War Room Lounge v97: Jesus Christ, you're even pedantic with foreplay.

Status
Not open for further replies.
You didn't continually misrepresent my position on Clinton? I'm pretty sure I've already posted a lot of evidence that definitively contradicts your account. How is there still even a discussion after that?

No, you didn't. You posted a comment by you saying you most preferred O'Malley. And, regardless of how transparently disingenuous and meaningless that comment was, you tried insisting it exonerated you from being the hysterical fanboy that you are. And, frankly, I never thought you near that level of full-throated worship until you freaked out about me mentioning that it was reasonable for casual voters to perceive Clinton as more a hawk than Trump in the 2016 general and decided that appreciating that reality in public opinion made me detached from reality.

The first part of this doesn't even make sense. And I can cite multiple discussions I had with your previous account so it definitively did come up many times before you recently restarted it (at which point I responded to it again).

I am not that person, so I have no interest in seeing you browbeat another person with your fanaticism.

Prying fanatics? What the flark are you blabbering about?

You said that the foreign policy differences that I highlighted - in re Iran, Venezuela, and Libya - were irrational and even implausible bases for authentic recognition of differences between the two candidates.

Bottom line is that this is a very simple issue. You have seen fit to lie about my views, and I object to it. You've persisted with your misrepresentation far beyond the point where you can plausibly claim that it's an honest mistake.

The bottom line is that I have never lied about your views, while you have continually tried to contort the back-and-forth away from one in which you're an obvious fanatic, flailing hysterically against the reality of 2016 public opinion and objective political analyses, and toward a more personal and apolitical one where you can smear me with childish insult-nicknames and repeatedly tag me into your bitch fits in other threads.
 
Have you ever seen the Monty Python reunion special?

I can't remember which actor that passed away before it was shot but he had a bit in his will saying if they did a show after he died (he had some terminal disease when he wrote it so he knew he was likely not going to be around) he had to be in every shot of the special.

So they had his urn, in every shot... and spilled it like.. twice only to vacuum it up.
 
The most striking thing about this government propaganda film from the black and white era is that it has gender neutral distribution of pronouns:

 
And did somebody make a subtle adjustment to the font on the forum page? It's an improvement. Either that or my eyes just became young again.
 
Have you ever seen the Monty Python reunion special?

I can't remember which actor that passed away before it was shot but he had a bit in his will saying if they did a show after he died (he had some terminal disease when he wrote it so he knew he was likely not going to be around) he had to be in every shot of the special.

So they had his urn, in every shot... and spilled it like.. twice only to vacuum it up.
You're talking about Graham Chapman. He died long before the reunion though. I think the rest of them looked up to him a lot. Poor bastard had the temerity to a doctor and be gay in 1960s-70s England so he had a rough time. But he might have been the funniest of them all, frankly.

A worthwhile watch,
 
Last edited:
No, you didn't. You posted a comment by you saying you most preferred O'Malley.

I posted multiple comments and linked to threads where I discussed how there was not a big difference between the final two candidates, also.

And, regardless of how transparently disingenuous and meaningless that comment was, you tried insisting it exonerated you from being the hysterical fanboy that you are.

And yet you can post no evidence for your take whatsoever. You insisted that you didn't need to, even after I posted evidence for my position.

I am not that person, so I have no interest in seeing you browbeat another person with your fanaticism.

This right here is the heart of the problem, since we both know that you are straight up lying. Some of us have a strong belief that lying is bad. Maybe you can find a scenario where it's justified, but "I want better optics in an argument" is not an acceptable justification to me.

The bottom line is that I have never lied about your views

Sure you have. You don't like the arguments I've made about the similarities in expected policy in a Sanders presidency and a presidency of other people (Clinton among them). You can't actually make a rational case against them so you've resorted to ridiculously claiming that I'm some kind of Clinton fanatic. And on top of that, you're embarrassed that your dishonesty was called out so you're lashing out more.
 
Why can’t we all just get along?

If history is any guide, Trots will disappear in a couple of months and then come back with a new gimmick that will lose steam, and then he'll be cool until the next primary campaign causes him to lose his mind and abandon his ethics.
 
I think it's obvious most of you don't remember TV shows before 1990.

I love the office and Seinfeld, but people forget how awesome Roseanne was. Except for that last season.

I didn't watch the new seasons.
 
I think it's obvious most of you don't remember TV shows before 1990.

I do, but there were very few good sitcoms before 1990 (Taxi, Cheers, MTM, and a few others). The model changed from "Least Objectionable Program" to targeting a smaller group of devoted fans.
 
I love the office and Seinfeld, but people forget how awesome Roseanne was. Except for that last season.

I didn't watch the new seasons.


"70% of attacks come from behind"
"That still leaves a 30% chance I attack you from the front"
"But I would-"
*slap*
 
I posted multiple comments and linked to threads where I discussed how there was not a big difference between the final two candidates, also.

That isn't anything approaching an exoneration of your - objectively obvious - fanatical defenses of Clinton. I never said that you claimed she was wholly different or a much better candidate. I said your defenses were unreasonable, which they were and continue to be. That your retreat from your original position - that it was delusional to point to the reality of public discourse and political optics as a reason to excuse casual voters thinking Trump was more of a dove than Clinton - has reached full sprint goes to show how shamelessly dishonest and self-serving your continued nagging of me is. You'd rather bitch at me until the end of time than own up to the fact that, even just this once, you let your political biases cause you to fall into an embarrassing gaffe.

This right here is the heart of the problem, since we both know that you are straight up lying. Some of us have a strong belief that lying is bad. Maybe you can find a scenario where it's justified, but "I want better optics in an argument" is not an acceptable justification to me.

You are very easily the most dishonest poster on the board's left side, and it's not particularly close, even with posters of lesser knowledge or intelligence includedThat you think you can believably posture yourself as an advocate of truth is astonishing. But, frankly, I don't think that you really think that.

Sure you have. You don't like the arguments I've made about the similarities in expected policy in a Sanders presidency and a presidency of other people (Clinton among them). You can't actually make a rational case against them so you've resorted to ridiculously claiming that I'm some kind of Clinton fanatic. And on top of that, you're embarrassed that your dishonesty was called out so you're lashing out more.

I just pointed out, off hand mind you, three meaningful policy differences that would result in literally millions fewer deaths across the world. That is meaningless to you because you don't actually care about policy: all you care about is hedging your weird, fetishistic defenses of Clinton with "well, I said Clinton and Sanders were similar in terms of policy, so therefore any illogical or fanatical defenses of either are null."
 
I do, but there were very few good sitcoms before 1990 (Taxi, Cheers, MTM, and a few others). The model changed from "Least Objectionable Program" to targeting a smaller group of devoted fans.

Blackadder is a sitcom. The Young Ones. Red Dwarf. Fawlty Towers.
 
I do, but there were very few good sitcoms before 1990 (Taxi, Cheers, MTM, and a few others). The model changed from "Least Objectionable Program" to targeting a smaller group of devoted fans.
There were more than a few others, imo. Night Court, Barney Miller, WKRP, All in the Family, Maude, and MASH, and there are some gems that I consider great that appear to be lesser considered ones like Third Rock from the Sun, Kate and Allie, and One Day at a Time. Of course, I was weaned on Happy Days so perhaps my glasses have somewhat of a colorful tint. Either way, it seems silly to act like nothing good was on before Seinfeld came along.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top