Democrat caught telling bald face lie.

[Mini 14]

Anyone who defends Grayson is either a POS, or a mindless sheep.

Grayson will win his seat back, because he has the balls to show the wingnuts for POS they are.

baaaahhhhh.......baaaaaahhhhhhhHHH.........baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Grayson and Al Franken are my two favorite Democrats

 

[Dick Tuck]

baaaahhhhh.......baaaaaahhhhhhhHHH.........baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Save your time, next time, and phone in your argument.

 

[Si modo]

He took a statement completely out of context.

Glenn Beck's long history of ripping quotes out of context --->>> Beck's long history of ripping quotes out of context | Media Matters for America

So, I'm confused by your post. Do you find Beck credible and because you say Beck does it, too, it must make Grayson credible, too? Or, do you find Beck not to be credible, and because Grayson does it too, that would make Grayson....ummmm....what? If you could clarify, that would be interesting.

Tu quoque is fun.

Let the fallacies flow in this thread.

 

[Si modo]

I've come to accept your ignorance. How hard is this? If you want to make the claim that this is a bald faced lie, you'd have to prove that the wingnut isn't a right wing theocrat.

OMG!

He did it again!

Prove a negative, CG. Go for it.

Are you here to circle jerk, or do you have something to add? Provide a coherent argument that the wingnut in this race isn't a theocrat, and I may concede the argument.

Good GOD! You've done it yet AGAIN! Ask that a negative be proven. Simply amazing.

Your 'argument' is asking others to prove negatives. Ummmm...when you actually make an argument that has an ounce of logic in it, I'll address it. Until then, I just point out your lack of sense.

I'll address any valid argument.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

He took a statement completely out of context.

Glenn Beck's long history of ripping quotes out of context --->>> Beck's long history of ripping quotes out of context | Media Matters for America

And another mindless sheep rushes into the chute........

Unless Beck is running for office in Florida, WTF does he have to do with this?

Fox & Friends crops Rauf's CFR comments to fearmonger about Sharia law | Media Matters for America

 

[Si modo]

Glenn Beck's long history of ripping quotes out of context --->>> Beck's long history of ripping quotes out of context | Media Matters for America

And another mindless sheep rushes into the chute........

Unless Beck is running for office in Florida, WTF does he have to do with this?

Fox & Friends crops Rauf's CFR comments to fearmonger about Sharia law | Media Matters for America

So. Because you find Fox News credible and doing the same thing Grayson did, Grayson must be credible. Is that your point? Or, you find Fox News is not credible and as Grayson did the same thing, your point about Grayson is....?

Tu quoque is a blast.

This is fun.

 

[California Girl]

I've come to accept your ignorance. How hard is this? If you want to make the claim that this is a bald faced lie, you'd have to prove that the wingnut isn't a right wing theocrat.

OMG!

He did it again!

Prove a negative, CG. Go for it.

Are you here to circle jerk, or do you have something to add? Provide a coherent argument that the wingnut in this race isn't a theocrat, and I may concede the argument.

∼∃(x)(Fx)

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

Jim Hoft has shown that there are no depths he won't sink to in order to smear the people that he disagrees with. In May, President Obama honored slain Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl by signing the "Daniel Pearl Freedom of the Press Act." Obama's remarks at the signing made clear that he was honoring Pearl's memory (along with Pearl's widow and son.) Hoft took an out of context video clip of Obama saying Pearl's death "captured the world's imagination" in order to suggest that Obama was celebrating Pearl's murder.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201009210034

 

[Ravi]

From the link:

While the Grayson campaign can be taken to task for taking Webster's comment out of context, in the larger context, they're correct. Grayson's campaign argued that Webster seemed to be supporting submission in his comments to an audience of conservative men, whom he directed to pray that they would better fulfill their biblical duty to love their wives, and leave prayers about women's submission to their wives. However, the emphasis of these remarks, as those familiar with Christian rhetoric could recognize, is not on the optional nature of wives' submission. Wifely submission is part of an often-unbalanced equation to Christians who subscribe to "complementarian" or "patriarchal" marriage roles, where men must "love" and women "obey." Saying that a woman should pray for God's guidance in submission, if she wants to, is not leniency, but rather standard evangelical language that emphasizes individuals must obey biblical mandates regardless of how others around them behave. So, Webster is saying, men must be accountable to God for their responsibility to love their wives regardless of whether she submits -- that they must pray to do right, even if she doesn't.
However, the much more relevant application of this principle on following God's orders despite your circumstances is on women. Submission is a contentious and tricky issue even within conservative evangelical churches. Most churches promoting submission make certain to couple demands for submissive wives with those for loving, servant-leader husbands. But at the end of the day, it's women who bear the brunt of the principle; their obligations are to God, not to a husband who may or may not keep his end of the contract. Accordingly, the message is impressed by countless women's ministries and leaders that women must continue submitting even when their husband doesn't show love, because they owe their obedience, above all, to God. In circles that take submission seriously -- as does any organization associated with Bill Gothard -- that's what wives' options really look like.


​

Someone should ask Webster the question: Does the bible say wives should submit to their husbands? And if so, should wives submit to their husbands?

 

[L.K.Eder]

ah, i see.

si modo is in fallacy-finding mode again. lol

too bad that you can actually prove negatives.


OMG!

 

[Baruch Menachem]

To claim it's a bald faced lie, you'd have to prove that Dan Webster isn't remotely part of the Taliban. You'd first have to prove that Webster isn't a right wing theocrat.

Why am I not surprised that the terminally stupid defend it.

I've come to accept your ignorance. How hard is this? If you want to make the claim that this is a bald faced lie, you'd have to prove that the wingnut isn't a right wing theocrat.

You don't prove a thing to be a lie. If something is not exactly the truth, it is a lie.

If Greyson can't prove the truth of his assertion, then the assertion is false.

 

[L.K.Eder]

Why am I not surprised that the terminally stupid defend it.

I've come to accept your ignorance. How hard is this? If you want to make the claim that this is a bald faced lie, you'd have to prove that the wingnut isn't a right wing theocrat.

You don't prove a thing to be a lie. If something is not exactly the truth, it is a lie.

If Greyson can't prove the truth of his assertion, then the assertion is false.

if something is not exactly the truth, it does not necessarily follow that it is a lie.

 

[Si modo]

ah, i see.

si modo is in fallacy-finding mode again. lol

too bad that you can actually prove negatives.


OMG!

And, because it can be done in exceptional cases (that do not apply here, for those who are thinking posters), it must be the case here as well, huh?

LMFAO!

Damn. Just damn. I should bookmark this thread for a critical thought course.

 

[Si modo]

Why am I not surprised that the terminally stupid defend it.

I've come to accept your ignorance. How hard is this? If you want to make the claim that this is a bald faced lie, you'd have to prove that the wingnut isn't a right wing theocrat.

You don't prove a thing to be a lie. If something is not exactly the truth, it is a lie.

If Greyson can't prove the truth of his assertion, then the assertion is false.

More appropriately, Grayson made an assertion and the burden to support it is on him. As his 'support' for that assertion is false - the content of the quote he used was the opposite - his assertion is without any support. It's just cheap talk until it is supported.

 

[L.K.Eder]

ah, i see.

si modo is in fallacy-finding mode again. lol

too bad that you can actually prove negatives.


OMG!

And, because it can be done in exceptional cases (that do not apply here, for those who are thinking posters), it must be the case here as well, huh?

LMFAO!

Damn. Just damn. I should bookmark this thread for a critical thought course.

yes, you should take such a course. and one in consistency.

your fallacy-finding is risible because you use the same fallacies when they suit your argument.

 

[L.K.Eder]

why don't you answer here on the open board, you whiny coward?

 

[Si modo]

ah, i see.

si modo is in fallacy-finding mode again. lol

too bad that you can actually prove negatives.


OMG!

And, because it can be done in exceptional cases (that do not apply here, for those who are thinking posters), it must be the case here as well, huh?

LMFAO!

Damn. Just damn. I should bookmark this thread for a critical thought course.

yes, you should take such a course. and one in consistency.

your fallacy-finding is risible because you use the same fallacies when they suit your argument.

Watching you post is like watching someone use multisyllabic words in some lame attempt to fit in with the bright folks, but he uses them incorrectly.

 

[L.K.Eder]

And, because it can be done in exceptional cases (that do not apply here, for those who are thinking posters), it must be the case here as well, huh?

LMFAO!

Damn. Just damn. I should bookmark this thread for a critical thought course.

yes, you should take such a course. and one in consistency.

your fallacy-finding is risible because you use the same fallacies when they suit your argument.

Watching you post is like watching someone use multisyllabic words in some lame attempt to fit in with the bright folks, but he uses them incorrectly.

ah, i see by the increasing number of emoticons that you have trouble convincing yourself, hence the TPS style of posting.

it is ok. you will be amongst the "bright folk" if you tell it to yourself often enough. that's how it works.

 

[DiamondDave]

I've come to accept your ignorance. How hard is this? If you want to make the claim that this is a bald faced lie, you'd have to prove that the wingnut isn't a right wing theocrat.

OMG!

He did it again!

Prove a negative, CG. Go for it.

Are you here to circle jerk, or do you have something to add? Provide a coherent argument that the wingnut in this race isn't a theocrat, and I may concede the argument.

You and the ignorant one making the original accusation would indeed have the burden of proof...

What you, you ignorant fucktard, are doing is equivalent to blindly accusing a person of beating his wife and asking them to prove it, when it is you making the outrageous claim without merit

Want an ignoramus