I promise that I really am trying to let the whole ACLU series die off, but the universe seems determined not to let me do so. While I was away for the New Year, several of my friends started discussing Mr. Bill O'Reilly. I swear, I had nothing to do with bringing up this topic, but of course I could not restrain myself from joining in. One fellow insisted that O'Reilly never lies, he just presents the facts with his own editorial commentary. Well, this one's for you, Matt:
- On the January 3 edition of CBS' Late Show with David Letterman, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly appeared as a guest and resurrected his false claim that a Wisconsin elementary school banned the singing of the Christmas hymn "Silent Night."
...
But as the weblog Think Progress first noted, O'Reilly and others have falsely attributed the changed lyrics to political correctness. For example, on the December 9 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly stated that Ridgewood Elementary School in Dodgeville, Wisconsin, "forced the kids to sing" the different lyrics. The conservative legal group Liberty Counsel condemned what it called the "secularized rendition" of the song, which it claimed "mocks one of the world's best-known Christmas songs," and threatened to sue the school district.
Think Progress further explained that the play's creator, Dwight Elrich, is the musical director of the New Covenant Singers at Bel Air Presbyterian Church in Los Angeles -- which a December 20 Washington Post article noted was "former president Ronald and Nancy Reagan's church in California" -- and his play has been performed by churches across the country. According to Elrich's website, his products "make it easy for you to produce a fantastic Kids Christmas Musical Program." Elrich told the Post: "I'm just flabbergasted. I'm a choir director in a church! I perform 'Silent Night' 40 or 50 times each year! I thought the play was a really charming, wonderful, positive story about love and acceptance ... removing it from the Christian tradition was something I never thought anyone could ever come up with. We were telling a story about a little tree, so we used a familiar tune to help the kids get it."
Bill O'Reilly says that the lyrics to "Silent Night" were secularized by the evil forces of political correctness that so devistatingly ravaged Christmas 2005. In reality, a church choir director wrote the altered lyrics nearly 20 years ago, and churches around the country have been performing the musical play ever since. O'Reilly's "mistake" has been clearly exposed many times, perhaps most notably by Think Progress back on December 14th, yet almost a month later he is still trying to loofa his ego with lies.
24 Comments:
I don't care whether the motive was secular fascism (n., an evil and discriminatory plot to acknowledge that not everyone in America is Christian) or boredom, noone should screw with Silent Night. Mess with the thrice damned Little Drummer Boy if you've got artistic "vision".
Ministers Say They Blessed
Seats Ahead of Alito Hearing
By JUNE KRONHOLZ
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
January 5, 2006 7:20 p.m.
WASHINGTON -- Insisting that God "certainly needs to be involved" in the Supreme Court confirmation process, three Christian ministers today blessed the doors of the hearing room where Senate Judiciary Committee members will begin considering the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito on Monday.
Capitol Hill police barred them from entering the room to continue what they called a consecration service. But in a bit of one-upsmanship, the three announced that they had let themselves in a day earlier, touching holy oil to the seats where Judge Alito, the senators, witnesses, Senate staffers and the press will sit, and praying for each of the 13 committee members by name.
"We did adequately apply oil to all the seats," said the Rev. Rob Schenck, who identified himself as an evangelical Christian and as president of the National Clergy Council in Washington.
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB113649645107138940-Ku05eyOWs5xFbqD33aaAarliwqo_20060112.html?mod=blogs
It is my opinion that the Liberty Counsel's use of the threat of litigation to force a school to use only lyrics that that organization feels are appropriate is tantamount to the infringement of the free-speech rights of the school.
As for O'Reilly, I will not try to theorize whether his comments about the incident stem from a lack of knowledge or an attempt to push information into the public arena that he knows to be false (aka a lie). If it is truly a simple mistake where he had bad sources or found inaccurate facts, he absolutely MUST provide a full retraction. To not do so would seriously impact his credibility.
CF
"If it is truly a simple mistake where he had bad sources or found inaccurate facts, he absolutely MUST provide a full retraction. To not do so would seriously impact his credibility."
Did you stealthily change subjects mid-paragraph again, or are you still referring to Fox's Bill O'Reilly?
Also, how sure are you that you have good sources and accurate facts about which of us belongs to an "ilk" that doesn't respect our troops?:
Extra Armor Could Have Saved Many Lives, Study Shows
By MICHAEL MOSS
Published: January 6, 2006
A secret Pentagon study has found that at least 80 percent of the marines who have been killed in Iraq from wounds to their upper body could have survived if they had extra body armor. That armor has been available since 2003 but until recently the Pentagon has largely declined to supply it to troops despite calls from the field for additional protection, according to military officials.
The ceramic plates in vests currently worn by the majority of military personnel in Iraq cover only some of the chest and back. In at least 74 of the 93 fatal wounds that were analyzed in the Pentagon study of marines from March 2003 through June 2005, bullets and shrapnel struck the marines' shoulders, sides or areas of the torso where the plates do not reach.
Thirty-one of the deadly wounds struck the chest or back so close to the plates that simply enlarging the existing shields "would have had the potential to alter the fatal outcome," according to the study, which was obtained by The New York Times.
For the first time, the study by the military's medical examiner shows the cost in lost lives from inadequate armor, even as the Pentagon continues to publicly defend its protection of the troops. Officials have said they are shipping the best armor to Iraq as quickly as possible. At the same time, they have maintained that it is impossible to shield forces from the increasingly powerful improvised explosive devices used by insurgents. Yet the Pentagon's own study reveals the equally lethal threat of bullets.
The vulnerability of the military's body armor has been known since the start of the war, and is part of a series of problems that have surrounded the protection of American troops. Still, the Marine Corps did not begin buying additional plates to cover the sides of their troops until this September, when it ordered 28,800 sets, Marine Corps officials acknowledge.
http://nytimes.com/2006/01/06/politics/06cnd-armor.html?hp&ex=1136610000&en=cba30b2ab5b558f5&ei=5094&partner=homepage (If the link gets mangled, do a search for the title)
Author, I'm leaving for Rome on Tuesday. I will give His Holiness your compliments, as I assume you wholeheartedly approve of driving Catholics away from the Church.
"Did you stealthily change subjects mid-paragraph again, or are you still referring to Fox's Bill O'Reilly?"
I did not change subjects mid-paragraph.
CF
Self improvement? Excellent.
Reposted for the usual reason:
Also, how sure are you that you have good sources and accurate facts about which of us belongs to an "ilk" that doesn't respect our troops?:
Extra Armor Could Have Saved Many Lives, Study Shows
By MICHAEL MOSS
Published: January 6, 2006
A secret Pentagon study has found that at least 80 percent of the marines who have been killed in Iraq from wounds to their upper body could have survived if they had extra body armor. That armor has been available since 2003 but until recently the Pentagon has largely declined to supply it to troops despite calls from the field for additional protection, according to military officials.
The ceramic plates in vests currently worn by the majority of military personnel in Iraq cover only some of the chest and back. In at least 74 of the 93 fatal wounds that were analyzed in the Pentagon study of marines from March 2003 through June 2005, bullets and shrapnel struck the marines' shoulders, sides or areas of the torso where the plates do not reach.
Thirty-one of the deadly wounds struck the chest or back so close to the plates that simply enlarging the existing shields "would have had the potential to alter the fatal outcome," according to the study, which was obtained by The New York Times.
For the first time, the study by the military's medical examiner shows the cost in lost lives from inadequate armor, even as the Pentagon continues to publicly defend its protection of the troops. Officials have said they are shipping the best armor to Iraq as quickly as possible. At the same time, they have maintained that it is impossible to shield forces from the increasingly powerful improvised explosive devices used by insurgents. Yet the Pentagon's own study reveals the equally lethal threat of bullets.
The vulnerability of the military's body armor has been known since the start of the war, and is part of a series of problems that have surrounded the protection of American troops. Still, the Marine Corps did not begin buying additional plates to cover the sides of their troops until this September, when it ordered 28,800 sets, Marine Corps officials acknowledge.
http://nytimes.com/2006/01/06/politics/06cnd-armor.html?hp&ex=1136610000&en=cba30b2ab5b558f5&ei=5094&partner=homepage (If the link gets mangled, do a search for the title)
I don't know why you want me to respond to that question. Let me present to you why it doesn't interest me:
1. I didn't say either of us had "an "ilk" that doesn't respect our troops".
2. You have used the word "ilk" in quotations dozens of times here and I can't figure out why. I don't even know what type of person you are considering your ilk and my ilk. I don't know.
3. The Times article you attached to your question didn't indicate that any particular type of person, or ilk, doesn't respect our troops.
4. I agree that the troops should have better body armor if it will save lives (which I think is why you posted the article; I can't be sure because you didn't make a point).
5. The post was completely off topic. I promise that if you start your own blog I will come over to it and comment on things if you want me to, but until then why don't we just discuss what ZDK brings up. If someone wanted to call me an idiot for something I said in my comment, I'd like them to have that chance, rather than have them skip the whole comments thread because there is a huge discussion about an entirely diffent subject.
(cont.)
6. You ignore things I say in old threads all the time. I typically chalk it up to the assumption that you don't have anything else to say on the topic.
CF
==1. I didn't say either of us had "an "ilk" that doesn't respect our troops".==
Do you tell yourself you're honest and intelligent, "a man" and "a wolf", an ally of those "truth monsters", and that you have any sense of honor or integrity, it just so happens that you have no qualities that would stop you from making such a blatant and easily exposed lie?
==2. You have used the word "ilk" in quotations dozens of times here and I can't figure out why. I don't even know what type of person you are considering your ilk and my ilk. I don't know.==
You don't know what you're talking about? You don't understand or accept responsibility for your own words? I'm shocked, shocked.
4(cont.)You have just been caught in a lie. You cannot be metrosexual and gay, so the joke was NOT the Kerry was gay. Quite the opposite.
5. Obviously, you cannot point out 5 points where you agree with Bush and not Kerry. That's because you're a sheep.
6. I am all for self-improvement. Point out one time I've been proven wrong and not corrected myself.
7. I understand your ilk and their bemusement at insulting our military. I, however, will not participate in such a discussion.
Citizen F | 11.12.04 - 10:24 am
==3. The Times article you attached to your question didn't indicate that any particular type of person, or ilk, doesn't respect our troops.==
You say that because you depend on "news" that spoon feeds you your views. You're incapable of analyzing facts. What's your interpretation of the lack of equipment for troops who have been fighting a premeditated war for almost three years?
==4. I agree that the troops should have better body armor if it will save lives (which I think is why you posted the article; I can't be sure because you didn't make a point).==
I admit I didn't post a "talking point" and therefore should not have expected you to understand. It's nice that you "agree that the troops should have better body armor if it will save lives". Do you see any evidence that it would? Do you have any "truth monsters" saying it won't? If it would (follow the hypothetical), would you feel someone was to blame for its absence?
==5a. The post was completely off topic. I promise that if you start your own blog I will come over to it and comment on things if you want me to, but until then why don't we just discuss what ZDK brings up.==
Is that how you got to this site? If I had a blog I certainly wouldn't invite you, as I've never asked if you have one. You're Author's cheap comic relief, not mine, although I don't doubt you'll successfully tell yourself it's because I'm afraid of your staggering intellect and your terrifying "truth monsters". But here's the main reason I wouldn't want you to contribute to a website of mine: Can you name a position you've ever taken that isn't either stupid beyond belief or worthy of a smarter advocate (and easy to find one for?) Just one, "wolf", just one.
5b ==If someone wanted to call me an idiot for something I said in my comment, I'd like them to have that chance, rather than have them skip the whole comments thread because there is a huge discussion about an entirely diffent subject.==
I think it's a pretty safe guess that 90% or more of what you say is thought idiotic by everyone on this site (no doubt because we're "sheep"). If you think anyone would disagree, please have them say so. This should be fun.
==6. You ignore things I say in old threads all the time. I typically chalk it up to the assumption that you don't have anything else to say on the topic.==
What is this supposed to respond to?
1. You can respect the troops in the military while enjoying insulting the military. It is just like insulting Wal-Mart but having respect for the workers at Wal-Mart or insulting GM while having respect for guys busting their ass on an assembly line in Detroit. The entity (Wal-Mart, GM or the military) can be treated and discussed seperately from the individual parts of that entity. To say that we must always approve of all actions and tactics of the military if we are to claim that we respect the troops is both inaccurate and irresponsible. We must be able to critique the military, but we shouldn't disrespect the troops. I didn't say you had an ilk that disrespected the troops, only that you had an ilk who enjoyed insulting the military. By the way, I don't necessarily stand by that statement, since it seems you might not actually ENJOY insulting the military, you might just sometimes make those necessary critiques that I mentioned. There is an ilk that enjoys insulting the military, I just don't know if you are part of it anymore. I might have been wrong about that and, if I was, I apologize.
2. You still haven't explained what type of person is my ilk or why you feel such a type of person is my ilk. Perhaps you should look the word up.
3. My assessment is that someone within the military didn't make a good assessment. They should have been able to determine what the needs of the troops would be upfront, rather than having to act on the results of a study later. If they didn't respect the troops, though, they wouldn't have conducted the study.
4. I have heard reports that additional body armor may inhibit the ability of troops to manuevre in the field due to the extra weight and added heat. I have also heard reports, such as the one you mentioned, that additional body armor would have saved lives. Whether that armor was available to those troops or their commanders and said troops/commanders choose not to where it or equip their troops is unknown to me. I have heard conflicting reports. I am not in the field so I cannot know the true pros and cons of wearing an extra 20lbs (or whatever it is) of potentially life-saving equipment. I just think that if it would save lives, it should be available. Those final decisions as to what each soldier should wear should not be made by people like you and me.
5a. Every position is worthy of a smarter advocate. If people only stated their position when they were the smartest person that agreed with that position, our democracy would cease to function. But, I have taken many positions that weren't stupid. Here's one, per your request: "It is my opinion that the Liberty Counsel's use of the threat of litigation to force a school to use only lyrics that that organization feels are appropriate is tantamount to the infringement of the free-speech rights of the school."
Can you meet your own criteria? Can you name a position you've taken that isn't either stupid beyond belief or worthy of a smarter advocate?
5b. Some people think that something is idiotic, stupid or dishonest every time they disagree with you. Their close-mindedness is not my concern.
6. I presented 6 reasons that I did not respond to your question. That was the sixth reason I didn't respond.
I'm still trying to figure out how armor in Iraq relates to Bill O'Reilly or the late show. Any chance your going to explain why it is or, if it isn't, why you don't post new topics that interest you on a blog of your own (which I would not be "invited" to)?
CF
==1. You can respect the troops in the military while enjoying insulting the military. It is just like insulting Wal-Mart but having respect for the workers at Wal-Mart or insulting GM while having respect for guys busting their ass on an assembly line in Detroit. The entity (Wal-Mart, GM or the military) can be treated and discussed seperately from the individual parts of that entity. To say that we must always approve of all actions and tactics of the military if we are to claim that we respect the troops is both inaccurate and irresponsible. We must be able to critique the military, but we shouldn't disrespect the troops. I didn't say you had an ilk that disrespected the troops, only that you had an ilk who enjoyed insulting the military. By the way, I don't necessarily stand by that statement, since it seems you might not actually ENJOY insulting the military, you might just sometimes make those necessary critiques that I mentioned. There is an ilk that enjoys insulting the military, I just don't know if you are part of it anymore. I might have been wrong about that and, if I was, I apologize.==
So does that make your previous defense that I had insulted your uncle (at the time of the insulting known as your unburnable source) inoperative? Or is he the institution, rather than a member?
==2. You still haven't explained what type of person is my ilk or why you feel such a type of person is my ilk. Perhaps you should look the word up.==
Your ilk are people you immitate. You used the word long before I did and cannot seem to justify your use of it, nor have you shown much competene with the English language, so perhaps you should look it up.
==3. My assessment is that someone within the military didn't make a good assessment. They should have been able to determine what the needs of the troops would be upfront, rather than having to act on the results of a study later. If they didn't respect the troops, though, they wouldn't have conducted the study.==
So you blame the military rather than the Bush administration. Rather predictable of you, don't you think?
==4. I have heard reports that additional body armor may inhibit the ability of troops to manuevre in the field due to the extra weight and added heat. I have also heard reports, such as the one you mentioned, that additional body armor would have saved lives. Whether that armor was available to those troops or their commanders and said troops/commanders choose not to where it or equip their troops is unknown to me. I have heard conflicting reports. I am not in the field so I cannot know the true pros and cons of wearing an extra 20lbs (or whatever it is) of potentially life-saving equipment. I just think that if it would save lives, it should be available. Those final decisions as to what each soldier should wear should not be made by people like you and me.==
The military is acting, however many months and lives to late, to provide that armor. But considering the conclusions you've jumped to before, it's probably good that you're not being hasty here.
==5a1. Every position is worthy of a smarter advocate. If people only stated their position when they were the smartest person that agreed with that position, our democracy would cease to function.==
You sure do like to talk about the end of our democracy or republic. I'll assume that's a style you learned from O'Reilly, although you're certainly a drama queen on your own. Unfortunately it's irrelevant, because I didn't say only the smartest person should say anything. Everyone is entitled to competent legal defense, that does not mean everyone should get Darrow. The point was, obviously, that aside from the positions you take that are too outrageously stupid for anyone to defend well or for any self respecting person to associate themself with at all, there are people smarter than you readily available and those are the ones I would want to argue with if I had a blog.
5a2. ==But, I have taken many positions that weren't stupid. Here's one, per your request: "It is my opinion that the Liberty Counsel's use of the threat of litigation to force a school to use only lyrics that that organization feels are appropriate is tantamount to the infringement of the free-speech rights of the school."==
I never said or implied that every position you took was stupid.
5a3 ==Can you meet your own criteria? Can you name a position you've taken that isn't either stupid beyond belief or worthy of a smarter advocate?==
My position that the war in Iraq has weakened our position vs. Iran seems to be panning out unfortunately well, although there wasn't much opportunity to argue it because all you could do was scream "abomination" at my claim that our forces and projects in Iraq served as hostages to Iran's ability to stir up problems there. You were annoyingly complimentary of points I'd argued in defense of faith and against abortion, but go ahead and tell yourself I've never intelligently advocated a position. Can you name a stupid position I've taken, or one I've argued stupidly?
==5b. Some people think that something is idiotic, stupid or dishonest every time they disagree with you. Their close-mindedness is not my concern.==
Right, because we all agree on every single issue and thus disagree with you "every time", and that
is why you're regarded as an idiot. Because we are close minded.
==6a I presented 6 reasons that I did not respond to your question. That was the sixth reason I didn't respond.==
Fair enough. On what criteria do you decide whether I "typically chalk it up to the assumption that you don't have anything else to say on the topic", or whether I "clam up" because I am powerless against your mighty "truth monsters"?
6b I'm just curious as to whether you even realize that your point comes down to my failure to have the last word on every single thread, when you obviously have so much more time than I to spend on the blog of an old friend of mine's whom you despise.
the misplaced "I" in the last paragraph should be "to"
1. I don't know what you're talking about. Wasn't my comment in response to your initiation of a discussion about admission requirements for the military?
2. "Your ilk are people you immitate."
That's not what "ilk" means, at least not as I've used it or as I've seen it defined. I used it as a synonym for "group" or "type". For instance, in the quote you presented, I meant, "I understand [the group of people who act in ways similar to you] and their bemusement at insulting the military". Ilk just flowed better. You asked me to look it up, so I've done that for you. Check out the various definitions here if you are curious:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=definition+ilk&btnG=Google+Search
3. Bush is the commander-in-chief of the military. He runs the show. Of course he holds responsibility for putting people and procedures in place to make sure the military doesn't make bad decisions. Who do you blame? Are you going to take a position or are you just going to critique my positions?
4. I guess I'll just agree with you here.
5a1. "The point was, obviously, that aside from the positions you take that are too outrageously stupid for anyone to defend well or for any self respecting person to associate themself with at all, there are people smarter than you readily available and those are the ones I would want to argue with if I had a blog."
As I said, I won't claim to be the smartest person available on the internet to make any point. There are people smarter than me with whom I agree. That is a lofty criteria for admittance to a discussion, but it is your fictious blog so you can make the fictious rules. What's ironic is that the smartest person in the world with a certian viewpoint would be smart enough to calculate the slim odds of him/her being the smartest person in the world with that viewpoint and disqualify himself/herself from the discussion based on your criteria.
5a2. Understood. I just didn't want to discover later that I misunderstood your request.
5a3. This position doesn't yet meet your criteria. You haven't presented evidence that this position is not worthy of a smarty advocate.
==5b. Some people think that something is idiotic, stupid or dishonest every time they disagree with you. Their close-mindedness is not my concern.==
"Right, because we all agree on every single issue and thus disagree with you "every time", and that
is why you're regarded as an idiot. Because we are close minded."
That is an idiotic comment. I don't understand why you would expend the energy to press your fingers on a keyboard to present such meaningless garble. What have I said that indicates you or anyone else disagrees with me "every time"?
6a. Depends on the situation. When you or anyone else ask me for evidence and then, upon presentation of said evidence, doesn't respond, then accuses me of not presenting the evidence, I consider it "clam up". Otherwise, usually just a lack of interest. Why?
6b1. I'm not in the business of despising people and I don't appreciate your invention of that sentiment.
6b2. It's true that I like having the last word. Partly because if you take the time to read and respond to my post, I feel a sort of moral obligation to read it. Also because you have accused me of not responding so many times I don't want to give you ammunition. I completely agree that you are not obligated to continue conversations that aren't interesting to you. That's why it confuses me when you say "Reposted for the usual reason:" You don't respond to everything I say, why do you expect me to respond to something that I have no interest in commenting on? If we were discussing it and I avoided that specific bit of evidence I could understand, but it was off-topic.
I don't expect you to respond to all of my posts. However, I'd think you'd take the time to respond if you said "Put up or shut up" then I gave you evidence. If you ask me to research something, like ZDK did about MM, I think that a simple response is warranted. But if you just lose interest, than I say let it die. Just don't expect me to respond to it later in a different thread. We can go back to that thread if we have to, but I won't necessarily continue the discussion in a new one. I hope that clarifies my opinion on those things.
CF
I'll respond to that all within a few days, but you need serious correcting on point 5 before we can go on.
==5a1. "The point was, obviously, that aside from the positions you take that are too outrageously stupid for anyone to defend well or for any self respecting person to associate themself with at all, there are people smarter than you readily available and those are the ones I would want to argue with if I had a blog."
As I said, I won't claim to be the smartest person available on the internet to make any point. There are people smarter than me with whom I agree. That is a lofty criteria for admittance to a discussion, but it is your fictious blog so you can make the fictious rules.==
This was clear from the start, so I can only assume something beyond merely weak intellect compells you to act as if I'd said only the smartest person was qualified even after I had to condescendingly explain it. I said " worthy of a smarter advocate (and easy to find one for?". That clearly means that for any position you take, aside from those you've taken that are too ridiculously stupid for any smart person to want to associate themselves with it) I could easily find someone smarter than you , which is an exceptionally far cry from smartest on earth.
==5a2. Understood. I just didn't want to discover later that I misunderstood your request.==
In that case what was the relevance of your answer to the challenge? You threw it back at me, and I met it, so why don't you?
==5a3. This position doesn't yet meet your criteria. You haven't presented evidence that this position is not worthy of a smarty advocate.==
I defended you from Author's charge that you were "playing" stupid, but now I'm wondering if your sincere idiocy, no matter how grand, can really cover this. You're ignoring the plain meaning of a simple statement and the further explanation to pretend I said something you cannot present any reason to believe I said.
5a1. No matter how smart I was, you could ALWAYS find someone smarter than me on the internet if you tried hard enough.
==5a2. Understood. I just didn't want to discover later that I misunderstood your request.==
"In that case what was the relevance of your answer to the challenge? You threw it back at me, and I met it, so why don't you?"
I believed you were asking for a position that met both criteria (not stupid and not worthy of a smarter advocate) but I feared I might have misunderstood. As such, I provided a position that wasn't stupid but is worthy of a smarter advocate. I believe that it is exceedingly egocentric to believe there is a single position I hold that is not in some way worthy of a smarter advocate (it's been said that a truly wise man understands the limits of his own wisdom), so I thought it was possible that you just wanted an example of any position you didn't find stupid. To further clarify your criteria, I asked that you provide an example of one of your positions that meets that criteria. Does that answer your question about my motives for presenting that opinion and requesting yours?
==5a3. This position doesn't yet meet your criteria. You haven't presented evidence that this position is not worthy of a smarty advocate.==
"You're ignoring the plain meaning of a simple statement and the further explanation to pretend I said something you cannot present any reason to believe I said."
The position you presented does not meet your criteria to a greater extent then the position I presented. If you disagree (as I suspect you do) please explain why your position meets the criteria but mine doesn't.
CF
You've passed the point where I can believe even your stupidity explains this. I never said you had to be the smartest person to hold an opinion, or the smartest person within reach. The point is that I would not seek out your company as you've sought out this blog, because there is no value beyond cheap comic relief to your arguing. I frequently argue with people over the value of the war in Iraq, and I prefer to argue with people who are intelligent and know their facts, not dumb ideologues who can only spout talking points and don't know even the basic facts regarding Iraq's population, neighbors, etc. Are you easier to argue with? Certainly. But it's like chopping through particularly filthy slush. I'm not like you, I don't need to believe that for someone to disagree with me they must be a "sheep" or a "lemming" or agree with a candidate on "every single issue", so I neither seek out such people nor claim that the people who contradict my views meet those cheap insults without overwhelming evidence. I want to argue with people like Author who test my views, and refine those views when they need it or break them if they deserve it. You're too dumb to teach mw anything and too arrogant to learn much. So, as I've said clearly and now explained repeatedly, there is no position that you've argued very well, and the only positions I couldn't easily find someone to argue better are those that no intelligent person would touch. Are you the smartest person I know of who asserts that Evolution is flawed because it claims that we descend from monkies? Absolutely. That was a redneck talking point 80 years ago, most have moved on. So if I ever wanted to argue that point, I would come to you. I've actually sought out people to defend your claim that the French sold our flight plans to Saddam, and although I know many people who still support the war and very few people who don't despise at least the French government (most despise the population, at least Parisians, and some detest the whole concept), noone will touch it, although a few wish it were true. But any position an intelligent person would take, I'd prefer to argue with an intelligent and informed person. I've tried to be wordy enough for you, now do you finally understand?
==5a3. This position doesn't yet meet your criteria. You haven't presented evidence that this position is not worthy of a smarty advocate.==
"You're ignoring the plain meaning of a simple statement and the further explanation to pretend I said something you cannot present any reason to believe I said."
The position you presented does not meet your criteria to a greater extent then the position I presented. If you disagree (as I suspect you do) please explain why your position meets the criteria but mine doesn't.==
Please try that again, with some facts or evidence or at least an example. Somewhere between the convolutions and the apparent irrelevance, I can't quite grasp the meaning of your stunning and dizzying intellect. Brains of a "sheep" you know.
"I'm not like you, I don't need to believe that for someone to disagree with me they must be a "sheep" or a "lemming" or agree with a candidate on "every single issue","
Yet you continue to call me a sheep and an idealogue without any explanation for those accusations other than the fact that I hold a differing opinion. I called you a sheep for not providing specific examples of where you disagreed with the party line. When you provided those examples, I retracted the accusation and I stand by that retraction today. I apologize, again, for calling you a sheep. You continue to call me a sheep and accuse me of being an ideologue despite countless examples of my disagreements with Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, the GOP and everyone else I am alledgedly following like a sheep. You are criticizing me for doing once what you've done in repetition. How do you justify that?
"Are you the smartest person I know of who asserts that Evolution is flawed because it claims that we descend from monkies? "
When did I assert that? If you are the smartest and most intelligent of us, present your case that you aren't just making up lies to build your point.
"I've tried to be wordy enough for you, now do you finally understand?"
Let's see, what do we have:
I'm a "dumb ideologues who can only spout talking points"
And yet you're "not like [me], [you] don't need to believe that for someone to disagree with [you]they must be a "sheep" or a "lemming"..."
Ok. I understand so far, let's keep going.
You say, "You're too dumb to teach [me] anything and too arrogant to learn much."
Yet I've asked opinions from both you and ZDK on everything from evolution to ACLU adversaries and I've reversed my positions, such as I did on WND, when evidence proved it warrented. Ok. I still understand.
You say "there is no position that you've argued very well"
But you have been unwilling or unable to follow links that I've placed in discussions so you'd have no real knowledge of whether this was true. Ok, I still understand.
You say, "Are you the smartest person I know of who asserts that Evolution is flawed because it claims that we descend from monkies? Absolutely."
Yet I never made that assertion. I understand better, now.
Finally, you say, "But any position an intelligent person would take, I'd prefer to argue with an intelligent and informed person."
If you can provide an example of where you've provided evidence for a position and I have argued with you about it but not provided evidence of my own, I will be surprised. As it stands, I can't think of an example. Therefore, I still understand.
What do I understand? I understand that you feel you disagree with me on a lot of things and that you consider me stupid. You feel that you need to make up assertions I've made to justify that conclusion. I understand that you don't have any examples of when I've made assertions that you have called idiotic that I haven't retracted or provided evidence to support. I understand that you disagree with me and as a result call me stupid and an ideologue. I understand.
5a3. So, in other words, you can't find any reason why the position I presented (regarding the Liberty Council) meets your criteria to a lesser extent than your position regarding Iraq/Iran. That's fine, as long as we both know that.
CF
=="I'm not like you, I don't need to believe that for someone to disagree with me they must be a "sheep" or a "lemming" or agree with a candidate on "every single issue","
Yet you continue to call me a sheep and an idealogue without any explanation for those accusations other than the fact that I hold a differing opinion.==
There you go again, do you have the slightest excuse for claiming that I have called you a sheep for holding a "differing opinion"? Do I agree consistently with everyone or anyone else you can name, and do I call them "sheep" for having that "differing opinion"?
==I called you a sheep for not providing specific examples of where you disagreed with the party line.==
That wasn't the first time you called me a sheep. But whatever you tell yourself is guarenteed to fool at least someone.
==When you provided those examples, I retracted the accusation and I stand by that retraction today. I apologize, again, for calling you a sheep.==
When your evidence that I am a sheep was that I thought the war had been mishandled and dislike Bush's Medicare bill, what does it tell you that you felt you were in the position to demand that I prove I wasn't? My guess is that it tells you you're honest and intelligent.
==You continue to call me a sheep and accuse me of being an ideologue despite countless examples of my disagreements with Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, the GOP and everyone else I am alledgedly following like a sheep. You are criticizing me for doing once what you've done in repetition. How do you justify that?==
You did it more than once, and I never claimed that you agreed with any of those people or anyone else on "every single issue". How stupid would that have been? I'm just not that into hyperbole, in addition to not being a "wolf" I'm also not a drama queen.
=="Are you the smartest person I know of who asserts that Evolution is flawed because it claims that we descend from monkies? "
When did I assert that? If you are the smartest and most intelligent of us, present your case that you aren't just making up lies to build your point.==
Now you're telling yourself that you didn't assert that Evolution would have to account for the chromosome difference between our chromosome count and that of our supposed monkey ancestors? If that's your opening, I'm going to be merciful and not read on.
"Do I agree consistently with everyone or anyone else you can name, and do I call them "sheep" for having that "differing opinion"?"
That's not relevant. Why you call me is all that's relevant. If it isn't because you disagree with me, why don't you just define "sheep" as you use the term and explain why I fit into this definition?
"That wasn't the first time you called me a sheep. But whatever you tell yourself is guarenteed to fool at least someone."
When was the last time?
"When your evidence that I am a sheep was that I thought the war had been mishandled and dislike Bush's Medicare bill, what does it tell you that you felt you were in the position to demand that I prove I wasn't?"
That is not true. You had not, up to that point, disagreed with the Democrats on ANY issues. That's the truth. Now, why do you call ME a sheep? Have you not seen a single issue where I disagree with the Republicans? Have I never said the Limbaugh or O'Reilly have erred? What's the reason?
"Now you're telling yourself that you didn't assert that Evolution would have to account for the chromosome difference between our chromosome count and that of our supposed monkey ancestors?"
I'm telling you I never asserted that "Evolution is flawed because it claims that we descend from monkies". I never asserted that. Indeed, I never asserted that evolution was flawed at all. In the October 4th thread, I asked how it explained certain things, with the preface that I didn't have a full grasp on the concept (by saying, "Here's a DNA/evolution question from someone who is not a biologist"). I asked, "How does a species lose chromosomes as it evolves?" And I asked, "So when monkey's were turning into humans, wouldn't similar genetic, species altering changes have to occur inside two newborn monkey's in the same clan at the same time in order for those monkey-like creatures to reproduce and create fertile offspring?" I closed with the important tid-bit: "I'm not saying I don't believe in evolution, I'm just trying to get some questions answered."
If I were asserting that evolution were flawed, would I say "I'm not saying I don't believe in evolution"? Of course not. If I were asserting that evolution were flawed, I would not ASK how it explained things, I would SAY it didn't explain things. This is just another example of you making things up to make your point. If you don't apologize for your "mistake" I will assume it was a lie.
CF
So you were repeating redneck talking points from the 1920s slandering evolution, but you weren't drawing conclusions from them, so it's not fair to say you called evolution "flawed", even after you made that big deal about me supposedly saying there was "proof positive" about evolution when you couldn't quote a phrase or sentence of mine that even implied that. I can't begin to comprehend how that thought process works, but since I'm leaving (yes, I'm sure you'll tell yourself I'm running away from your "truth monsters") I won't ask for an explanation. I apologize for saying that you called evolution was "flawed". Since you're not apologizing for your false claim to have only called me a sheep once it's awfully hypocritical for you to demand that apology, but since my pride would never survive being judged at a standard low enough to accomodate you, I do apologize.
And if it's true that I had not disagreed with the Democrats on "ANY" issues, how come your honesty and intelligence only allowed you to name two on which I agreed with them? Since you also dislike the Medicare bill and find at least some faults with Bush's handling of the war, it's clearly fair by your own standard to call you a "sheep". But you'd never allow the same standard to apply to you and an opponent, any more than to Democrats and Republicans would you? Also, the "last time" I remember you calling me a sheep was in October, but you didn't say otherwise until a few days ago and you simply replaced sheep with "lemming" and "ilk" that insults the military. You also told Author that she "probably" wished the President of the United States was dead, and cannot seem to conceive of anyone seriously criticizing Bush without being as brainless and partisan a hack as you are. Besides, if you were honest in thinking I was a "sheep", then one of us clearly is. As for defining "sheep", it's your term and you've never defined it concretely. But I'd say someone who thinks agreeing with the candidate you don't like on two issues makes someone a "sheep", claims that the frogs sold our flight plans to Saddam with no evidence and cannot defend his arguments, and who doesn't know even the basic simple facts of any matter he debates (Iraq, Iran, Biology, "theologists", American history, etc) is a pretty good candidate. You used to use the term "party line" a lot, in reference to me, so it might also be fair to mention that you vote with 100% consistency for Republican national candidates and called me a sheep when I've voted for both Republicans and Democrats. I hope that helps. That you thought it was intelligent, honest and noble to ask if my uncle had molested me doesn't make you a "sheep", I don't really want to know what it makes you.
And you can decide what you feel is "not relevant", no one thinks enough of your opinion to try and convince you. But since I clearly don't accuse people of being "sheep" (your term, weaselly hypocrite) for holding a "differing opinion" and you haven't retracted that claim when it was obviously false to begin with and has been proven untrue, much less apologized, by the standard you hold me to it must have been a lie. But we both know what you'll tell yourself, don't we?
Goodbye.
"As for defining "sheep", it's your term and you've never defined it concretely. But I'd say someone who thinks agreeing with the candidate you don't like on two issues makes someone a "sheep", claims that the frogs sold our flight plans to Saddam with no evidence and cannot defend his arguments, and who doesn't know even the basic simple facts of any matter he debates (Iraq, Iran, Biology, "theologists", American history, etc) is a pretty good candidate."
Great! Then, since I meet none of those criteria, I am not a "sheep". Thanks for that clarification. It is my term because I used it. But I defined clearly. Someone who agrees with their candidate on "every single issue". When you proved you were not one of those people I told you you were not a sheep. You have tried to base your definition on what I've done, which is disingenuous and silly, and still you cannot get it to fit to me. Still, you continue to use it. Why? I think it's because you disagree with me sometimes and because you don't like me. I think that's sad. Have fun working with Americorp, they do great work and I want to personally thank you for making the sacrifices that the organization will require. I hope you get a lot out of the experience and are able to help a lot of people, I mean that sincerely. Best of luck to you.
CF
=="As for defining "sheep", it's your term and you've never defined it concretely. But I'd say someone who thinks agreeing with the candidate you don't like on two issues makes someone a "sheep", claims that the frogs sold our flight plans to Saddam with no evidence and cannot defend his arguments, and who doesn't know even the basic simple facts of any matter he debates (Iraq, Iran, Biology, "theologists", American history, etc) is a pretty good candidate."
Great! Then, since I meet none of those criteria, I am not a "sheep". Thanks for that clarification. It is my term because I used it. But I defined clearly. Someone who agrees with their candidate on "every single issue".==
What a cowardly weasel. You absolutely met the criteria. You meet every point I laid out, and you can't even seem to dispute that when we've seen you have no shame about making extremely lame defenses of yourself (or Bush). Just to help you out, these are the criteria you meet "someone who thinks agreeing with the candidate you don't like on two issues makes someone a "sheep", claims that the frogs sold our flight plans to Saddam with no evidence and cannot defend his arguments, and who doesn't know even the basic simple facts of any matter he debates (Iraq, Iran, Biology, "theologists", American history, etc)"
Post a Comment
<< Home