Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
There is no such fallacy as "appeal to hypocrisy." "Whataboutism" is an admission by scum like you that you are proud to be a hypocrit. It's an open admission that you don't care what your filthy party has done. You only care about what Republicans do.Rotten dirty tricks like congress, flat out refusing to meet with a SCOTUS nominee? Changing the rules like getting rid of filibuster in order to get a SCOTUS nominee to be confirmed? Whataboutism or "appeal to hypocrisy" like it is actually called is a logical fallacy used by both sides, or even all humans. Just come on this board when Trump has one of his many scandals. If the right comments on them, just see how many use,"what about Hillary" or " what about Obama".Actually, the Democrats do have a monopoly on hypocrisy. Whenever they invoke the crime of "whataboutism," they are admitting they are hypocrites. They admit they don't care what their side has done, only what Republicans have done.No side has a monopoly on hypocrisy.
Dems spent so much time and effort apologizing for Bill "Boogie Nights" Clinton that they can't say shit about rape. They knew he did it and wanted him anyway.
Fuck all of you worthless hypocrites.
Dims are fucking scum.
They had to invent "whataboutism" because they know whenever it's invoked, they lose. That's what they do, like children on a second grade playground. Establish rules and they establish NEW rules when they start losing.
My contempt just hardens further, really, and I don't like saying that. But Dems, you really should stand up when your people employ these rotten dirty tricks. HIGH SCHOOL. Really?
Tu quoque - WikipediaThere is no such fallacy as "appeal to hypocrisy." "Whataboutism" is an admission by scum like you that you are proud to be a hypocrit. It's an open admission that you don't care what your filthy party has done. You only care about what Republicans do.Rotten dirty tricks like congress, flat out refusing to meet with a SCOTUS nominee? Changing the rules like getting rid of filibuster in order to get a SCOTUS nominee to be confirmed? Whataboutism or "appeal to hypocrisy" like it is actually called is a logical fallacy used by both sides, or even all humans. Just come on this board when Trump has one of his many scandals. If the right comments on them, just see how many use,"what about Hillary" or " what about Obama".Actually, the Democrats do have a monopoly on hypocrisy. Whenever they invoke the crime of "whataboutism," they are admitting they are hypocrites. They admit they don't care what their side has done, only what Republicans have done.No side has a monopoly on hypocrisy.
Dems spent so much time and effort apologizing for Bill "Boogie Nights" Clinton that they can't say shit about rape. They knew he did it and wanted him anyway.
Fuck all of you worthless hypocrites.
Dims are fucking scum.
They had to invent "whataboutism" because they know whenever it's invoked, they lose. That's what they do, like children on a second grade playground. Establish rules and they establish NEW rules when they start losing.
My contempt just hardens further, really, and I don't like saying that. But Dems, you really should stand up when your people employ these rotten dirty tricks. HIGH SCHOOL. Really?
By the way, admitting that you sometimes act hypocritical doesn't signal not caring what my party does. It doesn't signal me being scum. It signals me being an honest observer of my and other peoples behavior. It's another thing that you'd do well to learn. It not only makes you more likable to most people. It actually makes you a better human.There is no such fallacy as "appeal to hypocrisy." "Whataboutism" is an admission by scum like you that you are proud to be a hypocrit. It's an open admission that you don't care what your filthy party has done. You only care about what Republicans do.Rotten dirty tricks like congress, flat out refusing to meet with a SCOTUS nominee? Changing the rules like getting rid of filibuster in order to get a SCOTUS nominee to be confirmed? Whataboutism or "appeal to hypocrisy" like it is actually called is a logical fallacy used by both sides, or even all humans. Just come on this board when Trump has one of his many scandals. If the right comments on them, just see how many use,"what about Hillary" or " what about Obama".Actually, the Democrats do have a monopoly on hypocrisy. Whenever they invoke the crime of "whataboutism," they are admitting they are hypocrites. They admit they don't care what their side has done, only what Republicans have done.No side has a monopoly on hypocrisy.
Dems spent so much time and effort apologizing for Bill "Boogie Nights" Clinton that they can't say shit about rape. They knew he did it and wanted him anyway.
Fuck all of you worthless hypocrites.
Dims are fucking scum.
They had to invent "whataboutism" because they know whenever it's invoked, they lose. That's what they do, like children on a second grade playground. Establish rules and they establish NEW rules when they start losing.
My contempt just hardens further, really, and I don't like saying that. But Dems, you really should stand up when your people employ these rotten dirty tricks. HIGH SCHOOL. Really?
By the way, admitting that you sometimes act hypocritical doesn't signal not caring what my party does. It doesn't signal me being scum. It signals me being an honest observer of my and other peoples behavior. It's another thing that you'd do well to learn. It not only makes you more likable to most people. It actually makes you a better human.There is no such fallacy as "appeal to hypocrisy." "Whataboutism" is an admission by scum like you that you are proud to be a hypocrit. It's an open admission that you don't care what your filthy party has done. You only care about what Republicans do.Rotten dirty tricks like congress, flat out refusing to meet with a SCOTUS nominee? Changing the rules like getting rid of filibuster in order to get a SCOTUS nominee to be confirmed? Whataboutism or "appeal to hypocrisy" like it is actually called is a logical fallacy used by both sides, or even all humans. Just come on this board when Trump has one of his many scandals. If the right comments on them, just see how many use,"what about Hillary" or " what about Obama".Actually, the Democrats do have a monopoly on hypocrisy. Whenever they invoke the crime of "whataboutism," they are admitting they are hypocrites. They admit they don't care what their side has done, only what Republicans have done.No side has a monopoly on hypocrisy.
Dems spent so much time and effort apologizing for Bill "Boogie Nights" Clinton that they can't say shit about rape. They knew he did it and wanted him anyway.
Fuck all of you worthless hypocrites.
Dims are fucking scum.
They had to invent "whataboutism" because they know whenever it's invoked, they lose. That's what they do, like children on a second grade playground. Establish rules and they establish NEW rules when they start losing.
My contempt just hardens further, really, and I don't like saying that. But Dems, you really should stand up when your people employ these rotten dirty tricks. HIGH SCHOOL. Really?
If you don't want me to take the moral high ground, it probably is a good idea to not call someone scum like Bripat did. I'm very sure you'd like it better when I just start flaming people so you claim me to be just as bad. I just don't roll that way. If you have a problem with that, just talk to me like you would talk to a normal human being. I know that in the age of Trump, those that just like to piss on the other side have found a poster boy. Wouldn't the country be better of if civility would make a comeback though?By the way, admitting that you sometimes act hypocritical doesn't signal not caring what my party does. It doesn't signal me being scum. It signals me being an honest observer of my and other peoples behavior. It's another thing that you'd do well to learn. It not only makes you more likable to most people. It actually makes you a better human.There is no such fallacy as "appeal to hypocrisy." "Whataboutism" is an admission by scum like you that you are proud to be a hypocrit. It's an open admission that you don't care what your filthy party has done. You only care about what Republicans do.Rotten dirty tricks like congress, flat out refusing to meet with a SCOTUS nominee? Changing the rules like getting rid of filibuster in order to get a SCOTUS nominee to be confirmed? Whataboutism or "appeal to hypocrisy" like it is actually called is a logical fallacy used by both sides, or even all humans. Just come on this board when Trump has one of his many scandals. If the right comments on them, just see how many use,"what about Hillary" or " what about Obama".Actually, the Democrats do have a monopoly on hypocrisy. Whenever they invoke the crime of "whataboutism," they are admitting they are hypocrites. They admit they don't care what their side has done, only what Republicans have done.
Dims are fucking scum.
They had to invent "whataboutism" because they know whenever it's invoked, they lose. That's what they do, like children on a second grade playground. Establish rules and they establish NEW rules when they start losing.
My contempt just hardens further, really, and I don't like saying that. But Dems, you really should stand up when your people employ these rotten dirty tricks. HIGH SCHOOL. Really?
Yes, the Dem playbook: the Moral High Ground. I'm an "honest observer", you'd do well to learn from me, you'd be more likable and a better human.
Hey dude, 2013 called, it wants its Puritanical PC tactic back. Or are you not up on the latest?
Also, pukeworthy.
This is a last-minute desperate effort by the left to keep the court from becoming conservative. They always trot out the fragile woman card from 30 years ago when all else fails. How many times have we seen this now?
It does reek of desperation on the part of the Democrats. We'll see what happens in the hearings.
I hope to heck the woman absolutely falls apart--and this looks like a fair bet. By her professor rating, she looks plain nuts. And I must say the Democrats richly, richly deserve the public humiliation if she DOES fall apart. Oh, they richly deserve it.
By the way, admitting that you sometimes act hypocritical doesn't signal not caring what my party does. It doesn't signal me being scum. It signals me being an honest observer of my and other peoples behavior. It's another thing that you'd do well to learn. It not only makes you more likable to most people. It actually makes you a better human.There is no such fallacy as "appeal to hypocrisy." "Whataboutism" is an admission by scum like you that you are proud to be a hypocrit. It's an open admission that you don't care what your filthy party has done. You only care about what Republicans do.Rotten dirty tricks like congress, flat out refusing to meet with a SCOTUS nominee? Changing the rules like getting rid of filibuster in order to get a SCOTUS nominee to be confirmed? Whataboutism or "appeal to hypocrisy" like it is actually called is a logical fallacy used by both sides, or even all humans. Just come on this board when Trump has one of his many scandals. If the right comments on them, just see how many use,"what about Hillary" or " what about Obama".Actually, the Democrats do have a monopoly on hypocrisy. Whenever they invoke the crime of "whataboutism," they are admitting they are hypocrites. They admit they don't care what their side has done, only what Republicans have done.No side has a monopoly on hypocrisy.
Dems spent so much time and effort apologizing for Bill "Boogie Nights" Clinton that they can't say shit about rape. They knew he did it and wanted him anyway.
Fuck all of you worthless hypocrites.
Dims are fucking scum.
They had to invent "whataboutism" because they know whenever it's invoked, they lose. That's what they do, like children on a second grade playground. Establish rules and they establish NEW rules when they start losing.
My contempt just hardens further, really, and I don't like saying that. But Dems, you really should stand up when your people employ these rotten dirty tricks. HIGH SCHOOL. Really?
You, take the moral high ground? Please do. We can all use a good laugh.If you don't want me to take the moral high ground, it probably is a good idea to not call someone scum like Bripat did. I'm very sure you'd like it better when I just start flaming people so you claim me to be just as bad. I just don't roll that way. If you have a problem with that, just talk to me like you would talk to a normal human being. I know that in the age of Trump, those that just like to piss on the other side have found a poster boy. Wouldn't the country be better of if civility would make a comeback though?By the way, admitting that you sometimes act hypocritical doesn't signal not caring what my party does. It doesn't signal me being scum. It signals me being an honest observer of my and other peoples behavior. It's another thing that you'd do well to learn. It not only makes you more likable to most people. It actually makes you a better human.There is no such fallacy as "appeal to hypocrisy." "Whataboutism" is an admission by scum like you that you are proud to be a hypocrit. It's an open admission that you don't care what your filthy party has done. You only care about what Republicans do.Rotten dirty tricks like congress, flat out refusing to meet with a SCOTUS nominee? Changing the rules like getting rid of filibuster in order to get a SCOTUS nominee to be confirmed? Whataboutism or "appeal to hypocrisy" like it is actually called is a logical fallacy used by both sides, or even all humans. Just come on this board when Trump has one of his many scandals. If the right comments on them, just see how many use,"what about Hillary" or " what about Obama".They had to invent "whataboutism" because they know whenever it's invoked, they lose. That's what they do, like children on a second grade playground. Establish rules and they establish NEW rules when they start losing.
My contempt just hardens further, really, and I don't like saying that. But Dems, you really should stand up when your people employ these rotten dirty tricks. HIGH SCHOOL. Really?
Yes, the Dem playbook: the Moral High Ground. I'm an "honest observer", you'd do well to learn from me, you'd be more likable and a better human.
Hey dude, 2013 called, it wants its Puritanical PC tactic back. Or are you not up on the latest?
Also, pukeworthy.
I wasn't there in 1983 when it should have been reported. I didn't stop her from reporting it. And fuck you if you are saying I'm accepting of sexual assault.And this is an example of the ignorance and acceptance of sexual assault that results in women refraining reporting being attacked.Here's another version of the same Op-Ed that is everywhere...
Is Brett Kavanaugh a nice guy? That's irrelevant. So is alleged sexual assault as a teen.
Paraphrasing -- he did it. He lied about it. We knew about it. We don't care we want our judge.
Situational ethics.
C'mon man, it was 1983 and apparently the "attack" was so serious that there was no police investigation, police report, no authorities were called to investigate....nothing.
Show me where the victim was legitimately in fear of her life and took the standard and customary steps of calling the authorities, and I'll change my mind in a moment about this. But really....what's next? He jaywalked in 1985, stiffed a waitress on her tip in 1989...downloaded music from Napster in 1990 and scalped tickets to the Red Sox/Yankees playoff game?
I'm all for examining the man's record. The full professional record should be under scrutiny--something that the Republicans are hiding by the way. He may have committed some form of violence against this person; he may not have. But unless you report it; you can't play the card 35 years later and say it happened. I'll use the example again; if we got into a fist fight today and I don't call the police to investigate it or the College Dean or our supervisor at work (if it happened at work)...I cannot come back in the year 2053 and say you assaulted me, can I?
How long ago a sexual assault occurred and whether it was reported to the authorities or not in no manner mitigates or undermines the legitimacy and severity of the attack, and it does not absolve the attacker of being responsible for the attack, or suffering the consequences of his actions.
Here's another version of the same Op-Ed that is everywhere...
Is Brett Kavanaugh a nice guy? That's irrelevant. So is alleged sexual assault as a teen.
Paraphrasing -- he did it. He lied about it. We knew about it. We don't care we want our judge.
Situational ethics.
Yes, were Trump a Democrat, the religious right would be horrified by the antics he has gotten up to.
As he's a Republican, they don't care.
And this is an example of the ignorance and acceptance of sexual assault that results in women refraining reporting being attacked.Here's another version of the same Op-Ed that is everywhere...
Is Brett Kavanaugh a nice guy? That's irrelevant. So is alleged sexual assault as a teen.
Paraphrasing -- he did it. He lied about it. We knew about it. We don't care we want our judge.
Situational ethics.
C'mon man, it was 1983 and apparently the "attack" was so serious that there was no police investigation, police report, no authorities were called to investigate....nothing.
Show me where the victim was legitimately in fear of her life and took the standard and customary steps of calling the authorities, and I'll change my mind in a moment about this. But really....what's next? He jaywalked in 1985, stiffed a waitress on her tip in 1989...downloaded music from Napster in 1990 and scalped tickets to the Red Sox/Yankees playoff game?
I'm all for examining the man's record. The full professional record should be under scrutiny--something that the Republicans are hiding by the way. He may have committed some form of violence against this person; he may not have. But unless you report it; you can't play the card 35 years later and say it happened. I'll use the example again; if we got into a fist fight today and I don't call the police to investigate it or the College Dean or our supervisor at work (if it happened at work)...I cannot come back in the year 2053 and say you assaulted me, can I?
How long ago a sexual assault occurred and whether it was reported to the authorities or not in no manner mitigates or undermines the legitimacy and severity of the attack, and it does not absolve the attacker of being responsible for the attack, or suffering the consequences of his actions.
You seem to have missed the fact that I just said everybody is hypocritical, not just me, EVERYBODY. The post I replied to was hypocritical. It gave a few examples, like "changing of rules." Something that the Republican congress did in order to get Gorsush confirmed and the Democrats before that to get regular judges confirmed. It talks about whataboutism while EVERYBODY, including you, regularly uses Clinton and Obama to deflect from something Trump did. The difference being that I'm capable to recognize and honest enough to say that I and the Democratic party are sometimes hypocritical. You on the other hand are incapable of doing so, even when it's pointed out to you. Even more, have to gall to call me craven because I do admit to it. From were I sit that DOES give me the moral high ground. I'm merely a hypocrite on occasions. You're a hypocrite, liar , not to mention ill mannered.By the way, admitting that you sometimes act hypocritical doesn't signal not caring what my party does. It doesn't signal me being scum. It signals me being an honest observer of my and other peoples behavior. It's another thing that you'd do well to learn. It not only makes you more likable to most people. It actually makes you a better human.There is no such fallacy as "appeal to hypocrisy." "Whataboutism" is an admission by scum like you that you are proud to be a hypocrit. It's an open admission that you don't care what your filthy party has done. You only care about what Republicans do.Rotten dirty tricks like congress, flat out refusing to meet with a SCOTUS nominee? Changing the rules like getting rid of filibuster in order to get a SCOTUS nominee to be confirmed? Whataboutism or "appeal to hypocrisy" like it is actually called is a logical fallacy used by both sides, or even all humans. Just come on this board when Trump has one of his many scandals. If the right comments on them, just see how many use,"what about Hillary" or " what about Obama".Actually, the Democrats do have a monopoly on hypocrisy. Whenever they invoke the crime of "whataboutism," they are admitting they are hypocrites. They admit they don't care what their side has done, only what Republicans have done.
Dims are fucking scum.
They had to invent "whataboutism" because they know whenever it's invoked, they lose. That's what they do, like children on a second grade playground. Establish rules and they establish NEW rules when they start losing.
My contempt just hardens further, really, and I don't like saying that. But Dems, you really should stand up when your people employ these rotten dirty tricks. HIGH SCHOOL. Really?
It isn't "sometimes." It's what scum like you do whenever anyone points out your craven hypocrisy. You're honest about being a hypocrite and that you're totally shameless about it.
Admitting you're a shameless scumbag doesn't make you more likeable.
And this is an example of the ignorance and acceptance of sexual assault that results in women refraining reporting being attacked.Here's another version of the same Op-Ed that is everywhere...
Is Brett Kavanaugh a nice guy? That's irrelevant. So is alleged sexual assault as a teen.
Paraphrasing -- he did it. He lied about it. We knew about it. We don't care we want our judge.
Situational ethics.
C'mon man, it was 1983 and apparently the "attack" was so serious that there was no police investigation, police report, no authorities were called to investigate....nothing.
Show me where the victim was legitimately in fear of her life and took the standard and customary steps of calling the authorities, and I'll change my mind in a moment about this. But really....what's next? He jaywalked in 1985, stiffed a waitress on her tip in 1989...downloaded music from Napster in 1990 and scalped tickets to the Red Sox/Yankees playoff game?
I'm all for examining the man's record. The full professional record should be under scrutiny--something that the Republicans are hiding by the way. He may have committed some form of violence against this person; he may not have. But unless you report it; you can't play the card 35 years later and say it happened. I'll use the example again; if we got into a fist fight today and I don't call the police to investigate it or the College Dean or our supervisor at work (if it happened at work)...I cannot come back in the year 2053 and say you assaulted me, can I?
How long ago a sexual assault occurred and whether it was reported to the authorities or not in no manner mitigates or undermines the legitimacy and severity of the attack, and it does not absolve the attacker of being responsible for the attack, or suffering the consequences of his actions.
So we should convict a man with no evidence and no actual police investigation or even a report by the “victim”.
Kavanaugh is the victim here.
you can come decades later and say it, but there are statutes of limitation that prevents anything legal, coming from it, even if true....and expect to be bashed and lied about and gone over like a fine tooth comb, if you do, and maybe lose your own job and career.Here's another version of the same Op-Ed that is everywhere...
Is Brett Kavanaugh a nice guy? That's irrelevant. So is alleged sexual assault as a teen.
Paraphrasing -- he did it. He lied about it. We knew about it. We don't care we want our judge.
Situational ethics.
C'mon man, it was 1983 and apparently the "attack" was so serious that there was no police investigation, police report, no authorities were called to investigate....nothing.
Show me where the victim was legitimately in fear of her life and took the standard and customary steps of calling the authorities, and I'll change my mind in a moment about this. But really....what's next? He jaywalked in 1985, stiffed a waitress on her tip in 1989...downloaded music from Napster in 1990 and scalped tickets to the Red Sox/Yankees playoff game?
I'm all for examining the man's record. The full professional record should be under scrutiny--something that the Republicans are hiding by the way. He may have committed some form of violence against this person; he may not have. But unless you report it; you can't play the card 35 years later and say it happened. I'll use the example again; if we got into a fist fight today and I don't call the police to investigate it or the College Dean or our supervisor at work (if it happened at work)...I cannot come back in the year 2053 and say you assaulted me, can I?
So you'll be cool when #METOO comes after you with a "letter" claiming you sexually assaulted some girl, a long time ago. Oh yeah you did it! For sure. Because you know, we have this letter. You're good with that, right?
So we should convict a man with no evidence and no actual police investigation or even a report by the “victim”.
Kavanaugh is the victim here.
and the testimony will be under oath...So you'll be cool when #METOO comes after you with a "letter" claiming you sexually assaulted some girl, a long time ago. Oh yeah you did it! For sure. Because you know, we have this letter. You're good with that, right?
If it was just a letter, I'd say no.
But this woman is willing to testify in front of Congress, and we can all judge her credibility there.
Here's another version of the same Op-Ed that is everywhere...
Is Brett Kavanaugh a nice guy? That's irrelevant. So is alleged sexual assault as a teen.
Paraphrasing -- he did it. He lied about it. We knew about it. We don't care we want our judge.
Situational ethics.
