See other Miscellaneous Articles
Title: TooConservative claims that "Nearly all of the Truthers were originally Dim liberals"
Source:
TOS2
URL Source: http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=284970
Published: Mar 5, 2010
Author: TooConservative
Post Date: 2010-03-05 12:00:55 by F.A. Hayek Fan
Keywords: None
Views: 873
Comments: 113
#8. To: Gatlin (#6) One article described Bedell as an "obsessed libertarian" ... but neglected to say what was meant by "obsessed." Nearly all of the Truthers were originally Dim liberals and Bush-haters. Not dissimilar to the IRS plane-bomber. They then tried to use Ron Paul's campaign as their own political vehicle even though they had little success in recruiting the RP folk to their cause. This is when some of them started calling themselves libertarians. They have persisted in this long after Ron Paul repudiated Trutherism across the board. You can see why I keep saying that the Tea Parties need to repel boarders (Birchers, Birthers, Truthers, etc.) who demand that they be allowed to use Tea Party events to promote their own agenda. Too Conservative posted on 2010-03-05 11:48:37 ET Reply Trace
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 69.
#4. To: TooConservative (#0)
(Edited)
oh, really? not in my experience. i can't think of any Truther i know who was ever a "dim liberal." Constitutional Truthseekers would be a more accurate label. it's amazing how the word truth(er) is being redefined as something bad. how wicked people are who dare to question the government and who seek truth. what a sick, evil culture this is. Edit: i just love how you and others are making 9/11 a Republican/Democrat issue. it's not. it's a truth versus lies issue.
oh, really? not in my experience. i can't think of any Truther i know who was ever a "dim liberal." Constitutional Truthseekers would be a more accurate label. it's amazing how the word truth(er) is being redefined as something bad. how wicked people are who dare to question the government and who seek truth. what a sick, evil culture this is. Whenever I see someone use the planted PsyOp/Negative PR term "truther" (an intentional diminuitive used to degrade someone for seeking a true explanation for 911 that makes sense and squares with the easily available facts), or the term "Bush Hater" for that criminal "occupant" of the White House, it immediately classifies them as one of two things: 1. A moron incapable of observing the obvious. 2. Intellectually dishonest either because they are unwilling to decide based on facts and prefer the comfort of a propaganda fairy tale or because they are in the employ of someone who finds the truth "inconvenient" or dangerous. There really are no other choices. When such an entity feels the need to degrade others by telling lies, and casting aspersions it demonstrates one thing and one thing clearly: D-I-S-H-O-N-E-S-T-Y.
All of these groups and their websites, virtually without exception, use the words "9/11" and "Truth" in their names. What are we supposed to call them?
What are we supposed to call them? You are avoiding the point. Applying a diminuitive label to a group or cause is effectively an Argumentum Ad Hominem attack to disparage the viewpoint without actually disproving anything. It is nothing more than a sophisticated form of name calling aimed at discrediting without having to actually address inconvenient things like the hundreds of contradictions between easily observable facts and the official fairy tale. It also is an attempt to sidestep the proven evidence that there physical anomalies which can, and have been, be shown to exist between the "Official Fairy Tale" and the cold hard evidence. Your choice of language is up to you. You may, if you wish, regurgitate planted terms invented to establish a blanket Argumentum Ad Hominem or you may actually look at the easily available facts and decide based upon the weight of evidence. However, it would appear you have already made a decision to be a regurgitator rather than an honest seeker of truth.
Just answer the question. If "Truther" is so damned offensive, what are we supposed to call you? You all call yourselves Truthers among yourselves. I know it. You can't deny it. So you try to deflect this.
Just answer the question. If "Truther" is so damned offensive, what are we supposed to call you? You all call yourselves Truthers among yourselves. I know it. You can't deny it. So you try to deflect this. Context and intent is everything - which you should know. A term used ironically and a term used disparagingly have obvious and opposite meanings - to the discerning. It is in fact you who is evading the point in that your usage of the term was clearly and obviously meant as a disparagement. I do not use the term "truther" except in jest, but I generally eschew its use altogether as I do not disparage people who are only seeking an honest accounting of facts and an explanation which accomodates them. You obviously wish to avoid the facts and to damn by use of disparaging terms. You show yourself to be at least intellectually dishonest and unwilling to take any viewpoint other than the "Party Lyin'".
A term used ironically and a term used disparagingly have obvious and opposite meanings - to the discerning. It is in fact you who is evading the point in that your usage of the term was clearly and obviously meant as a disparagement. I do not use the term "truther" except in jest, but I generally eschew its use altogether as I do not disparage people who are only seeking an honest accounting of facts and an explanation which accomodates them. You obviously wish to avoid the facts and to damn by use of disparaging terms. You show yourself to be at least intellectually dishonest and unwilling to take any viewpoint other than the "Party Lyin'". My goodness, what a lot of keystrokes to avoid answering a simple question.
Again your argument does not dispute a single, fact, observation, or criticism of the Truth Movement. Your entire argument rests solely and only on Logical Fallacies such as Argumentum Ad Hominem, Red Herring, Strawman Argument, and Guilt by Association. Anyone checking the listed references will find that there is TRUTH in what I have writ. Your argument is insubstantial and amounts to nothing more than name calling coupled with an attempt to keep people from asking questions, getting the data for themselves, and deciding their position based upon that data. In short I can find no honesty or truth in you.
So you now assert that "Truthers" are supposed to be officially known as "The Truth Movement"? Is that just your name for it or do you have unanimous agreement among the rest of "The Truth Movement"?
Again you move into logical evasion never once addressing any point of fact but seeking only to keep the questioning upon one of disparaging terms. You may choose freely your own words, but be it known that I am well versed in the ways of the liar and you will not divert me from pointing out the ways in which you are lying and evading. I think we have played this little game long enough to ask the obvious question. So, are you a Hasbara or Government Employee?
Not an employee of the government or this Hasbara (whoever they are).
so that would make you an independent contractor for the liar movement.
There are no replies to Comment # 69. End Trace Mode for Comment # 69.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestNearly all of the Truthers were originally Dim liberals and Bush- haters
#13. To: christine, TooConservative (#4)
Nearly all of the Truthers were originally Dim liberals and Bush-haters
#20. To: Original_Intent (#13)
Whenever I see someone use the planted PsyOp/Negative PR term "truther" (an intentional diminuitive used to degrade someone for seeking a true explanation for 911 that makes sense and squares with the easily available facts)
#26. To: TooConservative (#20)
All of these groups and their websites, virtually without exception, use the words "9/11" and "Truth" in their names.
#28. To: Original_Intent (#26)
Applying a diminuitive label to a group or cause is effectively an Argumentum Ad Hominem attack to disparage the viewpoint without actually disproving anything. It is nothing more than a sophisticated form...blah-blah-blah...dissemble...distract...philosophize...complain...blah-blah-blah...
#38. To: TooConservative (#28)
Applying a diminuitive label to a group or cause is effectively an Argumentum Ad Hominem attack to disparage the viewpoint without actually disproving anything. It is nothing more than a sophisticated form...blah-blah-blah...dissemble...distract...philosophize...complain...blah-blah-blah...
#42. To: Original_Intent (#38)
Context and intent is everything - which you should know.
What are we supposed to call "The Group Formerly Known As Truthers"?
The Artist Formerly Known as Prince
#47. To: TooConservative (#42)
(Edited)
#49. To: Original_Intent (#47)
Again your argument does not dispute a single, fact, observation, or criticism of the Truth Movement.
#53. To: TooConservative (#49)
#55. To: Original_Intent (#53)
So, are you a Hasbara or Government Employee?
#69. To: TooConservative, Original_Intent (#55)
Not an employee of the government or this Hasbara (whoever they are).
Replies to Comment # 69.