Least qualified Republican VP candidate?

[Illuminatus]

Except when you kill murders, they are likely not to kill again, which is pro-life.

What a stupid thing to say. By your logic, killing Republicans is pro-life, because then they won't start pointless wars.

 

[Allahuakbar]

wow, you save some of this vitriolic obsession for quite some time, don't you? Do you have all of my posts saved in a file for frequent perusal titled "MichaelFJF and DieHappy, I'm not sure how it's pronounced, but I think it's..." and then you light a candle, put in some Belinda Carlisle, and fall asleep to a dream of he and I in a Star Trek style death match for your hand?

Actually this is an actual application of memory. I remembered you claimed the Senator supported a position he did not, and you deliberately told untruth out of political animosity without regards for ethicality, morality, or your own claimed religious mores. I then spent about 7 minutes looking in my posting history to find it. It would have been faster, but I was using someone else’s internet connection which was abysmally slow.

I do have files, I store them in a device called a brain. It was given to me for free, and admittedly it took a while to set it up. It requires constant updates and inputs, but I’ve grown fond of it and it processes very well.

See, the problem with this whole line of yours is that no one has yet come up with the primary debate transcripts, where I claimed to have heard it. You can accuse me of not backing up my claim, but when you accuse me of lying you are being nothing more than a brainless attack dog, bringing nothing constructive to the threads in which you participate and making yourself look the fool for believing that a transcript of debate against a different opponent in a different part of the state somehow proves me wrong.

I have evidence where the complete opposite occurred of what you claimed happened. You have zero evidence that your claim is real. Yet you call me brainless. You have fallen into personal attack, not I. I simply said your memory has proven false in the past and is not a reliable source.

Here is what you are claiming. At a debate that apparently only you heard, Senator Obama supported a reparations policy. In the publicly available information Senator Obama specifically does not support reparations. So according to you, he supported reparations in one debate, completely reversed his position in the following debate, and no one caught it. This would be a political faux pas of monumental proportions, and it passed without comment, despite the fact that representatives from both campaign would have been in attendance at any debate and been carefully analyzing every comment for political fodder. What you are claiming happened is simply inconceivable.

What I am claiming is that you simply created a story, had no clue what the truth was, and stuck by it in order to smear a politician you did not agree with. It is quite possible that your opinion is racist, and you simply assumed that a black Democrat must support reparations and felt your falsehood had a possibility of truth, so you could get away with it.

As it is I am the only person who has provided evidence and facts, so it seems the ball is in your court, but you have failed to act.

I can't prove my claim right, but you have not proved it wrong, which means you have no authority to call me a liar.

You claimed the Senator supports reparations. I provided evidence that the Senator does not support reparations. Unless some evidence is provided to the contrary, it cannot be assumed that your claim is true. Your claim above is simply saying that anything you say is true unless specifically proven wrong. So the evidence provided is not really evidence, since you claim to have heard the support a few days earlier (or whatever time period it is).

This is absurd. You cannot smear anyone and then say “Well you cannot prove it did NOT happen.” This is childish, and based on the false witness standards established in Christian theology, morally wrong.

Let me reiterate, you have no evidence at all. Evidence exists that clearly and unambiguously contradicts you. Neither the Senator, no anyone else for that matter, is guilty until proven innocent based on your accusation.

I have plenty of authority to call you a small, friendless, man who's narcissism is only matched by his hatred of conservatives he's never met, however.

Again your ad hominem only belies the weakness of your claims and argumentation. In the above, all you show is your true colors and dedication to your claimed Christian faith, and nothing about me.

Yes, too many cannot separate the two, but Quayle did, in the text of the speech, and Carson said flat out that he couldn't. People who hadn't heard the speech but did watch the tonight sow were left with the clear impression that quayle thought murphy brown was a real person.

Really? How do you know this? He seemed to think Murphy Brown was a force for influencing societal mores and standards. I thought Murphy Brown was a character in a sitcom, and not a very good sitcom at that. I also thought Harry Potter was fantasy too, however, so maybe I am just perceptive.

So, you agree with him as well. The thing no one seems to remember is that nearly 20 years ago hardly anyone had the guts to say that it is ideal to have a mother and a father. Now we all agree with what quayle was eviscerated for.

I think having a mother and father is a good thing. I do not think a single mother or father is an evil or horrible thing. I also do not think I am going to go out and buy yogurt because Michael on “Burn Notice” likes yogurt (I hate yogurt). I am a strong enough personality to NOT base my entire life on what I see on television. Maybe I am just exceptional?

 

[Braunwyn]

Great post, Allahuakbar

 

[DieHappy]

You have fallen into personal attack, not I. I simply said your memory has proven false in the past and is not a reliable source.

You asked a question, I responded perfectly politely, you responded by calling me a liar, and now you trot out the victim card? OK, whatever.

Really? How do you know this? He seemed to think Murphy Brown was a force for influencing societal mores and standards. I thought Murphy Brown was a character in a sitcom, and not a very good sitcom at that. I also thought Harry Potter was fantasy too, however, so maybe I am just perceptive.



I think having a mother and father is a good thing. I do not think a single mother or father is an evil or horrible thing. I also do not think I am going to go out and buy yogurt because Michael on “Burn Notice” likes yogurt (I hate yogurt). I am a strong enough personality to NOT base my entire life on what I see on television. Maybe I am just exceptional?

I agree with just about all of this, and see? The debate should have been about whether entertainment influences or mirrors society, but thanks to Carson and the Bush-Quayle hating media, the discussion was about how Quayle believed Murphy brown was a real person.

 

[Allahuakbar]

You asked a question, I responded perfectly politely, you responded by calling me a liar, and now you trot out the victim card? OK, whatever.

Why would I be the victim. You claimed something untrue from memory, not me, but then again this is your responsibility. Likewise your personal attacks on me are your responsibility. Your actions bely your true colors, my lack of retorting insult, relying on evidence and facts, belie mine (or at least a greater level of self control on my part, but I've always been exceptional).

I claimed your previous accusation was dishonest, which it was, since it was untrue. There remains no evidence it was ever true.

I agree with just about all of this, and see? The debate should have been about whether entertainment influences or mirrors society, but thanks to Carson and the Bush-Quayle hating media, the discussion was about how Quayle believed Murphy brown was a real person.

You claimed VP Quayle was correct, but have provided no evidence of this. How was the former VP correct? This is the issue, and you have still ignored it.