I'm just not feeling it...

Reverend_Hellh0und said:
anyway, "whataboutism" is just liberals not taking responsibility for their own hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance.
Click to expand...

No.

"Whataboutism" is a rhetorical trick, developed by the KGB, to conflate and obfuscate criticism of the party.

So rather than answer for the fact that Trump lies and you buy it, you seek to diminish the personal significance that has specifically to you by trying to draw an equivalence to show false balance.

And you only do that because of your own fucking ego.

You don't want to admit you're not as smart or savvy as you want people to believe.

You want people to believe you're smart and savvy enough to find points of agreement with Trump. But the problem is, the moment we scratch lightly beneath the surface, the ugly intent of what you're doing becomes insidiously clear.
 
LV426 said:
We both know what it means because it's what you're exercising here.

Your "both sides" persona is the ultimate gaslight because it forces us to divine the motivation for why you are "both siding" things, only to see you deny everything while not being truthful with your intent.

Again, I see right through that shit. You don't fool me.
Click to expand...





You don't know what gaslighting is. That is clear. You shouldn't use terms you don't understand, especially on people smarter than you? ;)


Gaslighting would be me trying to make you question your sanity by purposefully feeding you false information and insisting it's true to the point you again, question your sanity.


1. We aren't that close.

2. if you truly believe that I am engaging it, you are more of a mindless partisan than even I suspect.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
So by you making this up, how are you any better than trump? You lie just like him
Click to expand...

I haven't lied about anything.

You've lied, though. You've lied about what you understand the False Hope Bill to be.

Then you tried to manipulate me while attacking me for doing the very thing you did.

You're a phony baloney.
 
LV426 said:
No.

"Whataboutism" is a rhetorical trick, developed by the KGB, to conflate and obfuscate criticism of the party.
Click to expand...


No, it is the same shit you engaged in when Obama first took office. you are delusional to think it's a KGB tactic, where in the world did you read this? if you bitch and moan about trump doing something, but was silent when obama did it, pointing out you're a raging hypocrite is not a kgb tactic.


So rather than answer for the fact that Trump lies and you buy it, you seek to diminish the personal significance that has specifically to you by trying to draw an equivalence to show false balance.
Click to expand...


Incorrect. When you get all whiney and butthurt at trump for something you had no problem with when your guy did it, makes you a hypocritical dipshit, not a victim of "gaslighting" or "kgb tactics", that just makes you look like an idiot.


And you only do that because of your own fucking ego.
Click to expand...


My ego is huge because I am surrounded by mediocrity, or in your case, mindless incapability.


You don't want to admit you're not as smart or savvy as you want people to believe.
Click to expand...

I'm smarter.





You want people to believe you're smart and savvy enough to find points of agreement with Trump. But the problem is, the moment we scratch lightly beneath the surface, the ugly intent of what you're doing becomes insidiously clear.
Click to expand...



Yes, I am trying to question your sanity by disagreeing with you and not being a mindless partisan hack like you..... ooohga booogha!!!!!
 
LV426 said:
I haven't lied about anything.

You've lied, though. You've lied about what you understand the False Hope Bill to be.

Then you tried to manipulate me while attacking me for doing the very thing you did.

You're a phony baloney.
Click to expand...





Are you that insecure that you think anyone could manipulate you on the internet?


I think you are smarter than that. YOu should stop trying to prove me wrong?
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
I literally pointed out he lies, so does the media though, an objective person needs to look at the claims by either and investigate for themselves to discover the truth.
Click to expand...

So from what source were you convinced this False Hope Bill did what you thought it did? Obviously a media source because there's no way you read the bill and came to the conclusion you're currently at (which I expect you to change and shift the goalposts of, if you already haven't done so).

What work did you do to discern the truth? You didn't read the bill, because if you did you'd know that it doesn't require FDA approvals, which are germane to drug testing.

Do you know why? Specifically because of the very argument you're making.

And you weren't looking at the False Hope Bill "objectively". You were looking at it SUBJECTIVELY and that was apparent in the emotionally manipulative argument you were making in favor of the bill, while ignoring the very real, objective argument against it; that it would provide false hope to terminally ill people with the intent of making drug companies more profits. THAT is an objective way to look at the bill. The way you were looking at it, cynically trying to play an emotional "what if" game, is SUBJECTIVELY looking at it.

Understand?
 
LV426 said:
So from what source were you convinced this False Hope Bill did what you thought it did? Obviously a media source because there's no way you read the bill and came to the conclusion you're currently at (which I expect you to change and shift the goalposts of, if you already haven't done so).

What work did you do to discern the truth? You didn't read the bill, because if you did you'd know that it doesn't require FDA approvals, which are germane to drug testing.

Do you know why? Specifically because of the very argument you're making.

And you weren't looking at the False Hope Bill "objectively". You were looking at it SUBJECTIVELY and that was apparent in the emotionally manipulative argument you were making in favor of the bill, while ignoring the very real, objective argument against it; that it would provide false hope to terminally ill people with the intent of making drug companies more profits. THAT is an objective way to look at the bill. The way you were looking at it, cynically trying to play an emotional "what if" game, is SUBJECTIVELY looking at it.

Understand
Click to expand...




I read the fucking bill, dumb dumb. I am for choice. you are not. I would not have a problem with a terminally ill patient, seeking experimental treatment, You would kill your fucking mother.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
The wall is where they part
Click to expand...

Well that's a pretty significant fucking point of diversion, wouldn't you say!?!?!?!?!? So it's not the same reform that Schumer and Pelosi and Obama supported before, is it? So you were trying to "both sides" this thing and even you're admitting it's not both sides now.

$600M vs. $25B isn't significant?

Mostly because the dumb wall was Trump's chief campaign promise and centerpiece of his plan.

Also, a wall is not reforming immigration. It's not a form of immigration reform. It's nothing.
 
LV426 said:
Well that's a pretty significant fucking point of diversion, wouldn't you say!?!?!?!?!? So it's not the same reform that Schumer and Pelosi and Obama supported before, is it? So you were trying to "both sides" this thing and even you're admitting it's not both sides now.

$600M vs. $25B isn't significant?

Mostly because the dumb wall was Trump's chief campaign promise and centerpiece of his plan.

Also, a wall is not reforming immigration. It's not a form of immigration reform. It's nothing.
Click to expand...




Trump is for reforming immigration in the very same ways clinton, obama, shcumer have all suggested in the past, other than the wall which is a security issue not an immigration one.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Whatabout it, anyone who doesn't support the right of people to marry whoever the fuck they want are bigoted assholes.
Click to expand...

Right, but only one party right now still maintains that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Only one party right now has in their official party platform that marriage is between a man and a woman.

So how is it "both sides"?

One side had that thought until a couple years ago vs. one side that still has the thought today

So that's "both sides"? How so? They're literally the opposite of each other. So it can't be a "both sides" thing.
 
LV426 said:
WHO HAS?

The GOP platform -literally, their party platform- calls for a Constitutional Amendment setting marriage between a man and a woman.

STOP.
Click to expand...


In November 2016, shortly after the presidential election, Trump told Lesley Stahl on 60 Minutes that his personal view on same-sex marriage was "irrelevant" and that he was "fine with" same-sex marriage, stating that the issue was "settled" in the Obergefell decision.[78][102]



Give it 5 years or less and that will quietly disappear like it did for the democrats. And lets compare that to the excuse making democrats make for Muslims who literally stone gays to death.... It's relevant because I'd rather gays be able to have every right a straight marriage couple has moreso than to excuse the abhorrent treatment of gays in Islam.
 
LV426 said:
Wait - explain what "neutral" means in the context of supporting gay marriage.

Cause it doesn't mean they support it.

So if they don't support it, then that means...what...?
Click to expand...





It means while in the past, like democrats were adamantly opposed to gay marriage, will start not commenting on it, stating they support equal rights and "civil unions" then drop it all together. that's progress. Remember, I was for gay marriage, before you.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
It's your mindless arrogant ignorance that most impresses me. I will ask you again, are democrats simply good, and republicans bad?
Click to expand...

Yes. Republicans are the party of Nazis, so that makes them bad.

Nazis = Bad.

Do you need a refresher of that course? Or are you "both sides" on Nazis too?

"Sure the Nazis were all about genocide and white supremacy, but you have to look at both sides of Nazism".
 
LV426 said:
LOL!

NO HE FUCKING DOESN'T.

Gimmie a fucking break.

Who buys this shit you're selling?

I'll tell ya who; people who have a desperate need to be accommodated in their bad faith.

PASS.
Click to expand...



"In November 2016, shortly after the presidential election, Trump told Lesley Stahl on 60 Minutes that his personal view on same-sex marriage was "irrelevant" and that he was "fine with" same-sex marriage, stating that the issue was "settled" in the Obergefell decision.[78][102]"
 
LV426 said:
Yes. Republicans are the party of Nazis, so that makes them bad.

Nazis = Bad.

Do you need a refresher of that course? Or are you "both sides" on Nazis too?

"Sure the Nazis were all about genocide and white supremacy, but you have to look at both sides of Nazism".
Click to expand...




And there you go, you are an idiot. Republicans are not nazis. that makes you a mindless tool. You are being gaslighted, but it's by your media and your party that gets you to say such gawd awful stupid shit.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Gaslighting would be me trying to make you question your sanity by purposefully feeding you false information and insisting it's true to the point you again, question your sanity.
Click to expand...

Which is exactly what "Both sides" is.

It's you trying to make us question our sanity by employing binary thinking so you can avoid doing the actual work of understanding your position; so we're left with the question of "why are you both siding things?" Since you leave that unspoken, we have to divine your intent that you simply just categorically deny.

So that's gaslighting, asshole.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top