Ut Oh, Could Nancy Be Facing....

Roxxxanne wrote:

little bitty one,


How about posting these accusations from a credible news source. Or at least a news source?


The LA Weekly is a blog!

First, I congratulate you on your innate ability to include that 24 pt font. I love it!

The article I posted was from the LA Weekly News. Notice I've also added that I find fact to be mixed in with opinion. Why would you be looking through their blogs for this discussion?

Monte Cargo wrote:

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

that's your upper lip you smell.....

Well, you're a real genious. Anything on the topic that we might look forward to from you, Bear?

you misspelled genius.

Nancy Pelosi helped lead the democrats to a majority in both houses and was helpful in spanking the **** out of the republicans. That's positive.

she has the longest continuous service record in the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. That's positive.

There's a couple of things.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

While there has certainly been some Ad Hominem activity on this thread, Blatham is correct in his assessment of what he responded to. Lipstick on a pig is a term used as a descriptor of making a bad deal sound better. I'm not sure myself what Dlowan was applying it to... but it is definitely not a personal attack and was no part of trying to shift attention away from the debate. Sliming is a fair descriptor for someone who accuses another of being aligned with a despicable group like nambla without a shred of proof. Several of us thoroughly debunked the sloppy association strategy that was offered as proof.

I thought it would be transparently obvious to anyone who was reading my second to last post to dlowan, that my post extended many olive branches to him/her. I never connected dlowan to NAMBLA, but the Pelosi connection to NAMBLA, which is a connection by omission is still very much a fair charge to levy against Pelosi.

Additionally, the "lipstick on a pig comment", made about me but directed in an exchange between you and dlowan along with the "sliming" description was rank, crude, and an attack (following my attempts to debate the point in a civil fashion). That is, as far as I am concerned, unsportsmanlike conduct for a civil discourse. You're entitled to keep you opinion, as well I will keep mine.

Quote:

Perhaps, but in this case the argument itself is what was proved invalid, repeatedly. As a newbie on this site; I too learned the hard way that the standard of evidence is considerably higher here than most venues. The reference I provided to fallacious arguments was provided to me, right here, a couple of years back. When a poster, new or old, chooses to ignore evidence that their argument is fallacious AND chooses to continue forwarding it on multiple threads it is inevitable they will be deemed a troll by the opposition. There are trolls on both sides of the political spectrum, old and new, though the site does an excellent job of weeding out the worst offenders. Aside from the obvious effects of effective moderation, the charge has little to do with member longevity.

First, who do you think YOU are to "proclaim" that the argument of the Pelosi/NAMBLA connection has been proven invalid?

Second, the standard of proof here is no different than many other boards, with a majority of posters starting ad hominem attacks when they disagree with another poster, the proof of which can be found in dlowan's post to you about me. The hijacking attempts of this thread by BiPolarBear and EhBeth are also typical of dissenting posters who want to close discussion, and it stinks.

OCCOM, just because BiPolarBear likes you doesn't make this a superior board. I think you may be experiencing some issues with delusions of grandeur.

Quote:

While I'm sure us old timers are more likely to give each other the benefit of the doubt after years of civil discussion and a good deal of mutual respect earned, I don't think this is maliscious. Would it be different in a coffee shop, bar or sewing circle?

You misspelled "malicious". I believe my earlier comments to BiPolarBear covered the situation accurately. Yes, good friends can banter more comfortably and freely, but such does not excuse the older members from obeying the TOS of this board, anytime they please.

Quote:

LittleBitty wrote:

Every time words like "troll" are thrown out there, please consider that this same friendly banter cannot be returned in kind by a new poster. I was equally impressed to learn that a poster had moved MC's residence to the state of Texas, thus creating a rather difficult long distance marriage.

Not so. A new poster can argue as forcefully as anyone, but if they are going to challenge others with the kind of wanton bravado these two have exhibited, they'd better be able to back with solid intelligence and respectable critical thinking skill
(Examine "Finn dAbuzz"'s early debates for proof of this. A2K is a bit Left-Heavy... but that's one of the points they are missing. Mysteryman, Timberlandko and myself all lean Right more often than not and all agree Pelosi's politics suck. Defending her is something I would never do, except in a case where someone is essentially telling bald face lies in an attempt to slime her. Blatham is generally found in lockstep with Dlowan politically and can usually be found on the opposite side of any argument I'm in.

Really nice dodge of LittleBitty's observation about long-term posters who are obviously getting it really wrong, as proven by one poster on this thread who stated I was from LoneStar's home state.

I think you must be getting kind of sore patting yourself on the back and stating how intelligent you are. It is funny in your claim that you are on the right, since I've joined I've not noticed you on any of the key conservative issue base threads, posting in favor of conservative values. I'm aware that these boards offer some form of comraderie for people and that loneliness can cause a poster with an initial set of values to swtich to the side that offers the most companionship. I can see that you're in solid with BiPolarBear. I have no such need to fit in with liberals. I can see how you respond in this thread and until you prove yourself otherwise, I will neatly categorize you where I believe you belong, with the rest of the liberals on this board.

You are also ignoring the 1994 news about Harry Hay refusing to March in the 1994 New York Gay Pride Parade and announcing that he would march in another parade. You ignore the parade lineup that was published in June 2001, following the parade, that listed Harry Hay within the lineup next to Nancy Pelosi. Even a television station will issue some sort of disclaimer about content that they air. Pelosi issues no such disclaimer because she can't, OCCOM Bill. She can't because if she does, she risks upsetting her entire gay base. Even some of the gay parade officials have condemned NAMBLA, but Pelosi hasn't. You think it's funny to expect her to clarify a point and that makes for a specious argument.

Two years from now, when Pelosi is knocked out of power, you can tell me again about how specious you thought this argument was.

Quote:

LittleBitty wrote:

At what point does the troll argument become a thing of the past, and how does the label of troll tie into the argument that a position has been addressed logically and carefully?

As described above. At the point where it has been addressed logically and carefully and ignored anyway. Or, in exceptional cases, at the point where they burst on the scene peddling bald face lies.

It was a BALD FACE LIE that all republicans that were "slimed" with the Foley scandal knew he was writing explicit emails to teenage male pages. If you're too thick to see the analogy and refuse to call it for what it is, state your opinion as an opinion and find something else to discuss.

Quote:

LittleBitty wrote:

I agree that LSM and MC are responsible for their own posts, but the same rules apply to everyone else without exception.

I couldn't agree more. Should LSM and MC choose to elevate the credibility of their attacks on Pelosi, they will likely find much agreement, camaraderie, and alliance with the sizeable conservative right membership here. Peddling slime will garner respect from no one... except slime peddlers of the same stripes.

I don't recognize you as the representative of the board, or representative of the conservatives on this board, just someone who has an unjustifiably overinflated opinion of themself, although I am sure that your buddy BiPolarBear and some of the other left on this board will rush to your defense.

Quote:

LittleBitty wrote:

I found this article on Pelosi in the LA Weekly.

From the article:

Quote:

Her opponent was San Francisco Supervisor Harry Britt, who'd been picked by the gay community as successor to the assassinated Harvey Milk. Pelosi buried Britt in money, and ran a nasty campaign that portrayed him as a "gay socialist." (Years later, her money-raising practices sometimes get her in trouble. Last month, she was forced to shut down one of ä her two political-action committees, which had been operating illegally as a double-dipping laundry, and candidates were asked to return its contributions.)

Quote:

Most profiles of Pelosi note her advocacy of AIDS issues and gay civil rights, and her bucking the Clinton administration by opposing most-favored-nation trade status for China on human-rights grounds. But given the huge Chinese-American and gay populations in her district (and lingering resentment in the latter over her defeat of Britt), these positions were a nearly obligatory reflection of local politics

Quote:

Quote:

I have one criticism with respect to this article; it mixes fact with opinion.

See, that's what I'm talking about. Plenty to make a case against Pelosi in that article alone, without resorting to slimy lies.

Monte Cargo wrote:

Roxxxanne wrote:

little bitty one,


How about posting these accusations from a credible news source. Or at least a news source?


The LA Weekly is a blog!

The LA Weekly is a very gay-friendly blog, probaby second only to The Advocate. Anything that the LA Weekly said would most likely be charitable toward the representative.

That's a really stupid conclusion since the claim is that Pelosi smeared a gay candidate.

Quote:

I would most likely be more inclined to agree with OCCOM Bill's reply to LittleBitty than your reply.

You have challenged Little Bitty and attacked her source. You are killing all of the messengers in this case.

Either disprove the content of the statements found above in LittleBitty's post or find something else to talk about.

I don't have to disprove claims made on a blog. Itsy bitsy needs to provide a credible source

Pound sand.

Your little three man tag team act is getting tiresome.

BTW I live in Pelosi's district and am heavily involved here politically, this is the first I have heard of this charge leveled against Pelosi. I am not a big fan of Pelosi's but these charges are unfounded as far as I am concerned.

they did not... being california democrats and not illiterates they may have kept her hidden.....

It was about you and your fellow slimer LSM.

I do not give a fig for your olive branches as I am not arguing with you about me, but about your baseless sliming.

The lipstick on a pig is less in reference to you two being pigs, and more about the ridiculousness of attempting to point out the flaws in someone's argument when they appear, after repeated attempts, to be incapable of apprehending said flaws. Ie, repeating this information is clearly useless....like putting lipstick on a pig.

I was certainly frustrated, because baseless sliming, especially with such a particularly nasty lie, is rather evil, and below the usual level of even the nastiest political debate here...ie I really do not think I have seen a public figure accused of supporting paedophilia with absolutely no basis before.

They may have been, but I have not seen it done.

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

they did not... being california democrats and not illiterates they may have kept her hidden.....

The opposite of a demcrat is an illiterate?

Hmm...
the opposite of democrats are illiterates
republicans must be illiterates
democrats must be literates
BiPolar is a democrat
BiPolar is a literate
Nancy Pelosi was not hidden because democrats are literate

I'm sorry, Bear, but other than offering you hearty congratulations that you can read, not much else of your post is making much sense. I'm sure this is some kind of attempt to flame republicans but I'll have to outsource your post for a translation.

Don't call us, we'll call you. :wink:

Monte Cargo wrote:

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

they did not... being california democrats and not illiterates they may have kept her hidden.....

The opposite of a demcrat is an illiterate?

Hmm...
the opposite of democrats are illiterates
republicans must be illiterates
democrats must be literates
BiPolar is a democrat
BiPolar is a literate
Nancy Pelosi was not hidden because democrats are literate

I'm sorry, Bear, but other than offering you hearty congratulations that you can read, not much else of your post is making much sense. I'm sure this is some kind of attempt to flame republicans but I'll have to outsource your post for a translation.

Don't call us, we'll call you. :wink:

actually I was referring to the fabulous grammatical use of "keeping her hid"... sorry you missed it...but not surprised.... and I screen my calls so don't bother. And what's a demcrat?

One of the mods has reminded me that flame wars get people banned. You're not worth it. Merry Christmas. Over and out.

dlowan wrote:

It was about you and your fellow slimer LSM.

I do not give a fig for your olive branches as I am not arguing with you about me, but about your baseless sliming.

The lipstick on a pig is less in reference to you two being pigs, and more about the ridiculousness of attempting to point out the flaws in someone's argument when they appear, after repeated attempts, to be incapable of apprehending said flaws. Ie, repeating this information is clearly useless....like putting lipstick on a pig.

I was certainly frustrated, because baseless sliming, especially with such a particularly nasty lie, is rather evil, and below the usual level of even the nastiest political debate here...ie I really do not think I have seen a public figure accused of supporting paedophilia with absolutely no basis before.

They may have been, but I have not seen it done.

This is such sheer genius. I will write it all down...(writing) lipstick on a pig is in reference to you two being pigs... Brilliant!

I really do like the "I don't give a fig for your olive branches". Now, that has a clever, metaphor-like appeal. :wink: Note: You did, in rather dramatic vernacular, comment extensively about my comments to you, your occupation, etc., so your statement that your posts were nothing about you can not be genuine.

I'm hopefully through with you. I believe you said you were leaving earlier. Bon voyage, toss another shrimp on the barbi, and whatever...

Monte Cargo wrote:

dlowan wrote:

It was about you and your fellow slimer LSM.

I do not give a fig for your olive branches as I am not arguing with you about me, but about your baseless sliming.

The lipstick on a pig is less in reference to you two being pigs, and more about the ridiculousness of attempting to point out the flaws in someone's argument when they appear, after repeated attempts, to be incapable of apprehending said flaws. Ie, repeating this information is clearly useless....like putting lipstick on a pig.

I was certainly frustrated, because baseless sliming, especially with such a particularly nasty lie, is rather evil, and below the usual level of even the nastiest political debate here...ie I really do not think I have seen a public figure accused of supporting paedophilia with absolutely no basis before.

They may have been, but I have not seen it done.

This is such sheer genius. I will write it all down...(writing) lipstick on a pig is in reference to you two being pigs... Brilliant!

I really do like the "I don't give a fig for your olive branches". Now, that has a clever, metaphor-like appeal. :wink: Note: You did, in rather dramatic vernacular, comment extensively about my comments to you, your occupation, etc., so your statement that your posts were nothing about you can not be genuine.

I'm hopefully through with you. I believe you said you were leaving earlier. Bon voyage, toss another shrimp on the barbi, and whatever...

Nah, try again, your reading comprehension is still lacking.

Selective quoting, by the way, which in your case entailed removing a word, is generally considered a very low tactic, almost as low as baseless serious sliming.

Let's try an honest quote, eh?


Here's how it's done...(hint...you don't leave out words which reverse the meaning):

"The lipstick on a pig is less in reference to you two being pigs, and more about the ridiculousness of attempting to point out the flaws in someone's argument when they appear, after repeated attempts, to be incapable of apprehending said flaws"


There, see, even you could have done that easilyand honestly. Oh well, nemmind.


Now.

If you do not want to be fiercely attacked, do not throw or support the throwing of extraordinarily disgusting lying slander. Most especially, do not attempt to use your extraordinary ignorance of simple stuff like spelling to insinuate that someone is lying about themselves.

"., so your statement that your posts were nothing about you can not be genuine"

Actually, yes it can. You see the thing is, in attacking me, you used many of the same obviously specious logic tricks as you did in attacking Pelosi. Therefore, the invalid logic you used to attack me became part of the "argument" I was attempting to show you was false. Actually, I regarded your attacks on me as amusing, because you shot yourself in the foot so thoroughly.


You're not through with me.

If I happen to see you playing the same tricks I shall enjoy demonstrating their error.

But, I'm not in politics much, so hopefully others will assist in your education.


"If you don't give a thistle or a fig,
You might grow up to be a pig"

For the record, MC, I did NOT say you were from TX. Get your facts straight. If you will go back and read the post, and the woopsie post I made after it, you will see that I thought the rant about dlowan not being credible because the poster didn't realize "paedophile" is actually correct was done by LoneStarMadam ( Lone Star State, yea?). When I went back and found it was actually you, I absolved Texas of responsibility (and LCM, as well, for that at least). You do still bear responsibility for an incorrect ad hominem argument (attempting to discredit here for her (totally correct) spelling).

And, as even thoughtful generally-righties like timberlandko and mysteryman keep telling you, your argument re Pelosi and NAMBLA relies only on innuendo, and has absolutely no factual evidence to back it up. Lines of march in parades are determined by parade organizers, not the marchers. The Spectator can prove absolutely nothing, it can only make baseless insinuations from citing the Chronicle's list. Similarly, there are several hundred million organizations in this world that Nancy Pelosi has not specifically denied any allegiance to. That certainly does not mean she condones the actions of all those organizations.

Neither have you specifically denied any sympathy or any support for the vast majority of those organizations. I have never seen you denounce the terror tactics of the IRA. Or the Ulster Unionists, for that matter. I have never heard you denounce the terror tactics of the Tamil Tigers, or JI, or ETA. Since you apparetntly haven't denounced them specifically, am I therefore entitled to state that you're clearly a terrorist sympathizer? No. Neither are you entitled to try to tie Pelosi to NAMBLA in the absolute absence of any evidence for the assertion. Just drop it. Stop the invective re Pelosi, and try only to make assertions that have some crumb of positive evidence.

Since when does innuendo not count here? Have you read the thread about Bush & beastiality? Or have you read that I'm a toothless, obese, old hag dyke? False accusations & hate are very much in vogue here.
Nancy Pelosi will be speaker, she has been a voice for the dem party, what she says matters. WHy hasn't she denounced NAMBLA? Why hasn't she spoke out on SF schools shutting the school campus's in her district to JROTC? She was quick enough to condem Foley & she should have, but she clams up when it comes to men having sex with little boys in her own backyard.

dlowan wrote:

Monte Cargo wrote:

dlowan wrote:

It was about you and your fellow slimer LSM.

I do not give a fig for your olive branches as I am not arguing with you about me, but about your baseless sliming.

The lipstick on a pig is less in reference to you two being pigs, and more about the ridiculousness of attempting to point out the flaws in someone's argument when they appear, after repeated attempts, to be incapable of apprehending said flaws. Ie, repeating this information is clearly useless....like putting lipstick on a pig.

I was certainly frustrated, because baseless sliming, especially with such a particularly nasty lie, is rather evil, and below the usual level of even the nastiest political debate here...ie I really do not think I have seen a public figure accused of supporting paedophilia with absolutely no basis before.

They may have been, but I have not seen it done.

This is such sheer genius. I will write it all down...(writing) lipstick on a pig is in reference to you two being pigs... Brilliant!

I really do like the "I don't give a fig for your olive branches". Now, that has a clever, metaphor-like appeal. :wink: Note: You did, in rather dramatic vernacular, comment extensively about my comments to you, your occupation, etc., so your statement that your posts were nothing about you can not be genuine.

I'm hopefully through with you. I believe you said you were leaving earlier. Bon voyage, toss another shrimp on the barbi, and whatever...

Nah, try again, your reading comprehension is still lacking.

Selective quoting, by the way, which in your case entailed removing a word, is generally considered a very low tactic, almost as low as baseless serious sliming.

Let's try an honest quote, eh?


Here's how it's done...(hint...you don't leave out words which reverse the meaning):

"The lipstick on a pig is less in reference to you two being pigs, and more about the ridiculousness of attempting to point out the flaws in someone's argument when they appear, after repeated attempts, to be incapable of apprehending said flaws"


There, see, even you could have done that easilyand honestly. Oh well, nemmind.


Now.

If you do not want to be fiercely attacked, do not throw or support the throwing of extraordinarily disgusting lying slander. Most especially, do not attempt to use your extraordinary ignorance of simple stuff like spelling to insinuate that someone is lying about themselves.

"., so your statement that your posts were nothing about you can not be genuine"

Actually, yes it can. You see the thing is, in attacking me, you used many of the same obviously specious logic tricks as you did in attacking Pelosi. Therefore, the invalid logic you used to attack me became part of the "argument" I was attempting to show you was false. Actually, I regarded your attacks on me as amusing, because you shot yourself in the foot so thoroughly.


You're not through with me.

If I happen to see you playing the same tricks I shall enjoy demonstrating their error.

But, I'm not in politics much, so hopefully others will assist in your education.


"If you don't give a thistle or a fig,
You might grow up to be a pig"

Oh, dlowan, if I don't get fiercely attacked, I don't really feel alive on a board. It's sort of like being a younger man and going to a party. If at least one woman didn't slap my face, I knew that I wasn't having a good time.

If you feel like it, let it all hang out, no holds barred, and bring it on. I've gone to bat with much worse than anyone here could do. This is nothing and I think there might be a tendency for a couple of you folks to overestimate yourselves. I already have communicated with one of the posters a little earlier today. Personally, I find your admonition hilarious!

And I wouldn't spend too much time worrying about my unintentionally leaving out one word in your quote. All that I was trying for was to capture your whole quote, but not the sum of all of the quotes over the past thirty pages. I deleted an entire section and it looks like I chopped off one line too many.

What a joke! I leave out one word and you throw a little hissy fit and yet Nancy Pelosi leaves out that she doesn't support NAMBLA, and you defend her to the hilt!

Oh, you zany liberals!

LoneStarMadam wrote:

Since when does innuendo not count here? Have you read the thread about Bush & beastiality? Or have you read that I'm a toothless, obese, old hag dyke? False accusations & hate are very much in vogue here.
Nancy Pelosi will be speaker, she has been a voice for the dem party, what she says matters. WHy hasn't she denounced NAMBLA? Why hasn't she spoke out on SF schools shutting the school campus's in her district to JROTC? She was quick enough to condem Foley & she should have, but she clams up when it comes to men having sex with little boys in her own backyard.

Snort! That thread is a satire on this one. Do you know the meaning of satire?

Monte Cargo wrote:

dlowan wrote:

Monte Cargo wrote:

dlowan wrote:

It was about you and your fellow slimer LSM.

I do not give a fig for your olive branches as I am not arguing with you about me, but about your baseless sliming.

The lipstick on a pig is less in reference to you two being pigs, and more about the ridiculousness of attempting to point out the flaws in someone's argument when they appear, after repeated attempts, to be incapable of apprehending said flaws. Ie, repeating this information is clearly useless....like putting lipstick on a pig.

I was certainly frustrated, because baseless sliming, especially with such a particularly nasty lie, is rather evil, and below the usual level of even the nastiest political debate here...ie I really do not think I have seen a public figure accused of supporting paedophilia with absolutely no basis before.

They may have been, but I have not seen it done.

This is such sheer genius. I will write it all down...(writing) lipstick on a pig is in reference to you two being pigs... Brilliant!

I really do like the "I don't give a fig for your olive branches". Now, that has a clever, metaphor-like appeal. :wink: Note: You did, in rather dramatic vernacular, comment extensively about my comments to you, your occupation, etc., so your statement that your posts were nothing about you can not be genuine.

I'm hopefully through with you. I believe you said you were leaving earlier. Bon voyage, toss another shrimp on the barbi, and whatever...

Nah, try again, your reading comprehension is still lacking.

Selective quoting, by the way, which in your case entailed removing a word, is generally considered a very low tactic, almost as low as baseless serious sliming.

Let's try an honest quote, eh?


Here's how it's done...(hint...you don't leave out words which reverse the meaning):

"The lipstick on a pig is less in reference to you two being pigs, and more about the ridiculousness of attempting to point out the flaws in someone's argument when they appear, after repeated attempts, to be incapable of apprehending said flaws"


There, see, even you could have done that easilyand honestly. Oh well, nemmind.


Now.

If you do not want to be fiercely attacked, do not throw or support the throwing of extraordinarily disgusting lying slander. Most especially, do not attempt to use your extraordinary ignorance of simple stuff like spelling to insinuate that someone is lying about themselves.

"., so your statement that your posts were nothing about you can not be genuine"

Actually, yes it can. You see the thing is, in attacking me, you used many of the same obviously specious logic tricks as you did in attacking Pelosi. Therefore, the invalid logic you used to attack me became part of the "argument" I was attempting to show you was false. Actually, I regarded your attacks on me as amusing, because you shot yourself in the foot so thoroughly.


You're not through with me.

If I happen to see you playing the same tricks I shall enjoy demonstrating their error.

But, I'm not in politics much, so hopefully others will assist in your education.


"If you don't give a thistle or a fig,
You might grow up to be a pig"

Oh, dlowan, if I don't get fiercely attacked, I don't really feel alive on a board. It's sort of like being a younger man and going to a party. If at least one woman didn't slap my face, I knew that I wasn't having a good time.

If you feel like it, let it all hang out, no holds barred, and bring it on. I've gone to bat with much worse than anyone here could do. This is nothing and I think there might be a tendency for a couple of you folks to overestimate yourselves. I already have communicated with one of the posters a little earlier today. Personally, I find your admonition hilarious!

And I wouldn't spend too much time worrying about my unintentionally leaving out one word in your quote. All that I was trying for was to capture your whole quote, but not the sum of all of the quotes over the past thirty pages. I deleted an entire section and it looks like I chopped off one line too many.

What a joke! I leave out one word and you throw a little hissy fit and yet Nancy Pelosi leaves out that she doesn't support NAMBLA, and you defend her to the hilt!

Oh, you zany liberals!

Quote:

I am sure you will meet many nastier posters than I...

No, I am not sure that I will (see your comments to LSM at the beginning of this post for reference). When it comes to the subject of nastiness, quite on the contrary, I think you rise to the top.

Quote:

I would seriously hope so. I do not generally aim to be nasty at all, but the kind of egregious and gutter stuff that you and the madam did here (albeit you in a much less direct manner than the madam) does unleash a very fierce side, particularly as you contort and twist reason in an attempt to defend it.

And thus you can only prove your protests empty as you laugh and make fun of a poster here that is directly interacting with you. I'm not flaming you here, I'm making an honest evaluation.

Quote:

I frankly find it hard to believe you about the word you left out, as it was in the midst of the misquote you posted.

If your error was unintentional, well and good. You will, perhaps, understand my scepticism.

It was unintentional, I devoted a separate posting to that point by itself, and the only think I understand is your blind loyalty to a total stranger who shares your same political beliefs and values.

Quote:

Did you think pointing out your dishonesty was a hissy fit? Hmmmm, I suspect you haven't seen too many hissy fits if you did. Believe me, I have wasted no emotion on it

If calling people names is "wasting no emotion", then you're being honest. It has been my experience, that most people would be upset when they resort to calling names.

Quote:

if I were to waste emotion on your posts, it would be on your repetition of your baseless sliming, once again, of Pelosi. I assume an affectation of believing your slime is a part of the persona you wish to present here, as I really cannot believe you truly still adhere to its truth. I also put down to a wish to bait your "zany liberal" comment. Juvenile baiting I do not consider worth responding to, as it is silly, not a serious and baseless accusation agsinst someone, so bait away. You may find someone who will rise to it and give you whatever pleasure people obtain through such stuff.

Not impressed. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who excuses a reprehensible and indefensible personal attack on someone they interact with has no room to accuse anyone else of a baseless attack, particularly when it is not baseless.

I'm having a fabulous day, thank you.


Here are the full lyrics.


Enjoy...and learn:


WOULD YOU LIKE TO SWING ON A STAR ?
(Music : Jimmy Van Heusen / Words : Johnny Burke)
Bing Crosby


Would you like to swing on a star?
Carry moonbeams home in a jar?
And be better off than you are?

Or would you rather be a mule?

A mule is an animal with long funny ears
Kicks up at anything he hears
His back is brawny but his brain is weak
He's just plain stupid with a stubborn streak
And by the way, if you hate to go to school
You may grow up to be a mule

Would you like to swing on a star?
Carry moonbeams home in a jar?
And be better off than you are?

Or would you rather be a pig?

A pig is an animal with dirt on his face
His shoes are a terrible disgrace
He has no manners when he eats his food
He's fat and lazy and extremely rude
But if you don't care a feather or a fig
You may grow up to be a pig

Would you like to swing on a star?
Carry moonbeams home in a jar?
And be better off than you are?

Or would you rather be a fish?

A fish won't do anything, but swim in a brook
He can't write his name or read a book
To fool the people is his only thought
And though he's slippery, he still gets caught
But then if that sort of life is what you wish
You may grow up to be a fish
A new kind of jumped-up slippery fish

And all the monkeys aren't in the zoo
Every day you meet quite a few
So you see it's all up to you
You can be better than you are
You could be swingin' on a star


:wink:




BTW...thank you for your explanation of your error.