[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

How could it be a change of subject if it's directly related to exactly what I said in the first place? [/quote]

It wasn’t what you had said before, the comments to which I had responded. It was an attempt to change the subject from you opening your yap, saying something foolish and then getting called on it, to something else.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

You don't even know when you're lying, do you? [/quote]

I sense that you don’t get to talk face to face with humans often, and on those rare occasions I’m pretty certain you don’t pop-off then as you do here. But, for those blue-moon events in which you’re speaking to someone in real life, and you feel the need to cover the fact that you’ve been caught out speaking like a fool, avoid the temptation to question the other person’s integrity, as you do here.

That is, unless you want to spend a few weeks taking all your meals through a straw. It’s obvious from the logical and linguistic gymnastics that you specialize in here that your word doesn’t mean anything to you, but you’ll be shocked, I’m sure, to find out that others DO consider their word to be worth something and they don’t take it lightly when someone like you questions their word, especially when it’s done in a transparent attempt to undo some damage you’ve done to yourself by speaking gibberish.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

I gave you links to several. You could have simply said (as you later admitted) that you simply hadn't seen the call, but you chose to bob, weave and attack instead.

I'm sorry, am I not allowed to question the validity of your citations? [/quote]

Knock yourself out, pal. Just don’t go about it by trying to call a nationally syndicated TV show a “NY TV station” or attempt to diminish the NY Times, among others, as simply a NYC newspaper. It makes you sound like a fool. It provides even more evidence that exchanges with you are a waste of time.

Later, in another post to another person you admitted that you might have missed such calls for gun control in the wake of the VT shootings. It would have been wise for you to do that initially when I presented you with numerous sites of just that sort of call.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer] Do did the same with your "administration failure" line, bring Bush into the VT shooting in the usual BDS manner.

Sorry, I don't understand what "BDS manner" means. [/quote]

That’s not news, most sufferers of Bush Derangement Syndrome don’t know what it is that’s clouding their judgment and causing them to link Bush to every situation under the Sun, like you linking the VT shootings to Bush.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer] If I said that the situation in New Orleans in the wake of Katrina went to show the ineptitude of FEMA, it doesn't mean that I blame FEMA for the storm, …..[/quote]

A pathetic attempt to weasel out of what you did say…

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

With VT. It's not that the administration could have done anything about this (so far as I know) just like there is nothing they could have done about Katrina. It's just that every time something happens, this administration is out making excuses for why we weren't ready for it. [/quote]

Nice work trying to find a way to put Bush into the VT situation without cause.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Why don't we have a central clearing house for information so that when a college student buys two hand guns, lots of ammo clips ….[/quote]

Those things alone shouldn’t set off alarms, as he didn’t do them all at once. If they did law enforcement people would spend their time looking at nothing else, as those events are so common.

The question you might want to ask, if you really cared about how this happened, would be why is it a person with a mental heath history wasn’t flagged against buying guns by the people who considered him a threat to himself and others. But, that would be a question for the people in the system in Virginia, and thus your target, Bush, isn’t involved, thus you really don’t care enough to ask.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

We're supposed to be on terrorist alert! We're supposed to be ready if there's another 9/11. Nothing has shown us that this administration is prepared for this at all![/quote]

You’re delusional. You want to take a situation of what appears to be the lawful purchase of two handguns and a few magazines, over a period of weeks, and make it proof we’re not ready for terrorist attacks in the US? You figure the next terrorist attack is going to be made with two handguns? That's what you want a system constructed across the nation to look for?

[quote=Whomitmayconcer] That is why I used this occasion to bring this up, this is just another example of the holes in the lies that this administration keeps telling us.

[/quote]

No, you “used this occasion” because your infection of BDS caused you to. There’s no logical connection between Bush and the VT incident, nor is there any logical reason to place ANY form of responsibility on events there with Bush. Rational people understand this, you don’t.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liar

a person who tells lies.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie

1.

a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.

2.

something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.

3. an inaccurate or false statement.

It wasn’t what you had said before, the comments to which I had responded. It was an attempt to change the subject from you opening your yap, saying something foolish and then getting called on it, to something else.

What in the blue blazes are you talking about? I said "a" then you said "a" (as if it were something that was not previously considered) Then I said, "I said 'a'" and you say that I am trying to change the subject.

That is "an inaccurate or false statement" a definition of a lie. 

you’ll be shocked, I’m sure, to find

It's not what you don't know that gives you problems, it's what you're "sure" of that's just plain old wrong! 

Knock yourself out, pal. Just don’t go about it by trying to call a nationally syndicated TV show a “NY TV station” or attempt to diminish the NY Times, among others, as simply a NYC newspaper.

Let's go back to the original post again shall we?

"As to the NYT. Given that it is seen as the standard bearer for the "NYC Jewish Liberal" mindset and given that it is seen as "the Paper of record" nationally. That was a relatively mild editorial, I mean, that citation of yours was the ultimate paragraph. That's not a fire and brimstone rabblerousing, charge the gates, change the system editorial."

SO saying that I tried to diminish the NYT as simply an NYC Newspaper, hits the trifecta! It is all three of the definitions of a lie.

It would have been wise for you to do that initially when I presented you with numerous sites of just that sort of call.

Except that they really weren't all sites that called for gun control. The CBS (which is a network that is based in ...where??? NYC!) article was about the absense of the gun control conversation . I pointed this out at least three times now and yet you still try to use this article as a "gun control" evidence. The NY Newsday article (which was first printed in the Washington Post didn't even contain the word Gun or the word Control. This is something that I pointed out too, and yet you continue to make...

a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive

That’s not news, most sufferers of Bush Derangement Syndrome don’t know

Once again, if we have to only argue what Mikebutler222 knows, there is going to be a discussion an inch wide and a sisteenie deep. All I said was that I don't know what "BDS" means.

 like you linking the VT shootings to Bush.

Well, at least you moved off "blaming" and got to "linking". It's still "an inaccurate or false statement" and I explained why before, readers are welcome to go back and read again, either the original, the cited paragraph or the paragraph in context. When they do they'll know you as I do.

Those things alone shouldn’t set off alarms, as he didn’t do them all at once. If they did law enforcement people would spend their time looking at nothing else, as those events are so common.

Have you ever heard of Google? If Walmart reported bullet purchases, and ebay reported gun clip purchases and gun retailers reported pistol sales then the central "terrorist hunters" would be able to "google" those events and spit out a name that they have in common. No, this administration is too busy using money appropriated for "Homeland Security" buying votes by protecting the Iowa Corn Festival.

This is Fricking VIRGINIA! Right down the street for WASHINGTON D.C.! If there are people accumulating bullets for a Glock, maybe Homeland Security might want to know about it.

It'll take too much cop time? Hire more cops. It's not like they don't have the money. It's that they don't spend the money where it will do the greatest good.

The question you might want to ask, if you really cared about how this happened, would be why is it a person with a mental heath history wasn’t flagged against buying guns by

If anything, the "Legislate something" crowd was talking about integrating the mental health database with the other legal databases.<?:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O />

This is a tricky issue for the left... On the one hand they'd like to keep information out of the hands of big brother (which is generally something that the right says too) but on the other hand they'd like to have more reasons not to sell people guns.

Gee, I did ask that question, right up front... That's inconvenient there.

and make it proof we’re not ready for terrorist attacks in the US?

"Proof"? No. Evidence? Yes.

BTW, this was a terrorist attack. He isn't Al Queda, but he wanted to use terror to change the perception of people that he saw as people "like him". That's terrorism.  But this is besides the point.

You figure the next terrorist attack is going to be made with two handguns?

What is the threshold? At what point does the flag go up? He bought five guns? He bought ten guns? He bought 10 boxes of pistol bullets? he bought 100? We're supposed to be on terrorist alert! We're supposed to be ready if there's another 9/11. Nothing has shown us that this administration is prepared for this at all!

Now why don't you say "We're not going to tell the enemy what the threshold is"?Our experience is that the threshold is whatever the Brits uncover.

 There’s no logical connection between Bush and the VT incident, nor is there any logical reason to place ANY form of responsibility on events there with Bush. Rational people understand this, you don’t.

Another trifecta. I never blamed, linked, or connected Bush to the incident. I pointed pointed at it as evidence of another case of the an administration not having the intelligence infrastructure that they have been given the tools and the approval to create.

Liars lie Mikebutler222, you lie, therfore you are a liar. Would I tell you that to your face? Probably not, I avoid liars. When I know that a person's word is untrustworthy I chose not to engage that person in conversation. Or, I do as I have done here, I expose the lies and let the truth be known. Usually, the person is ashamed of their lies and they stop telling them around me. You seem impervious to this shame.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liar

a person who tells lies.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie

1.

a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.

2.

something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.

3. an inaccurate or false statement.

It wasn’t what you had said before, the comments to which I had responded. It was an attempt to change the subject from you opening your yap, saying something foolish and then getting called on it, to something else.

What in the blue blazes are you talking about? I said "a" then you said "a" (as if it were something that was not previously considered) Then I said, "I said 'a'" and you say that I am trying to change the subject.

That is "an inaccurate or false statement" a definition of a lie. 

you’ll be shocked, I’m sure, to find

It's not what you don't know that gives you problems, it's what you're "sure" of that's just plain old wrong! 

Knock yourself out, pal. Just don’t go about it by trying to call a nationally syndicated TV show a “NY TV station” or attempt to diminish the NY Times, among others, as simply a NYC newspaper.

Let's go back to the original post again shall we?

"As to the NYT. Given that it is seen as the standard bearer for the "NYC Jewish Liberal" mindset and given that it is seen as "the Paper of record" nationally. That was a relatively mild editorial, I mean, that citation of yours was the ultimate paragraph. That's not a fire and brimstone rabblerousing, charge the gates, change the system editorial."

SO saying that I tried to diminish the NYT as simply an NYC Newspaper, hits the trifecta! It is all three of the definitions of a lie.

It would have been wise for you to do that initially when I presented you with numerous sites of just that sort of call.

Except that they really weren't all sites that called for gun control. The CBS (which is a network that is based in ...where??? NYC!) article was about the absense of the gun control conversation . I pointed this out at least three times now and yet you still try to use this article as a "gun control" evidence. The NY Newsday article (which was first printed in the Washington Post didn't even contain the word Gun or the word Control. This is something that I pointed out too, and yet you continue to make...

a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive

That’s not news, most sufferers of Bush Derangement Syndrome don’t know

Once again, if we have to only argue what Mikebutler222 knows, there is going to be a discussion an inch wide and a sisteenie deep. All I said was that I don't know what "BDS" means.

 like you linking the VT shootings to Bush.

Well, at least you moved off "blaming" and got to "linking". It's still "an inaccurate or false statement" and I explained why before, readers are welcome to go back and read again, either the original, the cited paragraph or the paragraph in context. When they do they'll know you as I do.

Those things alone shouldn’t set off alarms, as he didn’t do them all at once. If they did law enforcement people would spend their time looking at nothing else, as those events are so common.

Have you ever heard of Google? If Walmart reported bullet purchases, and ebay reported gun clip purchases and gun retailers reported pistol sales then the central "terrorist hunters" would be able to "google" those events and spit out a name that they have in common. No, this administration is too busy using money appropriated for "Homeland Security" buying votes by protecting the Iowa Corn Festival.

This is Fricking VIRGINIA! Right down the street for WASHINGTON D.C.! If there are people accumulating bullets for a Glock, maybe Homeland Security might want to know about it.

It'll take too much cop time? Hire more cops. It's not like they don't have the money. It's that they don't spend the money where it will do the greatest good.

The question you might want to ask, if you really cared about how this happened, would be why is it a person with a mental heath history wasn’t flagged against buying guns by

If anything, the "Legislate something" crowd was talking about integrating the mental health database with the other legal databases.<?:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O />

This is a tricky issue for the left... On the one hand they'd like to keep information out of the hands of big brother (which is generally something that the right says too) but on the other hand they'd like to have more reasons not to sell people guns.

Gee, I did ask that question, right up front... That's inconvenient there.

and make it proof we’re not ready for terrorist attacks in the US?

"Proof"? No. Evidence? Yes.

BTW, this was a terrorist attack. He isn't Al Queda, but he wanted to use terror to change the perception of people that he saw as people "like him". That's terrorism.  But this is besides the point.

You figure the next terrorist attack is going to be made with two handguns?

What is the threshold? At what point does the flag go up? He bought five guns? He bought ten guns? He bought 10 boxes of pistol bullets? he bought 100? We're supposed to be on terrorist alert! We're supposed to be ready if there's another 9/11. Nothing has shown us that this administration is prepared for this at all!

Now why don't you say "We're not going to tell the enemy what the threshold is"?Our experience is that the threshold is whatever the Brits uncover.

 There’s no logical connection between Bush and the VT incident, nor is there any logical reason to place ANY form of responsibility on events there with Bush. Rational people understand this, you don’t.

Another trifecta. I never blamed, linked, or connected Bush to the incident. I pointed pointed at it as evidence of another case of the an administration not having the intelligence infrastructure that they have been given the tools and the approval to create.

Liars lie Mikebutler222, you lie, therfore you are a liar. Would I tell you that to your face? Probably not, I avoid liars. When I know that a person's word is untrustworthy I chose not to engage that person in conversation. Or, I do as I have done here, I expose the lies and let the truth be known. Usually, the person is ashamed of their lies and they stop telling them around me. You seem impervious to this shame.

[/quote]

Egads.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer] <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liar

a person who tells lies.

[/quote]

 You’re a despicable bit of internet road debris that says things on forums that you’ve never, never summon up the courage to say in real life.

 

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Knock yourself out, pal. Just don’t go about it by trying to call a nationally syndicated TV show a “NY TV station” or attempt to diminish the NY Times, among others, as simply a NYC newspaper.

Let's go back to the original post again shall we?

"As to the NYT. Given that it is seen as the standard bearer for the "NYC Jewish Liberal" mindset and given that it is seen as "the Paper of record" nationally. That was a relatively mild editorial, I mean, that citation of yours was the ultimate paragraph. That's not a fire and brimstone rabblerousing, charge the gates, change the system editorial." [/quote]

Notice how we went from you "not hearing" to you quibbling about whether or not the NY Times piece was sufficently "fire and brimestone"? You admit, after your "three NY newspapers" line with an admission that the Times is the national paper of record, you hadn't read their call for more gun control and now you quibble about their tone?

How pathetic.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer] SO saying that I tried to diminish the NYT as simply an NYC Newspaper, hits the trifecta! It is all three of the definitions of a lie. [/quote]

  Hmm, even though you did JUST THAT, as I show below with your opening response to my links?

A wonderful example of what makes you the pathological liar that you are.

This all began with YOU saying;

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

What I find interesting is that I didn't hear anyone yelling for gun control…[/quote]

 

Without calling you a fool or a liar or any other number names that would have been appropriate for someone saying something as foolish as you did above, I provided you with links. Links to The NY Times, A nationally syndicated PBS TV show, the NYDaily News, The Brady campaign website, Newsday and  CBS News. All discussing calls for  more gun control and/or the political implications of the event and the ongoing gun control debate , all citing the VT shootings.

Did you respond then as you later did, admitting you’re not a news hound and simply had missed those? Why of course not. 

 [quote=Whomitmayconcer]

It would have been wise for you to do that initially when I presented you with numerous sites of just that sort of call.

Except that they really weren't all sites that called for gun control. [/quote]

Note the shifting of the goalposts, a classic dishonest ploy on your part. Six sources and now the issue is “they all” weren’t… well, how about those you couldn't quibble about?

Perhaps we could have had a reasonable discussion about each of the six, had you not opened in your usual snarky fashion with;

[quote=Whomitmayconcer] As for your links, thank you for them.

Three NYC news papers and a NYC TV station. Huh! What do you know? [/quote]

Right, that’s a completely rational way to describe The NY Times, CBS, PBS and two regional NYC papers, all the result of a 2 minute Google search… you just ooze dishonesty.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer] Once again, if we have to only argue what Mikebutler222 knows, there is going to be a discussion an inch wide and a sisteenie deep. All I said was that I don't know what "BDS" means. [/quote]

You’re pretty cocky for a massively uninformed loon, you know that? I explained what BDS is and how you manifest it.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer] Well, at least you moved off "blaming" and got to "linking". It's still "an inaccurate or false statement" and I explained why before, readers are welcome to go back and read again, either the original, the cited paragraph or the paragraph in context. When they do they'll know you as I do. [/quote]

Let’s do that, shall we? Here’s my first comment on your lunatic insinuation of Bush into the VT shootings…

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

It is absolutely another measure of the failure of this administration that,......

 

Why, of course, the VT shoot is Bush's fault, as is the fact that it rained yesterday and washed out my golf outing...  [/quote]

 

The entirety of your line linking an alleged “failure of this administration”… is here;

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

It is absolutely another measure of the failure of this administration that, here we are closing in on 6 years after 9/12 (the day that the administration started working on taking away personal freedoms) and the calls for integrated information systems between law enforcement, emergency management, domestic and international intelligence and whomnot... We still don't seem to be ANY closer! [/quote]

 

Now, in a discussion about the shooting at VT, where the shooter was able, over time, to accumulate two handguns ammunition and clips, what else are we to make of your inclusion of Bush other than some failure on HIS PART allowed this to happen?

 

That’s not blame? That’s not linkage? That's not connection? Care to put that claim, whether you did or didn't, to a vote here?

 

Later, when you claim you’ve never done those things you expose yourself as the inveterate liar (not to mention loon for suggesting there should be a system that complies information as trivial as the legal purchase, over time, of the pedestrian elements the shooter used) that you are.

 

And just for grins, this “failure”, tell me when anyone every suggested that tracking terrorists should allow the government to accumulate (and in the grand scheme of things what the shooter bought was trivial and not at all uncommon, it’s what he did with them that caused the tragedy)  details like we’re talking about much less when was there a mandate for the government to do so?

 

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

 

Those things alone shouldn’t set off alarms, as he didn’t do them all at once. If they did law enforcement people would spend their time looking at nothing else, as those events are so common.

Have you ever heard of Google? If Walmart reported bullet purchases, and ebay reported gun clip purchases and gun retailers reported pistol sales then the central "terrorist hunters" would be able to "google" those events and spit out a name that they have in common. No, this administration is too busy using money appropriated for "Homeland Security" buying votes by protecting the Iowa Corn Festival. [/quote]

Now you veer from liar to lunatic. You really figure “terrorist hunters” should spend their time looking for the purchase of those, again, pedestrian elements the shooter used? That’s where you suspect we’ll trip up the next terrorist in waiting? I doubt you really believe that. Rather, I suspect your BDS causes you to grasp at just this kind of laughable straw to find anything, anyway to link Bush to VT.

 

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

 There’s no logical connection between Bush and the VT incident, nor is there any logical reason to place ANY form of responsibility on events there with Bush. Rational people understand this, you don’t.

Another trifecta. I never blamed, linked, or connected Bush to the incident. I pointed pointed at it as evidence of another case of the an administration not having the intelligence infrastructure that they have been given the tools and the approval to create. [/quote]

What a steamy load of gibberish. You did, in fact link AND blame Bush administration failures to the VT shooting. To deny it is just another sign of your complete and total lack of integrity.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

 

Liars lie Mikebutler222, you lie, therfore you are a liar. Would I tell you that to your face? Probably not, I avoid liars. When I know that a person's word is untrustworthy I chose not to engage that person in conversation. Or, I do as I have done here, I expose the lies and let the truth be known. Usually, the person is ashamed of their lies and they stop telling them around me. You seem impervious to this shame.

[/quote]

You really should seek professional help.

Mikebutler222,

Give it up.

You want to get technical about it I said originally:

What I find interesting is that I didn't hear anyone yelling for gun control and yet I hear lots of people shouting down people allegedly calling for gun control.

Your citations were not people "yelling" for gun control. With the one exception being the mulyock on the Macglaughlin(?) report who I discounted because he is on a show that is specifically designed to make controversial mountains out of molehills.

Kind of like what you like to do.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Mikebulter222 convicted to his point of view- YES

Mikebutler222 staunch advocate for causes and beliefs - YES

Mikebutler222 liar - NO.

Mike has a really effective way turning a point against its maker. I'd want him on my debate team. That is if I had a debate team.

[quote=BondGuy]

Mikebulter222 convicted to his point of view- YES

Mikebutler222 staunch advocate for causes and beliefs - YES

Mikebutler222 liar - NO.

Mike has a really effective way turning a point against its maker. I'd want him on my debate team. That is if I had a debate team.

[/quote]

Thanks for your kind words.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

What I find interesting is that I didn't hear anyone yelling for gun control and yet I hear lots of people shouting down people allegedly calling for gun control.

Your citations were not people "yelling" for gun control. [/quote]

As often as you move the goalposts you probably have wheels mounted on them.

BTW, if you don't know who Larence O'Donnell is, or think it's wise to discount him and the element he speaks for you're an even bigger fool that I had previously guessed.

How is it "moving the goal post" if it is what I said at the very begining? It is not.

It doesn't matter who Larry is, he is on a show that is designed to manufacture controversy.

Bondguy,

I gave specific examples of how and where he told lies. If you have a problem with the definition of lie, take it up with Mr. Webster. By definition Mikebutler222 tells lies. That makes him a liar, regardless of what you may think of him.

Honesty is not a function of popularity. Truth is not something that is voted on.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

How is it "moving the goal post" if it is what I said at the very begining? It is not.

It doesn't matter who Larry is, he is on a show that is designed to manufacture controversy. [/quote]

<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

ROFLAMO, you get six links and none  of them, for one thing or another,  count, INCLUDING the one with Larry O'Donnell (Executive Producer "The West Wing", Panelist "The McLaughlin Group", Former Chief of Staff, U.S. Senate Committee on Finance, reliable Democrat hack) ACTUALLY YELLING.

 

If you didn't exist the USPLA (US Pathological Liar Association, no doubt you’re a member) would have to invent you.

Say, were you Joe Suzuki before your most recent screen name change?

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

How is it "moving the goal post" if it is what I said at the very begining? [/quote]

How? Perhaps it is to simply claim the sources weren't YELLING (as if it's not a subjective call about what "yelling" in the printed word is) except the one who actually WAS YELLING, and he doesn't count for some newly coined reason you just happned to pull out of your, uh, back pocket at the last second. 

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=Whomitmayconcer]

How is it "moving the goal post" if it is what I said at the very begining? It is not.

It doesn't matter who Larry is, he is on a show that is designed to manufacture controversy. [/quote]

<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

ROFLAMO, you get six links and none  of them, for one thing or another,  count, INCLUDING the one with Larry O'Donnell (Executive Producer "The West Wing", Panelist "The McLaughlin Group", Former Chief of Staff, U.S. Senate Committee on Finance, reliable Democrat hack) ACTUALLY YELLING.

 

If you didn't exist the USPLA (US Pathological Liar Association, no doubt you’re a member) would have to invent you.

Say, were you Joe Suzuki before your most recent screen name change?

[/quote]

Any relation to Joe Isuzu?

Sorry mike, I couldn't resist. Still, good retort.

Mikebutler222,

It is the McLaughlin Group that make it not matter.

This is a show that is designed to make controversy. It is a show that gets people ratings by having people espouse the extremist POV.

If you didn't exist the USPLA (US Pathological Liar Association, no doubt you’re a member) would have to invent you.

No, I am not a member, and as such this becomes just another of your lies.

Say, were you Joe Suzuki before your most recent screen name change?

You mean Joe Izuzu, don't you?

<?:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O />How? Perhaps it is to simply claim the sources weren't YELLING (as if it's not a subjective call about what "yelling" in the printed word is) except the one who actually WAS YELLING, and he doesn't count for some newly coined reason you just happned to pull out of your, uh, back pocket at the last second.

Pulled out of my back pocket at the last second? I said it up front. I said it in the initial post. If you didn't notice it there or you couldn't make the connection between, "That's not a fire and brimstone, rabble rousing storm the gate change the system editorial" with "I don't hear people yelling for gun control." That's your reading comprehension problem, not mine.

Face it Mikebutler222, you're just not up to the task here. You did shoddy research, after doing shoddy reading and processing what you almost read through a shoddy thought process.

All the name calling in the world isn't going to change those facts.

You have a third rate mind and you are trying to bluff your way through by telling lie after lie.

It might work, if I hadn't seen you do it before.

[quote=BondGuy][quote=mikebutler222][quote=Whomitmayconcer]

How is it "moving the goal post" if it is what I said at the very begining? It is not.

It doesn't matter who Larry is, he is on a show that is designed to manufacture controversy. [/quote]

<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

ROFLAMO, you get six links and none  of them, for one thing or another,  count, INCLUDING the one with Larry O'Donnell (Executive Producer "The West Wing", Panelist "The McLaughlin Group", Former Chief of Staff, U.S. Senate Committee on Finance, reliable Democrat hack) ACTUALLY YELLING.

 

If you didn't exist the USPLA (US Pathological Liar Association, no doubt you’re a member) would have to invent you.

Say, were you Joe Suzuki before your most recent screen name change?

[/quote]

Any relation to Joe Isuzu?

Sorry mike, I couldn't resist. Still, good retort.

[/quote]

LOL, the post was up for maybe 30 seconds before I got an email correcting me. Too funny. <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Say, I hope this doesn't mean I'll be accused of  having some hidden problem with Asians, I mean mixing up Suzuki and Isuzu. I mean some of my best friends are… oh, never mind, off to Imus-land I’ll be sent…

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Mikebutler222,

It is the McLaughlin Group that make it not matter. [/quote]

Uh, yeah, that's not a bit of last minute arbitrary CYA there...  

I mean when we're looking for someone expressing an opinion you say you haven't heard anyone express, why would we bother to use people on an OPINION show as an example?

 If we're looking for someone YELLING, well, surely we can't use someone actually YELLING on an opinion show to prove, well, that people ate YELLING a specific opinion that you claim you haven't heard.

That all makes perfect sense....

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

No, I am not a member, and as such this becomes just another of your lies. [/quote]

ROFLMAO, yeah, the quip is a "lie". Say, are you going to accuse me of taking the strawberries next?

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]<?:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O />

Pulled out of my back pocket at the last second? I said it up front. I said it in the initial post. [/quote]

Yeah, show me where in your INITIAL post, the one where you said you hadn't heard anyone "yelling", that you said that.... 

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]If you didn't notice it there or you couldn't make the connection between, "That's not a fire and brimstone, rabble rousing storm the gate change the system editorial" with "I don't hear people yelling for gun control." That's your reading comprehension problem, not mine. [/quote]

Really pathetic there, Joe. You get caught out, so you want to apply a subjective test about what "yelling" on an op-ed page is.

You're digging that hole deeper by the post.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]Face it Mikebutler222, you're just not up to the task here. [/quote]

 

ROFLMAO, yeah, that's it. BTW, watching you try to shake, rattle and roll your way around your own words has been entertaining. Thanks for the memories.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

All the name calling in the world isn't going to change those facts. [/quote]

'Twas you, Joe, that introduced the name calling, "liar", when you were caught saying something foolish. Something you later, in another post to another person admitted, but one you couldn't bring yourself to do when presented with six links that dispelled your "I haven't heard" line...

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]You have a third rate mind and you are trying to bluff your way through by telling lie after lie.

It might work, if I hadn't seen you do it before.[/quote]

Golly, Joe, I'm just crushed.

Further as to The MacGlaughlin Group, as I noted earlier.

His appearance was on a Sunday Morning show (at least his clip showed up at 8:46 on the 22nd of April) which was days AFTER the Ted Nugent appearance on the CNN show that Airforce cited.

As a result of this, the comments are irrelavent to the discussion.

Of the two tv sources one was a show that is only designed to create controversy and the only way to stay on those shows is to be controversial, combative and confrontational. Further, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Mc Glaughlin(?) a Sunday Morning show? So wouldn't that have been after Ted Nugent's appearance on Friday on CNN?  The other was  a CBS report on the absence of political comments about gun control among the candidates. I'm not bobing or weaving when I note these things, I'm simply discounting them to what they are worth.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Further as to The MacGlaughlin Group, as I noted earlier.

His appearance was on a Sunday Morning show (at least his clip showed up at 8:46 on the 22nd of April) which was days AFTER the Ted Nugent appearance on the CNN show that Airforce cited.

As a result of this, the comments are irrelavent to the discussion. [/quote]

Joe, joe, joe, joe. I couldn't care less when O'Donnell was taped YELLING an opinion (FWIW, I believe it's taped on Fridays) you claim to have not heard anyone yelling. Moreover I couldn't care less about Nugent's timing as neither event had anything to do with the line in your post that I responded to. Better still, O'Donnell didn't mention Nugent in HIS comments.

As a result of this, I'll consider you irrelevant to any discussion involving the truth.

BTW, of all your twists and turns the "three NY papers and a NY TV station" is my fav. I doubt you'll be able to better it, but please do keep trying.

Little did I know that putting up that post would show another lie of Mikebutler222's "Uh, yeah, that's not a bit of last minute arbitrary CYA there... "<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Mikebutler222, you don't seem to get this but, when you distort the truth, intentionally, you lie. When you lie, you are a liar.

You distort the truth, you lie, you are a liar. It can't get simpler than that.

 the quip is a "lie".

I'm under no obligation to give you the benefit of any doubt. When you say something that is intentionally erroneous I will call it the lie that it is. You may make your own judgment as to which lies you are willing to live with and which ones you are willing to lie to cover-up. I'm just pointing out that you are lying. 

Yeah, show me where in your INITIAL post, the one where you said you hadn't heard anyone "yelling", that you said that....

It is common protocol for persons to understand that in a discussion points made earlier in the thread are related to ones later on. I know this is inconvenient for you, you tend to want to use a fraction of a sentence, ignoring the parts that are inconsistent with your straw man manufacturing process. But that doesn't mean that the rest of us have to play by that rule. For myself, I consider context.

'Twas you, Joe, that introduced the name calling, "liar",

I call you a liar because I can and have proved, beyond any reasonable doubt, that you lie. I have shown you many times that you intentionally lie. I posted the definition of lie and of liar and then I showed you several (certainly not all) of the ways that your posts fitted that definition.

That's all there is to it.  

 Moreover I couldn't care less about Nugent's timing as neither event had anything to do with the line in your post that I responded to.

Which is the definition of the strawman argument:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

One can set up a straw man in the following ways:

Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted. Quote an opponent's words out of context -- i.e., choose quotations that are not representative of the opponent's actual intentions (see contextomy). Present someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, refute that person's arguments, and pretend that every upholder of that position, and thus the position itself, has been defeated. Invent a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticized, and pretend that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical. Oversimplify a person's argument into a simple analogy, which can then be attacked.

Some logic textbooks define the straw man fallacy only as a misrepresented argument. It is now common, however, to use the term to refer to all of these tactics. The straw-man technique is also used as a form of media manipulation.

However, carefully presenting and refuting a weakened form of an opponent's argument is not always itself a fallacy. Instead, it restricts the scope of the opponent's argument, either to where the argument is no longer relevant or as a step of a proof by exhaustion.