Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

AustonT wrote:And you started a nonsensical argument. Give up and walk away.

You were pulling down logical loopholes when you referenced Coulters autobio for proof of how she acts in front of the camera, then when I made a joke suddenly it's a nonsensical argument. Of course it's non nonsensical, i was responding to your inane sentiment in the first place. It doesn't stop being non sensical when I parody it. Evidence of accusations against someones behavior are not combated by reading that persons own autobiography. That's idiotic.

ShumaGorath wrote:No, I think it's more spamming, but it's got on topic content so it's not really even that. I'd rather see his posts then what relapse tosses out personally and they're both allowed in.

Well, you could probably start at Maddow's blog and get a good preview. Throw in a dose of Bill Maher and you're basically right on track.

On a side note, I'm really disappointed at the content of Maddow's blog. There's a whole blog post dedicated to analyzing and discussing a colloquialism that Rick Perry used in an offhand manner. As if it's some newsworthy or relevant issue.

biccat wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:No, I think it's more spamming, but it's got on topic content so it's not really even that. I'd rather see his posts then what relapse tosses out personally and they're both allowed in.

Well, you could probably start at Maddow's blog and get a good preview. Throw in a dose of Bill Maher and you're basically right on track.

On a side note, I'm really disappointed at the content of Maddow's blog. There's a whole blog post dedicated to analyzing and discussing a colloquialism that Rick Perry used in an offhand manner. As if it's some newsworthy or relevant issue.

I'd rather that then climategate/birthcirtificate/deathpanels that the other 'side' blogs about. If anything she has a hell of a lot of room to be more viscous and bombastic. She could get some real good lying in there before shes up with the greats.

Bwahahaha.
I said she doesn't claim to be impartial.
You said she did.
I posted a quote from multiple sources where she specifically says she's not impartial.
You deny that claim because she said it.

Since the entire point was what she did or did not say about herself, and you failing to refute her own words, using her own words.

AustonT wrote:Bwahahaha.
I said she doesn't claim to be impartial.
You said she did.
I posted a quote from multiple sources where she specifically says she's not impartial.
You deny that claim because she said it.

Since the entire point was what she did or did not say about herself, and you failing to refute her own words, using her own words.

who cares put em in jello and see if Maddow can turn Coulter to the dark side. They both spout bogus nonsense, at least coulter doesn't pretend like she's a real or impartial journalist.

You said pretend. If you're going to try to change history it's best to hit the edit button first. Otherwise two clicks later you look like a fool. Someone can claim to be one thing and pretend another, it's the nature of pretending. Since she has built a career on lying to people intentionally I'm happy to discount her 'claims' in her book and simply look at her actions. She acts which is her pretending to be an impartial media personality that just wants to be the light of truth in the murkey waters of liberal media bias. That she isn't consistent in her autobio isn't surprising. She probably didn't write it.

ShumaGorath wrote:I'd rather that then climategate/birthcirtificate/deathpanels that the other 'side' blogs about.

Actually, they don't.

Admittedly, they do often post some pointless (and downright offensive) crap.

ShumaGorath wrote:If anything she has a hell of a lot of room to be more viscous and bombastic. She could get some real good lying in there before shes up with the greats.

I'm not sure how she could become more viscous. Maybe if she ate a lot of Jell-O or something.

Frazzled wrote:I think the important thing to figure out is:
Was the Wshington Post waiting on this until he became popular, were they tipped off by the Obama election campaign, or the Perry campaign? The allegations are not exactly new.

Too bad they didn't sit on it until he was the repub nominee.

Then post a quote, in context, where Ann coulter claims to be impartial.

Actually, they don't.

They're more then happy to when they're hot topics. There was quite a bit of blogging on death panels and climate-gate. The manufactured underground is what helped both bits of yellow journalism survive for so long.

I'm not sure how she could become more viscous. Maybe if she ate a lot of Jell-O or something.

Bonemeal and water!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AustonT wrote:Then post a quote, in context, where Ann coulter claims to be impartial.

I don't think you're understanding whats being written. Go back and try again.

ShumaGorath wrote:They're more then happy to when they're hot topics. There was quite a bit of blogging on death panels and climate-gate. The manufactured underground is what helped both bits of yellow journalism survive for so long.

I probably should have specified that I was referring to "Birthers." They generally weren't well tolerated at the bigger blogs that get most of the traffic. I can think of a few bloggers who regularly raised the issue, but it wasn't pervasive.

The birther story was advanced more by the left-wing media and bloggers as an attempt to discredit Republicans more than it was a genuine movement among the right. My personal interest was academic, because I think the standing issue is an excellent legal question.

It certainly was nowhere as pervasive as Truthers on the left.

As for "death panels" and "climate gate," it's a matter of perspective. Neither was nearly as absurd as birthers.

I don't think you understand how discussion works. The burden of proof is on you to refute my statement, followed by proof. Otherwise your just talking out of your fourth point of contact.

biccat wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:They're more then happy to when they're hot topics. There was quite a bit of blogging on death panels and climate-gate. The manufactured underground is what helped both bits of yellow journalism survive for so long.

I probably should have specified that I was referring to "Birthers." They generally weren't well tolerated at the bigger blogs that get most of the traffic. I can think of a few bloggers who regularly raised the issue, but it wasn't pervasive.

The birther story was advanced more by the left-wing media and bloggers as an attempt to discredit Republicans more than it was a genuine movement among the right. My personal interest was academic, because I think the standing issue is an excellent legal question.

It certainly was nowhere as pervasive as Truthers on the left.

As for "death panels" and "climate gate," it's a matter of perspective. Neither was nearly as absurd as birthers.

Perhaps not as absurd, but much more insidious and damaging on the whole and all three were equally as false. The death panel thing still gets to me. That American journalism has fallen so far and so fast is striking.

AustonT wrote:I don't think you understand how discussion works. The burden of proof is on you to refute my statement, followed by proof. Otherwise your just talking out of your fourth point of contact.

Secrets reviled!

AustonT wrote:I don't think you understand how discussion works. The burden of proof is on you to refute my statement, followed by proof. Otherwise your just talking out of your fourth point of contact.

Look, I've had the roundabout "I refuse to be wrong" arguments with dozens on here before. Biccat and frazzled included. Hell, I've even done so myself in the past. At this point you're decrying something that has happened. You slipped up and made a claim that refuted nothing after misspeaking 'pretend' for 'claim' and then claimed that you said something different. You didn't. It's one page previous and I've now quoted it twice. That one word difference invalidates most of your posts after it. Just admit to misspeaking or stop posting about it at all, this line of conversation is ramping into the absurd.

Either way I have no interest in continuing this line of argument. It's boring and annoying. So I won't.

You can't pretend to be one thing while openly claiming to be another.

Yes seek solace in the, "I can't win or admit that I'm wrong so this is boring" Castle. Let's call it Wrongalot on the isle of denial.

You can't pretend to be one thing while openly claiming to be another.

Yes. You can. That's how acting works. If you can't understand something so basically simple then we're done here. You're either trolling me or somehow damaged.

Yes seek solace in the, "I can't win or admit that I'm wrong so this is boring" Castle. Let's call it Wrongalot on the isle of denial.

I so hurt that you've now reverted to insults. I may die of shock and horror. I'm idiotic and somehow damaged. My heart fair bleeds as you fade into the curtain of anonymity the interwebz provides you and your ilk. Farewell sweet world.
Or your just a donkey cave.

AustonT wrote:I so hurt that you've now reverted to insults. I may die of shock and horror. I'm idiotic and somehow damaged. My heart fair bleeds as you fade into the curtain of anonymity the interwebz provides you and your ilk. Farewell sweet world.
Or your just a donkey cave.

AustonT wrote:As per her biographical from Hannity, TMZ, Liberty Speaks, Business Insider, Wikipedia, etc.

Coulter has described herself as a polemicist who likes to "stir up the pot" and, unlike "broadcasters," does not "pretend to be impartial or balanced."

I was unaware that the simple condition of being a broadcaster implied a claim to impartiality, or balance.

Perhaps this is indicative of the polemic Coulter herself claims to espouse.

I am amazed that politicians in this day and age have not realized that there is nothing in their past that they can hide.

They keep on saying crap like "I don't remember","not sure", "lies lies lies!" and Bill Clintonesque versions of "it depends on what the definition of 'is' is"

Maybe I am just naive, but it seems like the best course of action would be to just admit and say you are sorry.

I mean, you have two options:

1) Deny, divert, attempt to talk about other things, and fight the original story for who knows how long, always keeping it on the front page of media sources with an agenda. Story now is "Cain is a womanizer, liar, cheater, things he is above the law, if he lies about something small like this how can we trust him with anything else!!!!!"

2) Admit what you did, explain what you did to correct it, what you learned, and how very very sorry you are (lying is optional, you are a politician after all), kiss a baby if you have to. Story now is "Cain messed up, learned from his mistakes, honest enough to talk about it".

Probably just my naive opinion about this though...

BrassScorpion wrote:http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20128317-503544/cain-drips-details-of-harassment-charges-vows-innocence/

"But here's the one incident that I recall as the day has gone on. She was in my office one day, and I made a gesture saying, Oh -- and I was standing close to her. And I made a gesture, You're the same height as my wife, and brought my hand -- didn't touch her -- up to my chin and said, You're the same height of my wife because my wife comes up to my chin, my wife of 43 years," he told Van Susteren.

The hell? This is honestly the story he's going with? Making some inane patter about being so tall?

You have 300 million people in your country and this guy is among the most capable politicians you could find? What the hell is going on?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:On a side note, I'm really disappointed at the content of Maddow's blog. There's a whole blog post dedicated to analyzing and discussing a colloquialism that Rick Perry used in an offhand manner. As if it's some newsworthy or relevant issue.

Maddow frequently wanders off into some pretty pointless territory, looking to construct things that just aren't there. That she's held up by some as a bastion of quality journalism speaks volumes for the terrible state of modern journalism.

But that still doesn't make her as bad as the likes of Coulter, who trades almost exclusively in contentless personal attacks.

sebster wrote:The hell? This is honestly the story he's going with? Making some inane patter about being so tall?

Well, we don't know if it isn't true. I mean if it turns out not to be, then shame on him for not being more creative. But I mean if this is the truth you honestly can't have any problems with that.

sebster wrote:You have 300 million people in your country and this guy is among the most capable politicians you could find? What the hell is going on?

We has capable politician???? I was not aware!

sebster wrote:Maddow frequently wanders off into some pretty pointless territory, looking to construct things that just aren't there. That she's held up by some as a bastion of quality journalism speaks volumes for the terrible state of modern journalism.

Preach it my brotha!

sebster wrote:But that still doesn't make her as bad as the likes of Coulter, who trades almost exclusively in content less personal attacks.

I would say that they are both pretty detestable. I would build a chemical shed for each of them with equal enjoyment.

He says that there was no harassment. And when you look at the way thees things go 90% of all these cases are settled out of court. It don't mean hes lying and look at people like Bill Clinton and Barney Frank, oh and don't forget the Kennedy's they have alot worse record than harassment accusations.

Please don't spam the forum. Thanks! ~Manchu

And Tim Tebow has what to do with Hermain Cain and sexual harassment?

Nothing. BrassScorpion is just borderline spamming and trying to avoid participating in any actual discussion. Just ignore him and let's get back to talking about the allegations against Cain and whether or not they're at all relevant.

This thread seems to have reached the point of being sufficiently off topic that even its originator is no longer sticking to the subject.