In conclusion, that’s from one of the most liberal news outlets on the internet, and it’s from April 4.
You’re wrong. You’ve been wrong. You’ve also made an utter fool of yourself by calling me out and then being the first, as is customary, to hurl insults. So fuck you.
Dance, monkey.
Dance
You are pure comedic gold.
[quote]JEATON wrote:
Dance, monkey.
Dance
You are pure comedic gold.[/quote]
Good argument. Substantive and fresh. Well done.
I’d like to close this out by noting that you called me out and then when I utterly embarrassed you, you were reduced to piffle like “dance, monkey,” offering not a word of substance and not even the hint of an effort to refute a single claim of mine [I don’t blame you, of course. Because you can’t].
I proffered in my last post an example–one of literally hundreds, and when I say “literally,” I mean exactly that–of one of the left’s most blatant and extravagant propaganda machines–The Huffington Post–having covered the Kermit Gosnell trial within the past forty-eight hours. In the post preceding that one, I proffered similar examples involving the New York Times, the L.A. Times, the Washington Post, and CNN–each of which has been covering the trial, each of which ran a prominent story at the trial’s open, and each of which was running stories about Gosnell literally years before you had ever heard his name. And let’s not forget why I’m listing these: because you said, and I quote verbatim, that Gosnell has received “absolutely zero mainstream coverage,” and that I was wrong in my claim that the major newspapers are covering the trial and have been for years.
Let’s take a look at those words a little more closely. Remember, you said these words:
“Absolutely”–without qualification or restriction.
“Zero”–nothing; without quantity or number; exactly one unit less than one.
“Mainstream”–the NYT, Washpost, Huffpost, CNN, etc.
“Coverage”–treatment or account of an issue by media.
And yet…I showed you hundreds–literally hundreds–of examples of mainstream media outlets covering Gosnell, his indictment, and his trial.
Which is to say that I proved you wrong. At this point, what you were supposed to say was something like, “well, it certainly has been covered by the media. You’re right smh, and I was wrong. What I meant to say was that I think it could receive more time and more condemnation. I don’t know why I called you out by name, but it was pretty silly of me to have done so without first checking to see whether or not the position I was taking was verifiable nonsense [HINT: you’d have found that it was].”
Instead, you retorted with “pinhead” and “moronic” (because, as I believe I mentioned a while back, you’re both very rude and very stupid).
Well, I feel pretty good about all this. You should, by now, understand the thing I wrote earlier–about how you and I are not rivals. We’re in different weight classes, it’s as simple as that–and I mean that in the most insultingly condescending manner. I feel obligated to note here and now that I would never talk to a decent person in the way that I’m talking to you now. You’ve earned this, in other words, through a strange and immensely irritating fascination with/animosity toward me which is on display to some extent here in this thread but was far more obvious and pronounced the last time you saw fit to shout my name in the public square.
Anyway, I hope you’ve read this far. Thanks for the ego boost: I was having a rough day till you came stumbling along.
JEATON stop embarrassing yourself.
Lets just point out what a feckless fuck you are. And by the way, I called you out just to watch your little contortionist dance, monkey.
I posted an article lambasting the mainstream media outlets of ABC, NBC and CBS for ABSOLUTELY ZERO coverage of the Gosnell trial. You are the one who immediately began moving the goal post to Newspaper and how it had been covered, extensively if you are to be believed, for two years.
I reiterate my point and you post a NY Times (neither NBC, ABC or CBS) as irrefutable proof that you were right in contesting a statement or position I never took, something that you do repeatedly on this board.
I let you run with it and this is what you come back with…
http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch/#/kermit+gosnell/since1851/allresults/1/allauthors/newest/
If you will notice, you can order the results from newest to oldest. Doing so yields the following results…
March 18, 2013
Oct. 27, 2011
June 6, 2011
March 2, 2011
etc.
So even when you move the goal post and argue a position I never took, you still suck at it.
And by the way, it was you next move to attack me and accuse me of making shit up. “Learn things, then talk about them” Sound familiar?
“6 seconds, case closed.” Who’s case monkey?
You call me “Einstein” and claim they are not listed in chronological order, but even a non-Einstein could see that they could easily be ordered that way to yeild the results I posted above.
You then spend copious amounts of time mentally masterbating all over the page to further cement your argument with yourself, all the while I am laughing my ass off at you.
Tell me how right you are again and how wrong I am.
Dance monkey,
Dance.
[quote]JEATON wrote:
Lets just point out what a feckless fuck you are. And by the way, I called you out just to watch your little contortionist dance, monkey.
I posted an article lambasting the mainstream media outlets of ABC, NBC and CBS for ABSOLUTELY ZERO coverage of the Gosnell trial. You are the one who immediately began moving the goal post to Newspaper and how it had been covered, extensively if you are to be believed, for two years.
[/quote]
I don’t give a shit what your article said. My input (which you requested, like a complete asshole) was this: newspapers have been covering this, and that’s exactly why newspapers are better than TV news. That’s what I said. And then you took issue with what I said. And you challenged me to present evidence. And I did. And then you snapped and acted like an asshole–which is what I expect, because you are an asshole.
And by the way, when you said zero mainstream coverage, you said jack shit about CNN or the New York Times. You said ZERO MAINSTREAM COVERAGE. Do you know what that means. It means “not covered in the mainstream news market.” But the NYT and the WP and Huffpo and CNN and every example I provided you–it was exactly that, it was mainstream coverage of the fucking trial.
The point being, once again, that you were wrong, and I was right. So sorry. Better luck nex time.
Also, you’re an asshole. I don’t know if I’ve told you yet.
[quote]JEATON wrote:
And by the way, it was you next move to attack me and accuse me of making shit up. “Learn things, then talk about them” Sound familiar?
“6 seconds, case closed.” Who’s case monkey?
You call me “Einstein” and claim they are not listed in chronological order, but even a non-Einstein could see that they could easily be ordered that way to yeild the results I posted above.
[/quote]
Congrat-u-fucking-lations. The New York Times search function can be listed chronologically. I yield that point. Well fucking done old lad.
And yet I don’t yield the following points: the NYT covered the trial at its inception and during the indictment and during the investigation, so did the Washington Post and the L.A. Times, so did CNN.com, ABC.com, CBSNEWS.com, AND THE FUCKING HUFFINGTON POST, WHICH, IN CASE YOU’VE MISSED THIS POINT THE LAST TWO TIMES I’VE MADE IT, HAS COVERED THE GOSNELL TRIAL MORE THAN TWICE AS OFTEN AND MORE THAN TWICE AS MUCH AS BREITBART, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE FORMER IS A LIBERAL HACK OUTLET AND THE LATTER IS A CONSERVATIVE HACK OUTLET. I also do not yield the point that each of these papers was covering this story long before you had any clue who Gosnell was–and that I, as someone who reads real newspapers, knew the name Kermit Gosnell years before you did, despite the fact that I read mainstream news.
In short, I don’t yield nay of the points that matter. I don’t yield my argument–which is inarguably and verifiably correct–that you were wrong when you said–and I quote–“absolutely zero mainstream coverage.” And I, on the other hand, was right when I said that newspapers had been covering this mess for a long while.
In other words, I win. And there’s jack shit you can do about it. Your statement is right there, for everybody to see. It’s right there, and I proved it wrong. Which means that I proved you wrong. Which means that you called me out and then I beat you. That must suck–though it would probably suck more if there were an ounce of humility rattling around inside your head with the other trash and stupidity.
For the record, I also don’t yield the contention that you’re a prick. And I’m just going to go ahead and get this out of the way: I know exactly why you have such strange animosity toward me. It’s plain and simple, and it’s been plain and simple since your little call-out a few months ago. You disagree with me politically, but you can’t beat me in debate. Because, while I’m the last person who would ever report a flattering measurement of my own intelligence in absolute terms, I’m perfectly confident in the relative one that’s about to follow: I’m smarter than you are. And better at debating, and arguing, and discussion. That’s pretty fucking clear by now, after this thread, is it not?
And I would never say something like that unless two conditions were met: the person would have to have been truly nasty to me, and I’d have to be absolutely confident in the truth of the claim that he is, in fact, a hell of a lot stupider than I am.
The conditions have been met and surpassed. You are an asshole, if not to everybody then certainly and consistently to me. And you are a loser in the most literal sense of the term: I’ve won this debate, I’ve proved you wrong, I’ve shown unequivocally that I was right and you were not, and there isn’t a single person on this board who could survey the evidence and come to a different conclusion. You get to say that you were right about the New York Times ordering their search queries in chronological order, and I get to say that I was right about exactly everything else.
Which sucks for you, because that’s a whole lot of stuff that you got wrong. Oh well, you should certainly be used to it by now.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
My input (which you requested, like a complete asshole) was this: newspapers have been covering this, and that’s exactly why newspapers are better than TV news. That’s what I said. And then you took issue with what I said. And you challenged me to present evidence. And I did. And then you snapped and acted like an asshole–which is what I expect, because you are an asshole.
And by the way, when you said zero mainstream coverage, you said jack shit about CNN or the New York Times. You said ZERO MAINSTREAM COVERAGE. Do you know what that means. It means “not covered in the mainstream news market.” But the NYT and the WP and Huffpo and CNN and every example I provided you–it was exactly that, it was mainstream coverage of the fucking trial.
The point being, once again, that you were wrong, and I was right. So sorry. Better luck nex time.
Also, you’re an asshole. I don’t know if I’ve told you yet.[/quote]
I’m reiterating this right here, because it’s all so so true and so so so important for you to understand.
In the end: you called me out and got fucking owned. Like destroyed. Like I’m the Roman army salting your fucking Carthaginian fields, bitch. The shitty thing for you is that you called me out. That really sucks. If I were you, I’d be very embarrassed. I might even lay low for a while.
Better luck next time, dickhead.
[quote]JEATON wrote:
Lets just point out what a feckless fuck you are. And by the way, I called you out just to watch your little contortionist dance, monkey.
I posted an article lambasting the mainstream media outlets of ABC, NBC and CBS for ABSOLUTELY ZERO coverage of the Gosnell trial. You are the one who immediately began moving the goal post to Newspaper and how it had been covered, extensively if you are to be believed, for two years.
I reiterate my point and you post a NY Times (neither NBC, ABC or CBS) as irrefutable proof that you were right in contesting a statement or position I never took, something that you do repeatedly on this board.
I let you run with it and this is what you come back with…
http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch/#/kermit+gosnell/since1851/allresults/1/allauthors/newest/
If you will notice, you can order the results from newest to oldest. Doing so yields the following results…
March 18, 2013
Oct. 27, 2011
June 6, 2011
March 2, 2011
etc.
So even when you move the goal post and argue a position I never took, you still suck at it.
And by the way, it was you next move to attack me and accuse me of making shit up. “Learn things, then talk about them” Sound familiar?
“6 seconds, case closed.” Who’s case monkey?
You call me “Einstein” and claim they are not listed in chronological order, but even a non-Einstein could see that they could easily be ordered that way to yeild the results I posted above.
You then spend copious amounts of time mentally masterbating all over the page to further cement your argument with yourself, all the while I am laughing my ass off at you.
Tell me how right you are again and how wrong I am.
Dance monkey,
Dance.
[/quote]
You must not have read the above…
And yes. its just you. Why? Because you amuse me.
[quote]JEATON wrote:
You must not have read the above…
And yes. its just you. Why? Because you amuse me.
[/quote]
Dude, just stop. Learn to admit when you are wrong. This is just sad.
Yeah, this just looks bad Jeaton. Learn some humility.
[quote]JEATON wrote:
[quote]JEATON wrote:
Lets just point out what a feckless fuck you are. And by the way, I called you out just to watch your little contortionist dance, monkey.
I posted an article lambasting the mainstream media outlets of ABC, NBC and CBS for ABSOLUTELY ZERO coverage of the Gosnell trial. You are the one who immediately began moving the goal post to Newspaper and how it had been covered, extensively if you are to be believed, for two years.
I reiterate my point and you post a NY Times (neither NBC, ABC or CBS) as irrefutable proof that you were right in contesting a statement or position I never took, something that you do repeatedly on this board.
I let you run with it and this is what you come back with…
http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch/#/kermit+gosnell/since1851/allresults/1/allauthors/newest/
If you will notice, you can order the results from newest to oldest. Doing so yields the following results…
March 18, 2013
Oct. 27, 2011
June 6, 2011
March 2, 2011
etc.
So even when you move the goal post and argue a position I never took, you still suck at it.
And by the way, it was you next move to attack me and accuse me of making shit up. “Learn things, then talk about them” Sound familiar?
“6 seconds, case closed.” Who’s case monkey?
You call me “Einstein” and claim they are not listed in chronological order, but even a non-Einstein could see that they could easily be ordered that way to yeild the results I posted above.
You then spend copious amounts of time mentally masterbating all over the page to further cement your argument with yourself, all the while I am laughing my ass off at you.
Tell me how right you are again and how wrong I am.
Dance monkey,
Dance.
[/quote]
You must not have read the above…
And yes. its just you. Why? Because you amuse me.
[/quote]
I read and responded the the above.
And it’s not that I amuse you, it’s that I’m better than you at this.
I promise you–promise you–that you look like an idiot at this point.
[b]I’m going to ask two questions. I would appreciate answers.
A] After all of this–all of the evidence I’ve provided to show you that you were characteristically stupid to say this–do you stand by the statement of fact that, and I quote, Gosnell received “absolutely zero mainstream coverage?”
and
B] After all of this–all of the evidence I’ve provided to show you that you were characteristically stupid to say this–do you stand by your criticism of my statement that newspapers are covering this and have been doing so for a long, long time?[/b]
The answer to each question, in case you’re having trouble, should be “no.” Or, more accurately, “no, I’m sorry for being such an idiot and such a pussy/dick/asshole/take your pick of genital monikers.”
Because you can’t stand by either of those. Because both of those positions have been systematically destroyed by me over the course of this thread. Totally and utterly. And there is jack shit you can do about it.
I win.
[quote]BeefEater wrote:
[quote]JEATON wrote:
You must not have read the above…
And yes. its just you. Why? Because you amuse me.
[/quote]
Dude, just stop. Learn to admit when you are wrong. This is just sad.[/quote]
Many thanks to you and Gettnitdone for weighing in.
I was beginning to fear that I was insane.
[quote]BeefEater wrote:
[quote]JEATON wrote:
You must not have read the above…
And yes. its just you. Why? Because you amuse me.
[/quote]
Dude, just stop. Learn to admit when you are wrong. This is just sad.[/quote]
Seriously. What am I wrong about? I never argued a single thing he has spent pages trying to prove.
I do this because this is his modus operand. Move the goal post and then argue a point never made.
If you are saying I am wrong about a point that he wondered off on I don’t see your logic.
But you are probably on this, I probably need to move on from this board. There was a time when plenty of stimulating conversation could be had. Slowly but surely it seems that all the center to right leaning folks have quit showing up, probably because they are sick of realness.com links and the like.
But then again, if SMH was really tired of shouting out counter points to non existent debate he could simply put me on ignore, right.
[quote]JEATON wrote:
Seriously. Absolutely zero mainstream coverage.
[/quote]
How stupid, in retrospect, no?
[quote]JEATON wrote:
Seriously. What am I wrong about? I never argued a single thing he has spent pages trying to prove.
[/quote]
Refer to my previous post you fucking cretin.
[quote]JEATON wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
It’s been in the major newspapers for two years. Which gets at why print news is pretty much the only way to go.[/quote]
Great. I will rely on your expertise. Could you please post the links from the New York Slimes, The Washington Compost, The Houston Chronic, The Lost Angeles Times, etc…
After all, the trial being currently in progress, shouldn’t take a second…[/quote]
Again, how stupid in retrospect, no? Because I did exactly that. In fact I proffered hundreds upon hundreds of examples, HUNDREDS UPON HUNDREDS, and yet you struggled and flailed like the slow, intellectually dishonest piece of shit that you are.
In other words, you called me out. I said that one of your claims was wrong, and I made a further claim of my own.
And I was right on both counts. And you were wrong.
So sorry. Better luck another time.
[quote]JEATON wrote:
But then again, if SMH was really tired of shouting out counter points to non existent debate he could simply put me on ignore, right. [/quote]
It’s far too fun embarrassing you. Stuffing your own vapid words back down your gullet, a big old bolus of mashed up bullshit and dumbness and douchebaggery.
For example, I’ve just reproduced two direct quotes from you, one which was a simple lie, and the other which challenged me to do something which I subsequently did (easily), thereby beating you twice over.
And it was fun.
[quote]JEATON wrote:
There was a time when plenty of stimulating conversation could be had. Slowly but surely it seems that all the center to right leaning folks have quit showing up [/quote]
By the way, this is a fantastic load of bullshit. This board is full of stimulating conversation and good arguments from both sides–see, for example, the gay marriage thread, which was full of battles fought well on both sides. And the vast majority of the regular posters around here lean right.
But, more importantly, this gets at something deeper: you don’t want “stimulating conversation.” You don’t want debate and you certainly don’t want to be challenged. You want the “comments” section of Breitbart or Huffpost: a languid orgy of bias confirmation, a place where you can make shit up and nobody would notice in a thousand years, so long as the shit you made up was concocted in support of the “correct” political viewpoint. You don’t want to grow, you want to suppurate in the company of other intellectual sloths.
And that’s why you dislike me so–because I disagree with you often, and I call you wrong when you’re wrong, and I call you a liar when you’re lying. And because I beat you.
Which is kind of sad–but not nearly sad enough to stop me from genuinely disliking you. Because your conduct toward me in recent months–this little call-out here is included, but I’m referring with particular emphasis to the pointless thread you created a couple months ago in which you called me out for my firm disagreements with…wait for it…a guy who thinks 9/11 and Sandy Hook were inside jobs–yes, your conduct toward me in recent months has been extraordinarily rude and has smacked of bitterness born of reluctantly (or perhaps subconsciously) self-aware inferiority.
jesus h god, if you go back and read everybody’s posts it looks like both of you are missing the mark.