Conquer Club

tical

Woodruff wrote:20. Regarding DangerBoy's assertion that I was trying to support Obama by stating that the previous Administration didn't do our national debt any good: "I'm actually disappointed with Obama to this point, so my statements are certainly not meant to be in support of the man as our President."

Holy crow! You're no better than Alan Grayson taking Daniel Webster out of context. You really are a piece of work, aren't you.

I never criticized your critique of the previous administration's handling of the national debt. I told Player that she was a liberal. You deliberately took me out of context, just like you're doing here, and injected a weird statement about "So then you believe the last seven Presidents have been liberals? Go back to high school."

Waaaahh Waaaaahh Waaaaahh, Weaseluff. You claim that people make things personal against you and you're sooooooo persecuted here while you make sarcastic jabs about returning to high school. You're the ultimate weasel.

Here's what I said to Player:

DangerBoy wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:I think you have confused liberals with bankers.

Not at all, and since you are a liberal I notice that you did not address the point.

You can try to ignore it all you want, but your party is driving this country into an almost unrecoverable amount of debt.

Here's what Weaseluff adds:

Woodruff wrote:

DangerBoy wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:I think you have confused liberals with bankers.

Not at all, and since you are a liberal I notice that you did not address the point.
You can try to ignore it all you want, but your party is driving this country into an almost unrecoverable amount of debt.

So then you believe the last seven Presidents have been liberals? Go back to high school.

This is the typical Weaseluff method of adding or injecting a position on to someone he disagrees with. He'll then proceed to argue against it as if the person actually believes what he himself inserted.

DangerBoy wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

DangerBoy wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:I think you have confused liberals with bankers.

Not at all, and since you are a liberal I notice that you did not address the point.
You can try to ignore it all you want, but your party is driving this country into an almost unrecoverable amount of debt.

So then you believe the last seven Presidents have been liberals? Go back to high school.

I brought up the fact that Weaseluff routinely tells other people that they don't read properly. It's the same old thing. I made the point that increasing the debt didn't make one liberal, and that Obama increased the debt in actual dollars. Notice that I said that people who support Obama tried to spin, using the percentage of GDP. I never said that Weaseluff was supporting Obama by making his [dishonest] statement.

This is laughable considering you are the one who almost always falls back on accusing others of not reading things properly. Oh yeah, the fact that previous presidents increased the debt really made them liberal.

None of the presidents before Obama (along with this Democrat congress) increased the debt to the point that it was almost unrecoverable. People who support Obama try to spin the figures to show that percentage of GDP was more, but in actual dollars it's not even a contest.

Look how he twists it to make it look like an accusation against himself:

Woodruff wrote:

DangerBoy wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

DangerBoy wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:I think you have confused liberals with bankers.

Not at all, and since you are a liberal I notice that you did not address the point.
You can try to ignore it all you want, but your party is driving this country into an almost unrecoverable amount of debt.

So then you believe the last seven Presidents have been liberals? Go back to high school.

This is laughable considering you are the one who almost always falls back on accusing others of not reading things properly. Oh yeah, the fact that previous presidents increased the debt really made them liberal.
None of the presidents before Obama (along with this Democrat congress) increased the debt to the point that it was almost unrecoverable. People who support Obama try to spin the figures to show that percentage of GDP was more, but in actual dollars it's not even a contest.

I'm actually disappointed with Obama to this point, so my statements are certainly not meant to be in support of the man as our President. But that you seem to believe the statements you're making above only confirms that you need to go back to high school. At the very least, study up on basic mathematical principles along with the eight Presidential years previous to President Obama.

Weaseluff states that I called him out for supporting Obama in his statement when I specifically said people. Look again how he repeats his sarcastic jab about needing to go back to high school and studying up on mathematical principles. This is the same Weaseluff who claims people make things personal against him.

Give it up, Weaseluff.......you're losing and don't know when to quit



<evil grin>

Timminz wrote:tical

Reminds me of a cricket. It's like a tical but dipped in polyurethane. (heard of this, never dared doing something dumb like that).

ViperOverLord wrote:Now the OP backed off his assertion saying that it was not his intent to compare the War On Terror to that genocide and good for him. Naturally you tried to use this as some sort of evidence that I was wrong, but what had already been written was already written.

He (Juan_Bottom) clearly stated to you "Well, I wasn't comparing the Nazi's systematic genocide to our "war of terror" at all. I even did my best to separate "German people" from "Nazis."" - that's not "backing off" of anything. That's saying you were wrong. He even explicitly went on to point out exactly what it was that he was comparing.

Woodruff wrote:

ViperOverLord wrote:Now the OP backed off his assertion saying that it was not his intent to compare the War On Terror to that genocide and good for him. Naturally you tried to use this as some sort of evidence that I was wrong, but what had already been written was already written.

He (Juan_Bottom) clearly stated to you "Well, I wasn't comparing the Nazi's systematic genocide to our "war of terror" at all. I even did my best to separate "German people" from "Nazis."" - that's not "backing off" of anything. That's saying you were wrong. He even explicitly went on to point out exactly what it was that he was comparing.

That's not the issue and you know it. His later clarification of the idea he hoped to express does not erase his direct comparison between Nazi treatment of prisoners and post 911 treatment of prisoners. He explicitly said that and you said that he did not say that at all. NOW STOP LYING BECAUSE I'M NOT BUYING YOUR BARF.

I'm re-posting my last post in blue to show you that you decided to gloss over many legitimate points. Instead you reverted to your old tired fallacious argument. You dumbed it down and tried to debate your one lie rather than regard the fullness of the truth. That is what you routinely do though. You repeat your own lies rather than regard the truth. "A lie told often enough becomes the truth." Your apparent role model, Lenin said that.

Addressing your point Woody. I said that the poster equated the treatment of prisoners by Nazis to the treatment of prisoners by the post 9/11 Govt. And here is the preceding statement statement to that point; "Here we have another judge citing Bush-era imperial presidency as the basis for her unwillingness to challenge the status quo, and do what's right." Clearly there is an implication that Bush era imperialism as it relates to prisoner treatment (IE 'The War On Terror') is being equated to the Nazi treatment of their prisoners. And in fact his very next statement was, "I see a direct comparison between Germany '38 - '45 and the USA since 9/11." THERE IS NO GRAY THERE!

Now the OP backed off his assertion saying that it was not his intent to compare the War On Terror to that genocide and good for him. Naturally you tried to use this as some sort of evidence that I was wrong, but what had already been written was already written. I made the accurate case that it was bogus to equate our treatment of prisoners to the Nazi treatment of prisoners.

And what was your response to my accurate case? -- "No...he isn't, at all. Your reading comprehension skills do not seem to have improved in your absence."

1. As I have shown, he did directly compare the two. He even used the term 'direct comparison' which did equate the two historical instances.

2. You lecture people on reading and comprehension, but you completely ignore his statements and say he was not making a direct comparison or equating the two instances. You need to stop lecturing people on reading and comprehension if you are going to exhibit such terrible reading and comprehension.

3. You have since went forth claiming that people here have terrible critical thinking skills. Well I have news for you Mr. Ruff. Your statement, "No...he isn't, at all. Your reading comprehension skills do not seem to have improved in your absence," was not only counter-productive and not constructive analysis, but it is completely lacking in critical thought. When one engages in critical thinking, they use proper rigor of thinking and state logical conclusions that supply proper reasoning for the analysis. You absolutely did none of that and you routinely do not engage in critical thinking. Have you even had a class in logic or do you just like to lecture people on critical thinking as though you are some sort of authority? I think if you had a class in logic/critical thinking, you would not have tried to fully justify your position on subsequent post that had no technical bearing on your or my original assertions. Also if you had taken a critical thinking class, you would know that the condescension that you so freely admit to engaging in, makes proper critical thought impossible.

Now if you give me another response that is devoid of critical and honest thought again then I'm just going to have to throw the barf bag in the trash can and not worry about it any longer.

ViperOverLord wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

ViperOverLord wrote:Now the OP backed off his assertion saying that it was not his intent to compare the War On Terror to that genocide and good for him. Naturally you tried to use this as some sort of evidence that I was wrong, but what had already been written was already written.

He (Juan_Bottom) clearly stated to you "Well, I wasn't comparing the Nazi's systematic genocide to our "war of terror" at all. I even did my best to separate "German people" from "Nazis."" - that's not "backing off" of anything. That's saying you were wrong. He even explicitly went on to point out exactly what it was that he was comparing.

That's not the issue and you know it.

It isn't? Sure it is. You misinterpreted his statements. Further, you have refused to acknowledge that you misinterpreted his statements. That really IS the issue.

ViperOverLord wrote:His later clarification of the idea he hoped to express does not erase his direct comparison between Nazi treatment of prisoners and post 911 treatment of prisoners. He explicitly said that and you said that he did not say that at all. NOW STOP LYING BECAUSE I'M NOT BUYING YOUR BARF.

All you're showing here ViperOverLord, is that you can read and repeat specific words without understanding the connections and complexity between those words.

The original poster has not at all "backed off" of his original statement.

Yes, he made that explicit statement that you keep quoting. However, as has been pointed out to you several times (not just by me, but others as well), that statement was an introductory statement and not at all what the post was about. He was very clearly using that statement to lead in to his actual point. This really is not a difficult concept, and I don't understand at all why you are having so much difficulty with it.

I am honestly beginning to believe what several others have told me that they believe this just being an attempt by yourself to bait me into flaming again, in order to get me banned. It's really the only explanation that makes any sense at all.

^^^

The post is "devoid of critical and honest thought again," so I'll let the matter drop as I stated.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Timminz wrote:tical

Reminds me of a cricket. It's like a tical but dipped in polyurethane. (heard of this, never dared doing something dumb like that).

Oops. I forgot to mention, that was supposed to be read in the voice of Method Man.