Corrupt Dem Sentenced

[Dorian Gray]

From the same post you cited - "Corruption is bad no matter who does it."

And now YOU have the audacity to try to confuddle everyone into believing that this goalpost-moving backpedaling tapdance of a one-off statement in the context of the numerous other statements that are entirely anti-Dem is somehow even-steven?

Do you guys hold hands when you invent your realities together?

 

[Tumblehome]

Corruption is bad no matter who does it.

Why does the thread title say Corrupt Dem and not Corrupt Senator? The crime is heinous because she was an elected official with a position of trust, not because she was a Democrat. You wouldn't be letting your political views skew your perspective, would you?

I intended this thread as an honest comment on a group of specific corrupt Democrats.

Yeah, cherry-picking a miniscule group of bad apples on one side of the aisle is the best platform for honest comment.

 

[novice skeptic]

Why does the thread title say Corrupt Dem and not Corrupt Senator? The crime is heinous because she was an elected official with a position of trust, not because she was a Democrat. You wouldn't be letting your political views skew your perspective, would you?



Yeah, cherry-picking a miniscule group of bad apples on one side of the aisle is the best platform for honest comment.

Why do threads exist titled "Tea Party Whacktard"? Do those posters have an obligation to present a balance of Dem crazies? Do you post in those threads asking for such a fair and balanced treatment? You wouldn't be letting your political views skew your perspective, would you?

And again, unless you call into question the posters who only present a miniscule group of bad apples from the other side (and if you do, that's fine, but I'd like to see evidence) then you are clearly only upset when your ox is gored.

 

[Tumblehome]

Why do threads exist titled "Tea Party Whacktard"?

Ask the people who started them. I asked you about your thread.

Do those posters have an obligation to present a balance of Dem crazies? Do you post in those threads asking for such a fair and balanced treatment?

Again, why bring that up when I asked a specific question about your thread, which you've only obliquely answered so far by whining, "But they do it too!"

You wouldn't be letting your political views skew your perspective, would you?

It's impossible to tell yet. Why not try to answer my question and see how I respond, then we'll find out.

And please don't automatically relegate me to the libtard ranks simply because I asked a tough question. Your mind isn't that closed, is it?

And again, unless you call into question the posters who only present a miniscule group of bad apples from the other side (and if you do, that's fine, but I'd like to see evidence) then you are clearly only upset when your ox is gored.

Yet again, that has nothing to do with my question. I was hoping you'd answer on the merits of your own thread rather than hide behind the skirts of your opponents' misdeeds. So far, all I've been able to conclude is that you were being dishonest in saying you were looking for "honest comment" when all you were doing is laying a trap.

 

[applecorped]

And now YOU have the audacity to try to confuddle everyone into believing that this goalpost-moving backpedaling tapdance of a one-off statement in the context of the numerous other statements that are entirely anti-Dem is somehow even-steven?

Do you guys hold hands when you invent your realities together?

Audacity? Hmmm, THANKS, I guess. I thought it rather obvious and not really worth the attention you are giving it but as it seems to be of overriding interest to you I'll ask you what exactly is your concern here? That there are indeed corrupt Democrats or that a thread was started about it without a fairness-doctrine like example of corrupt Republicans as well? Can one not have a thread title mentioning only Dems in your world? Anti-Dem? Stating facts are anti-Dem? Yawn. Go post some about corrupt Repubs if it makes you feel better. Excuse me while I go hand-holding.

 

[Dorian Gray]

Audacity? Hmmm, THANKS, I guess. I thought it rather obvious and not really worth the attention you are giving it but as it seems to be of overriding interest to you I'll ask you what exactly is your concern here? That there are indeed corrupt Democrats or that a thread was started about it without a fairness-doctrine like example of corrupt Republicans as well? Can one not have a thread title mentioning only Dems in your world? Anti-Dem? Stating facts are anti-Dem? Yawn. Go post some about corrupt Repubs if it makes you feel better. Excuse me while I go hand-holding.

That's a pretty exhaustive list of incorrect guesses you've created there. The OP claims he was just naming corrupt Mass politicians. There is no evidence to support that claim, yet he persists.

Yet you've gone against your partner in this post. I'm predicting a lovers' spat.

 

[applecorped]

That's a pretty exhaustive list of incorrect guesses you've created there. The OP claims he was just naming corrupt Mass politicians. There is no evidence to support that claim, yet he persists.

Yet you've gone against your partner in this post. I'm predicting a lovers' spat.

Living in Mass. myself I assure you it is much easier to find a corrupt Dem. As I said, if it offends you so much that corrupt Dems actually exist please feel free to start listing about corrupt Repubs so you can feel better.


p.s. your homophobia is noted.

 

[applecorped]

plonk

 

[Whiplash]

A tu quoque is where you try to argue that something is acceptable or normal because someone else also did it, or distract from the wrongdoing because someone else did it. Nowhere does johnny imply that what those Democrats you listed was acceptable.

I don't see any other point in suggesting that corruption exists on both sides of the isle other than to excuse the corruption on your own side of the isle. Regardless of who is saying it. This thread is so full of it. I keep seeing a bunch of people screaming how both sides are corrupt, while simultaneously acting like that's not in any way an attempt to excuse any corruption on their own side.

 

[shadron]

Are you defending the corruption or just deflecting attention from it? Do you condemn it when it comes from a Dem or are you just into tu quoque arguments?

As Johnny Karate pointed out, your charge of tu quoque is wrong here, but I'd like to show you one:

Why does the thread title say Corrupt Dem and not Corrupt Senator? The crime is heinous because she was an elected official with a position of trust, not because she was a Democrat. You wouldn't be letting your political views skew your perspective, would you?

Yeah, cherry-picking a miniscule group of bad apples on one side of the aisle is the best platform for honest comment.

Why do threads exist titled "Tea Party Whacktard"? Do those posters have an obligation to present a balance of Dem crazies? Do you post in those threads asking for such a fair and balanced treatment? You wouldn't be letting your political views skew your perspective, would you?

This is a tu quoque. The subject was your list of Democrat problems; you decided that rather than defeat the argument on it's own terms (which you define in the OP), you'll step outside and bring up a different argument which has no connection to the OP at all.

Got it?

 

[thaiboxerken]

The Hammer.

 

[Dorian Gray]

Living in Mass. myself I assure you it is much easier to find a corrupt Dem. As I said, if it offends you so much that corrupt Dems actually exist please feel free to start listing about corrupt Repubs so you can feel better.


p.s. your homophobia is noted.

I don't care what threads people start, but putting Dem Dem Dem in the thread title and the OP and then claiming the thread is about Massachusetts politicians is dishonest crap.

P.S. Implying two people are partners is not homophobia. Your strawmen have gone against each other in this post. I'm predicting a lover's spat.

*jazz hands*

 

[davefoc]

I don't care what threads people start, but putting Dem Dem Dem in the thread title and the OP and then claiming the thread is about Massachusetts politicians is dishonest crap.

P.S. Implying two people are partners is not homophobia. Your strawmen have gone against each other in this post. I'm predicting a lover's spat.

*jazz hands*

When a poster makes an ambiguous point with his post perhaps the best strategy is force him to define the point before responding to the point that one thinks he might have been making. In this case I saw several possibilities:

1. Just a little routine provocation to get a rise out of Democratic Party partisans.
2. Sarcastic point: Yet another example of how the liberal media hides the foibles of Democrats. Who has heard of these people? If they'd been Republicans everybody would have heard of them.
3. Real point: Yet another example of how the liberal media hides the foibles of Democrats. Who has heard of these people? If they'd been Republicans everybody would have heard of them.
4. Real point: Rebuttal to the claim that the leftwing media covers up stories of Democratic corruption by presenting these examples.
5. Real point: Democrats are more corrupt than Republicans.
6. Real point: There are more corrupt Democrats than Republicans in states where almost all the politicians are Democrats, but there's plenty of corruption in both parties.

The more I think about the possibilities the more I see the OP as an example of textual pareidolia. Each viewer can see something different in it but there isn't enough information to determine that it actually means anything in particular.

 

[Dorian Gray]

When a poster makes an ambiguous point with his post perhaps the best strategy is force him to define the point before responding to the point that one thinks he might have been making. In this case I saw several possibilities:

1. Just a little routine provocation to get a rise out of Democratic Party partisans.
2. Sarcastic point: Yet another example of how the liberal media hides the foibles of Democrats. Who has heard of these people? If they'd been Republicans everybody would have heard of them.
3. Real point: Yet another example of how the liberal media hides the foibles of Democrats. Who has heard of these people? If they'd been Republicans everybody would have heard of them.
4. Real point: Rebuttal to the claim that the leftwing media covers up stories of Democratic corruption by presenting these examples.
5. Real point: Democrats are more corrupt than Republicans.
6. Real point: There are more corrupt Democrats than Republicans in states where almost all the politicians are Democrats, but there's plenty of corruption in both parties.

The more I think about the possibilities the more I see the OP as an example of textual pareidolia. Each viewer can see something different in it but there isn't enough information to determine that it actually means anything in particular.

At the same time, perhaps a better strategy is to address your comments to the person who actually made the OP instead of passive-aggressively addressing it to the last post in the thread, namely me. However, since I can read and have an excellent comprehension level, I was able to discern the intent of the OP for what it was, a Dem slam that mentioned no other party or state.

Oh Swish!