Attempt to show that she's got a long "history" or dishonesty by virtue of the fact that he has simply asserted it a thousand times.
You know better then that.
I have not "simply asserted it a thousand times". I have made the case. I have pointed out
why and
how she is lying countless times. After a point, her pattern becomes obvious.
And then he has the gall to claim that she resorts to "character assassination" of all things.
So, she doesn't engage in character assassination against Beck?
Intentionally misrepresenting the ideas of others and exaggerating them to radical levels in an attempt to marginalize them is not a type of character assassination?
Show me where I have not simply drawn reasonable conclusion about someone's credibility or thought process given their actions here (in part or in whole).
The same can be said of many people, left or right, who are passionate about politics, including me. However, I recognize that my views are slanted and that I'm not always getting the whole story, whereas you outright reject the possibility that Jonah Goldberg or Walter E. Williams aren't giving you all the facts. If it's "conservative", then it must be correct.
...or, instead of rejecting a source for ultimately ad hominem reasons (they have a "bias"), you could look into the arguments they make, examine the evidence and determine if they have a pattern of misleading or if they are shooting straight. In short, you examine their credibility instead of simply using flawed reasoning (bias) as an excuse.
The truth is that Marcus (or TommyB as he has been known) and a number of other leftists dominated this forum at one point but they simply looked for means to simply perpetuate talking points and impune and dismiss opposing views (and those who held them) instead of honest, decent discussion. A few of us started calling them on their childishness, incivility and intellectual dishonesty, which upped the vitriol with which they attacked us. But eventually most of them left though a few still occasionally pop their heads in. JohnnyBz00LS and Hrmwrm being a prime example.
Hrmwrm saw fit to post these photo shopped pictures in
this thread:
The left on this forum has a history of incivility, intellectual dishonesty and engaging in character assassination, usually blunt and overt. However, since foxy showed up it has taken the tone of more subtle habitual misrepresentations (usually started by foxpaws) like the one Tommy is perpetuating that I am somehow imposing "absurd" standards on discussion that are only appropriate in a formal, academic debate setting, that I am simply throwing out false accusations of fallacies (though none of these people can ever accurately point to a specific example of me doing so) or that I am simply regurgitating things without any actual understanding, that I don't "think", or am not "creative" (apparently, by this standard, thought is to be used in
justifying a conclusion
already reached as opposed to logically reaching a conclusion and having the thought process involved in reaching that conclusion be it's own justification).
From my own correspondence with her (both publicly and privately), I
know that foxy knows better then the lies she is making about me, but she is engaging in character assassination and it is a plausible enough of an excuse that others who are predisposed to being hostile toward me believe it. The two little "points" Tommy raises at the top of his post apply to foxy's lies
at least as much as they do to anything I have said about her.
To be fair, Tommy wasn't as bad as the others in the past (actually, probably the best of the bunch), and could have an honest, civil conversation once in a while, but he would still all to often fall back to pattern, as he is doing here.
