Profiles In Liberal Hypocricy

I know this is not necessarily the place, but for the record, since LSM seems content to lambaste liberals for their apparent addiction to being hypocritical, would you argue that being a hypocrite is a quality unique to liberals?

kelticwizard wrote:

If you don't care what the readers here think, why do you write 50 posts a day, day after day?

LoneStarMadam wrote:

That is something else that's none of your business & why are you so interested in how i spend my time?

I frankly do not care how you spend your time, but if you choose to use that time posting on this website I presume you want people to think you are telling the truth.

If you write a book or column, I presume you want to believe what you wrote. Otherwise, why write it? If you cut a record, I presume you want people to listen to it. Otherwise, why record it?

And it you post on a website, I presume you want people to believe you are telling the truth. Otherwise, why post here?

So when you make assertions here, it is only natural that people ask for evidence of them so they can judge if you are telling the truth or not. If you truly, truly, do not care if people think you are telling the truth, and make it a matter of principle NOT to provide evidence that you are telling the truth, then you are admitting you are wasting time posting here and we are wasting time reading your posts.

Is that what you want?

LoneStarMadam wrote:

Roxxxanne wrote:

Quote:

that is something else that's none of your business & why are you so interested in how i spend my time?

Excuse me, dude, but it is OUR business, your unbearable presence here has changed the tenor of this community. I, at one time, had a similar but not nearly as abusive tone myself (although all my posts contained some underlying humor) and have adjusted to the style of the community considerably while still retaining some of my pitcow tendencies.

I suggest that if you want to stay here and are not merely marking time until your ban at the other forum is served, that you do the same

Dig, dude?

ROTFLMAO You are hilarious, sickening, grossy so, but still, hilarious.

I wish I was so hilarious...well, I have had good nights and bad nights..stand-up is not that easy in San Francisco, especially when there are 10.000 other Lesbian comics to compete with... grossy though? That's a new one...

Dude, could you explain what grossy means?

Simple, when i do post a source/liink, it's poo-pooed, so why bother?

So, why is your business how I spend my time?

kelticwizard wrote:

If you don't care what the readers here think, why do you write 50 posts a day, day after day?

LoneStarMadam wrote:

That is something else that's none of your business & why are you so interested in how i spend my time?

I frankly do not care how you spend your time, but if you choose to use that time posting on this website I presume you want people to think you are telling the truth.

Ever read the spoofs written and posted by Gustavratzenhofer? He gets his point across by satire, not "telling the truth."

If you write a book or column, I presume you want to believe what you wrote. Otherwise, why write it? If you cut a record, I presume you want people to listen to it. Otherwise, why record it?

Have you never played devil's advocate with your writing? Many people write because they have something to say and that's the vehicle they choose to use. They write or sing for themselves. If it makes others react (positively or negatively) that's a bonus.

And it you post on a website, I presume you want people to believe you are telling the truth. Otherwise, why post here?

For the sport of it. To relieve stress. To kill time until the TV show comes on. For lack of anything better to do at the moment. To campaign for a belief. To challenge beliefs.

So when you make assertions here, it is only natural that people ask for evidence of them so they can judge if you are telling the truth or not. If you truly, truly, do not care if people think you are telling the truth, and make it a matter of principle NOT to provide evidence that you are telling the truth, then you are admitting you are wasting time posting here and we are wasting time reading your posts.

Why would you ever presume people are telling the truth on a website? If you're the critical thinker you present yourself as being, you'll do research using your own sources to educate yourself and come to a judgement. The reason you want sources given is so you can easily disregard the point being made without having to check into the allegations for yourself. And let's be frank here. You aren't interested in judging whether a truth is being asserted. You're interested in whether it agrees with YOUR truth.


Is that what you want?

Giving sources does nothing to aid judgement of an assertion. You're judging the source, not the assertion. If you're not interested in doing the work to determine the validity of the assertions, stop reading and responding to them.

LoneStarMadam wrote:

So, why is your business how I spend my time?

It isn't. But if you choose to spend your time here on this board as you do, we certainly have the right to expect you back up your assertions with some credible sources. NewsMax, CNS, and WorldNetDaily are not among those.

Why would you ever presume people are telling the truth on a website?

If you're the critical thinker you present yourself as being, you'll do research using your own sources to educate yourself and come to a judgement.

The reason you want sources given is so you can easily disregard the point being made without having to check into the allegations for yourself.

And let's be frank here. You aren't interested in judging whether a truth is being asserted. You're interested in whether it agrees with YOUR truth.

....if you choose to spend your time here on this board as you do, we certainly have the right to expect you back up your assertions with some credible sources. NewsMax, CNS, and WorldNetDaily are not among those.

You have no such right at all.

You've already judged that her sources are not up to your standards.

You do have the right to choose whether or not to read.

You could respond to her assertions with your own credible sources or ignore them as you do her sources.

If the quality of one's presentation of assertions, supporting facts and sources were a prerequisite of membership here, there'd be very few posts.

She made an assertion, she should be willing to back it up or be considered a load of hot air. Like anyone else.

She gave a link to an advertisement, on a propaganda website, to a book which costs over $20. She quoted the blurbs from the book, then demanded rebuttal for these blurbs. So the only way we could satisfy her is to shell out money for the partisan book, read the author's evidence, rebut the author's evidence, all for the pleasure of LoneStarMadam who won't even be bothered to buy the book herself.

I have no intention of doing that, nor would any other sane person. If LoneStarMadam thinks the assertions in this book require rebuttal, let HER buy the book, quote from it, give the evidence the book has to offer, then ask for rebuttal. I have no intention of making her case for her, then going through the effor of rebutting it. Would you?

kelticwizard wrote:

....if you choose to spend your time here on this board as you do, we certainly have the right to expect you back up your assertions with some credible sources. NewsMax, CNS, and WorldNetDaily are not among those.

Butrflynet wrote:

You have no such right at all.

Good grief, why not? If someone told you that a UFO landed across the street, and gave as his source UFO Monthly magazine, would you accept that as proof?


I'd tell them they're quite observant, ask for pictures with themselves in the scene with the UFO, and ignore anything else said on the subject if they were not given. You keep trying to dictate whether or not she can spend her time here, based on how well she jumps through the hoops you've set up. If she wants to take a pair of scissors and bust open the hoop rather than jump through it, more power to her! Putting more of your hoops out there while wagging your finger when she busts them again, just gets silly after awhile, especially when you hear the snickering.

Butrflynet wrote:

You've already judged that her sources are not up to your standards.

Yup, NewsMax, WorldNetDaily and UFO Monthly are not up to my standards, for reasons I have already given. Tell me, do YOU have any standards for sources, or does anything that manages to get printed or achieve space on a website count as proof for you?

Butrflynet wrote:

You do have the right to choose whether or not to read.

True.

Butrflynet wrote:

You could respond to her assertions with your own credible sources or ignore them as you do her sources.

Or I could ask her to give her sources, which I did. And I have the right to comment on the credibility of those sources, if she gives them.

Butrflynet wrote:

If the quality of one's presentation of assertions, supporting facts and sources were a prerequisite of membership here, there'd be very few posts.

Perhaps. But one shold be ready to defend one's ideas if challenged. Otherwise we don't have a discussion forum, we have a poll.

Tell me, do YOU have any standards for sources, or does anything that manages to get printed or achieve space on a website count as proof for you?

I try to pick my battles. If I'm interested enough to look, I don't depend on other people to provide sources for me. I go find them on my own. And yes, many sources serve as input to the data collecting effort. I like to read as many points of view as I can find. I also don't fall for the little tidbits offered here to instigate many of these arguments. Bait and hot air seem to be very attractive to some. Why is that?

]She made an assertion, she should be willing to back it up or be considered a load of hot air. Like anyone else.

Obviously, she's willing to be considered a load of hot air by you. It is of no importance to her.

Your demand is meaningless in that circumstance and doesn't prevent her from posting. As long as her decorum is within the TOS of this website she can post anything she likes.

Your expectations do not control her.

You only have control of yourself.

If her assertion offends your sensibility, either dismiss it as an annoyance or present a counter-argument to educate her.

She gave a link to an advertisement, on a propaganda website, to a book which costs over $20. She quoted the blurbs from the book, then demanded rebuttal for these blurbs. So the only way we could satisfy her is to shell out money for the partisan book, read the author's evidence, rebut the author's evidence, all for the pleasure of LoneStarMadam who won't even be bothered to buy the book herself.

I have no intention of doing that, nor would any other sane person. If LoneStarMadam thinks the assertions in this book require rebuttal, let HER buy the book, quote from it, give the evidence the book has to offer, then ask for rebuttal. I have no intention of making her case for her, then going through the effor of rebutting it. Would you?

She's good at presenting a derogatory statement that you can't respond to without sounding like a hypocrite.

Either write it off as that load of hot air you put on her or figure out a way to dismantle it if it is worth investing your time. Just because she yanks your chain, doesn't mean you have to bark.

Why keep getting angry at her for being willing to be considered a load of hot air?

You keep giving her that breath of air needed to increase the load.

In a nationally televised speech, filmmaker Michael Moore told a college audience he absolutely does not own any Halliburton stock - or any other stock for that matter - a charge leveled at him by author Peter Schweizer in the best-seller book "Do As I Say (Not As I Do)."

There's just one problem with that denial, says Schweizer. He's got the tax returns of Moore's non-profit foundation to prove it - a non-profit foundation for which there are only two officers, Moore and his wife.

"I think people find that stuff funny - Michael Moore owns Halliburton stock," said Moore in the Nov. 23 Mott College speech carried by C-SPAN. "That's like a great comedy line. I know it's not true. I've never owned a share of stock in my life -- anything. Did anyone see that a couple weeks ago? Somebody was yakking away. And I just thought, uh, that's funny, I guess. Anyone who knows me is not going to believe that. Who's going to believe that? Just crazy people are going to believe it."

It must be the definition of the word "own" that is the source of controversy, suggests Schweizer, the author of a book on liberal hypocrisy. Moore has emphatically made the claim repeatedly over the years: "I don't own a single share of stock!"

He's right. He doesn't own a single share. He owns tens of thousands of shares - including nearly 2,000 shares of Boeing, nearly 1,000 of Sonoco, more than 4,000 of Best Foods, more than 3,000 of Eli Lilly, more than 8,000 of Bank One and more than 2,000 of Halliburton, the company most vilified by Moore in "Fahrenheit 9/11," according to Schweizer's book.

In fact, the Schedule D form declaring his capital gains and losses where his stock ownership is listed, it's emblazoned on the cover of Schweizer's book.

But Moore's loophole may be that the stock is actually owned by his non-profit foundation - not him personally. However, Moore signed the return personally and controls the activity of the corporation.

I'll leave it to others to decide if being an officer in a non-profit organization that owns stock constitutes hypocrisy.

Butterfly has one thing right--this is a bait thread.

Suppose the Madame could prove that Michael Moore has stock in Halliburton? Who gives a rat's ass? I don't, and Michael Moore does not speak for me, nor does he form my views for me.

This is a pathetic attempt to attack other members here with an hilariously inept accusation of guilt by association. I don't associate with Michael Moore, and he has never gotten one penny of mine, because i've never watched his goofy movies.

Bait thread, that's all this is. But sadly, the Madame has succeeded in getting her sad, sad jolies slinging turds at others here.

candidone1 wrote:

I know this is not necessarily the place, but for the record, since LSM seems content to lambaste liberals for their apparent addiction to being hypocritical, would you argue that being a hypocrite is a quality unique to liberals?

Absolutely not, nor do I believe that all liberals are hypocrites, anymore than all conservatives are pure. However, I've devoted this thread to liberal hypocrites, feel free to start one on conservative hypocrites, in fact, I'll start you off with two, Newt Gingrich & Bob Barr.

Setanta wrote:

Butterfly has one thing right--this is a bait thread.

Suppose the Madame could prove that Michael Moore has stock in Halliburton? Who gives a rat's ass? I don't, and Michael Moore does not speak for me, nor does he form my views for me.

This is a pathetic attempt to attack other members here with an hilariously inept accusation of guilt by association. I don't associate with Michael Moore, and he has never gotten one penny of mine, because i've never watched his goofy movies.

Bait thread, that's all this is. But sadly, the Madame has succeeded in getting her sad, sad jolies slinging turds at others here.

Poppycock!
Bait? Then why did you post on the thread?

LoneStarMadam wrote:

Simple, when i do post a source/liink, it's poo-pooed, so why bother?

That's just the point. If your source is stupid NewsMax, then anyone sane can essentially discount it, since NewsMax is simply a propaganda source. There are any number of false assertions flying around the internet at any given time, and we have the right to know where the poster gets his/her information from. If the poster insists he/she doesn't care if you believe him/her or not, despite taking the effort to write fifty posts a day, we know that poster is not being honest with us.

LoneStarMadam wrote:

So, why is your business how I spend my time?

It isn't. But if you choose to spend your time here on this board as you do, we certainly have the right to expect you back up your assertions with some credible sources. NewsMax, CNS, and WorldNetDaily are not among those.