Roy Moore 3rd rail?

[Dog]

You first sentence dances around the issue and suggests you don't actually have any examples.

Your second sentence gets close to a cite, but does not quite make it.

Wanna try again?

Not really...Anyone who reads these pages with a modicum of objectivity knows it.

 

[Raz'r]

Oh fuck off....This from the ilk who put Kennedy in the senate for 7 terms and defended Clinton.

No, your elk are destroying the nation. Defending a sexual predator? That stink won’t wash off.

 

[Bus Driver]

Oh fuck off....This from the ilk who put Kennedy in the senate for 7 terms and defended Clinton.

I wonder if you realize that by posting the image in Post #769, you actually lend legitimacy to the election of Senator Kennedy.  At least, by using it as a way of excusing the likely election of Judge Moore, you are giving tacit approval to that which you claim to object.

No moral high ground for you.

 

[Dog]

No, your elk are destroying the nation. Defending a sexual predator? That stink won’t wash off.

Your ilk would have more cred if you walked the walk.

 

[Bus Driver]

Not really...Anyone who reads these pages with a modicum of objectivity knows it.

So, you don't have any cites to back up your allegation that Democrats claim to hold the moral high ground".

I suggest neither side can claim that.  Especially when you are using a situation to which you claim to object as an excuse for electing Judge Roy Moore.

Moral high ground ceded.

 

[Dog]

I wonder if you realize that by posting the image in Post #769, you actually lend legitimacy to the election of Senator Kennedy.  At least, by using it as a way of excusing the likely election of Judge Moore, you are giving tacit approval to that which you claim to object.

No moral high ground for you.

I didn't use that image as a way of excusing Moore. I used it to illustrate the hypocrisy of post 762 to which I was responding.

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

Once Former Judge Moore married his wife, was he then allowed back in the mall and to attend HS football games and talk to the cheerleaders?  The police officer didn't specify.  

 

[Clove Hitch]

Once Former Judge Moore married his wife, was he then allowed back in the mall and to attend HS football games and talk to the cheerleaders?  The police officer didn't specify.  

Democrats do bad things

 

[Bus Driver]

I didn't use that image as a way of excusing Moore. I used it to illustrate the hypocrisy of post 762 to which I was responding.

Hypocrisy cuts both ways.

Soon, someone will post two images, one of Judge Moore and one of a Democrat, as a means of "illustrating the hypocrisy" of those who like to illustrate hypocrisy.

Unfortunately, you will be unable to express outrage at the actions of the Democrat, as you will demonstrate your own hypocrisy.

Now, if you offered more that a barely lukewarm criticism of the Judge, you might have something.

But, you haven't.  So, you don't.

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

Democrats do bad things

If you had to choose between a democRAT who prosecuted white guys for bombing a church 15 or 20 years earlier, and killing four black girls, or an American who has or had a thing for teenage poon, what democRAT would you use as an example to discredit the prosecutor, or is his prosecution of white vs. black crime enough of a disqualifier?  

 

[benwynn]

The repeated inappropriate behavior of a man with underage girls compared to a single car accident that took place over 48 years ago.  You've got to have one hell of a shoring set up to dig that deep.

Meanwhile, can we presume the below meets the Dog Standard as not hypocritical?

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

The repeated inappropriate behavior of a man with underage girls compared to a single car accident that took place over 48 years ago.  You've got to have one hell of a shoring set up to dig that deep.

Meanwhile, can we presume the below meets the Dog Standard as not hypocritical?

Kennedy admitted fault and paid a settlement. http://www.nytimes.com/1974/07/12/archives/settlement-is-reported-with-kopechne-parents.html

That is disgusting.  His unwillingness to deny that the incident happened is what made him unfit for office.  Pure liberal hypocrisy.  

 

[Spatial Ed]

Your ilk would have more cred if you walked the walk.

Will you?  Why do keep deflecting for Moore?  I know you don't support him therefore don't defend him, but deflecting is defending.

 

[benwynn]

Kennedy admitted fault and paid a settlement. http://www.nytimes.com/1974/07/12/archives/settlement-is-reported-with-kopechne-parents.html

That is disgusting.  His unwillingness to deny that the incident happened is what made him unfit for office.  Pure liberal hypocrisy.  

Agreed.  Kennedy should have denied it ever happened, then deflected to some past offense, such as the pro-slavery platform of the Whigs in 1852. 

 

[SloopJonB]

Yeah well...It's too fucking bad isn't it, Run to your safe place. If one ilk impugns the character of another ilk their own character becomes fair game.

Christ you're a moronic asshole.

You obviously have no character, only ideology - as demonstrated by the content of your posts.

 

[Dog]

The repeated inappropriate behavior of a man with underage girls compared to a single car accident that took place over 48 years ago.  You've got to have one hell of a shoring set up to dig that deep.

Meanwhile, can we presume the below meets the Dog Standard as not hypocritical?

Dude. For how many terms did the Democrats elect Kennedy to the senate. For how many terms has Roy Moore been elected. 

 

[Dog]

Christ you're a moronic asshole.

You obviously have no character, only ideology - as demonstrated by the content of your posts.

OFGS...Who the fuck cares what you think about me. Go back to figuring out how to lick your own balls.

 

[Clove Hitch]

Wasn't @Dog supposed to give himself a two week time out for using a Soviet propaganda technique? 

Whataboutism (also known as whataboutery) is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument,[1][2][3] which is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda.[4][5][6] When criticisms were leveled at the Soviet Union, the Soviet response would be "What about..." followed by an event in the Western world.[7][8][9]

The next time I'm teaching and a whiny 14 year old (Moore's target dating demographic) does something dumb and gets in trouble-- if they point out that so and so also did it, I guess I will just shrug and say "well, I guess that makes it okay, then."

Has @Dog been able to quote a liberal on this forum defending Kennedy?

 

[Dog]

Wasn't @Dog supposed to give himself a two week time out for using a Soviet propaganda technique? 

The next time I'm teaching and a whiny 14 year old (Moore's target dating demographic) does something dumb and gets in trouble-- if they point out that so and so also did it, I guess I will just shrug and say "well, I guess that makes it okay, then."

Has @Dog been able to quote a liberal on this forum defending Kennedy?

I've pointed out that Democrats elected Kennedy to the senate for 7 terms, that they circled the wagons to protect Clinton all of which means they really have no room to talk. If you have a problem with me citing the Democrat's own record go run to your safe place... poor thing.

 

[Clove Hitch]

I've pointed out that Democrats elected Kennedy to the senate for 7 terms, that they circled the wagons to protect Clinton all of which means they really have no room to talk. If you have a problem with me citing the Democrat's own record go run to your safe place... poor thing.

You are using a logical fallacy called whataboutism to deflect from and defend a pedophile.  How can you look yourself in a mirror?