 |
Posted on 12/30/2009 10:22:00 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Sorry, the viciousness the dems have shown in trying to personally destroy Sarah is beyond anything we've seen.
Palin’s Book Confuses Legendary UCLA Coach Wooden with Native American Activist25 yr old writer at S
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2398662/posts
12/02/2009 11:33:07 AM PST · by GreaterSwiss · 160 replies · 4,168+ views
SportingNews ^ | 12/02/2009 | Chris Littman
This is a front page article in SportingNews.com "Since its release, Sarah Palin's book, "Going Rogue" has been somewhat picked apart for factual errors. From a sports angle, there is no factual error that will get a better laugh than this one: In her new book, "Going Rogue," former vice presidential nominee attributes a quote to UCLA basketball coaching legend John Wooden. The only problem is that he didn't say it. "Our land is everything to us...I will tell you one of the things we remember on our land. We remember our grandfathers paid for it -- with their lives." It's a nice quote, but it really doesn't sound like something that Wooden would say. It was actually written by Native American activist John Wooden Legs in his essay "Back on the War Ponies." Who should be more embarrassed: Palin or the fact checkers that let this one get through? Either way, "Going Rogue" is your No. 1 choice for your favorite sports fan who enjoys unintentional comedy this holiday season." ...
Great example. Maybe you should read more, yes?
“It’s a rope-a-dope tactic, and one that needs to be constantly guarded against.”
And notice that he’s still at it.
“And I should agree with you and shut up, or even, I should agree with you and trust her?”
Good example of number 4 in my previous post. “Attribute statements to others that they never made.” I wrote that it was coming soon, and sure enough, here it is.
A reasonable person would know that the proper response is to give honest consideration to the position I offered. You, though, chose to impose a ridiculously extreme interpretation on it, and pretend that’s what I said. That’s one way that libs sidestep arguments on the merits, and you sure continue to argue like a lib.
“Sorry, dsc, sorry Sarah, my trust has to be earned.”
Utter nonsense. She has done so many things to justify trust that a person has to be willfully ignoring them to make a statement like that.
“Sarah’s established a bit of a precedent of not over-preparing (going in like to Couric/Gibson interviews expecting to be lobbed the same sort of softballs Obama got)”
If you had been paying any attention to threads here, you’d understand that she was hobbled and gagged by McLame’s campaign boys. Any blame for the interviews goes to them, not to her.
“I’d like to see her put in some hard work (no ghost writer) toward trying to swing her movement’s advance back around to the first direction a few times.”
No, you wouldn’t. If you had any interest in that, you could have taken any of dozens of opportunities to satisfy it.
“Like I done told Blue Collar Christian, maybe I’m “once bitten, thrice shy”, but I don’t trust any politician much. Maybe I’d do well in Missouri.”
Just pick a blue state. Those are your kind of people. It’s nonsense to think you’ve been bitten even once, and the only way a person could labor under that misconception would be if he were relying solely upon leftard propaganda to feed his opinions. Which would account for your coming in here citing one leftist source after another, as though people here are dim enough to be taken in by that.
“and this to dsc, too - were you starting to get New Year’s Eve drunk when you wrote that you didn’t trust my sourcing on Palin’s John Wooden/John Wooden Legs gaffe? Palin’s Book Confuses Legendary UCLA Coach Wooden with Native American Activist25 yr old writer…http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2398662/posts”;
You should read your own sources. One representative reply is at post 50:
“If you had read the posting at the link, you would see that the author actually cites and links to a book that quotes the original essay that John Wooden Legs wrote. 12/02/2009 11:33:07 AM PST · by GreaterSwiss · 160 replies · 4,168+ views”
Guess none of those 4,168+ views was yours, or you would have known that this issue had already been discussed and dealt with.
“This is a front page article in SportingNews.com”
Do you suppose that because it has the word “sporting” in the name, it’s not contaminated by libtard filth? They think they are laughing at the book’s “factual errors,” but if this one is representative, they are laughing at their own delusions. Classic libtard behavior.
The reality is that she does not quote “legendary basketball coach John Wooden,” and her citation quotes the original essay that John Wooden Legs wrote.
So why does SportingNews.com say what they say? Because they are leftists, and all leftists lie all the time. And there you are, not only believing them, but trying to spread their lie.
Hmmm.
A reasonable person would know that the proper response is to give honest consideration to the position you offered?
Reasonable person? Proper response? Shove it. Shove ‘em both, way up.
The position you offer me is not unlike the position the Islamists offer me. Either submit, and agree, or shut up. You Palin-amentalists are so, so sure, and so, so angry at those of us who ain’t so sure. Shove it.
clarification;
...The position you offer me is not unlike the position the Islamists offer me. Either I submit, and agree, or I shut up. ...
Flowerplough writes: “Reasonable person? Proper response? [Vulgar invective redacted]”
Yeah, that’s how a lib argues. Invective and dishonesty.
I explained to you already that my remarks do not imply that you should “Either submit, and agree, or shut up.” In true lib style, though, you continue to repeat that false assertion.
Following that, you attempt to slur me with a reference to “fundamentalists” (Palin-amentalists), which is a great example of point 2 in my earlier note: “A liberal trying to pass himself off as a conservative can be identified by the differences between the positions he thinks conservatives hold and those they really do.”
People over at DU may be horrified and furious at being compared to fundamentalists. Conservatives, though, have far too much perspective to be bothered by such nonsense. Not only that, in contrast to your average libtard, we actually understand what the word “fundamentalist” means.
You go on to assert that I am “so, so angry” at you for being “not so sure. [More vulgar invective redacted]”
There’s another one I need to add to my list of traits of lib debaters: Groundless accusations of this or that extreme emotion, and amateur psychoanalysis.
Anybody who wants to think that it is I who have been angered by this exchange is free to do so.
Since you apparently didn’t pay any attention the first time I posted it, here’s Thomas Sowell again: “It is amazing how many people think that they can answer an argument by attributing bad motives to those who disagree with them. Using this kind of reasoning, you can believe or not believe anything about anything, without having to bother to deal with facts or logic.”
“...answer an argument by attributing bad motives to those who disagree with them.”
Isn’t that what you’re so angrily doing? I neither respect nor trust Sarah Palin as much as you do, and dare to express that, and you type paragraph after paragraph telling me things like “A reasonable person would know that the proper response is to give honest consideration to the position I offered.” Hafta tell ya, again, that sounds like a gauntlet a Slammie Fundie might throw down. Give up. I don’t love Sarah. I’ll probably never love Sarah. You can’t lecture me into loving Sarah. You can’t bluster and accuse me into loving Sarah. Allow me to express what I feel to be reasonable reasons for my lack of Sarah-love, and leave it at that. Don’t answer my arguments and opinions by attributing bad motives to me simply because I disagree with you. (Vulgar invective redacted) it.
|
And if my vulgar invective that needs redacted, does yours? From your post 70: “It is hard to believe that a man won’t pussy out when you know that you would pussy out if you were in his place.” Disappointing, dsc.
“Isn’t that what you’re so angrily doing? (answer an argument by attributing bad motives)”
Absolutely not, nor am I angry. What do you hope to gain by continuing to repeat falsehoods?
You see, I have impugned your motives in addition to answering you on the merits, not instead of answering on the merits.
“telling me things like ‘A reasonable person would know that the proper response is to give honest consideration to the position I offered.” Hafta tell ya, again, that sounds like a gauntlet a Slammie Fundie might throw down.”
1. I have no idea what a “slammie fundie” might be. Is that a term in common usage over at DU or some other leftist site?
2. Telling you things? I never imagined that I would be able to get through to you. I do these things for lurkers, for the purpose of allowing people who attempt to deceive to show their true colors. And boy, you really came through there.
Signing off, now.
So you’ve signed off, and will let me have the last word? Thank you.
My true colors: I don’t love Sarah. I’ll probably never love Sarah. You can’t lecture me into loving Sarah. You can’t bluster and accuse me into loving Sarah. In the future, kindly allow me to express what I feel to be reasonable reasons for my lack of Sarah-love, and leave it at that. Got it?
You mean like you calling her daughter a "slut"?
Got it?
Oh we get you clearly. You're a self-righteous, hypocritical phony acting out the role of a 'Christian'.
NEWSFLASH: No one gives a damn if you ever support Palin. I prefer you don't.
RE: accurately quoting me
Believe Rush Limbaugh was similarly misquoted, often intentionally, by many of his detractors, after he was invited into a group trying to buy the St. Louis Rams football team.
AND...SHE'S FRESH OUT OF CARIBOU!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.