On McCarthy: Wakie lied

[JohnFKennedy]

OK, sure, I failed my "gibberish" final. Hopefully law schools won't be too upset.

Not the ones outside of the United States.  Suggestion, don't try to become a trial or appelate lawyer.

Actually, trial law is where I would project the strongest, but I'm interested in corporate stuff. Debate is considered the best competition to simulate adversarial law-- even better than mock trial which is not very competitive-- and I could have debated for most of the top schools in the US (excepting Harvard and Northwestern; the former because of my grades and the latter because I wasn't good enough).

Not that American universities are any good at formal debating, the only team from an American university ever to win Worlds was a couple of British ex-pats IIRC.

[J. J.]

I never claimed to be a grad student. Someone else "claimed" that for me.

Not that there is anything unusual about that-- generally people that are bad at debating twist what their opponent says rather than confronting it.

You allowed the claim to go unanswered.  Lie by omission.

Gabu, in this thread, made it up. However, as I did not read his post initially, I had no idea he said I was a "grad" student, though since he's Canadian maybe that means something different there.

It's sad you have to resort to that silly, kindergarten kind of argument. It's not my job to police what people say about me-- that's there business. If you want the truth, ask.

Don't you live in the projects, JJ? I asked before but you didn't answer, so by your logic, that means you do...

Here is where I responded initially:

Oh great another Republican Philadelphian has entered!  Where from?  Let me guess.. the Northeast.  

Try Broad and Erie.

As for rude, I'm from North Philly.  :-)  All of my posts are heavily censored.

You'll note the date; it's same day I registered.  You will also note that there is no public housing project within a one mile radius of that intersection.

I have no recollection of you ever previously asking this question previously.  Would you please cite the date?

[J. J.]

Since AUH2O seems to forgotten that the question was asked, I'm bumping it.

[AuH2O]

Actually I didn't "ask" per se, I just said you lived in the projects, and you didn't "refute" me, thus I assumed it was true. I wouldn't have done so, but I learned that style of logic from you earlier.

And, the post in the question is on page 5 of this thread, near the top.

[J. J.]

Actually I didn't "ask" per se, I just said you lived in the projects, and you didn't "refute" me, thus I assumed it was true. I wouldn't have done so, but I learned that style of logic from you earlier.

And, the post in the question is on page 5 of this thread, near the top.

So you've indicated that you didn't ask the question, but that you intend to "join" me there.  The point is, I provided the information prior to you asking it; did you do the same?  I'm not seeing it.

If somebody posts and says of me, "Well you're Black," I'll respond that I'm not.  I just don't happen to be.  Likewise, if they ask if I live in a certain section of Philadelphia, which was asked a few hours after I registered, I responded with the correct area.  Did you do the same?

[AuH2O]

I was supposed to be online for your first post?

[J. J.]

I was supposed to be online for your first post?

You were a member of the forum at the time and you did contribute to same thread where it was posted.

[AuH2O]

I was supposed to be online for your first post?

You were a member of the forum at the time and you did contribute to same thread where it was posted.

That doesn't mean I paid attention. And, even if I did at the time, it's a little strange to expect me to remember details about you now. To be honest, I would find it odd if someone memorized such things.

[J. J.]

I was supposed to be online for your first post?

You were a member of the forum at the time and you did contribute to same thread where it was posted.

That doesn't mean I paid attention. And, even if I did at the time, it's a little strange to expect me to remember details about you now. To be honest, I would find it odd if someone memorized such things.

I would find it quite unusual for an intelligent poster not to notice, since several did, at the time.  I would find unusual from a regular poster not to be aware of such things as well, since it has come up again.  It speaks to you research and intellectual ablities, in relation to the other posters.

[AuH2O]

I was supposed to be online for your first post?

You were a member of the forum at the time and you did contribute to same thread where it was posted.

That doesn't mean I paid attention. And, even if I did at the time, it's a little strange to expect me to remember details about you now. To be honest, I would find it odd if someone memorized such things.

I would find it quite unusual for an intelligent poster not to notice, since several did, at the time.  I would find unusual from a regular poster not to be aware of such things as well, since it has come up again.  It speaks to you research and intellectual ablities, in relation to the other posters.

No, it speaks to my dedication to this site, which is fairly low. Perhaps more importantly, RINO opinions interest me the least of all.

[J. J.]

I was supposed to be online for your first post?

You were a member of the forum at the time and you did contribute to same thread where it was posted.

That doesn't mean I paid attention. And, even if I did at the time, it's a little strange to expect me to remember details about you now. To be honest, I would find it odd if someone memorized such things.

I would find it quite unusual for an intelligent poster not to notice, since several did, at the time.  I would find unusual from a regular poster not to be aware of such things as well, since it has come up again.  It speaks to you research and intellectual ablities, in relation to the other posters.

No, it speaks to my dedication to this site, which is fairly low. Perhaps more importantly, RINO opinions interest me the least of all.

I guess you're only interested in reading your own opinions. 

Gee, I never realized Rick Santorum, who was first on my list of  favorite politicians that represented me,  was a RINO, Moldie.  I'll have to tell Keystone Phil that he's supporting a RINO.

[AuH2O]

RINOs support real Republicans all the time. Same for DINOs-- otherwise they wouldn't be a member of a party!

[J. J.]

RINOs support real Republicans all the time. Same for DINOs-- otherwise they wouldn't be a member of a party!

Ah, but they don't stongly support the real Republicans, ranking them at the top of their list.

Real Republicans support the Republican wing of the Republican Party.  They do, however, oppose the Wingnut Wing of the Republican Party.

[AuH2O]

You mean the pro-drug legalization wing? The pro-free speech wing? The anti-war wing?

I'm actually not that "conservative" in the usual application of the word. I'm most definitely not religious. Basically, I  just don't like bullsh**t... and "McCarthyism" is just that. So are a lot of things... most people believe what they are told, not realizing most of it is garbage.

People can agree generally on events, such as who won an election (usually), or when a battle was fought, etc. But that occupies only a small part of a history text or documentary. Historical works different from each other not so much in what happened, but why it happened: who was responsible, what motivated them, etc.

Counterfactuals are employed in that endeavor (what if?) as a means of judging the options available to decision-makers of the past. Virtually all historical work is replete with bias, whatever the time period or origin (though perhaps modern historians make a greater effort to camoflouge it at times).

Most Americans, for instance, could not give a single good reason why Japan would attack the United States in 1941. They only know of a day that will "live in infamy," not knowing the US had launched an oil embargo against Japan that would render their military and economy impotent in a few years.

You, JJ, like most Americans, know of basic historical events, but likewise lap up the elementary school explanations that first came with them. And understanding history is critical in forming political views. Wherever you went to college, and whatever for, history was obviously not your strong suit.

[J. J.]

You mean the pro-drug legalization wing? The pro-free speech wing? The anti-war wing?

I'm actually not that "conservative" in the usual application of the word. I'm most definitely not religious. Basically, I  just don't like bullsh**t... and "McCarthyism" is just that. So are a lot of things... most people believe what they are told, not realizing most of it is garbage.

People can agree generally on events, such as who won an election (usually), or when a battle was fought, etc. But that occupies only a small part of a history text or documentary. Historical works different from each other not so much in what happened, but why it happened: who was responsible, what motivated them, etc.

Counterfactuals are employed in that endeavor (what if?) as a means of judging the options available to decision-makers of the past. Virtually all historical work is replete with bias, whatever the time period or origin (though perhaps modern historians make a greater effort to camoflouge it at times).

Most Americans, for instance, could not give a single good reason why Japan would attack the United States in 1941. They only know of a day that will "live in infamy," not knowing the US had launched an oil embargo against Japan that would render their military and economy impotent in a few years.

You, JJ, like most Americans, know of basic historical events, but likewise lap up the elementary school explanations that first came with them. And understanding history is critical in forming political views. Wherever you went to college, and whatever for, history was obviously not your strong suit.

Actually, I use to tutor history.  You might wonder why I've raising questions about biased sources and asking you about first person sources. 

You, on the other hand, merely parrot these biased sources and don't look at the underlying accuracy of them.  I've looked at the major sources, the ones that you've cited, and some conservative, but with a reputation for accuracy, like National Review.  When you are called on it, you resort to vague attempts of self puffery, and of dubious origin.

This has been a pattern of some posters, such as Donovan, Freedumbburns, and  jFRAUD, though I will concede that you at least understand what you read.  You, unfortunately, don't ask yourself questions about it and close yourself to other sources.  That leads to the question, are these your opinions or what the John Birch Society tells you to think.  It is clear that it is the ladder.

Now, I'm more than willing to let the reader look at citations and reach their own conclusions.  I did, after reading your posts, and looking at your sources.

I will, of course, look at the other sources you cite, when, and if you get around to citing them.