Politics Hypocrisy of The Right.

[Evolved1]

I'm shocked you haven't declared victory Winnie the Poo.

Stop smearing your dogshit everywhere.

If AQ is the worst that doesn't absolve the US govt of all the shitty things it does.
If the US Govt is the worst that doesn't absolve AQ of all the shitty things they do.

All of the shitty things that both sides do don't magically disappear because the other side is worse. All of those shitty things still exist, regardless of how the other side is judged.


Which one is worse
(A) Stopping girls from getting educated or
(B) overturning Roe v Wade

Both of them are shitty.
That one may be shittier than the other, depending on who is judging, doesn't change the fact the other is shitty.


FYI, my IQ is 24.96.

You're the dummy making false equivalence fallacies. Why keep lobbing slow balls right into Sweet Jesus sweet spot?

 

[iBeng]

Is that hypocrisy, though?

Misleading, sure. But this thread is about hypocrisy.

What is you special definition of hypocrisy?

 

[iBeng]

Are there levels?

Sure, just for you.

 

[Evolved1]

I never made any equivalences because it doesn't matter if they are the same or different or worse.

WTF does it mean that AQ is worse than the US govt?
It doesn't mean anything.
It is a mere tool used by dogshit smearers to smear dogshit over everything and then claim victory for who the F knows.

It's like sQomo proclaiming victory for democracy because women protestors were lucky they weren't shot.

Smearing dogshit seems to be your primary tactic. What do you actually stand for?

 

[Gethelred]

What is you special definition of hypocrisy?

I would define hypocrisy as the behaviour of advocating one thing as the moral option whilst doing its opposite.

Is there a problem with this definition?

And - I repeat - how specifically does your example demonstrate hypocrisy?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I'm shocked you haven't declared victory Winnie the Poo.

Stop smearing your dogshit everywhere.

If AQ is the worst that doesn't absolve the US govt of all the shitty things it does.
If the US Govt is the worst that doesn't absolve AQ of all the shitty things they do.

All of the shitty things that both sides do don't magically disappear because the other side is worse. All of those shitty things still exist, regardless of how the other side is judged.


Which one is worse
(A) Stopping girls from getting educated or
(B) overturning Roe v Wade

Both of them are shitty.
That one may be shittier than the other, depending on who is judging, doesn't change the fact the other is shitty.


FYI, my IQ is 24.96.

So you're avoiding your own rhetorical question. That's the height of incompetence.

I said the over/under for how many posts before you went to pieces was 2.5. Looks like under was the winner.

You waded in with fake confidence and then shat your pants.

You get dominated every time.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Sure, just for you.

Just for me? I wasn't the one making that argument.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I never made any equivalences because it doesn't matter if they are the same or different or worse.

WTF does it mean that AQ is worse than the US govt?
It doesn't mean anything.

But that was the whole premise of your rhetorical question when you were pretending to have an argument.

Now you're avoiding your own rhetorical question.

Could you have shat your pants any harder?

In your own mind, do you realise that you're a muppet? Or do you think you're holding your own here?

 

[Number37]

So you're avoiding your own rhetorical question. That's the height of incompetence.

I said the over/under for how many posts before you went to pieces was 2.5. Looks like under was the winner.

You waded in with fake confidence and then shat your pants.

You get dominated every time.

We can add rhetorical to the list of things you don't understand.
Did you manage to track down the meaning of unilateral yet?
What about presumably?

In case you don't understand smearing dogshit, smearing dogshit everywhere isn't a good thing.

 

[Number37]

But that was the whole premise of your rhetorical question when you were pretending to have an argument.

Now you're avoiding your own rhetorical question.

Could you have shat your pants any harder?

In your own mind, do you realise that you're a muppet? Or do you think you're holding your own here?

What does rhetorical mean?

No. It doesn't mean smear dogshit everywhere.

 

[iBeng]

I would define hypocrisy as the behaviour of advocating one thing as the moral option whilst doing its opposite.

Is there a problem with this definition?

And - I repeat - how specifically does your example demonstrate hypocrisy?

Fake news on a prominent right bias news network that regularly bemoans fake news?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

We can add rhetorical to the list of things you don't understand.
Did you manage to track down the meaning of unilateral yet?
What about presumably?

In case you don't understand smearing dogshit, smearing dogshit everywhere isn't a good thing.

You've unravelled completely, as usual.

You wade in, pretending to have something to say. But as soon as you get challenged you collapse in an incoherent heap.

It happens every time. You're an empty sack.

What does rhetorical mean?

A rhetorical question is designed to make a point without necessarily eliciting an answer. That's what you attempted but now you're dodging your own rhetorical question, which just underlines how bad you are at this.

 

[Number37]

You've unravelled completely, as usual.

You wade in, pretending to have something to say. But as soon as you get challenged you collapse in an incoherent heap.

It happens every time. You're an empty sack.

Instead of smearing dogshit everywhere you could just say 'hey I don't understand what rhetorical means'.
Nobody will hold it against you.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Instead of smearing dogshit everywhere you could just say 'hey I don't understand what rhetorical means'.
Nobody will hold it against you.

You try so hard.

 

[Number37]

Now you're avoiding your own rhetorical question.

So you're avoiding your own rhetorical question.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

View attachment 1249378

So what point do you think you were making here?

Your rhetorical question asks who's "worse" out of Al-Qaeda and the US. For me, it's clearly Al-Qaeda. Do you disagree? Are you suggesting that's not the case?

What point do you think you're making by framing a question this way? None at all?

Why don't you make your case explicitly if you think you're capable?

Alternatively, let's watch you retreat back into your empty sack yet again.

 

[Gethelred]

Fake news on a prominent right bias news network that regularly bemoans fake news?

Nothing in the graph as presented is false, as far as I can tell.

Whether it's duplicitous is not in argument; you're hardly going to get me accusing Tucker Carlson of being sincere or genuine. But for something to be fake news, it rather needs to be fake.

I'd be interested to see where he sourced the stats he uses, but other than that I don't see the hypocrisy here. I think you're reaching.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Fake news on a prominent right bias news network that regularly bemoans fake news?

Do you even know what "fake news" means?

 

[Number37]

So what point do you think you were making here?

Your rhetorical question asks who's "worse" out of Al-Qaeda and the US. For me, it's clearly Al-Qaeda. Do you disagree? Are you suggesting that's not the case?

What point do you think you're making by framing a question this way? None at all?

Why don't you make your case explicitly if you think you're capable?

Alternatively, let's watch you retreat back into your empty sack yet again.

Just to clarify...

You are demanding an answer to what you call a 'rhetorical question', yes?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Just to clarify...

You are demanding an answer to what you call a 'rhetorical question', yes?

I'm asking you what point you think you were making with those rhetorical questions.

You can't say? Big surprise.

You throw it out there because you want to feel involved and have something to say but you shrivel up when pressed on it.

Retreat to your empty sack.

 

[Number37]

So you're avoiding your own rhetorical question.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Once again Number37 has no argument.

Let me know when you think you have something to say, champ. I'll spare a minute or two to fillet it.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Do you even know what "fake news" means?

You've changed, man.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

You've changed, man.

You haven't. You're still an imbecile.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Mujahideen fighting the Russians were encouraged, funded, aided, abetted, lauded
Mujahideen fighting the Americans were a terrorist organisation.

Why? How?

They changed the name.
Mujahideen Taliban fighting the Americans were a terrorist organisation.


Amazeballs how a name changes everything.
Or a crock of sh*t.

You choose.

What's your point? What does this have to do with anything being discussed?

Everyone knows the US helped the mujahideen when they were fighting the Russians. We've all seen Rambo 3.

What's your point? Do you think this is some big revelation?

Wait until you hear about how the US backed Saddam Hussein against Iran. Can't wait for you to break the news about that.