Tommy Thompson's son: "We have an opportunity to send Obama back to Kenya"

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The quote in the title was not an actual quote.

Why does the Chicago-emdash-or make it a jot better?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

If only one could bring one's sense of moral outrage to bear on the actual substance, eh, Bob?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

If only one could bring one's sense of moral outrage to bear on the actual substance, eh, Bob?

Well, as Dingel famously said, "If I let you set the substance of a bill, and, you let me write the process, I will screw you every time!" Allowing people to fabricate quotes with impunity is allowing them to, "screw you every time!"

Be that as it may, substance is called 'substance' for a reason, so perhaps after you've pointed out that people have, by your definition, fabricated quotes it might behoove you to move on to what the person against whom this doubtless unfathomable calumny has been perpetrated actually said rather than continuing to crow about the by-your-definition-fabrication over and over again after you've already made your opinion of it loud and clear to all and sundry.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

If only one could bring one's sense of moral outrage to bear on the actual substance, eh, Bob?

Well, as Dingel famously said, "If I let you set the substance of a bill, and, you let me write the process, I will screw you every time!" Allowing people to fabricate quotes with impunity is allowing them to, "screw you every time!"

Be that as it may, substance is called 'substance' for a reason, so perhaps after you've pointed out that people have, by your definition, fabricated quotes it might behoove you to move on to what the person against whom this doubtless unfathomable calumny has been perpetrated actually said rather than continuing to crow about the by-your-definition-fabrication over and over again after you've already made your opinion of it loud and clear to all and sundry.

Quote marks have a meaning. They mean the person quoted stated the remarks between the marks verbatim. A quote had been fabricated not by "my definition," but, rather by the definition. Though I am simply right, other posters have made arguments about why fabricating quotes is a valid act. I answered those arguments. Instead of actually arguing why either my initial argument, or my rebuttals of their rebuttals were inaccurate, you launch into a purely ad hominem attack about me being repetitive. That's pathetic.

First of all, I don't think you're entirely clear on what 'ad hominem' means, since I'm not criticizing you as a person (although you're making it more tempting by the second), but rather giving you helpful pointers on your debating style. Second, JulioMadrid provided an entirely acceptable (and accurate, if you know anything about how elision in citations and quotes is typically handled) alternative to both the original quote, which was misleading, and your insisted-upon full version, which wasn't any better anyway. At this point cooler heads should have prevailed, but you continued in your outrage at the unforgivable sin visited upon Jason Thompson, in a thread that should at this stage have moved to discussion of Jason Thompson himself.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Entertaining, albeit as a joke, a racist canard about one's father's political opponent-by-proxy isn't 'biting satire directed against politicians in office', not least because it isn't actually funny. Failing attempts at 'satire' that employ racist conspiracy theories as figures of fun should certainly be condemned, yes, as should other types of unfunny attempts at humor. Your apparent conflation of generic universals with particulars is interesting, particularly for someone like me who's making a study of the aesthetics of Tendai Buddhism, but not actually a relevant response to the question of whether or not it's the case that racist conspiracy theories ought not be joked about. Sorry. (It's also not the case that you were limited in your range of potential responses to 'Yes' or 'No', which you should know, since you didn't answer 'Yes' or 'No'.)

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I can't deal with this right now because I have class for the next six hours, but you've clearly put a lot more effort into this argument than I have and you're still wrong, mainly because as usual (but only when it suits you!) you're pretending to think that formal logic and technical definitions are how the world actually works. Think about what that says about us, Bob.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I can't deal with this right now because I have class for the next six hours, but you've clearly put a lot more effort into this argument than I have and you're still wrong, mainly because as usual (but only when it suits you!) you're pretending to think that formal logic and technical definitions are how the world actually works. Think about what that says about us, Bob.

1) You "can't deal with [it]" because there is no answer.

I couldn't deal with it because I have a life. I have, as it happens, right now about twenty minutes to waste.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do you even know what I'm arguing anymore (or what you're arguing, for that matter) or is this point just axiomatic for you?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not so much disagreeing with this as I am disagreeing with the idea that you have to waste God only knows how many minutes or hours of your doubtless very full life in the so-called real world belaboring this point and questioning how much good it does to anyone. The only reason I'm using milder language than you are in discussing the elision of aspects of what was said is because I'm in an environment in which these are extremely serious accusations that I'm reluctant to use while throwing my weight around on Atlas Forum. Your problem with too many cute logical exercises comes, not here, but...in a lot of places, actually, in this particular case when you say things like 'When someone demands I label Thompson's remark "unacceptable,"' [and so on the rest of that sentence, it's several posts up if anybody wants to look at it again]. For one thing, that doesn't 'follow', even 'by implication', unless you think that all unfunny political humor is equal, or even that all statements that anybody could take offense to or has taken offense to are equal. I imagine some people, possibly even many, are hugely misogynistic but find nativist or racist rhetoric unacceptable, or vice versa. Not only that, your own points one through four don't even follow from one another! Also, Bob, unless I'm misremembering, you did in fact have that reaction to the Maher thing. That being the case, why are you not condemning Jason Thompson? Does this conflation only work one way? This is what I meant about Tendai, because your leaps of logic (this, the time you said that one can only be described as 'a conservative' if one holds the 'conservative' position on every single political issue out there, et cetera) can be politely described as 幽玄.

Also, please learn how pronouns work for the love of all that's holy.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is spectacular.

It's amazing how much less horrible some of the things those mean nasty evil Republicans say are when you find the actual comments rather than the Atlas Forum propaganda version.

Less horrible, but still rather asinine.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Feigning?

Good night, Bob.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I think that's a consistent pattern in political discourse in general.