See other Neocon Nuttery Articles
Title: Is BeAChooser the new disrupter named 'pinfish' ar LP?
Source:
LP
URL Source: http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=187542&Disp=16#C16
Published: May 16, 2007
Author: Mike McCarthy
Post Date: 2007-05-16 23:07:07 by Ferret Mike
Keywords: None
Views: 3094
Comments: 43
Title: Ron Paul Is A Fool Ron Paul said something entirely foolish last night. It should be enough to remove him from all consideration as a candidate for the presidency. Here is what Paul said about 9/11. They attack us because we’ve been over there. We’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years… Right now, we’re building an embassy in Iraq that is bigger than the Vatican. We’re building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. They are delighted that we’re over there because — Osama bin Laden has said ‘I’m glad you’re over on our sand because we can target you so much easier.’ They have already now, since that time they’ve killed 3,400 of our men and I don’t think it was necessary. Never mind Paul’s argument from ‘moral equivalence’ that likens American base building to Chinese base building—both nations act exactly the same upon the world stage, don’t you know? Never mind his using a quote from bin-Laden to bolster his case. The man has no idea of the issues involved in the Middle East, is entirely ignorant of its history and should never be trusted with the responsibilities of commander-in-chief. Paul’s response concerning 9/11 is suited to Michael Moore, not to any rational being. He blames his own nation for 9/11. This is the kook argument, castigating the US for all the evils of the world. A very quick history lesson is in order. As Doctor Johnson said, we need to be reminded more than instructed. Islam is an imperialist religion. It makes no secret of this and indeed it boasts about this. The Islamic lands around the Mediterranean were once Christian and were taken by Islam in a series of unprovoked wars from AD 630-732. All except the tiny redoubt of Israel remain Islamic still. The United States had her first contact with Islam in a wars with the Barbary Pirates (1801-05, 1815). Islam attacked our ships, took hostages, demanded tribute and beheaded prisoners. Sound familiar? In other words, before Iraq, before US support of Israel, before any US involvement in the Middle East, Islam was attacking us. It attacks us still. All of this is basic 8th grade US History. Did Paul not pass that year? Ron Paul would be a Republican president, yet he does not know the basic facts about why his own nation fights. He should not be allowed anywhere near the White House. (Captain Ed comments on Ron Paul.) But the Buffoon Of The Year award goes to Ron Paul. His contention that America deserved the 9/11 attack should end his political career. Hopefully it will convince the next forum to exclude him from the proceedings. Paul made everyone else look tolerable, and had most of us yearning for a vaudeville hook.
Poster Comment: There is a new kid in town at elpee. His style and interests strangely mirror that of our resident disruptor BeAChooser. He just signed up and this would make sense seeing how little wiggle room and how unpleasent it has gotten here for BAC. Take a look at the short searh of 'pinfish' and judge for yourself. http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/latestcomments.cgi?SNSearch=1&Fm=pinfish&To=&LPNum=2&
Source: >http://mikeaustin.org
URL Source: >http://mikeaustin.org/thereturnofscipio/2007/05/16/ron-paul-is-a-fool/
Published: May 16, 2007
Author: >http://mikeaustin.org
Post Date: 2007-05-16 21:13:54 by pinfish
19 Comments
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 34.
#1. To: Ferret Mike (#0)
Some posters there think he is the 'reincarnation' of some idiot who posted as 'cone of silence'.
I thought about this speculation and did a serch of CofS's posts, and personally, I feel strongly this person much more resembles BAC.
BAC wouldn't know what a "cone of silence" really is.
Yup. Got that one pegged. He's perhaps a world class conehead, but that is about it.
Yup. Got that one pegged. He's perhaps a world class conehead, but that is about it. Notice the large hook echo [tornadic] signature on the doppler reflectivity display just to the SW of the radar site. [The radar site looks black and like the eye of a hurricane. This is the radar cone of silence, the area it can not "see" because it's too close to the radar site.] The next view, we see BAC, as he moves about in his own cone along with his fellow "Log Cabin" replicRats. BAC is the one with his tongue chasing the other guy's a&&: photo credit Log Cabin republican shake and bake campout
Organizers put out 600 folding chairs on the lawn — the spot where presidents are inaugurated — and set up a huge stage with powerful amplifiers. But at 9:30 a.m. yesterday, not one of the 600 seats was occupied. By 11 a.m., as a woman read a passage from Revelations, attendance had grown — to four people. Finally, at 1 p.m., 37 of the 600 seats were occupied, though many of those people were tourists eating lunch. Where was everybody? “This isn’t that kind of event,” explained Jeff Gannon, spokesman for the host, the International Bible Reading Association. Gannon, actually a pseudonym for James Guckert, had earned fame in 2005 representing a conservative Web site at White House briefings until it was revealed that he posted nude pictures of himself on the Web to offer his services as a $200-an-hour gay escort. Let us pray for the power to understand how Gannon made his way from HotMilitaryStud. com to the International Bible Reading Association. http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/04/jeff-gannons-bible-reading-marathon/ Interesting, isn't it? pinfish coyly links to Gannon's webpage and delves into Biblical posts as pinfish. Something Gannon was into as we see in the above quote where he was involved in a ‘Bible Reading Marathon’ on the West Front of the Capitol.” Something is very strange about BeAChooser, and pinfish. And if pinfish is BAC and posts Gannon's webpage and varies slightly from an infactuation with 9-11 to delve into the Bible, something Gannon is into, he likely does so because he is egotistically trying to count coupe on everyone he feels slights him here and whom he feels he is the intellectual superior to. Unfortunately for him, he is far more transparent then he realizes. Gannon alwayd coyly talks about hiding from liberals in plain view. Is this guy him? He might be, he sure acts like he tinks he is a jounalist the way he cuts and pastes a product together in his overlong posts that have the sort of muddledness of over-reaching one's intellectual and educational abilities Gannon was/is always guilty of. Seriously, this person needs to find a new home and to get quality psychological counseling. He is here just playing games and stroking his ego, and you really have to stretch it to contend that by keeping him here you are serving the cause of free speech. Ditch him.
Better than even money you're correct. The conehead with the tongue...slight resemblance? We don't need any gay hookers here. Why can't she post here? ;-O)
No, we don't need this sort of neocon in here. I knew he'd high tail it back to LP with the Truth Movement banished to the Biker Bar. The place is more his sort of dump as Trailer Trash Sally whores her forum as an open to all view points venue. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Just for the record, I'm not pinfish. I'll say once again, since you seem to have missed my declarations of this in the past (and seem now desperate to change the subject from WTC7, the collapse of the towers and the damage at the Pentagon), that I have never posted on ANY forum as anyone other than BeAChooser. That said, I am curious about something. The two of you ... Ferret Mike and IndieTx ... have insinuated I'm gay. Now, of course, you have no actual basis for suggesting I'm gay. Nowhere in my posting history have I taken much interest in gay issues. Nowhere have I said I'm gay or anything that might suggest I'm gay. You actually know nothing about me since I've been careful not to reveal much of anything about myself on any internet forum. I think for good reason given that they are populated with folks like you. So I find the fact that you (and a few others here at LP) immediately toss out the gay innuendos in your posts, as if you think that will discredit me, quite fascinating. I think we are actually learning more about YOU than me. I think both of you appear to be homophobic. I'm now curious as to what led you to that state. Is there something in your history ... an incident? Or is this attitude something your parents instilled in you? In which case, why did they hate gays so much? Has your God told you this? Do you think gays are inferior as a group (and as individuals) compared to you (and your *kind*)? Are they a corruption ... a blight ... a scourge on the human race? Do you think they should be punished for being gay? If so, how? Should they be rounded up and put in camps? Should they be chemically altered so they are more *normal*? Should they be prevented from voting or being elected to office? Should they be only allowed in the back of the bus or put on separate buses? Aren't you afraid that you might touch something that they've touched? Drink from the same water fountain? Breath the same air? Do you view lesbians the same as gays? Should they ALL be exterminated? Seriously "guys", what is it you have against gays that you'd call someone, when you really know nothing about them, gay ... as if that's a REALLY bad thing? Something beneath contempt. The worst insult you can think of. So why don't you tell us your reasons for thinking that gays are soooooo bad? Because now I'm curious. And since you obviously don't want to talk about WTC7, the collapse of the towers or the damage at the Pentagon any more (ROTFLOL!), this is as good a topic as any.
You know BAC, the way I see it is you have a deep seated psychological need to establish yourself as different and unique here at 4UM. I let allot go by without dunning people about our differences as this is a virtual community, and it behooves everyone to chose their battles wisely. You never talk or chat with folks, you talk down to them using inquisitional questions and rhetorically summing them up as you see them. I ran across two well deserved admonishments from Sally regarding your ad hominem attacks beating folks over the head with things like the 'kook' word. Despite your protestations, that is indeed an ad hominem attack. You need to take a genuine human interest in people whether you agree much with them or not and learn not to try to force a win when you have obvious 'you state your case and I'll state mine' situations. You are intelligent enough you could fit in here should you wish. The problem is that you don't wish to. Now I'd be interested in a lively discussion with you on 9-11, but I will not put up with having to hunt through tons of spam -- much of which I've already seen or read numerous times -- having you use it to billboard to the lurkers and control the tempo of post exchange. You have to be ready to accept equal access to the eyes, ears and attention of lurkers -- who are generally the only ones who decide on issues based on the exchange of posts. And you are going to have to be nice and non-condescending in how you come across. I have no confidence you will change now this late in the game, but the choice is always yours' to make how you comport yourself in here.
Hard to do with only 15 posts. Why chatting about the flowers, football or movies would leave none to debate substantive matters. Presenting facts and logic is not talking down to people. It actually assumes they have the ability to deal with facts and grasp the logic. And if their response is to get unpleasant like you have, they invite inquisitional questions as to why. By "Sally", I assume you mean Goldi-Lox on LP? Yes, Goldi didn't like the word KOOK. Even banned it. Despite the fact that I once pointed out to Goldi that the dictionary defines KOOK as is someone whose ideas are eccentric, fantastic or insane. And if I clearly prove through verifiable facts and logic that their ideas are indeed eccentric, fantastic or insane, then calling them a KOOK in not inaccurate. Whereas calling someone gay when you know nothing about them is not. And beyond calling people KOOK or democRAT (and again that's something a persons statements can indicate) or liberal, I didn't do all that much name calling at FR, LP or here. I never used foul language. I did once or twice call someone a moron (but after they'd already called me and all the structural engineers in the world morons). Now compare that with the way I've been treated on this forum since I've arrived ... subjected to a steady breeze of foul language and adhominems of all kinds. Just because people disagree with my views and don't like the fact that I can support them with sourced facts and sound logic. The gay tactic is merely the latest. What you call "spam" are posts filled with source facts and sound logic that demolish the assertions they are aimed at rebutting. You don't appear to know the definition of "spam". First of all, spam is unsolicited. Well in a debate, and on a discussion forum like this, one solicits response whenever one posts or makes assertions. Second, spam is sending the same thing over and over and over. But then so is posting the same silly claims that have been debunked a hundred times before. That's spam too. To be blunt, the *truth* movement relies on spam, not facts or truth, to convert the unwary. And you don't like my pointing that out. Well I have a choice. I can either ignore most of what a person claims in an article or a post (and in doing so, imply I agree with those claims) or respond to it all, making my post longer. If that upsets you, I'm sorry. If you haven't the patience to read a post that deals with many points and presents sourced facts and logic for each, don't make many points in your posts to me. Make just one, and see what I do. Does that mean I'm going to get more than 15 posts now? So that I have the same access as you do? But by definition, lurkers rarely tell the debaters who won the debate. I've been civil, posted no foul language, backed up what I claim with sourced facts and sound logic, and responded to everything that folks post to me (within my ability and number of posts to do so). Beyond that, I don't quite see what I'm supposed to do ... other than just agree with whatever you say and talk about the flowers or basketball results so everything remains pleasant.
Why chatting about the flowers, football or movies would leave none to debate substantive matters." You never have 'chatted' before any sanction was taken, and I was not the one sanctioning you. Nor do I feel getting the sanction lifted would be very hard if you really wanted it gone. You are not listening. You DO talk down to people. You use rhetorical questions and belittle and mock people and their opinions reflexively. You cannot handle the fact that what seems logical or factual to you may not to someone else, so you very aggressively posture them -- much as you do in the above quoted verbiage of yours'. Please, spare me, there you go again, posturing; yes sweetie, I speak of Sally, Sally the knight in shining armor out to save the world from illegals, even if it means making nonsense about her claim that no viewpoint is censored at LP. As far as your hemming and hawing here goes, that is still an ad hominem attack. An ad hominem attack is an attack against the person, not the argument or point of discussion. You insult with the epithet 'kook.' Period. As far as your still trying to get traction action on the gay thingie goes, give it up. One call to the Eugene Human Rights Commission to ask about Michael McCarthy's stand on homosexuality, ageism, racism, sexism, or any other ism of that nature clears up the point of order. Check on it yourself, or shut the hell up. I read a great deal of your posts examining the record, and I do not concur. You try to be coy and subtle, but you insult, conduct ad hominem behavior, and make plain your general disdain of almost everyone here constantly. As far as your spam goes, it IS unsolicited. Give a link as your citation and reduce the load of quoted material that turns your epic sized posts into an unreadable mess. To assume you need to do that is very condescending in and of itself. You need to at ease that crap, it just is not necessary to get your argument done or point made. You oft times ignore what they say anyway. You do not need to make your posts longer to respond to people, and you do it to gain tactical advantage in the argument and to control the tempo and degree someone bothers to respond to the mess you post to them. You make your own bed in here, and you set yourself up as the lone stranger, contrary to everyone else's thinking with you keeping people away from you with your words. I am probably the most liberal person in forum here, but I try to be civil and respect other people as human beings. I enjoy it when we agree, and listen to them when we don't. Sometime I share how I have thought out out different point of views, often I do not. You are far closer in opinion in many ways with many in here then I will ever be. Yet I get along with them and you do not. I have made it a point to learn about the dynamics and nature of virtual communities. I have the smarts to work to change what I can influence, know what I can't at the moment and should leave be, and the wisdom to know which is which. You are a bull in a china shop leaving myriads of unhappy, pissed and insulted people in your wake. As I have said, you are the master of your destiny in here, you build the model of your persona and behavior. If you are having problems, in many important ways you are the one causing them.
There are no replies to Comment # 34. End Trace Mode for Comment # 34.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#4. To: who knows what evil (#1)
(Edited)
"Some posters there think he is the 'reincarnation' of some idiot who posted as 'cone of silence'."
#6. To: Ferret Mike (#4)
#9. To: IndieTX (#6)
"BAC wouldn't know what a "cone of silence" really is."
#10. To: Ferret Mike, all (#9)
"BAC wouldn't know what a "cone of silence" really is."
#12. To: IndieTX, Minerva, christine. (#10)
Jeff Gannon’s ‘Bible Reading Marathon.’ Dana Milbank writes, “Let us pray that, on next year’s National Day of Prayer, there is better attendance at the ‘Bible Reading Marathon’ on the West Front of the Capitol.”
#13. To: Ferret Mike (#12)
BAC/pinfish is Gannon
#15. To: IndieTX (#13)
#16. To: Ferret Mike, IndieTX, christine, ALL (#15)
#22. To: BeAChooser (#16)
(Edited)
#28. To: Ferret Mike, ALL (#22)
You never talk or chat with folks,
you talk down to them
I ran across two well deserved admonishments from Sally regarding your ad hominem attacks beating folks over the head with things like the 'kook' word. Despite your protestations, that is indeed an ad hominem attack.
Now I'd be interested in a lively discussion with you on 9-11, but I will not put up with having to hunt through tons of spam
-- much of which I've already seen or read numerous times -- having you use it to billboard to the lurkers and control the tempo of post exchange.
You have to be ready to accept equal access to the eyes, ears and attention of lurkers
-- who are generally the only ones who decide on issues based on the exchange of posts.
I have no confidence you will change now this late in the game, but the choice is always yours' to make how you comport yourself in here.
#30. To: BeAChooser (#28)
"Hard to do with only 15 posts.
"Presenting facts and logic is not talking down to people. It actually assumes they have the ability to deal with facts and grasp the logic. And if their response is to get unpleasant like you have, they invite inquisitional questions as to why."
"By "Sally", I assume you mean Goldi-Lox on LP? Yes, Goldi didn't like the word KOOK. Even banned it. Despite the fact that I once pointed out to Goldi that the dictionary defines KOOK as is someone whose ideas are eccentric, fantastic or insane. And if I clearly prove through verifiable facts and logic that their ideas are indeed eccentric, fantastic or insane, then calling them a KOOK in not inaccurate. Whereas calling someone gay when you know nothing about them is not."
"And beyond calling people KOOK or democRAT (and again that's something a persons statements can indicate) or liberal, I didn't do all that much name calling at FR, LP or here. I never used foul language. I did once or twice call someone a moron (but after they'd already called me and all the structural engineers in the world morons). Now compare that with the way I've been treated on this forum since I've arrived ... subjected to a steady breeze of foul language and adhominems of all kinds. Just because people disagree with my views and don't like the fact that I can support them with sourced facts and sound logic. The gay tactic is merely the latest."
"Well I have a choice. I can either ignore most of what a person claims in an article or a post (and in doing so, imply I agree with those claims) or respond to it all, making my post longer. If that upsets you, I'm sorry. If you haven't the patience to read a post that deals with many points and presents sourced facts and logic for each, don't make many points in your posts to me. Make just one, and see what I do."
#34. To: Ferret Mike, ALL (#30)
An ad hominem attack is an attack against the person, not the argument or point of discussion. You insult with the epithet 'kook.'
But I ONLY used the label KOOK, when I had already attacked (and defeated) the argument or point of discussion promoted by that person and shown it to defy the facts and sound logic ... i.e., be eccentric, fantastic or insane. When it wasn't just one bit of insanity they believed in but a whole wagon load. It's therefore, not an adhominem, but a description of the person since what they posed was proven to be eccentric, fantastic or insane. See the distinction? Check on it yourself, or shut the hell up.
I'm not the one who made it necessary to raise the issue. But I'm more than willing to drop it. Just don't do what you tried to do on this thread. "And beyond calling people KOOK or democRAT (and again that's something a persons statements can indicate) or liberal, I didn't do all that much name calling at FR, LP or here. I never used foul language. I did once or twice call someone a moron (but after they'd already called me and all the structural engineers in the world morons). Now compare that with the way I've been treated on this forum since I've arrived ... subjected to a steady breeze of foul language and adhominems of all kinds. Just because people disagree with my views and don't like the fact that I can support them with sourced facts and sound logic. The gay tactic is merely the latest."
I read a great deal of your posts examining the record, and I do not concur.
Then prove it. Lets see a list of the labels I used when speaking to people. And be sure to supply URLs so everyone can see the context in which everything was said. You try to be coy and subtle, but you insult, conduct ad hominem behavior, and make plain your general disdain of almost everyone here constantly.
Facts and sound logic are not adhominems. Nor are they insulting. They just are. As far as your spam goes, it IS unsolicited.
Then you may be in the wrong place. This is a discussion forum as far as I now. If you post anything, anyone is allowed to respond. Or should be ... especially if their response contains sourced facts and sound logic. That should be welcomed. Give a link as your citation and reduce the load of quoted material that turns your epic sized posts into an unreadable mess.
Because I've notice that folks around here have a habit of ignoring those links. Because I find its better to show exactly why something is incorrect rather than provide a link and hope the reader will wade through whatever is on that link to find that specific information. Be aware that much of the material I post comes from documents or websites that are quite lengthy. I'm actually trying to summarize the material for folks so they don't have to read through hundreds of pages, while I stand back hoping they will see whatever I hoped they would. You oft times ignore what they say anyway.
You claim that but I don't think my posts demonstrate it. Especially when I get into responding line by line as I am now. Your posts invite that. Furthermore, on one hand you criticize me for long posts and the other criticize me for not responding. I'm confused ... I am probably the most liberal person in forum here, but I try to be civil and respect other people as human beings.
I agree that compared to many here, you have been comparatively civil ... until recently. Which is why I decided to step in and make you aware that you were crossing a boundary that you might not want to cross. You are far closer in opinion in many ways with many in here then I will ever be. Yet I get along with them and you do not.
Because you agree with them on all the issues I mentioned and I do not. And they find that important. They find that a threat. You are a bull in a china shop leaving myriads of unhappy, pissed and insulted people in your wake.
I say that's because people don't like to have dearly held beliefs challenged. It makes them very uncomfortable. Especially when they come up against an opponent who knows how to use facts and logic to prove a case.
Replies to Comment # 34.