jakee

And Trigirl did not suggest that they should.

And in some Christian traditions sobriety is seen as a positive but no one would accuse you of thinking Hitler was a great leader if you described him as teetotal. Airdvr KNOWS that, and he knows the WaPo did not say anything that could be interpreted as saying Baghdadi was as a great leader, he’s just stirring up partisan shit. So in this case, I disagree with him because he’s lying. When even Turtlespeed agrees that he obviously didn’t mean what he said, what’s the problem with pointing it out?

Because I'm calling out his dishonesty, just like I always have to do with you. Airdvr said the WaPo 'obviously thinks Baghdadi was a great leader' because they posted a healine that called him an austere religious scholar. For his post to be honest, Airdvr must think that calling someone an austere religious scholar means they are a great leader. As you rightly say, you and I both know that's not true and that Airdvr is lying just so that he can post a dig at a leftist organisation, but it's not any form of trolling to call him on that. But you know that it didn't, for several reasons. First, asking questions isn't always sealioning, and asking rhetorical questions isn't sealioning. Then, in the same post I flat out stated my opinion that he was wrong, this is incompatible with sealioning. Further, sealioning (as was stated in the definition which you read) is characterised by a constant facade of politeness and civility by the offender. Does that sound like me? Does it fuck, and not even you are dishonest enough to claim otherwise. Think what you want about my posting style but I own my opinions, I post what I think, and when I disagree with someone they'll know exactly why and by how much. I'm not hiding anything behond questions I can disown when convenient and you know it. You, on the otherhand regularly fit all criteria to a tee. How often do you admonish other posters for reacting harshly to you when you were 'only asking a question'? That is sealioning.

You said it was Obama's reform act, therefore it is your strawman and your trap. Seriously, can you just for once try posting like an honest person instead of spending all your time setting up these stupid and inane 'gotchas'? Seriously, even for you this one is a new fucking low. But ok, whatever, which of Obama's consent decrees lead to post offices being burned down?

If you had the definition of sealioning to go on, in what sense did you not know what sealioning was? So my question stands - what made you think my post met that definition? Why did you need to ask about that particular post? It is blatantly obvious that it wasn't sealioning.

The post in which he saw it mentioned stated that it was a form of trolling. The post after that gave a detailed explanation of the behaviour. There is no way he did not know that, therefore by accusing me of trolling but in a way in which he can claim he was 'only asking a question' he actually was sealioning (which is a repeat MO of his - sometimes he even claims he was only asking a question when people challenge posts of his that were flat out statements of fact or opinion). In this case, since he now has you fighting his battle for him, it seems his sealioning was successful. Edit: see below. Told you so.

Which reform act of Obama's lead to post offices being burned down?

What intent can you assume when someone asks if your post is a passive aggressive troll?

Then why ask if my post is an example of it? What exactly did you think was wrong with that post that made it like a form of trolling? Or did you just say that because you saw an opportunity to get a rise while appearing polite?

Obviously not - but that is.

That's an impossible conclusion to draw. Why do you think austere religious scholars are great leaders? Personally I don't think the discription carries any positive connotations at all, though I know it would for others. It definitely doesn't mean that, though. Also consider that was the second of three they used, the first calling him 'terrorist in chief', the third 'extremist leader', and they immediately apologised for ever using the one you posted. You, on the other hand, haven't even acknowledged the absurdity of your claim that the Ted talk chick represents leftist hypocrisy towards pedophiles, let alone apologised for it. Funny how often the right's attacks on the left backfire like that. Almost as if they're wrong most of the time.

That sentence isn't even clear. Trump is a defender of the constitution because he pardoned you? That's the level of specificity you want to get into? Ok then, I will comment on the man points of the hour long video. He's wrong, just like when he said torture was legal. ?? The constitution says nothing about the size of the Supreme Court.

No, the Bush Administration. I'm not going to bother spending an hour listening to someone who I know is happy to lie about the law to get the outcome he wants. And BTW, since you posted the video, dont you think you should comment on the main points first?

If one needed a conservative Constitutional Professor why would they choose John 'The Torturer' Woo? The guy made his career making amoral, illegal arguments for the sake of political expediency.

Wrong again. You said you weren’t going to look up whether you said it. Since you did say it, the question stands, what was the judgement that let you convict Biden? Or do you feel you are exempt from the standards you demand of others?

You're not spending the time to check something you know will show you to be a right wing hypocrite? I'm stunned. So where was the judgement that let you convict Biden?

I’d agree there. Highly disingenuous to suggest that containing Ebola is the same as containing COVID, and the US did make a lot of the same mistakes with Ebola as they have with COVID. The more salient point is that a lot of effort was then put into learning what went wrong and how to fix it before Trump came along and dismantled all of the solutions, guaranteeing that the same mistakes would be made when they really didn’t have to be.

No, not that one. That would be a very stupid conspiracy theory given that A ) neither of her parents are Puerto Rican, and B ) Puerto Ricans are Americans.

Wrong. You absolutely stated that Biden’s actions wrt Ukraine were corrupt, with no ‘think’ ‘believe’ or ‘maybe’ qualifiers if any kind.

As stupid as that whole post was, calling it Socratic is probably the stupidest part of all.

I don’t think you understand people. Worst case is it doesn’t work, all the millions of people who think they’ve been inoculated abandon social distancing and any other efforts at keeping the R number down, and infections reach a brand new high.

Funny, no-one has ever claimed that every other VP in history was only picked to go after the European vote. Congratulations on being racist enough to assume that Harris has nothing to offer but her colour.

Says the guy who knows for a fact that Biden's guilty of corruption in Ukraine.

That wasn’t her goal. You’re just lying again. This is not an example of something liberals have had a hand in. It’s a suggestion from one person. Its also still not hypocrisy of any kind from anyone.

But what if she’s right? Purely hypothetically, I’m not going to argue that she is but hear me out. It is repulsive to think of being nice to, or offering help to people who admit to wanting to have sex with children. Everyone gets that. But what if it worked? Would you rather continue to demonise anyone who admitted to pedophilic attraction because it makes you feel better, even if it was shown that acceptance and counselling would save more children from being abused?