posted
Ok, are we back to the character argument, then? I get to have Ron telling rational people that we have no honor or reason, and thus we can all be ignored for the scum we are? Ok, counterfire ahoy.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Samprimary, I think it is worth pointing out that you and others who criticize me have never refuted any of my arguments, you only resort to ridicule and slander.
You are ably and amply refuted. Constantly. People explained to you with wasted patience about where you were wrong in subjects like your "video proof" of barack's birthplace, in our supposed discovery of enriched processed uranium in Iraq, basic biological processes related to your assertions about creationism. We don't have to engage in character assassination; your character is dead by a grotesque suicide.
You say "By ye fruits you shall be known" and the fruits you have given us are nonsensical, illogical, irrational distortion of facts that you cling to with an ungodly possessiveness. When you are proven to be wrong (as you pretty much always are), you ignore the lesson and carry forth with incensed abandon. When you are cornered on the facts, you begin to use your ~compassionate~ scripture as a cudgel, using it to say that we are all beneath you. If you act in any way as a representative of your faith, you use it as a baldly emotional defense of your own ego and God the only proof of your personal superiority against the rest of the "poison fruits."
Fortunately I know enough about your faith to know that it is not as terrible as you make it seem, nor is God as vindictive, bitter, and unworthy of worship as you make Him out to be — a saliently egotistic jerk who would let meteors rain on innocents everywhere just because gay marriage got legalized, or something. You're just a bad christian imprinting your own callous, neurotic ego on God.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Oh and another point for Ron, the Americans by majority vote actually voted for Democrats in the House of Reps, but the GOP only won through their gerrymandering. How does Obama not have a mandate? The popular vote was won by Dems in House, Senate and the White House.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I'm just going to spoil the ending for you: Ron is not well in the head. His intentional-butt-wound-totally-facts statement is about as credible as his statement that we totally see barack obama's grandmother saying barack was born in an african village, but much like with that non-controversy, Ron will defend it to the death, barring few exceptions. Credibility of the source is irrelevant if he wants to believe it.
Samprimary: Please refrain from calling Ron mentally ill, or anything along those lines.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't understand what appears to be a striking double standard (and I do mean 'appears to be'-I believe there is a reason I'm unaware of). Ron just told at least one flat-out lie (his arguments haven't been refuted), and then to compound the transgression suggested people who have pointed out he is lying-and that is a question of fact, not opinion-are dishonorable poisonous people.
It's not a rare thing, either. Ron routinely lies about 'never having been refuted', and then when people offer solid evidence that yes, in fact, he has ignores that and then insults them in vicious personal terms, as just now in this thread.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think there's a pretty important difference between disagreeing with someone (even when doing so in a rude way, as Ron has done) and calling them insane.
We all disagree, and many of us can get pretty damn rude. But accusing someone of mental illness takes that a step beyond, I think.
(I whistled Sam's post, too, in case that wasn't clear. And I dunno if anyone whistled Ron. So the double standard may be as simple as that?)
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I will countenance people arguing that a poster is being disingenuous. I won't countenance calling somebody mentally ill as a pejorative.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So telling bald-faced, open lies about someone repeatedly...that is 'countenanced'. I'm not sure *why*, but it is...that is, to form an offensive insult with provably no basis in reality, and do so over and over and over again.
To form an offensive insult that may or may not be true, but cannot be known...that does draw swift response from at least two people.
So now I understand the rules of this policy, but it makes no sense. Ron might as well have said of Samprimary 'you have said you hate America', it would be just as much a lie, and if Samprimary were to rebut that Ron was nuts...the obvious lie wouldn't get a whistle, the rebuttal would?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, it should be said: Ron didn't just disagree with Sam in a rude way, or even 'suggest he was being disingenuous'. He told a flat-out lie (no one has refuted), and then not only attacked but attacked in viscous personal terms on the basis of the lie.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think that any amount of lying justifies an attack like calling someone insane.
As far as the attacking in vicious personal terms... I don't quite see that, but maybe I missed it? I read Ron's most recent post, but not any of his preceding ones, because... well, it's not usually worth it to read Ron's posts.
(See, that was sort of obliquely insulting, but I didn't outright call Ron anything, so I think there's a substantive difference.)
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can you say a poster is deeply and wholly irrational to the extent that they should not be argued with, especially considering that if you do, your contradictions of their position, no matter how valid, will be met with complete dismissal both of your mental ability but also your moral and spiritual righteousness, with an increasing probability that he will implicate you as being an enemy of God?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Rakeesh: You are misunderstanding. If you feel a poster is being dishonest, I am comfortable with you saying so.
If you say a poster is insane, so they do not need to be taken at face value, I am not.
It seems like this skips over the part where he tells a proven lie, and then makes personal attacks on that lie.
------
Dan,
Alright, *how many* times do I get to claim only a dishonorable, dishonest fool would disagree with what I am saying...addressed to you....in response to your disagreeing with me about something...before I finally, finally stop getting to hide behind the claim 'well I didn't *directly* attack you, Dan...'
I'm just trying to establish an upper limit, and hopefully the counter won't start when it's established.
Oh! How about this: Ron, only someone deranged would make the sorts of arguments you're making, and tell the sort of lies you're telling. But I suspect the line is drawn for that, too.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't think that any amount of lying justifies an attack like calling someone insane.
As far as the attacking in vicious personal terms... I don't quite see that, but maybe I missed it? I read Ron's most recent post, but not any of his preceding ones, because... well, it's not usually worth it to read Ron's posts.
If you don't read Ron's posts, you should probably recuse yourself from doubting why someone who does read his posts says the things they do about him. You are speaking to a situation you are intentionally remaining ignorant of.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In fact you have actually done this before and Destineer chimed in and tried to fill you in on the backstory of what you were missing because you intentionally don't follow what Ron is or really what he does.
edit: rakeesh don't forget the time ron told you that you should die for your affront against him and god (also known as 'correcting him')
or this brilliant bit we see over and over again
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Speaking of discerning political reality, I find it interesting that just_me thinks that the 550 metric tons of enriched uranium that was in Iraq before the Coalition forces invaded, was somehow already "under our control."
But that is just the kind of intellectual integrity one can expect from the kind of minds that ignore the vastly superior weight of evidence in favor of Creation and the conclusive Biblcal evidence that the Sabbath is for all mankind, and does matter. I will be willing to die for what I believe, if it comes to it, because I know this is what is Truth and Right and Good, and I am absolutely sure. And if some of you intolerant pseudo-intellectuals keep on in your present course, you will be the ones who will one day wind up trying to murder me for not submitting to your worldview. But God is the Judge, and He will have the last word.
this is what happens when someone points out to ron that he is literally arguing against the source he himself has provided
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: In fact you have actually done this before and Destineer chimed in and tried to fill you in on the backstory of what you were missing because you intentionally don't follow what Ron is or really what he does.
edit: rakeesh don't forget the time ron told you that you should die for your affront against him and god (also known as 'correcting him')
or this brilliant bit we see over and over again
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Speaking of discerning political reality, I find it interesting that just_me thinks that the 550 metric tons of enriched uranium that was in Iraq before the Coalition forces invaded, was somehow already "under our control."
But that is just the kind of intellectual integrity one can expect from the kind of minds that ignore the vastly superior weight of evidence in favor of Creation and the conclusive Biblcal evidence that the Sabbath is for all mankind, and does matter. I will be willing to die for what I believe, if it comes to it, because I know this is what is Truth and Right and Good, and I am absolutely sure. And if some of you intolerant pseudo-intellectuals keep on in your present course, you will be the ones who will one day wind up trying to murder me for not submitting to your worldview. But God is the Judge, and He will have the last word.
this is what happens when someone points out to ron that he is literally arguing against the source he himself has provided
Just one clarification: Back then, if I remember right, I was saying Ron was less bad than other posters. I was wrong.
And I'm not specifically saying that, here. I didn't whistle your post because I think you're worse than Ron in any general sense.
I just thought the specific thing I whistled was worth whistling. I thought it was the kind of post I didn't think was appropriate. And I checked the one Ron post preceding it to see if I should whistle anything there, for parity, and didn't see anything. So I didn't.
But frankly, if you think Ron's other posts (that I admittedly didn't read) are equal to calling him insane, then you should probably whistle those posts. That would be my advice, anyway.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The list of people who have called Ron crazy is upwards of 25 our so posters that I have seen at least. And they called him that usually without malice. And they did so because the posts they were reading were just ... You could not come to another conclusion. Is there any particular reason why now it has to become an unsaid elephant in the room every time ron degenerates into delusional political and spiritual conspiracy-babble and states repeatedly how terrible and stupid and worthless people who disagree with his latest chain email conspiracy theory is?
I mean i sort of wonder specifically because whether you want to call it mental illness or just focus on the behavioral aspect of it (crazy posts espousing clear and evident delusion) Ron is not in a good place and shouldn't be posting, much like how Malanthrope needed to not be posting, for a different root issue.
Like hey. Ron's behavior will remain consistent whether our not it gets to be called what it is. Maybe something should be done about that rather than spades being called spades.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:I just thought the specific thing I whistled was worth whistling. I thought it was the kind of post I didn't think was appropriate. And I checked the one Ron post preceding it to see if I should whistle anything there, for parity, and didn't see anything. So I didn't.
Well, good thing you were there to completely gloss over the multiple lies and direct personal attacks, Dan. Thankfully the problem with Ron-people calling him crazy-was acted upon, and he can resume his regular course of posting free of lies and personal attacks so bizarre and provably false that they foster questions of derangement.
Here, I'll adopt a Ron style tone that 'doesn't have direct attacks'. Some people, possibly out of a hatred for the truth and a love of weird bullying, are so weak and despise America so much that when they see it, defend the lying attacker against attacks, out of a misguided liberal sense of not playing 'fair'. Thankfully no matter how bad this country gets, I will never do so, and one day the good, honorable people in this country who don't hate the truth will rise up and cast out those who do.
Man, I hadn't realized the bar for slipping in direct personal attacks here was so low. Or...is it only low for people whose posting is so offensive and detached from reality that they get...more leeway...hrm.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I kinda like having walking proof in front of me that I am not the crazy one.
IP: Logged |
posted
Proof that people agree with you is not proof that you aren't actually crazy. Just that you're right in this particular case. I still think you're crazy , but in a totally non-Ron type of way.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Which is superior to all forms of crazy that have been tried before!
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Here, I'll adopt a Ron style tone that 'doesn't have direct attacks'. Some people, possibly out of a hatred for the truth and a love of weird bullying, are so weak and despise America so much that when they see it, defend the lying attacker against attacks, out of a misguided liberal sense of not playing 'fair'. Thankfully no matter how bad this country gets, I will never do so, and one day the good, honorable people in this country who don't hate the truth will rise up and cast out those who do.
You are forgetting the spontaneous break into the quotation of scripture and the growing assertion that those who have contradicted you are genuinely wicked, driven to insanity by their demonic influences, and will be judged by God.
/ here is my favorite example towards me so far
quote:Originally posted by Frisco:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Sam, you may not know now what passions you will allow to control you in the future, but if you follow a certain course now, the future is quite predictable. Cain killed Abel because Abel obeyed God, and God made manifest His acceptance of Abel. This Cain resented, and took out his rebellion against God by murdering his faithful brother. In the end, all conflict between Good and Evil will come down to the same thing. The powers of evil will encite all mankind to the point where the majority will feel they must kill the dissenting minority. No one will be neutral. See Rev. 9:15, 18; 13:5.
This is why Hatrack rocks. Even the death threats are unique.
posted
I presume since Ron is against spending that he will be perfectly fine with letting the Bush tax cuts expire and significant reductions in military spending.
...Hahahahaha who am I kidding?
Anyways, Lyrhawn, odds on the US going over the cliff? At this point I seriously believe its superior than any GOP wishlist that's likely on the table.
IP: Logged |
If Boehner can't even get his Plan B passed, then passing the Grand Bargain is a pipe dream. Democrats are fine with letting taxes bump and then on Jan. 1 passing a law that enacts a tax break, it makes them look like heroes. And they can bargain with adding military spending back, rather than cutting it. Obama was already giving Boehner way more than House Dems were willing to go along with. If Boehner can't bring his side along, it means we either go over the cliff and Dems call the shots, or they pass some stopgap measure, but I'm not sure how much support a stopgap has.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Not sure if its the echo chamber effect from hanging around SA but I'm worried that Obama is significantly interested in getting a grand bargain that he'll give virtually anything just to get 'agreement' in of itself regardless of the gains or whether they are worse than the effects of the cliff.
But I see some pushback, so there's hope.
IP: Logged |
posted
He's given in on more than a lot of people on the left would like him too, but nothing that's seriously bothered me yet. I actually liked the chained CPI change to social security, though liberals are screaming bloody murder about it. It was in the Simpson-Bowles plan, and Simpson has railed about it to anyone who will listen. Made sense to me.
In exchange, he's asking for literally twice what he wanted before in revenue increases, so he's already moved the goal post significantly. He's not exactly giving away the store, especially not when he has Boehner saying that 1:1 revenue:spending cuts is a fair deal. The debate has shifted so far that we've already forgotten where we were six to twelve months ago.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
The problem with chain CPI though is that if you actually DID adjust social security benefits to *actual* inflation they would be 70% higher right now (and likewise would see that the economy hasn't actually grown at all but been in about a consistent 1% recession since the last 12 years or so) and chained CPI I think lowers it even more.
*Edit* Although the political benefit of chain cpi is that you can easily revoke it afterwards, less so for a bunch of other things. I think handing back the debt ceiling controls to the Presidency should've been the number 1 demand however.
IP: Logged |
quote:The president overreached! He spent an entire year campaigning on letting tax rates go up modestly on the rich, and then, after winning a convincing victory in November he insisted on....letting tax rates go up modestly on the rich. In GOP-land, that constitutes "poisoning the well," and it will now become the official excuse for another four years of bitter obstruction and spittle-flecked conspiracy theories. The whole process took less than two months from start to finish. Happy New Year, everyone.
The public overwhelmingly sides with the president on the fiscal cliff thing and will blame conservatives if we go over. If we go over it will be over a chorus of boos and then the president will probably simply offer bills reversing the effect on the middle class which he will get through and then sign. Thus helping wake people up to the fact that it is the conservatives who want to raise your taxes but only so long as you're one of the dirty poors.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I love the tea party now. I love them. They're completely unmanageable and unredeemable and they're dragging the whole party down with their fiscal insanity.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:The president overreached! He spent an entire year campaigning on letting tax rates go up modestly on the rich, and then, after winning a convincing victory in November he insisted on....letting tax rates go up modestly on the rich. In GOP-land, that constitutes "poisoning the well," and it will now become the official excuse for another four years of bitter obstruction and spittle-flecked conspiracy theories. The whole process took less than two months from start to finish. Happy New Year, everyone.
The public overwhelmingly sides with the president on the fiscal cliff thing and will blame conservatives if we go over. If we go over it will be over a chorus of boos and then the president will probably simply offer bills reversing the effect on the middle class which he will get through and then sign. Thus helping wake people up to the fact that it is the conservatives who want to raise your taxes but only so long as you're one of the dirty poors.
Well, they put themselves here gambling that they could somehow magically govern if they had a Republican in the White House (8 years of failing to responsibly govern notwithstanding). Now they are facing the choice of raising taxes, or having taxes raised, and then watching democrats take credit for lowering them again. And it is their fault. Their stupid fault.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would like to see the parties splinter and a new one rise up. Not the Tea Party, although I have no doubt they'll remain.
I want to see the "Govern, Dammit" party.
A party dedicated to actually achieving manageable goals, to working with other people, to paying more attention to the needs of the country than to getting themselves re-elected or setting up a nice lobbying job for themselves later. I want politicians proud of what they've accomplished together, rather than proud of what they've kept the other side from doing.
Some objectives toward that end: filibuster reform, gerrymandering reform, mandatory up or down votes on judicial nominees, reformation of the legislative process so that riders cannot be added to unrelated bills and changes cannot be made without oversight and complete accountability.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
BTW, still waiting to hear Ron say the words, "I was wrong." He predicted a landslide win for Romney. The closest he's come is to blame the media, stupid voters and Superstorm Sandy, even though Nate Silver (and others) accurately predicted Obama's win some time back.
I'd like to hear, just once, of all the times Ron's predictions have been completely off and yes, his arguments refuted, the simple, unqualified words, "I was wrong."
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
He doesn't have to admit that, and remember: when he calls you an American-hating liar and traitor for pointing out his numerous factually, hugely wrong predictions, don't wonder aloud at the dubious rationality of his politics. Because that's beyond the pale.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: He doesn't have to admit that, and remember: when he calls you an American-hating liar and traitor for pointing out his numerous factually, hugely wrong predictions, don't wonder aloud at the dubious rationality of his politics. Because that's beyond the pale.
Dude, I get that you're mostly just enjoying the thrill of sarcastically mocking someone, but this is so off from what happened.
"Ron, you constantly make factually wrong predictions and then evade the truth. You're not discussing anything in good faith, you're being intellectually dishonest, and you're not worth talking to."
I have no problem with any of that. It's when you then go further and say "Also, you're damaged in the head and should seek psychiatric help," that I object.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dan, that dynamic has happened at least a half-dozen times here on Hatrack. Chris knows it, BlackBlade knows it, I know it, hell at times Ron won't even deny parts of it.
Your standard of what is problematic is frankly absurd and, without intending to be ironic, disconnected from any consistent standard I can think of. Call someone a liar, lazy, and even an awful person-things Ron does routinely in political discussion-and warrant no discipline, but heaven help you if you assert illness, that-THAT-is beyond the pale.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: He doesn't have to admit that, and remember: when he calls you an American-hating liar and traitor for pointing out his numerous factually, hugely wrong predictions, don't wonder aloud at the dubious rationality of his politics. Because that's beyond the pale.
Dude, I get that you're mostly just enjoying the thrill of sarcastically mocking someone, but this is so off from what happened.
you really don't read his posts, do you.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
In today's increasingly secular world, the voices of people following God's will are drowned out, more and more.
Thank you for standing strong for God, and not being ashamed of following His directives. Thank you for making sure that God's voice remains at the table.
posted
Honestly, I don't believe he's being drowned out. I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of people on this forum are theists of one type or another.
Ron is being asked to acknowledge when he's provably wrong, which he won't do, and to back up statements with something besides his interpretation of scripture.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:New York magazine has a fascinating piece on the National Review magazine's Post Election Cruise 2012 in which roughly 600 Republicans took a vacation and tried to figure out what went wrong at the voting booths.
"This was a phenomenon that was common on the cruise--the conservative pundits and columnists from the National Review attempting to gently disinter their followers from unhelpful conservative propaganda. For people who believe in the truth of works like Dreams From My Real Father, a conspiracy-theory documentary that argues that Obama's real father was a communist propagandist who turned Obama into a socialist Manchurian Candidate, this could be difficult work."
posted
Congratulations Blayne, when did you become a United States citizen?
Posts: 55 | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
e: Wait wait wait, I am not answering that question until I know one thing.
Who are you and whose alt are you because a new poster shouldn't know the fact that I'm Canadian without extensive lurking, and an extensive lurker wouldn't poke his head out just to be a god awful troll.
posted
I was just curious, is all. You seem to use the words "we" and "us" an awful lot when describing the politics of a nation that isn't your home.
Posts: 55 | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
And to answer your question, my screen name is Shigs, and it always has been. I've already been through this with the peanut gallery.
Posts: 55 | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged |