#Resistance?

Are you referring to yourself? What I said was that it was no risk in asking you to produce an example of me saying anything untrue. You know that when you question my character, it's not meant literally and that you would never be able to produce. But then you responded with this:

"You aren't even within an SD of my IQ, you silly goose."

So you're bringing up IQ completely out of nowhere. And you know that I'm much more intelligent than you are anyway.

My fault. When you referenced being smarter did you actually mean EQ? If that's the case, well then shit... with your level of Asperger's, I don't know a single person that you'd score higher than.
 
So no answer. As I predicted. Because you're just making stuff up.
Seriously, @HunterSdVa29, find one logical fallacy or changed meaning of a word in this thread, and I'll leave the WR for six months. Not even a bet. Your inability to put up will be all the satisfaction I need.
your definition of 'border security' is not the normal one, nor does it take into account past situations w/ said border .....

For a much better, different thread example you once told me that Comey testified before Congress that THERE WERE NO CLASSIFIED MATERIALS on huma/weiner's laptop. I then responded w/ the literal clip of Comey saying directly 'Yes, there was classified materials on this computer' to which you backtracked and responded w/ 'oh, we already knew about those!" is if that was actually the issue being argued.
 
your definition of 'border security' is not the normal one, nor does it take into account past situations w/ said border .....

LOL! So me saying that "border security" refers to "security at the border" is changing the meaning of a word? WTF? What does "border security" actually mean, then?

For a much better, different thread example you once told me that Comey testified before Congress that THERE WERE NO CLASSIFIED MATERIALS on huma/weiner's laptop. I then responded w/ the literal clip of Comey saying directly 'Yes, there was classified materials on this computer' to which you backtracked and responded w/ 'oh, we already knew about those!" is if that was actually the issue being argued.

Huh?
 
LOL! So me saying that "border security" refers to "security at the border" is changing the meaning of a word? WTF?



Huh?
figures you'd forget that instance

despite your memory being rather phenomenal all around

there's no objective way a rational human being can say sanctuary securities aren't also related to border security. Why do they need sanctuary? How'd they get there?
 
figures you'd forget that instance

despite your memory being rather phenomenal all around

I don't remember it and I doubt very much that your recollection is correct. At any rate, that's irrelevant to what we're talking about. You said that I change the meanings of words and make logical fallacies, implying heavily that I was doing both in this thread. I asked for examples, and your response some old thread where I did neither of those things and to say that I'm changing the meaning of "border security" when I use it to refer to "security at the border."
 
I don't remember it and I doubt very much that your recollection is correct. At any rate, that's irrelevant to what we're talking about. You said that I change the meanings of words and make logical fallacies, implying heavily that I was doing both in this thread. I asked for examples, and your response some old thread where I did neither of those things and to say that I'm changing the meaning of "border security" when I use it to refer to "security at the border."
Here you go
http://forums.sherdog.com/threads/trump-to-comey-i-need-loyalty-i-expect-loyalty.3545279/page-3
"There were no classified emails on Weiner's computer."
no way to objectively defend that point
 
your definition of 'border security' is not the normal one, nor does it take into account past situations w/ said border .....

For a much better, different thread example you once told me that Comey testified before Congress that THERE WERE NO CLASSIFIED MATERIALS on huma/weiner's laptop. I then responded w/ the literal clip of Comey saying directly 'Yes, there was classified materials on this computer' to which you backtracked and responded w/ 'oh, we already knew about those!" is if that was actually the issue being argued.

If you haven't noticed his MO yet, It's all about disinformation, and feigning shock when you provide a commonly understood definition, or make an otherwise matter of fact point. Just silly shit that shocks the conscience with regard to its absurdity. i.e. "Hillary is the most honest politician", "Libertarianism is the most authoritarian ideology".

He doesn't feel any shame or guilt for that level of dishonest discourse, so its a perfect tactic for him. Typically people with that kind of pathological tendency have had to tuck tail and remove themselves from a community once they'e been outed, but that's not really required in an online community so here he stays. That's the advantage of hiding behind a computer screen I suppose.
 
We're all Sophists to his Socrates in his own Republic

some of us have left the cave though
 
Here you go
http://forums.sherdog.com/threads/trump-to-comey-i-need-loyalty-i-expect-loyalty.3545279/page-3
"There were no classified emails on Weiner's computer."
no way to objectively defend that point

Link doesn't go straight to it. But you were saying that I was using fallacies and changing word meanings in this thread, which is clearly false.

If you haven't noticed his MO yet, It's all about disinformation, and feigning shock when you provide a commonly understood definition, or make an otherwise matter of fact point. Just silly shit that shocks the conscience with regard to its absurdity. i.e. "Hillary is the most honest politician", "Libertarianism is the most authoritarian ideology".

Both of the claims you put in quotation marks are not things I've claimed. So you're lying. I have said that Clinton is more honest than a typical politician and that her Politifact rating was the highest of any candidate in the last election, and those are true. Right-wing libertarianism is an authoritarian ideology (not the most, though it's up there).

He doesn't feel any shame or guilt for that level of dishonest discourse, so its a perfect tactic for him. Typically people with that kind of pathological tendency have had to tuck tail and remove themselves from a community once they'e been outed, but that's not really required in an online community so here he stays. That's the advantage of hiding behind a computer screen I suppose.

Your examples of "dishonesty" were themselves lies, and the lies were based on absolutely true statements I've made. That kind of thing is why I know I can continue to humiliate you by asking you to back up your character attacks (because you can't actually back them up). Further, if anyone would tuck tail and remove themselves from the community, I'd think it would be the starter of the most embarrassing thread in WR history: http://forums.sherdog.com/threads/w...iggest-crash-the-world-has-ever-seen.2938613/. Third anniversary is coming up.
 
Yes well it's obvious that what Obama was saying with his quote wasn't what it was spun into by the right and with the quotes you pulled for Hillary Clinton she was clearly not saying what you are trying to spin it into it's the same thing.

Curious did you understand what a Obama was trying to say with that you didn't build that quote or did you buy the spin?

Yeah um, I'm not a fan of Obama, but I was never one of the guys who gave him shit for that comment or railed against everything he did. I took issue mostly with his FP. It is funny, thought, that if you're not 100% for Obama you get labeled a right winger, even though most of my positions are more than likely to the left of the people who like to cast that net.

Its laughable to act as if I'm spinning her meaning when I'm quoting her directly and you guys are interpreting her meaning to be something she didn't actually say.

Don't forget that Hillary is on the record as stating that she as public positions and private positions. She refused to release the transcripts of her speeches (her private position). Its only because of wikileaks that we have an idea of what she revealed in them. When the wikileaks about this speech were revealed it was big news. If you look at most of the reporting on this story its right around 10/16. The debate was 10/19 and its blatantly obvious that she had prepared an answer for it; mainly because it doesn't make sense, nor does it jive with her original quote.

From Fortune:

By CHRIS MATTHEWS
October 11, 2016
Hillary Clinton has spent almost the entirety of her presidential campaign refusing to publish the transcripts of paid speeches she gave to large financial institutions, like Goldman Sachs, in exchange for hefty paychecks during the period after she left the State Department in 2013, but before she launched her bid for president in 2015.

Perhaps now we know why.

Wikileaks, the international organization that disseminates government secrets, published a series of emails on Friday that were obtained by hackers who accessed the account of Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, which purport to show a conversation between Clinton aides discussing what parts of the speeches would be potentially damaging if excerpts were somehow made public. One statement that made the most waves was about trade and immigration, made during a presentation to Banco Itau, a Brazilian bank, in 2013:


My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.

These unearthed comments drew swift rebuke from Donald Trump himself, who said in a rally on Monday that “No one who supports open borders should be able to run for president, because we won’t have a country.” He also argued that Clinton “wants the United States to surrender to global governance with no controls.”

So is it fair to characterize what Clinton said in this way? Also, what might a “hemispheric common market” mean anyway?

First of all, the comments don’t actually depart significantly from what Clinton has been arguing for years. The Democratic nominee has long qualified her support for free trade agreements by arguing that they need to include higher environmental and labor standards on countries we are trading with before we sign.

This is the qualification that is generally made by economists favorable to the labor movement for decades now. As Robert Scott, Senior Economist and Director of Trade and Manufacturing Policy Research at the Economic Policy Institute has written, “Trade and investment deals like Nafta and T.P.P. are highly complex legal texts, written to favor multinational companies and large investors.” He argues that free trade agreements could be rewritten so that instead of giving multinational corporations more power, it simply lowers tariffs and requires trading partners to increase their labor and environmental standards.

Second, the type of free trade zone that Clinton is arguing for doesn’t have to be detrimental to American workers.

Jared Bernstein, the former Chief Economist for Vice President Joe Biden has arguedthat in the future, the United States should pursue free trade agreements that attempt to raise labor and environmental standards before they reduce barriers to trade. This would create the incentive for our trade partners to raise wages and standards in their own countries before they could reap the benefits of accessing the U.S. market. In addition, Bernstein has argued, free trade agreements should limit countries’ ability to manipulate currency, not cut back on government’s ability to regulate their service sectors or provide public services, and should be much more transparently negotiated.

Clinton’s public comments on TPP, and her private comments on free trade, can certainly be reconciled with the arguments of these left-leaning economists. She argued that her change in attitude towards TPP, from supporting it as Secretary of State to opposing it as a presidential candidate, was due to the fact that when the final agreement was announced, “it didn’t meet my standards for more new, good jobs for Americans, for raising wages for Americans.”

Clinton has also, like Bernstein, criticized the deal for not including protections against currency manipulation. Clinton’s case for this nuanced approach to trade agreements is supported by the fact that while she supported NAFTA as first lady, she opposed the Central American Free Trade agreement for not including enforceable labor standards.

So Clinton calling for “open trade and open borders” isn’t actually at odds with her public statements on the issue.
In an interview with Fortune in June, that I did for this story, Robert Scott pointed to the European Economic Community as the sort of free trade agreement the United States should strive for. When the EEC allowed less developed nations to join the Union, it gave generous subsidies to those countries to help encourage economic development that would make competition between countries fair and the free movement of people less of a burden on more developed countries. Scott says that this could be a model for U.S. agreements in the Western Hemisphere, if the political will for such integration can be mustered.

Therefore a dream of “open markets and open borders” need not be a dream in the service of capital over labor. While it may be naive to think that the world will be so prosperous and egalitarian that the free movement of people and capital wouldn’t be used to pit workers in one country against workers in another, it’s a reasonable “dream” for liberal, capitalist politicians like Hillary Clinton to strive for.

Of course, if she knew she were speaking publicly, Clinton would likely have phrased this differently. But what Trump and some Bernie Sanders supporters forget is that when you poll Americans, a majority think that globalization and free trade benefits the country as a whole. So while free trade agreements and support for immigration may hurt a politican during primary season, it’s not clear that this is an issue that will hinder Clinton come November.
http://fortune.com/2016/10/11/clinton-wikileaks/
 
Back
Top