777 said:
You often accuse others of that. What is "bearing false witness" to you?
Not really,
usually just one person in particular on multiple occasions.....
Bearing false witness, in this particular thread, is taking something that was written (and clearly stated), and then interjecting your own words to imply what was said. I mean what I say and I say what I mean.
What I saw you do was with this:
This is a perfect example, and thanks for offering it.
....is trying to do the "all or nothing" liberal argument and that it's a weak one.
Clearly, this is false witness.
I asked a question. I didn't make an argument:
I asked a question. To suggest othewise is bearing false witness. I didn't make an argument, and I didn't jump to a conclusion.
I asked a question.
Hope I don't bear false witness, but you may have (inadvertantly, I think) done so with regards to Nancy Pelosi.
NO, and one more time, Nancy Pelosi is
NOT an "ultra-leftist." I am not sure how this fact escapes you, but regardless of how many times you claim the contrary, Nancy Pelosi is NOT an "ultra-leftist."
I'll try again: if it's "nonsensical" when I say that "Nancy Pelosi's to the right of maybe Castro", and you reply:
This is nonsensical. You and I are "to the right of maybe Castro."
That could imply that you think Nancy Pelosi is NOT the right of Castro.
No, and this is also false witness. I did not write that Nancy Pelosi is NOT to the right of Castro, I simply pointed out that both you and I are to the right of Castro.
Did you notice that I didn't mention Nancy Pelosi in that sentence? You repeated my statement right there,
and nowhere did I mention Nancy Pelosi. Again, as you have demonstrated for me,
I didn't mention Nancy Pelosi at all in the sentence, much like I didn't mention either Rush Limbaugh, Keith Olbermann, Sean Hannity, Al Franken, George Bush, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton,
or even LadyEagle in that sentence. The only people mentioned in my sentence were Castro, 777, and Baptist in Richmond.
LOL, the qualifier "if". She was considered a centrist there. There.
In other words, you made my point.
That is not true either. Pelosi is left of center, but she is neither a centrist, nor an "ultra-liberal."
Stop listening to Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly or whichever source you are getting this nonsense, and think for yourself
That's exactly what you said. Regurgitate?
Again, notice that "regurgitate" is your word, not mine. Is it possible to simply stick with what I write, rather than interjecting
your words into my statements, and then asking me what I meant by
your words?
Now, why don't you tell how Pelsoi isn't an ultra-leftist? Because she won't impeach Bush? Look at that record and tell me how she's NOT.
Well, let's see:
you have already claimed to have read the "ultra-liberals" I referenced, and added a few of your own. Then you claimed to have attended school near Pelosi's district. Now, if this is true, then you know that she is not an "ultra-leftist." Again, that is a fact. At best, she is left of center. You have already offered Castro, which we are all in agreement that he is an "ultra-leftist," and pointed out that she is left of Castro. Has Pelosi advocated the government ownership of all businesses? Has she proposed nationalizing all farms? What about proposing a totalitarian way of life, where everything is taken by the government, and redistributed to the general population? I certainly have not heard her make these recommendations. Does she make the claims about America similar to those of Chomsky (since you claim to have read Chomsky)? Nope.
Whazza matter, she's not far left enough for you? Viva la revolution!
To usurp Ronald Reagan:"
there you go again." I didn't claim "she's far left enough" for me, nor did I even address this. Why is it that you cannot simply work with the statements I have made? I said that Nancy Pelosi is
NOT an "ultra-leftist."
One more time, could you please stick with what I write, using my words? I don't think that I am asking too much of you.
About Kwanzaa? "Divisive and racist", "built by a convicted murderer based upon a pack of lies'?
None of that answered your question?
NO, and apparently you didn't understand my question, which explains much of our exchanges in that discussion.
Again, that's not what I was talking about. It was the fact that you told me you "found it hard to believe" I didn't frequent some racist's website all the while defending the lies of a real racist.
To usurp Ronald Reagan: "
there you go again." I didn't defend him at all. It's right there in that closed discussion, and I cannot edit my statements. Anyone who reads what I write knows that you are not being truthful here, as I never defended him.
As for what I said about your frequenting some racist's website, you are the one who introduced a link to a site maintained by neo-nazi skinheads, not me. In other words,
your source material was provided by what you refer to as a "real racist."
I can grasp the fact, though, that, being the self-styled liberal that you are, you like his politics, that's why. PC to the end.
Again, to usurp Ronald Reagan: "
there you go again." I never discussed his politics in that discussion, or made judgement on them. Perhaps you were too busy reposting the same comments
ad nauseum that you missed that fact.
Best way to do that is to study recent history and see exactly what happens when YOUR far-left agenda is implemented, hasn't been a very "Christian-like".
Once again, to usurp Ronald Reagan:"
there you go again." Now I am making an attempt to implement a "far-left agenda." That statment is patently absurd.
Hmmm....I don't really think you get too much "right".
At least I stick to what you actually write, despite your inability to afford me the same courtesy........
"Thinking for yourself" = "agree with me", Bay Area can really teach, not just indoctorinate, but they don't know that part.
Once last time, to usurp Ronald Reagan:"
there you go again."
I never made this statement, and I never implied it. Perhaps you missed it, but by encouraging someone to think for themselves, I am doing precisely that. I am not making any such demand, and that is glaringly obvious to anyone who reads what I write.
If you are going to continue responding to me, especially given the fact that you engaged me in a conversation about a comment that was not directed at you, please stick to what I have written, and refrain from introducing words/phrases I didn't use, or misrepresenting what actually happened in our previous exchanges.
BiR
