byte, and ran with it. You argued precisely the way many in the media want you to argue.
The point you missed is the fact that I'm here pointing historical data out that proves that Sarah Palin was closer to the truth than her critiques were.
dirty dog: Well you have your opinion, as wrong as it is.
Don't dismiss a reasoned argument, peppered with facts, as an opinion. You failed to prove me wrong in this debate, you don't have a leg to stand on when farting about my argument being "wrong."
dirty dog: I might be more excited about the GOP if they had a candidate worth a shit.
Pardon me if you haven't identified a RINO in the group yet. But again, their RINO's might simply just be too right wing for you.
dirty dog: Like I said multiple times, Palins misspeak has little or nothing to do with how I think of her. She did that all on her own through her actions and positions.
It mostly has something to do with her being conservative.
Are you always this stupid, or are you putting an extra effort in today?
dirty dog: first of all I did not reply to you, I replied to Catnipper, whom if you took the time to look I have had many heated conversations.
You replied to Catnipper's post, a post he made in rebuttal to me. You jumped in and agreed with his post, then made a comment about someone being to the far right. This is called reading comprehension… something that requires more than a first grade education. You might fool a first grader with that comment, but you don't fool me.
dirty dog: You drug me into this debate by called me a liberal.
WRONG. You jumped onto this thread, made a comment in support of someone attacking me… drawing my fire on you as a result. Grow the fuck up and accept responsibility for your actions, instead of blaming me.
dirty dog: And this has to do with what your guilty of how, you accused Catnipper of knowing about you without knowing you. You dont know me but you take a post and because I disagreed with you lable me a liberal. Pot meet kettle.
You're comparing apples to oranges. Catnipper honest to God pulled shit out of his ass about who I was, and about whether I'd survive on the streets or not. He made an assumption about me without first researching the facts.
I looked at your posts, your argument trends, and called it as I see it. You're arguing, and behaving, just like the other liberals I've debated with for almost 8 years.
THAT'S the difference between us. There's no comparison between what you guys have done, and what I've done.
dirty dog: So what your saying is that having the ability to see both sides of an issue and picking the side you find most appropriate is a downfall,
Quit trying to kid yourself. The majority of the posters here see both sides of the issue… most tend to side with one and oppose the other. You picked the side of the argument that those on the far left make. Your mentioning Beck, Hannity and Fox, in the context that you use this, is consistent with what the left does.
dirty dog: thats typical of the problem in Washington.
Leave Washington DC out of this. The problem with you is that you insist on being someone that you're not. You're definitely not a moderate, nor an independent. Man up and make a claim that's consistent with your comments on this and other threads.
dirty dog: Quit taking what I said above out of context and morphing them to fit your agenda.
What you said is jam packed with what liberals argue. I didn't morph them into anything… I left them intact for all to see. I've lost count of how many times I've seen/heard people, who identified themselves as liberals, make those same arguments. I've yet to see someone, in the middle, make the same arguments that you've made.
dirty dog: ALso out of the over 1200 posts you chose those 3. You may want to look back and view my posts with Catnipper, Wellendowed, Longermonger and Bart1963. But since they dont fit your agenda you wont.
I've reviewed your posts in this forum, the vast majority of them places you on the far left. All I needed was those four, I could've expanded my last post, by pages, with examples of your statements that put you on the far left… like the ones that I used here.
The far left isn't beyond debating with people who are to the right of them on the political spectrum, but who still fall to the left of center. That's what's happening in your case… you attack from the left. The fact that you've countered someone on the left doesn't make you an independent.
dirty dog: So now your an expert on how people should think and reply. Man are you sure your not John Galt.
Again, I've been debating people, who've identified themselves as being on the far left, for almost 8 years. You're following their trend, and you're not the only one that tried to deny being a liberal either. This is a simple matter of calling it as I see it, based on years of debating with your kind.
dirty dog: Dude you can talk around everything all you want,
Don't mistake my making a judgment, based on a person's behavioral trend, as well as on the facts, as my "talking around everything."
dirty dog: but I am not sure how many Liberals would have voted for Bush 1, GW Bush twice and McCain. If you had a brain you would not that I publicly in this forum debated many individuals in support of these conservative candidates, but the reality is someone who looks at each individual situation and measures the merrits of both sides of the argument before making a decision is contrary to the way you operate with your pre printed, tell you how and what to think party agenda mindset.
You do realize that millions of democrats voted for those candidates, do you? That's IF you voted for those candidates. Again, I reviewed many of your posts, that were involved in a debate, and the vast majority of your posts places you on the far left. You'd also be a fool if you think that you're the only one that has "measured the merit" of both sides of the argument… again, that's something most everybody on this message board has done. Once they've measured the merit of both sides of the argument, they picked a side and ran with it. In your case, you've trended to the far left.
If you had a brain, you'd realize that I came to my own conclusions without being told what to think. I'm not telling people how they should think. I'm not debating to change a person's mind, likewise, I've never changed my mind based on what the opposition has said. However, I'm going to counter your statements, as well as the statements of other posters, if I disagree with them, and if their posts made addressing something that I said.
Again, I'm going to go from most the posts that I've read from you. So far, you've spoken like someone on the far left.
dirty dog: Well reading is fundemental, try it sometime.
I am reading your posts, with the intentions of understanding what you're saying. Don't mistake my refusal to believe your rubbish as my being "unable" to read or comprehend.
dirty dog: Oh dude, damn seriously that was a turd, wipe the powdered sugar off your lipps. Oh I guess you used to eating all that shit your shoveling.
Your depth perception sucks, and it appears that your common sense is shot. Otherwise, that warm feeling you're feeling all over your face is your poo… shit that you're constantly hacking up… and you seem to be hacking up an endless supply of it. I'm just looking down at you laughing at you wallow in your own shit, your poo is just blocking your view of me.
Oh well, at least we'll know that you won't have a drowning problem, as shit tends to float.
dirty dog: Well actually I would prefer not to go back to prison, so I keep my mouth shut about what I have done and where I have been. There is enough information out here about me that I dont really need to express myself on that subject anymore.
Do you hear the sound of bone pounding hair and fat? That's the gorilla chest stumping again.
Your statement is beside the point. You ranted about my talking about all the streets that I've been on, to counter someone's claim that I wouldn't make it. You turned around, and instead of lecturing the person that made that statement, you tried to twist and spin my rebuttal.
dirty dog: Honestly, I think your a pussy
Awesome, another Internet tuff guy.
dirty dog: who brags about a lot of shit that cannot be verified,
Been down this route before, so here goes:
http://www.collarchat.com/m_3193322/...tm.htm#3326822
"I am making an appearance to say that I have met HFC, he is human, and he is in the military. Infantry and all." - Aylee
This was someone on that board, who I met, who verified my statements of who I am, and what I did.
Reciting what I've done, in response to someone else's lack of knowledge of who I am, and what I do, isn't bragging. It's called rebutting. Simple reading comprehension would've told you that.
dirty dog: or are you another one of those John Galt double knot spies.
Never been a spy.
dirty dog: Let me guess you are a part of seal team 6,
I used to be in the Navy, but never was a SEAL. If you're going to say "SEAL Team 6," say it properly. They're not the "ARF, ARF, ARF" creature. Fucker. Show some respect dumbass.
They actually go by the name, "DEVGRU," which is short for Special Warfare Development Group. If you don't believe me, you're welcome to go to their compound at Fleet Combat Training Center, Atlantic Damneck.
Yeah, "seal," get the fuck out of here.
dirty dog: oh shit your the one that got Bin Ladin.
Look at the dates of the reviews I've done on ECCIE, then try again.
dirty dog: Is your real name Bourne.
Tell that one brain celled operation of yours to quit trying to take you over and to start doing its job… you're posting as if you're possessed by a retarded ghost.
dirty dog: Actually I dont think I am frothing at the mouth,
That has as much validity as an alcoholic saying that he isn't alcoholic.
dirty dog: I knew she was a dipshit long before this comment,
A comment that someone in the middle, a moderate, or an independent wouldn't say. However, those on the far left don't like her, and describe her similar to how you've described her here.
dirty dog: so until I saw 8 pages on the subject I payed it little attention.
Your comment on the first page of this thread:
"The GOP is hurting themselves with her running around, but then again, the Democrats cant seem to ignore her like a lot of Rep are LOL. " - dirty dog
That's the 7th post on this thread. Didn't seem like you paid "a little attention" to this one. It didn't take long for you to swoop in and fart your comments.
dirty dog: No actually I think those who drink the koolaid like yourself
Hate to break this to you skippy, but the guy you see, drinking Kool Aid in the mirror, making the same moves as you, is your reflection.
dirty dog: with your party agenda vote straight party ticket regardless of party.
I've voted for both, Democrats and Republicans, you dumbass. Unless things change, I'll be voting Libertarian next year.
dirty dog: are the ones who are stupid and who are causing that Diahrrea they call washington. Where they spend all day sitting on the crapper refusing to take the toilet paper because the guy holding it belongs to the other party.
ROTFLMFAO! I wouldn't be surprised if that were the last thing you saw before you got flushed. Your first sentence gave me the image of a 6 year old saying, "you're a poo poo head!"
NEWSFLASH: Washington gets away with what it gets away with because WE the PEOPLE let them get away with it. You do realize that your civic duties didn't stop at the voting booth, do you? Of course, with your "party line voter" comment, I doubt you knew that.
dirty dog: Once again Dick Tracy your taking what I said out of context, this was in reponse to the comment that Thorough beat you 10-8 on the score card. You asked me to validate that, nothing came out of my ass (oh and by the way, with all this ass talk you must be pretty happy they did away with dont ask, dont tell), I gave my personal opinion, which was not portrayed as scientific or accurate.
No, I didn't take anything out of context. Anybody that'd look at our exchange, and claim that anybody in the opposition prevailed, would have to be pulling shit out of his ass. Anybody, with critical thinking abilities, would see that I destroyed thorough9 in debate.
So, when you came back with that statistic, I pulled three Baghdad Bob comments, and told you that your boxing statistic reminded me of Baghdad Bob's comments.
The mere fact that you portrayed that as an opinion, without backing it with logic, opened the door for me to say what I said in response.
dirty dog: Well stupid, if your defending what she said as being right then you are defending her. There is not way around that, so dont say your not defending her when you are…., you are saying what she said was right, WHICH IS DEFENDING HER.
What you said:
"Just for clarification, you state your not defending her, but you have spent 8 pages trying to convince everyone that she was right......." - dirty dog
Hey dumbass, WHERE in MY post, do I STATE that I'm defending her?
Key word stupid, STATE. THAT's what I was arguing again. Take it away dirty dog:
"Quit taking what I said above out of context and morphing them to fit your agenda." - dirty dog
So go back and find me a quote where I STATE that I'm "defending" her.
What I said still stands:
"The debate on this thread has little to do with Sarah Palin's relevance, and everything to do with whether she was wrong or not. Knowing the variables and factors at play during that time period would indicate that Sarah Palin was closer to the truth than her critics were. That's what this debate is about. Whether Sarah Palin is relevant or not is beside the point." - herfacechair
Let me break this down for you. My MAIN thrust is to point facts out that people didn't know, facts that indicate that she was closer to the truth than her critiques were. Insinuating that my main focus was to defend HER would be as idiotic as saying that I moved into the right lane because I wanted people behind me to use the left lane… when I had moved into the right lane because I needed to be in that lane to catch my exit.
Reading comprehension, try it sometime.
dirty dog: Whether she is relevent in politics has nothing to do with this
That's what I said dumbass:
"Whether Sarah Palin is relevant or not is beside the point." - herfacechair
dirty dog: Please tell me they dont allow you around ordinance.
Your parents need to take you away from the computer before you hurt yourself some more.
dirty dog: Naw junior there are some of us who like to argue and mess
Take it away dirty dog:
"Dude you can talk around everything all you want," - dirty dog
Because this is the reason you gave for being here:
"You drug me into this debate by called me a liberal." - dirty dog
No, you don't enjoy arguing with people like me. You're here because it bothers the hell out of you that I've beat the opposition. You're here trying to get a result, on this thread, that you hoped the opposition would achieve.
Prediction… like the others that have done this in the past, you're going to fail.
Because, unlike you, online debating is one of my past times. Doing things like using your own words against you is like beating a man up with his own prosthetic limb. I mean, if this weren't fun for me, why would I do this, almost perpetually, for almost 8 years? It's because I'm the one, between us, that's actually having fun. You're fighting for a result that's not going to happen.
dirty dog: with the self professed experts.
Don't mistake my accurately pointing out, that I know more about the topic being debated, as my being a self-professed expert. That's me telling it like it is. In fact, all you have to do is research the topics that I suggested people research… towards the beginning of this thread. If you run into information that you didn't know, then my point stands.
dirty dog: I have eyes and ears and all I have to do is listen to her to know all I need to know.
Take it away dirty dog:
"Worst of all your not even educated on the issues your a sound byte debater." - dirty dog
Key word, SOUND BYTE. Your eyes and ears focused on sound bytes force feed to you by the liberal media.
dirty dog: And again if you were to read all of my posts you would find that I have had much to say about liberals.
I've read your posts long before I jumped in this thread to make comments. The vast majority of your posts are consistent with far leftist talking points.
dirty dog: Thats all well and good, but I am not the media, take this argument to them.
You saw something on a news sound byte, and ran with it. You argued precisely the way many in the media want you to argue.
The point you missed is the fact that I'm here pointing historical data out that proves that Sarah Palin was closer to the truth than her critiques were.
dirty dog: Well you have your opinion, as wrong as it is.
Don't dismiss a reasoned argument, peppered with facts, as an opinion. You failed to prove me wrong in this debate, you don't have a leg to stand on when farting about my argument being "wrong."
dirty dog: I might be more excited about the GOP if they had a candidate worth a shit.
Pardon me if you haven't identified a RINO in the group yet. But again, their RINO's might simply just be too right wing for you.
dirty dog: Like I said multiple times, Palins misspeak has little or nothing to do with how I think of her. She did that all on her own through her actions and positions.
It mostly has something to do with her being conservative.
- dirty dog
- 06-21-2011, 10:29 PM
http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=53415
http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=41308
http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=60076 this one is good I am defending Bush
http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=60076 Wow here I am complaining about the possibility of 4 more years of progressive agendas oh my.
It only took 3 minutes to find these posts and there are many more. So there you go soldier boy super hero. You better get to sleep you know you got to get up early to get the mess set so the real soldiers can eat. I am done with you, your to ignorant for me to continue to yank your chain.
Oh one more thing, monkey boy, its not chest beating if everyone on the board already knows. Which they do. By the way do you know who your wife is fucking...
http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=41308
http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=60076 this one is good I am defending Bush
http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=60076 Wow here I am complaining about the possibility of 4 more years of progressive agendas oh my.
It only took 3 minutes to find these posts and there are many more. So there you go soldier boy super hero. You better get to sleep you know you got to get up early to get the mess set so the real soldiers can eat. I am done with you, your to ignorant for me to continue to yank your chain.
Oh one more thing, monkey boy, its not chest beating if everyone on the board already knows. Which they do. By the way do you know who your wife is fucking...
- Longermonger
- 06-22-2011, 04:44 AM
We pretty much agree Revere and cohorts went forth to warn the colonials but they got captured. Now we also know that Revere told the British what he was up to and therefore warned them that they were facing armed opposition. Originally Posted by JD BarleycornIs that what Sarah meant? Because we've got another poster in this thread saying that the (implied) 'warning' happened as a result of the alarm system being activated, NOT during Paul Revere's face-to-face encounter. You can't both be correct. Please argue quietly amongst yourselves and be sure to use lots of colorful text.
1. Sarah didn't know what the fuck she was talking about.
2. She got lucky. Her statement can be considered 'barely true' if you twist the facts, redefine some words, assume you know the motives of people you've never met that lived over 200 years ago, etc. This line of thought also has Paul Revere warning Colonists to warn the Regulars. Transitive property of something....?
3. At what point were the Regulars considered 'warned'? Paul Revere couldn't have warned them after they'd already been warned now could he?
4. From accounts, it seems as though the Regulars that captured PR never heard the alarm and that Paul Revere's 'boast' as a prisoner was never intended to be part of his mission. If that's true, then Sarah was wrong.
- kcbigpapa
- 06-22-2011, 09:37 AM
Am I the only one that is really starting to like herfacechair? Never quit posting. You're awesome.
- Cheaper2buyit
- 06-22-2011, 09:49 AM
This is why grizzly bear gilf is always going to be on tv because it causes such lively debates such as the ones in this thread
- catnipdipper
- 06-22-2011, 10:20 AM
I am wondering if the guy doesn't need some "help."
Seems too important to validate himself as a scholar, bad ass, warrior type.
Guns=substitute dick maybe?
In the end it is just as irrelevant as Sarah and what she does.
I don't care
Seems too important to validate himself as a scholar, bad ass, warrior type.
Guns=substitute dick maybe?
In the end it is just as irrelevant as Sarah and what she does.
I don't care
- dirty dog
- 06-22-2011, 11:47 AM
- CuteOldGuy
- 06-22-2011, 01:26 PM
Grizzly Bear GILF! ROTFLMAO!!!!
Best line to come out of this debate! Thanks, Cheaper.
Best line to come out of this debate! Thanks, Cheaper.
- Longermonger
- 06-22-2011, 03:20 PM
I'll just leave this here.
- kcbigpapa
- 06-22-2011, 03:25 PM
Yes, I think you are Papa and its very.You have got to be kidding me DD. This clown writes 10 paragraphs for every sentence he is responding. I cannot say I have read one word of what he has written, but just to think of the time he put into his responses cracks me up. I just picture his angry little fingers typing away furiously as he curses under his breath at the computer screen. "That fucking Dirty Dog, he doesn't know who he is messing with." Tell me the thought of herfacechair muttering that while responding to you doesn't amuse you a little bit.Originally Posted by dirty dog
- dirty dog
- 06-22-2011, 05:27 PM
You have got to be kidding me DD. This clown writes 10 paragraphs for every sentence he is responding. I cannot say I have read one word of what he has written, but just to think of the time he put into his responses cracks me up. I just picture his angry little fingers typing away furiously as he curses under his breath at the computer screen. "That fucking Dirty Dog, he doesn't know who he is messing with." Tell me the thought of herfacechair muttering that while responding to you doesn't amuse you a little bit. Originally Posted by kcbigpapaSorry Papa I did not understand what you were saying. It does make me smile to know I can get him to wright a book with every response.
- herfacechair
- 06-22-2011, 06:21 PM
http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=53415http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...6&postcount=25
http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=41308
http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=60076 this one is good I am defending Bush
http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=60076 Wow here I am complaining about the possibility of 4 more years of progressive agendas oh my. Originally Posted by dirty dog
"I know what your saying is true, but he is such a simple simon individual I cant help but mess with him. Its boggles my mind to think how stupid one's parents have to be to produce a nitwit GOP clone like this." - dirty dog
http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...4&postcount=10
"Actually the national socialist party was a far right wing authoritarian, racist party known in Germany as the Nazi Party. The term socialist in this case refered to the belief in the rise of a genertically pure all white society, its not a reference to socialism. Your historian compatriot should know this." - dirty dog
http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...7&postcount=16
"Submitting yourself to a higher authority does in fact preclude individualism. You joined the military thus submitting to a higher authority, but from that point on the higher authority controlled what you did, when you did it, how you did it, and how you were suppose to think about it. That too me is exactly the opposite of individualism." - dirty dog
First, I've criticized the GOP, numerous times offline, but that doesn't make me a liberal. I don't claim to be a moderate, centrist or Independent. On the old Nevada Brothel boards, I argued against both the liberals and conservatives. But, I didn't run around claiming that I was a centrist, moderate or independent. You're going around, pointing to your comments defending the conservatives, and are trying to argue that you're a moderate, or Independent.
Second, I found more examples of you arguing the very things that liberals had argued against me. None of the moderates, centrists, and independents told me, about my being in the military, what you told john-galt about what his being in the military really is. However, your comments to john-galt are consistent with what those on the far left have told me.
Hitler and the NAZI's being right wing? Their listed intentions, and points/goals, included many that put them in line with the progressives/liberals in this country.
The posts that I've selected highlight your true colors. The posts that I've pulled from your list of quotes makes it blatantly obvious that you're a liberal. Your arguing in defense of the conservatives didn't make you someone that's a "moderate or independent," just as my statements supporting the other liberals of the old Nevada Brothel Boards don't make me a "moderate or independent."
You're reacting to my posts precisely the way the far left had reacted to them on message boards on the Internet.
dirty dog: It only took 3 minutes to find these posts and there are many more.
It took me less to find the ones that I used earlier in the thread, and additional posts that you made that put you squarely on the left.
dirty dog: So there you go soldier boy super hero.
I still stand by my observations of the majority of the posts you've made, where you took a stand, that puts you on the left.
dirty dog: You better get to sleep you know you got to get up early to get the mess set so the real soldiers can eat.
First, I got my KP duty out of the way back in 1991.
Second, based on your comments here, I doubt that you have a clue about what constitutes a real Soldier and what doesn't. You're implying that Soldiers pulling KP duty, as well as the cooks, "aren't" real Soldiers. Really?
Just like the Internet "tuff" guy in you to say something on this message board... that you wouldn't say in front of a family paying respects to a cook that had given the ultimate sacrifice.
dirty dog: I am done with you,
I don't believe you. I say that you're going to jump in and say something, directly or indirectly, to me after I post my reply. When you do that, I'm going to talk about how you can't get it right about what you're going to do… and emphasize that even when it comes to what you do, you get it wrong and I get it right.
dirty dog: your to ignorant for me to continue to yank your chain.
So says the guy that's living proof that a man could live without a brain.
dirty dog: Oh one more thing, monkey boy, its not chest beating if everyone on the board already knows. Which they do. RED HERRING
Gorilla chest beating is gorilla chest beating, regardless of whether the audience knows, or don't know, about what's being bragged. I've lost count of how many times I've heard about a winning team, celebrating their victory, bragging about certain plays that took place. These are play that took place during the game, plays that most the audience, who were there, already know.
Your denials are laughable. I don't know who you're trying to kid, you're definitely not kidding me.
dirty dog: By the way do you know who your wife is fucking...
How are your wife and my kids doing? The last time we had sex, your wife badmouthed you. Not knowing you, I took it with a grain of salt. But, now that I've seen how terrible you performed in this thread, I could see why she decided to seek a real man the moment she wanted to have kids.
- herfacechair
- 06-22-2011, 06:25 PM
longermonger: Is that what Sarah meant? Because we've got another poster in this thread saying that the (implied) 'warning' happened as a result of the alarm system being activated, NOT during Paul Revere's face-to-face encounter. You can't both be correct. REPEAT POINT
First, what I said earlier in this thread:
"And get this. During his capture, in addition to saying what's in deacon's post, Paul Revere warned the British that if they didn't move on, they'd miss their mark... IE, they'd miss their objective." - herfacechair
Second, you're still missing the point behind my argument.
You're consistently ignoring the common law aspect that drove our founding fathers. What I said:
"By activating the alarm system, a system that has been in place since the medieval period. The primary purpose was to get the colonials on line. One of the secondary purposes was to warn the regulars that they were not going to be getting what they set out to get. If this would've succeeded, the first purpose wouldn't have been needed." - herfacechair
The secondary purpose that I talked about wasn't an "accidental" event. It was used in the same sense that a home owner, refusing to be evicted with out due process, would stand on his porch with his weapons… to warn, without saying or writing something.
longermonger: Please argue quietly amongst yourselves and be sure to use lots of colorful text.
I'm going to argue this here, not via PM. Instead of demanding that we argue quietly, how about resisting the urge to click on this thread.
longermonger: 1. Sarah didn't know what the fuck she was talking about. 2. She got lucky. REPEAT POINT
So far, you stuck with the surface explanation of what happened during the American Revolution. You've failed to consider the additional factors at play, nor have you advanced anything that doesn't deviate from the "basics" in response to my side of the argument.
Sarah knew what she was talking about, but didn't get her message out effectively. It's like I said earlier in this thread:
"Sarah Palin may very well not have had exposure to American history since she was in high school, we're talking decades here. She gets access to the facts, a more complex version of the one she covered in high school, read it once, and tried to explain what she just read." - herfacechair
longermonger: Her statement can be considered 'barely true' if you twist the facts, redefine some words, assume you know the motives of people you've never met that lived over 200 years ago, etc. This line of thought also has Paul Revere warning Colonists to warn the Regulars. Transitive property of something....? REPEAT POINT
This is what I mean by the opposition refusing to go beyond the traditional, basic, explanation of what happened during the American Revolution. What you dismiss as "twisting the facts, redefine words, and assumption of knowledge of people's motives," are facts that you refuse to factor in.
Mainly, English Common Law, Common Law, and God's Law.
I took a college course, history area, that focused on our Founding Fathers. The detail of the text that we studied was awesome, it made High School History seem like a 1st grader's picture book. In order to make sense of some of what was talked about, you had to do additional research…
You can't even come close to understanding what happened during that time unless you understand English Common Law.
You, with your refusal to step outside your comfort zone, with regards to the American Revolution, force yourself into a handicapped position in this fight. This isn't "assumed." This additional detail is based on the founders themselves, the written reasoning's they gave for their actions… not just the narrative of what they did… but the explanations… explanations that were consistent with English Common Law.
Again, with the ringing of the bells, a secondary purpose was to warn the Regulars, without writing or voice, that they weren't going to take the colonial's arms. Again, go back to my man on porch with gun example.
If you're going to continue to ignore these additional facts, you don't have a leg to stand on when accusing me of twisting and distorting things to match what Sarah Palin said. Your suggestion indirectly argues against the founder's very own explanations behind their actions.
longermonger: 3. At what point were the Regulars considered 'warned'? RED HERRING
When they went from hoping that this'd be an easy mission, to knowing that the colonials weren't going to be giving up their arms, is beside the point. When that happened isn't relevant.
longermonger: Paul Revere couldn't have warned them after they'd already been warned now could he? RED HERRING
Here you go again, throwing "what if…" statements into the mix. I'm arguing that his actions lead to a chain reaction that resulted in the Regulars knowing that they weren't going to be taking the colonial's arms. I've argued this repeatedly, and even stated that this was no accident.
No room for someone to even consider that "what if" statement.
longermonger: 4. From accounts, it seems as though the Regulars that captured PR never heard the alarm
They weren't at one of the targeted towns yet. It's obvious that they weren't privy to the warnings from the drums, bells and gunfire.
longermonger: and that Paul Revere's 'boast' as a prisoner was never intended to be part of his mission. If that's true, then Sarah was wrong. RED HERRING
This completely misses the point being debated on this thread. I've explained the thrust of Sarah Palin's statement in this thread. Her explanation brought her closer to the truth than your argument on this thread.
First, what I said earlier in this thread:
"And get this. During his capture, in addition to saying what's in deacon's post, Paul Revere warned the British that if they didn't move on, they'd miss their mark... IE, they'd miss their objective." - herfacechair
Second, you're still missing the point behind my argument.
You're consistently ignoring the common law aspect that drove our founding fathers. What I said:
"By activating the alarm system, a system that has been in place since the medieval period. The primary purpose was to get the colonials on line. One of the secondary purposes was to warn the regulars that they were not going to be getting what they set out to get. If this would've succeeded, the first purpose wouldn't have been needed." - herfacechair
The secondary purpose that I talked about wasn't an "accidental" event. It was used in the same sense that a home owner, refusing to be evicted with out due process, would stand on his porch with his weapons… to warn, without saying or writing something.
longermonger: Please argue quietly amongst yourselves and be sure to use lots of colorful text.
I'm going to argue this here, not via PM. Instead of demanding that we argue quietly, how about resisting the urge to click on this thread.
longermonger: 1. Sarah didn't know what the fuck she was talking about. 2. She got lucky. REPEAT POINT
So far, you stuck with the surface explanation of what happened during the American Revolution. You've failed to consider the additional factors at play, nor have you advanced anything that doesn't deviate from the "basics" in response to my side of the argument.
Sarah knew what she was talking about, but didn't get her message out effectively. It's like I said earlier in this thread:
"Sarah Palin may very well not have had exposure to American history since she was in high school, we're talking decades here. She gets access to the facts, a more complex version of the one she covered in high school, read it once, and tried to explain what she just read." - herfacechair
longermonger: Her statement can be considered 'barely true' if you twist the facts, redefine some words, assume you know the motives of people you've never met that lived over 200 years ago, etc. This line of thought also has Paul Revere warning Colonists to warn the Regulars. Transitive property of something....? REPEAT POINT
This is what I mean by the opposition refusing to go beyond the traditional, basic, explanation of what happened during the American Revolution. What you dismiss as "twisting the facts, redefine words, and assumption of knowledge of people's motives," are facts that you refuse to factor in.
Mainly, English Common Law, Common Law, and God's Law.
I took a college course, history area, that focused on our Founding Fathers. The detail of the text that we studied was awesome, it made High School History seem like a 1st grader's picture book. In order to make sense of some of what was talked about, you had to do additional research…
You can't even come close to understanding what happened during that time unless you understand English Common Law.
You, with your refusal to step outside your comfort zone, with regards to the American Revolution, force yourself into a handicapped position in this fight. This isn't "assumed." This additional detail is based on the founders themselves, the written reasoning's they gave for their actions… not just the narrative of what they did… but the explanations… explanations that were consistent with English Common Law.
Again, with the ringing of the bells, a secondary purpose was to warn the Regulars, without writing or voice, that they weren't going to take the colonial's arms. Again, go back to my man on porch with gun example.
If you're going to continue to ignore these additional facts, you don't have a leg to stand on when accusing me of twisting and distorting things to match what Sarah Palin said. Your suggestion indirectly argues against the founder's very own explanations behind their actions.
longermonger: 3. At what point were the Regulars considered 'warned'? RED HERRING
When they went from hoping that this'd be an easy mission, to knowing that the colonials weren't going to be giving up their arms, is beside the point. When that happened isn't relevant.
longermonger: Paul Revere couldn't have warned them after they'd already been warned now could he? RED HERRING
Here you go again, throwing "what if…" statements into the mix. I'm arguing that his actions lead to a chain reaction that resulted in the Regulars knowing that they weren't going to be taking the colonial's arms. I've argued this repeatedly, and even stated that this was no accident.
No room for someone to even consider that "what if" statement.
longermonger: 4. From accounts, it seems as though the Regulars that captured PR never heard the alarm
They weren't at one of the targeted towns yet. It's obvious that they weren't privy to the warnings from the drums, bells and gunfire.
longermonger: and that Paul Revere's 'boast' as a prisoner was never intended to be part of his mission. If that's true, then Sarah was wrong. RED HERRING
This completely misses the point being debated on this thread. I've explained the thrust of Sarah Palin's statement in this thread. Her explanation brought her closer to the truth than your argument on this thread.
- herfacechair
- 06-22-2011, 06:26 PM
catnipdipper: I am wondering if the guy doesn't need some "help."
Talked to psychiatrists, as part of SRP, before and after the Iraq Deployment. No problems found. So there's your answer, no, I don't need help.
However, you consistently pull shit out of your ass about me, without getting the facts first. Apparently, you need "help," from a proctologist, to pull your head out of your ass.
catnipdipper: Seems too important to validate himself as a scholar, bad ass, warrior type.
Yet, nothing said about WHY I'd prove people, like you, wrong, by talking about my background. The proper course of action that you should take would be to thank me for giving you a clue about who you were talking about… something that a little fact finding would've done for you had you had any integrity in you.
catnipdipper: Guns=substitute dick maybe?
What type of wig are you using to hide that lobotomy scar on your head? Quit your drooling.
catnipdipper: In the end it is just as irrelevant as Sarah and what she does. I don't care.
If you didn't care, and if Sarah, and my posts, aren't relevant, then you wouldn't be here posting.
Talked to psychiatrists, as part of SRP, before and after the Iraq Deployment. No problems found. So there's your answer, no, I don't need help.
However, you consistently pull shit out of your ass about me, without getting the facts first. Apparently, you need "help," from a proctologist, to pull your head out of your ass.
catnipdipper: Seems too important to validate himself as a scholar, bad ass, warrior type.
Yet, nothing said about WHY I'd prove people, like you, wrong, by talking about my background. The proper course of action that you should take would be to thank me for giving you a clue about who you were talking about… something that a little fact finding would've done for you had you had any integrity in you.
catnipdipper: Guns=substitute dick maybe?
What type of wig are you using to hide that lobotomy scar on your head? Quit your drooling.
catnipdipper: In the end it is just as irrelevant as Sarah and what she does. I don't care.
If you didn't care, and if Sarah, and my posts, aren't relevant, then you wouldn't be here posting.