Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3
Reply To Thread

False FlagFollow

#1 Feb 25 2017 at 1:52 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,161 posts
More like Alternative News.

Thank you CPAC attendees, you gullible bastards.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#2 Feb 25 2017 at 2:02 AM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,141 posts
.5% of a bunch of Trump-humpers can recognize an Russian flag?

That number seems artificially high to me.
____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
#3 Feb 25 2017 at 6:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,127 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
.5% of a bunch of Trump-humpers can recognize an Russian flag?

That number seems artificially high to me.


I was surprised, too. Still, an amusing troll effort.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#4 Feb 27 2017 at 4:49 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,726 posts
Pretty funny troll effort, I suppose. But honestly, given the volume of randomly designed red white and blue colored swag handed out at events like this, it's not really very difficult. Could do it at any event probably.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#5 Feb 27 2017 at 5:43 PM Rating: Good
***
1,022 posts
Yeah, but it's only funny if the person being pranked has a reputation as a manchurian candidate.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#6 Feb 27 2017 at 7:01 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,726 posts
Kavekkk wrote:
Yeah, but it's only funny if the person being pranked has a reputation as a manchurian candidate.


It would be funnier if the people handing out the flags weren't also among the same set of people trying desperately to convince people that the target of the prank is a manchurian candidate. It's "funny" in the same vein as someone trying to spread rumors about someone having an affair going out and creating fake dating site profiles under said targets name so as to help perpetuate the rumor. Such antics really say more about those engaged in them than they do about the targets IMO.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#7 Feb 27 2017 at 7:32 PM Rating: Good
***
1,022 posts
Quote:
It would be funnier if the people handing out the flags weren't also among the same set of people trying desperately to convince people that the target of the prank is a manchurian candidate


That isn't one set of people, unless you mean 'people who don't like Trump'. People from McCain to left wing comedians have been spreading it, and otherwise have nothing in common.

Anyway, it's funny because his supporters were tricked into spreading the meme, thinking they were supporting him in doing so. Imagine Trump walking out to a sea of his supporters waaving Russian flags, that's hilarious. If Birthers had managed to get Democrats to wave the Kenyan flag in support of Obama that would have been funny for exactly the same reason. The people orchestrating the prank have nothing to do with why it's funny.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#8 Feb 27 2017 at 7:48 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,161 posts
Talking sideways here, but...
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#9 Feb 27 2017 at 8:00 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,546 posts
gbaji wrote:
Kavekkk wrote:
Yeah, but it's only funny if the person being pranked has a reputation as a manchurian candidate.


It would be funnier if the people handing out the flags weren't also among the same set of people trying desperately to convince people that the target of the prank is a manchurian candidate.

Disingenuous pranksters like George W. Bush.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#10 Feb 27 2017 at 8:38 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,726 posts
Kavekkk wrote:
Quote:
It would be funnier if the people handing out the flags weren't also among the same set of people trying desperately to convince people that the target of the prank is a manchurian candidate


That isn't one set of people, unless you mean 'people who don't like Trump'. People from McCain to left wing comedians have been spreading it, and otherwise have nothing in common.


No. There's "people who don't like Trump", and "people who are willing to do or say anything to delegitimize Trump". Folks like McCain and Bush are in the camp of "we're willing to investigate to see if any wrongdoing occurred". Folks like those who did this prank are in the "I don't care what the truth is, I want people to believe <insert conspiracy theory here>".

If the facts support the theory, then you don't have to create false impressions by doing things like tricking people at CPAC into waving Russian flags. The very act of doing so suggests someone who knows or strongly believes that there aren't sufficient actual facts to support the desired conspiracy theory, but really really want people to believe in said theory anyway. It's about creating the perception of something, in the absence of the reality of that thing.

Quote:
Anyway, it's funny because his supporters were tricked into spreading the meme, thinking they were supporting him in doing so. Imagine Trump walking out to a sea of his supporters waaving Russian flags, that's hilarious. If Birthers had managed to get Democrats to wave the Kenyan flag in support of Obama that would have been funny for exactly the same reason. The people orchestrating the prank have nothing to do with why it's funny.


Or maybe if the Chinese government had managed to trick the First Lady into agreeing to participate in a traditional dance that included waving around a pair of "communism red" banners. That would have been frickin hilarious! Right? I mean, surely you can get a bunch of random folks at CPAC to not realize the symbolism of what they're waving around, but no way could the Harvard educated wife of the President be fooled by such a thing.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#11 Feb 27 2017 at 8:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
If there's anyone's opinion I'm worried about, re: whether a prank against a bunch of conservatives was funny or not, it would be Gbaji's.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#12 Feb 27 2017 at 9:22 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,726 posts
Jophiel wrote:
If there's anyone's opinion I'm worried about, re: whether a prank against a bunch of conservatives was funny or not, it would be Gbaji's.


I didn't say it wasn't funny. I said that it's humor is somewhat degraded by the strained nature of the joke itself and frankly, the ease with which a similar joke could be played on any such audience. You get that it's not like the people at CPAC are required to be long standing card carrying Republicans, or even conservatives, right? And they certainly aren't required to be particularly politically savvy. I mean, these two got in after all. I know some college students who go to the darn thing, more or less on a lark, and not out of any particularly strong political views.

You hand out swag at these things, and people will take it. If said swag is something waveable with a prominent figure's name on it, a good percentage of the people you handed them to will wave them. Are you seriously arguing that if some conservatives had gone into some venue where Obama was speaking and handed out 1000 little Kenyan flags with "OBAMA" written on them, that the result would have been any different? I suppose the big difference is that conservatives tend to have a bit more class than to do stuff like that.

So yeah. Funny. But funny like getting people to slip on a banana peel funny. Sure, we laugh, but on some level we also realize that had we happened to be the one walking along at that moment, we'd have been the one who fell and everyone would be laughing at us. And that makes it a bit less funny. Well. Or it should anyway.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#13 Feb 27 2017 at 10:08 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,245 posts
swing and a miss by Gbaji
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#14 Feb 28 2017 at 12:10 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,161 posts
Gbaji is so unreasonably butthurt about this, for increasingly wacky reasons/
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#15 Feb 28 2017 at 1:46 AM Rating: Excellent
***
1,022 posts
Don't worry, he doesn't support Trump.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#16 Feb 28 2017 at 2:05 AM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,141 posts
gbaji wrote:
I suppose the big difference is that conservatives tend to have a bit more class than to do stuff like that.


Insisting that an American citizen isn't one = classy.

Insisting that attendance at a church absolutely means that the atendee must naturally agree with every single thing that comes out of the preacher's mouth = classy.

Insisting that a forceful personality in a man "shows strength" but if a woman does it she's a bitch = classy.

Giving a no-bid, exclusive contract to the company of a highly placed member of the administration and then watching the money disappear into the companies account with no legal repercussions= super-classy

Screeching that the government should minimize interfering in the citizen's right to live their lives then pushing multiple agendas to do just that = classy beyond belief

Stay classy, conservatives!Smiley: thumbsup
____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
#17 Feb 28 2017 at 8:25 AM Rating: Good
******
49,198 posts
Flying American flags upside down because of Obama's reelection was quite classy.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#18 Feb 28 2017 at 9:42 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,161 posts
Kavekkk wrote:
Don't worry, he doesn't support Trump.


Thank you. You have set my mind at ease.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#19 Feb 28 2017 at 12:59 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Timelordwho wrote:
Gbaji is so unreasonably butthurt about this, for increasingly wacky reasons/

"I said it's funny. Now here's ten reasons why it's not really funny..."
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#20 Feb 28 2017 at 2:59 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,489 posts
I think Gbaji is angling for Spicer's job once he gets the boot.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#21 Mar 01 2017 at 8:28 AM Rating: Good
******
49,198 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
Gbaji is so unreasonably butthurt about this, for increasingly wacky reasons/
"I said it's funny. Now here's ten reasons why it's not really funny..."
Well, when your approved listening options are Dennis Miller, Victoria Jackson, and "Half Hour News Hour" ...
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#22 Mar 01 2017 at 9:41 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Don't be selling Mallard Fillmore short.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#23 Mar 01 2017 at 10:12 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,151 posts
gbaji wrote:
Pretty funny troll effort, I suppose. But honestly, given the volume of randomly designed red white and blue colored swag handed out at events like this, it's not really very difficult. Could do it at any event probably.
Overused colors are totally overused. Try looking for a nation's flag that doesn't have at least one of those 3 colors. Pretty much doesn't happen. Yeah there are some weird outliers like Jamaica and Mauritania, but those are rare exceptions in a see of uninspired color schemes.

Why can't America be a trend-setter anymore? Can we really be great again if we're doing the same thing as nearly everyone else? These are the important questions the mainstream media is ignoring. Smiley: disappointed
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#24 Mar 03 2017 at 5:39 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,726 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I suppose the big difference is that conservatives tend to have a bit more class than to do stuff like that.


Insisting that an American citizen isn't one = classy.


No clue what you're talking about here.

Quote:
Insisting that attendance at a church absolutely means that the atendee must naturally agree with every single thing that comes out of the preacher's mouth = classy.


Everything? No. But things that are a primary theme for that particular church and preacher? Yeah. In the exact same way that someone who's attending a KKK rally may not agree with every single thing said, but it's a good bet that he does agree in principle with the idea of white supremacy, right? If you choose, out of all the churches in the area, to attend a church that specifically preaches black liberation theology, it's a good bet that you yourself are an adherent to that philosophy.

Quote:
Insisting that a forceful personality in a man "shows strength" but if a woman does it she's a bitch = classy.


Ironically, this is far more prevalent on the left side of the political spectrum than on the right.

Quote:
Giving a no-bid, exclusive contract to the company of a highly placed member of the administration and then watching the money disappear into the companies account with no legal repercussions= super-classy


There are literally more incorrect statements in that sentence than correct.

Quote:
Screeching that the government should minimize interfering in the citizen's right to live their lives then pushing multiple agendas to do just that = classy beyond belief


Your definition of "interfering" mostly includes the government *not* doing things that you think it should. Which I find hilarious.

Quote:
Stay classy, conservatives!Smiley: thumbsup


Interesting that no where in your list is something like "show up at the other party's events, and intentionally do stuff to make the people attending there look foolish, dumb, do something that makes the speakers look bad, etc". You know things that actually show a lack of class. Taking a position and standing by it is one thing. Being so weak that the only way you think you can win is to go over to the other guy and make stuff up about him? That's a whole different thing.

let's make fun of misspelled signs. At least some of which are us showing up with deliberately misspelled signs, taking pictures of ourselves, and then posting it and claiming it's those other dumb people. Let's show up at Conservative events and start fights, so we can point out how violent and hateful conservative's are. Let's show up at Conservative events wearing offensive, racist, sexist, etc T-shirts and make sure to stand in front of the cameras so that everyone can see how racist, sexist, etc conservatives are. Let's show up at a Conservative event and hand out Russian flags with Trump's name on it, so we can show everyone that Trump really is connected to the Russian government.

See what these all have in common? A need to create a false impression of the other side. Which is what you do when you can't make your own side or position appealing. You have to go attack the other guy. And yeah, when you do that, it speaks more about you than the other guy, right?

Edited, Mar 3rd 2017 3:41pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#25 Mar 03 2017 at 7:46 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,141 posts
Really? You can't think of a prominent American that most conservatives repeatedly claimed wasn't American? Did your dope dealer drop a brick of cocaine on your head?

As usual, you just dodge and dance and ignore and handwave so you can keep claiming that the conservatives have the moral high ground. PROTIP: They don't.


PROTIP #2: I've told you about a jillion times I'm not a liberal. I get that you think anyone to the left of you must be a raging commie/socialist, but still. See, I'm aware that the left and the right do "bad" things. The reason I generally pick on the right is because of the massive hypocrisy they display on a regular basis. Hypocrisy you adamantly, stubbornly, religiously deny exists.

I'm sorry your soul is so empty. I'm saddened that you care so little for anything outside yourself. Perhaps, one day, you'll learn to value people as people and not things.


That's on you, though. Good luck.
____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
#26 Mar 03 2017 at 8:15 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,726 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
Really? You can't think of a prominent American that most conservatives repeatedly claimed wasn't American? Did your dope dealer drop a brick of cocaine on your head?


No. And that fact might just maybe open your eyes to the fact that conservatives don't put the same weight on things that you think we do. I honestly had no clue who you were talking about in your previous post.

Um. But for the record, a small percentage of conservatives had some questions as to verification of Obama's natural born citizenship status, specifically and only in the context of meeting the constitutional requirements to hold the one and only office in the country which requires said status (ie: POTUS). Which is not at all to say they thought he was "not an American", as you claimed. Most (like myself) didn't doubt that he did meet the requirement, but felt that he had failed to provide sufficient documentation to verify that fact, once the question was raised. A small subset of that group were convinced that he didn't meet the requirement, and an even smaller subset of that group were convinced that he wasn't even a citizen.

So yeah. Forgive me for not leaping to the farther reaches of "nutter".

Quote:
As usual, you just dodge and dance and ignore and handwave so you can keep claiming that the conservatives have the moral high ground. PROTIP: They don't.


Yeah. We mostly do. The sheer effort expended to continually misrepresent our actual positions and actions by the Left is testament to that fact. How many threads did we have on this very subject? I was not once not clear about my position. I, in fact, took great pains to explain the difference between whether he was a citizen versus a natural born citizen, and why it mattered. But you just chucked that all out the window, didn't you?

Quote:
PROTIP #2: I've told you about a jillion times I'm not a liberal. I get that you think anyone to the left of you must be a raging commie/socialist, but still. See, I'm aware that the left and the right do "bad" things. The reason I generally pick on the right is because of the massive hypocrisy they display on a regular basis. Hypocrisy you adamantly, stubbornly, religiously deny exists.


Hypocrisy that only exists if you buy the strawman version of conservatives created by the Left. So you may not be a liberal, but you certainly buy their BS hook, line, and sinker.

Quote:
I'm sorry your soul is so empty. I'm saddened that you care so little for anything outside yourself. Perhaps, one day, you'll learn to value people as people and not things.


And here come the personal attacks. Right on schedule. It's like there's a script you follow or something:

1. Make wild accusation
2. When it's refuted, deny it and demand proof.
3. When proof is provided, argue it's not sufficient.
4. When even more proof and solid argument is provided, start calling the other guy names.


You can't counter the position so you attack the person. You really don't get that this only shows your own weakness, right? If you have a point to make, make it. If your strongest argument is to attack or make fun of the other guy, you've already lost. And if you had a decent amount of self reflection, you might just ask why you hold the position(s) you do in the first place.

Sigh...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#27 Mar 03 2017 at 10:44 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,141 posts
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
I'm sorry your soul is so empty. I'm saddened that you care so little for anything outside yourself. Perhaps, one day, you'll learn to value people as people and not things.


And here come the personal attacks. Right on schedule. It's like there's a script you follow or something:

1. Make wild accusation
2. When it's refuted, deny it and demand proof.
3. When proof is provided, argue it's not sufficient.
4. When even more proof and solid argument is provided, start calling the other guy names.


You can't counter the position so you attack the person. You really don't get that this only shows your own weakness, right? If you have a point to make, make it. If your strongest argument is to attack or make fun of the other guy, you've already lost.Sigh...
I note with some interest that you in no way refute what I wrote, there.Smiley: laugh


gbaji wrote:
And if you had a decent amount of self reflection, you might just ask why you hold the position(s) you do in the first place.
I hold that the greatest gift one can give is to lay down his own life for another and all that implies. You, on the other hand, would never consider doing such a thing as it is anathema to all you hold dear.

THAT'S the difference between you and me.


____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
#28 Mar 03 2017 at 11:42 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,245 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
I hold that the greatest gift one can give is to lay down his own life for another and all that implies.


While I hold that the greatest gift one can give oneself it to lay down, and take a nap!
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#29 Mar 06 2017 at 8:47 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,198 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
THAT'S the difference between you and me.
There's also no need for self reflection when he just repeats the party line.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#30 Mar 06 2017 at 1:17 PM Rating: Excellent
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,141 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
THAT'S the difference between you and me.
There's also no need for self reflection when he just repeats the party line.
I'm strangely compelled to save him from damnation.Smiley: nod
____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
#31 Mar 06 2017 at 3:24 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,726 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
I'm sorry your soul is so empty. I'm saddened that you care so little for anything outside yourself. Perhaps, one day, you'll learn to value people as people and not things.


And here come the personal attacks. Right on schedule. It's like there's a script you follow or something:

I note with some interest that you in no way refute what I wrote, there.Smiley: laugh


Interesting that you failed to make the same observation with regard to your own post.

Quote:
I hold that the greatest gift one can give is to lay down his own life for another and all that implies.


That's wonderful and all, but I'm not sure how that is in any way related to behavior in which you make incorrect claims about someone's position on a political issue (like insisting that "most conservatives" claimed that Obama was not a US citizen, for example), and use it as some kind of straw man in a political discussion. Surely you don't view that action as "laying down your life"?

Quote:
THAT'S the difference between you and me.


No. I'd say that the biggest difference between you and me (at least in terms of political discourse) is that I at least make an effort to make a point, stick to that point, and defend that point. Whereas you tend to make a point, then when it's refuted, pivot to another point, then when that's refuted, just pivot to yet another point, and then when that's refuted and the other guy observes that you're evading any sort of challenge to your position, you start calling that person names and making claims about their personality, morals, ethics, etc.

It's a pretty standard patterns though, and you're not remotely the only person who follows it. But it's still pretty blatantly there. I've observed it many times over the years. I mean, I get it. It's an effective debating tactic. What I don't get is that when I press on it and try to dig, there never seems to be anything underneath the debating tactic. You use such tactics to influence other people to believe something. But it's never the reason you yourself believe it. What I've wondered for years is if people who do this honestly do have a "real" reason for holding a position, but steadfastly refuse to talk about it, preferring instead to use debating tricks to try to win people over, or if they actually don't have any reason at all for said position, but were just influenced by someone using such tactics previously and just never went back to examine it for "the truth".

____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#32 Mar 06 2017 at 3:33 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,141 posts
Could it be, gbaji, that sometimes I'm making a serious point and sometimes just poking you with a stick and you can't discern which is which?
____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
#33 Mar 06 2017 at 3:37 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,141 posts
ALSO:

gbaji wrote:
(like insisting that "most conservatives" claimed that Obama was not a US citizen, for example)
Go ahead and quote my post that said "most".

It's almost like you lie and then insist that what you say is true. You are an exemplary conservative, sir.
____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
#34 Mar 06 2017 at 6:19 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,726 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
ALSO:

gbaji wrote:
(like insisting that "most conservatives" claimed that Obama was not a US citizen, for example)
Go ahead and quote my post that said "most".

It's almost like you lie and then insist that what you say is true. You are an exemplary conservative, sir.


Seriously?

Friar Bijou wrote:
Really? You can't think of a prominent American that most conservatives repeatedly claimed wasn't American? Did your dope dealer drop a brick of cocaine on your head?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#35 Mar 06 2017 at 7:29 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,245 posts
Alternative Facts.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#36 Mar 06 2017 at 8:18 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
34,726 posts
I'm sure he'll just claim that this was an example of him poking me with a stick, and I'm just too dumb or whatever to realize it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#37 Mar 06 2017 at 11:48 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,141 posts
gbaji wrote:
I'm sure he'll just claim that this was an example of him poking me with a stick, and I'm just too dumb or whatever to realize it.
Actually, I'll admit I fucked up and rate you up.


Happy now?









"Many" will work. Or did I hallucinate story after story from the right claiming that BS?
____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
#39 Mar 07 2017 at 8:16 AM Rating: Good
******
49,198 posts
gbaji wrote:
You use such tactics to influence other people to believe something.
You almost exclusively use hypotheticals, anecdotes and rhetorical questions incorrectly as evidence and facts and you're telling anyone that they use trick tactics to influence people? There aren't enough onions and ogres.
gbaji wrote:
I'm just too dumb or whatever to realize it.
Well, you did spend a page ranting about the historical accuracy of a mummy joke, so there is precedents.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#40 Mar 07 2017 at 8:35 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Friar Bijou wrote:
"Many" will work. Or did I hallucinate story after story from the right claiming that BS?

They weren't questioning Obama's citizenship, they were "just asking questions". Right, Gbaji?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#41 Mar 07 2017 at 9:14 AM Rating: Excellent
It's going to go to the supreme court any day now.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#42 Mar 07 2017 at 11:43 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,127 posts
Speaking of birtherism and other ongoing feuds: one legal scholar has posited that accusing a past President of an impeachable offense (assuming it's proved baseless) may itself be an impeachable offense. This article doesn't quote that scholar, and I can't remember his name off the top of my head; but the article does contain the gist of his speculation.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#43 Mar 07 2017 at 12:03 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,161 posts
Samira wrote:
Speaking of birtherism and other ongoing feuds: one legal scholar has posited that accusing a past President of an impeachable offense (assuming it's proved baseless) may itself be an impeachable offense. This article doesn't quote that scholar, and I can't remember his name off the top of my head; but the article does contain the gist of his speculation.


Basically all arguments for impeachment are irrelevant, as they are unenforceable.

Right make might, Might makes right. Unempeachable legal theory.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#44 Mar 07 2017 at 12:21 PM Rating: Good
******
49,198 posts
You can gauge how inept the policy "he" is working on by the ridiculousness of the rectal spew of the mouth he releases to try to distract from it.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#45 Mar 07 2017 at 1:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,127 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Samira wrote:
Speaking of birtherism and other ongoing feuds: one legal scholar has posited that accusing a past President of an impeachable offense (assuming it's proved baseless) may itself be an impeachable offense. This article doesn't quote that scholar, and I can't remember his name off the top of my head; but the article does contain the gist of his speculation.


Basically all arguments for impeachment are irrelevant, as they are unenforceable.

Right make might, Might makes right. Unempeachable legal theory.


So GOTV for 2018.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#46 Mar 07 2017 at 2:50 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,161 posts
Samira wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
Samira wrote:
Speaking of birtherism and other ongoing feuds: one legal scholar has posited that accusing a past President of an impeachable offense (assuming it's proved baseless) may itself be an impeachable offense. This article doesn't quote that scholar, and I can't remember his name off the top of my head; but the article does contain the gist of his speculation.


Basically all arguments for impeachment are irrelevant, as they are unenforceable.

Right make might, Might makes right. Unempeachable legal theory.


So GOTV for 2018.


Usual political methodology, refinement targeted propaganda, GotV etc, refinement would Ideally be bribery of key demos would be employed in a less opaque fashion. There needs to be some decent synthetic tradgedy to exploit, that's been kinda missing from the lefts marketing. There is talk about Income inequality as the vector, but that's a term that doesn't resonate well with the people you need pickups of.

Picking a likeable candidate would help too. Some fault lies in badly litigated ACA.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#47 Mar 07 2017 at 7:16 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,726 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I'm sure he'll just claim that this was an example of him poking me with a stick, and I'm just too dumb or whatever to realize it.
Actually, I'll admit I fucked up and rate you up.


Happy now?


Smiley: yippee

Quote:
"Many" will work.


I do find it amusing how frequently the words "many" and "most" are swapped around, based on which is more convenient for the argument of the moment. I seem to recall seeing a number of posts on this forum claiming that Trump had falsely claimed that "most" illegal immigrants were violent criminals, rapists, murderers, etc, when the actual word he used was "many". Can't blame people for this though, since that's how the media mis-quoted him as well (well, they didn't put the word in quotes, so technically they didn't, but that's a distinction without much of a difference).

Quote:
Or did I hallucinate story after story from the right claiming that BS?


You didn't hallucinate. The question is whether your perception of the percentage of people who believed that Obama was not even a US citizen was remotely accurate. And I'd argue that there were many times more articles, blogs, posts, etc from folks on the Left making fun of "birthers" than there were from the birthers themselves. One side made this an issue to be determined in the court of public opinion, and it wasn't the side questioning whether Obama had actually provided sufficient proof of natural born citizenship.

And I'll point out again that most of those who were labeled as "birthers" (like myself), did not believe that Obama wasn't a citizen, nor even that he wasn't a natural born citizen (go back and read my posts on the subject), but rather believed that a constitutional requirement to hold the office of the president should not be treated as a joke to be laughed at, and that if there is any question at all, it should be followed up on, and resolved in the most above board manner possible. Obama did every thing he could to stretch the birther thing out as long as possible, precisely because it gained him support as long as it was out there and his surrogates could use it to point at conservatives and make fun of them for it. Which, btw, also required spreading the false claim that "most conservatives" believe <insert ridiculous thing here>. You find something that can be made to look ridiculous, and you tie it as broadly as possible to your political opponents. That's all this was for Obama and the Left.

So yeah. If your perception was out of whack with reality, it wasn't the folks on the right who were responsible. You were told the same incorrect thing you just repeated earlier (that "most conservatives" believe this). That's why you believe it. Someone one generation back told you the same thing. Then you repeat it. Then someone who hears you repeats it again. That's how that works.


Unfortunately, along the way, we've now got multiple court precedents that establish that no US citizen has any standing to challenge a president's natural born citizenship status. Not during the election. Not during the transition. Not even after the inauguration. Heck. Not even a member of the military, ordered to fight in a war, and to pass on orders that might later be determined to be invalid, has standing under our existing case precedent. Um... Great job guys. In your hast to make conservatives look dumb, you've managed to totally ***** up a pretty important bit of our law (it's in the freaking constitution, right?). But let's not let the possible future backlash get in the way of scoring some cheap political points today, right?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#48 Mar 07 2017 at 8:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Unfortunately, along the way, we've now got multiple court precedents that establish that no US citizen has any standing to challenge a president's natural born citizenship status. Not during the election. Not during the transition. Not even after the inauguration. Heck. Not even a member of the military, ordered to fight in a war, and to pass on orders that might later be determined to be invalid, has standing under our existing case precedent. Um... Great job guys. In your hast to make conservatives look dumb, you've managed to totally ***** up a pretty important bit of our law (it's in the freaking constitution, right?). But let's not let the possible future backlash get in the way of scoring some cheap political points today, right?

Yeah, the frantic conservative effort to make a court case out of this WAS very poorly thought out and implemented. "The Left" didn't really have anything to do with Orly Taitz harassing the courts and losing case after shoddy case. Justices Alito and Thomas* both separately rejected motions by Taitz to overturn her frivolous lawsuit fines, for heaven's sake. Liberal Conspiracy! Smiley: laugh

In the case of Cook, the lawsuit had no standing because the military had already discharged him. In the case of Rhodes, the judge basically ruled that the entire lawsuit was steaming garbage.

*In Gbaji's defense, the case DID make it to the Supreme Court, in a fashion. Granted, the question wasn't "Is Obama a citizen?" but rather "Are these Birther lawsuits so mind-numbingly retarded that this woman should have to pay $20,000 for wasting everyone's time with them?" The answer from our nation's greatest conservative legal minds was "Yes. Yes, they are."

Edited, Mar 7th 2017 8:53pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#49 Mar 07 2017 at 9:05 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,726 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Yeah, the frantic conservative effort to make a court case out of this WAS very poorly thought out and implemented.


Yeah... "frantic". Can't help but frame things in an emotional way, can you? The point is that the conservative approach was to work within the legal system, not go running around in the streets rioting and protesting. They actually attempted to use the courts to make their point, you know, like how our legal system is supposed to work. Which is in stark contrast to the liberal method of trying it in the court of public opinion, deliberately misrepresenting the other "sides" position, mocking that straw man, making sure to paint them in the worst light possible, going so far as to create an offensive label and threaten to apply it to anyone who dared even consider that they might just have a valid point, and otherwise doing everything they could, not to actually address whether we ought to have an actual process for determining whether an existing constitutional requirement to hold the highest office in our government has been met, but to just use the question itself as political fodder.

You honestly don't see a problem with the liberal methodology here? Do you get that the exact same form of belittling could be used to attack *any* position? There was nothing innately incorrect with the idea that we should maybe be able to ask that a person running for the office of president provide more than an electronic document via a third party on the internet. But that got lost in the "guilt by association" process used here, where anyone asking for that was labeled as a birther and assumed to be a part of the most nutty fringe possible.

You know, like you have done repeatedly to me. On this very forum. I have *never* argued that Obama was not a US citizen. Yet, because I agree that there is some validity to "the people" being able to require some greater form of documentation to establish natural born citizenship than what was presented, I'm lumped in with the craziest "birther" and my position on the issue is effectively ignored.

And yeah. I have a problem with that methodology. I have had a problem with it for a couple decades when the Left has done it. And I have a problem with it right now when Trump does it. The only real difference here is that I've been aware of how cheap and stupid this is for a long time, while many of you are just realizing it for the first time, since this is the first time a prominent member of the "other side" has actually used such tactics. And like I said earlier, you should be prepared to see more of this.


Quote:
"The Left" didn't really have anything to do with Orly Taitz harassing the courts and losing case after shoddy case.


Again. Stop with the emotional associations. The choice, by multiple judges, to dismiss every single case on standing, has zero to do with the qualifications, skills, or quality of the lawyer bringing the case. And that's yet more of the same problem. You're so focused on making fun of the person, that you're failing to see the actions by the courts, and how that affects precedent over time. It's not about who brought the case Joph. That you think so just shows how incredibly misaligned your thinking is on this.


Quote:
Justices Alito and Thomas both separately rejected motions by Taitz to overturn her frivolous lawsuit fines, for heaven's sake. Liberal Conspiracy! Smiley: laugh


Which is no way invalidates my position on this issue, or the position of many conservatives who are honestly concerned that this process has weakened a provision in the constitution.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#50 Mar 07 2017 at 9:14 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,726 posts
Jophiel wrote:
In the case of Cook, the lawsuit had no standing because the military had already discharged him.


The military discharged him because he raised the issue of the president having met the natural born citizenship requirement though. One can argue that this was done deliberately to avoid him actually having standing in the case.

Which is a lot like how local and state governments in the south would avoid challenges to their racist laws. They'd drop the charges or fines on anyone who looked like they might mount a legal challenge, and thus remove their standing to sue. It's a common tactic used to protect laws that those enforcing them know likely will not stand full court scrutiny. Those who comply get affected by the law and have to continue living under it. Those who fight, get their charges dropped. And the law stays on the books.

Quote:
In the case of Rhodes, the judge basically ruled that the entire lawsuit was steaming garbage.


Which is a ruling on merit, not standing. But instead of going through the actions of actually determining the merits of the case and generating a real ruling, he chose the cheap way out by dismissing on standing.

Um... Which is *not* how judges are supposed to act. He's entitled to his own opinion, but he's not allowed to rule on that opinion prior to evidence being presented. And in this case, the entire point of dismissing on standing was to prevent the evidence (Obama's long form birth certificate) from having to be examined. Which, in case you missed the point, was the entire and only thing the vast majority of those you label as "birthers" wanted. We just wanted one judge to look at the document in question and make a ruling. We'd have been happy as clams with that, no matter what the ruling was.

Remember when Obama finally released his long form birth certificate, and the entire issue went away (aside from the incredibly tiny conspiracy theory folks who always linger)? That's what tells you that this wasn't pushed by a majority who believed he wasn't a citizen (or even a natural born citizen). It was being pushed by people who wanted us to go through the legal process to make the determination. We were satisfied with the answer once the process was done.

Because that's how nations with laws actually uphold them. The alternative is the court of public opinion. Which is a really really poor way to do things.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#51 Mar 07 2017 at 9:27 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,141 posts
Just curious, gbaji...do you have you long form birth certificate?

I lost my original years and years ago yet strangely, the one I can go get at the county courthouse seems to be acceptable for all federal purposes.



So...without the original "long" form...I can't be President?
____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
« Previous 1 2 3
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 72 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (72)