IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Yes, that was exactly your point. You made it your point when you posted that card.
Your point was: "Look, she's lying now, just like she was then!" But the point is, she wasn't "lying" then (just misinformed), so that doesn't support your thesis that she must be lying now. Honestly, what the fuck is wrong with you: Are you too stupid to keep track of what point you're making, or just so stupid you think we are too stupid to keep track of what point you're making?

Also: I don't think that word means what you (or Matt Taibbi) think it means. I can very well conceive of Bernie saying -- and thinking -- exactly that. If you (and Taibbi) can't, that says less about Bernie and more about your (and Taibbi's) powers of conception.
--

   Christian R. Conrad
The Man Who (used to think he) Knows Fucking Everything


Mail: Same username as at the top left of this post, at iki.fi
New You're really not trying that hard are you?
Or are you just thick? A little Trumpian projection, perhaps?

Your point was: "Look, she's lying now, just like she was then!"


Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt. Incorrect. My point was: "Look, here's an example of her being an untrustworthy source in the past, so there's no reason to take her word on something alone as evidence of something that to most informed folk appears to be completely incredible."

Thanks for playing. But next time maybe wear a helmet so you don't hurt yourself.
bcnu,
Mikem

It's mourning in America again.
New I didn't say "larger", I said "bigger". Completely different!
--

Drew
New You're really trying a bit too hard, aren't you?
1) She wasn't "an untrustworthy source" then either, because
a) She was telling the truth exactly as she knew it; if someone was untrustworthy it wasn't her but her ancestors who had exaggerated the proportion of Injun blood in the family's veins, and
b) She DOES actually have native ancestry (just not as much as she thought). Did one have to have a Tribal Council Seal of Approval to claim to be Injun back then too, BTW, or is that a later bureaucratic invention?

2) The only way for her to be "an untrustworthy source" NOW would be that she's lying, because this time she isn't reporting on family lore (hearsay), but as an eye-(and ear-)witness on what she herself heard him say.

But OK, even granting that she were "an untrustworthy source" back then: So with a bit of good will, your point is "She's lying now, just as she was inadvertently untrustworthy then!"...

That's still calling her a liar. Which you have no proof for. Which makes it an assholeish thing to do. Which you can't wiggle out of, however hard you try. So do the decent thing, man up, and just fucking take it back.
--

   Christian R. Conrad
The Man Who (used to think he) Knows Fucking Everything


Mail: Same username as at the top left of this post, at iki.fi
New 1. False. 2. False.
Re 1:
As pertains to *facts*, she clearly was an untrustworthy source. She claimed to be (in whole, by the way) an "American Indian." That is false, notwithstanding what she may or may not have believed. Wouldn't you call a MAGA Trumpster who *believed* Climate Change was a Chinese hoax an untrustworthy source of information?

2:
She needn't necessarily be lying now. I'll grant you that she might have "thought" she had significant Native American ancestry before (notwithstanding the fact that filling out "American Indian" as your race is not equivalent to saying, "I have significant Native American ancestry). But let's assume that's true. That what she meant by claiming she was an "American Indian" was that she "had significant Native American ancestry." Fine. The claim was still false. IOW, her belief did not align with reality. The same could be true in this latest case. She could have misinterpreted something Bernie said. If so, she's not "lying" in this case anymore than she was "lying" in the previous case.
bcnu,
Mikem

It's mourning in America again.
     The Bernie Bros Unicorns are back. - (mmoffitt) - (24)
         You were at that meeting? - (drook) - (21)
             Preponderance of evidence. - (mmoffitt) - (20)
                 [sighs ... shakes head] -NT - (drook) - (1)
                     Proving a negative is oft difficult. Film at 11. -NT - (mmoffitt)
                 You sure swallowed Trump's talking points hook, line, and sinker. - (CRConrad) - (17)
                     Try harder. - (mmoffitt) - (16)
                         That's because no one *did* claim that - (drook) - (11)
                             little more complicated than blood quantum - (boxley) - (10)
                                 My point is, how many of us doubt the stories our parents tell us? -NT - (drook) - (9)
                                     My entire family thought an ancestor on my mom's side was Blackfoot - (malraux)
                                     And that wasn't my point, was it? - (mmoffitt) - (7)
                                         probably got him confused with her dad the janitor -NT - (boxley)
                                         No, it was your only entry in the "preponderance of evidence" - (drook)
                                         Yes, that was exactly your point. You made it your point when you posted that card. - (CRConrad) - (4)
                                             You're really not trying that hard are you? - (mmoffitt) - (3)
                                                 I didn't say "larger", I said "bigger". Completely different! -NT - (drook)
                                                 You're really trying a bit too hard, aren't you? - (CRConrad) - (1)
                                                     1. False. 2. False. - (mmoffitt)
                         On the other hand... - (a6l6e6x) - (3)
                             I already said I might vote for the former Senator from MBNA. - (mmoffitt) - (2)
                                 Brevity Award ..last five words. - (Ashton) - (1)
                                     ITYM six? -NT - (CRConrad)
         mostly agree but stating that warren cannot beat trump, I will disagree -NT - (boxley) - (1)
             Well, if she's the Democratic nominee... - (mmoffitt)

And suddenly it occurred to me where these guys had learned their tactics. They'd seen Beau Geste, and were copying the Foreign Legionaires at Fort Zinderneuf.
55 ms