I used to think that only Hube had the bad habit o0f putting words in my mouth and responding to them instead of what I actually said. But, not, it's him, DT and now you.
Show me one place I used the word "hired" in my post. Show it to me or retract your comment.
Dana, a shill is someone who gets paid to play a game, usually in a casino or at a carnival, to persuade others to participate. (I think the term derives from the English shilling, the coin paid to the shill by the barker.)
Therefore, you accuse by your choice of words, perhaps through ignorance, but more likely by contrivance and Clintonian plausible deniability.
Show me one place I used the word "hired" in my post.
Show me where he said you did.
I really wonder sometimes why I must endure the gallopping dishonesty from the DE right. Sometimes it comes in every sentence from you guys. Where is your sense of shame?
Where do you find "hired" or any sense of payment in this definition?
1 : to act as a shill
2 : to act as a spokesperson or promoter
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
I used the verb form Ryan (shilling) as you know perfectly well.
As for you DT, did you even bother to read the title of his post "Hired Shill." Jeez.
(notice, that if Ryan really thought that "hired" was part of the definition, he wouldn't have engaged in the redundancy. Clearly, Ryan's intention was to smear me...by "reporting" something I NEVER said. But I've come to expect this from you guys.)
As for you DT, did you even bother to read the title of his post "Hired Shill." Jeez.
(notice, that if Ryan really thought that "hired" was part of the definition, he wouldn't have engaged in the redundancy. Clearly, Ryan's intention was to smear me...by "reporting" something I NEVER said. But I've come to expect this from you guys.)
Hey, egomaniac. He wasn't only talking about you in this post. He was also talking about someone else. So you don't know who he was talking about when he said that. But the conclusion jump is your best move. That and the uncited, unlinked, untrue accusation.
Having done some blogging in my past, I know that quotation marks are available in post headings. I'm sure that if Ryan wanted to imply that you had used a specific phrase, he would have done so.
Now the question is, will he post the topic 'Hysterical Pansy?' and link to your comments here?
Oh, really? Not me, you say even though I used a form of the word "shill" in my post and he linked his post to mine.
Besides, the commentor on the other entry never uses the word "hired" or "shill" that I can see.
Try again--that one doesn't even begin to fly.
Face it. I caught you guys inventing again. You really need to learn a new trick.
Dana, the hired part came from this comment:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...7974573/
#134029
The commenter said:
"If you are being paid by the Delaware GOP or Ting's campaign, please let us know. I would then understand postings like this. If not, I think that it is time for you to step aside."
That's where the "hired" came from. The "shill" was all you. I believe in giving credit where credit is due.
paid = hired
shilling = the act of being a shill
If had not wished to paraphrase, I would have used quotation marks, like I did with "indistinguishable" in your post.
"I really wonder sometimes why I must endure the gallopping dishonesty from the DE right."
So go away, and stop your ad hominem attacks on people who don't share your views. (While you have your dictionary out, you might want to work on your spelling; it's galloping.)
Webster's Universal College Dictionary includes this definition of a shill: "2. A person whose praises, endorsements, etc. are motivated by self-interest."
The conclusion you reach is that Ryan and Hube couldn't possibly believe what they believe on their own, since it doesn't conform to your own views. Dana, the problem with you is that you're so consumed with hatred and loathing for the president that you cannot abide even the notion of anyone who doesn't join your impeachment jihad. Likewise, anyone who challenges your hypocracy and single-mindedness nust be targeted for abuse. (Or banned from your blog, in my case.) Go back to your happy little club and sing the Internationale as loud as you can, and perhaps you'll be able to block out the sound of galloping.
Whats the big deal? If he is getting paid then kudos to him for turning a revenue out of his blog. It is Ryan's personal blog, bottom line.
Dana, the hired part came from this comment:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...ents...7974573/
#134029
The commenter said:
"If you are being paid by the Delaware GOP or Ting's campaign, please let us know. I would then understand postings like this. If not, I think that it is time for you to step aside."
That's where the "hired" came from. The "shill" was all you. I believe in giving credit where credit is due.
I can see the headline now:
"Silberstein drops boom, Garrett nowhere to be found."
Nice.
He has had well over 24 hours to respond...
And he has - with panache. Check out the lead on his page...
"The conclusion you reach is that Ryan and Hube couldn't possibly believe what they believe on their own, since it doesn't conform to your own views. Dana, the problem with you is that you're so consumed with hatred and loathing for the president that you cannot abide even the notion of anyone who doesn't join your impeachment jihad"
This from G-Rex, the man who has openly advocated shooting Mexicans crossing the border on sight. This psychopath has the gall to lecture anyone about hatred.
" Dana, the hired part came from this comment:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...ents...7974573/
#134029
The commenter said:
"If you are being paid by the Delaware GOP or Ting's campaign, please let us know. I would then understand postings like this. If not, I think that it is time for you to step aside."
Hired Shill is the title. The passage you quoted contains neither word. It does contain shill, clearly derivative from Garrett's title.
And clearly, someone who is paid, is also employed, and therefore hired. Not really a leap of logic there.
"This from G-Rex, the man who has openly advocated shooting Mexicans crossing the border on sight. This psychopath has the gall to lecture anyone about hatred."
Are you and Dana still running with that perversion of what I said? Once again, the position is this: AFTER a responsible guest worker program can be worked out so that Mexicans can legally work here, THEN the only ones sneaking across the border will be drug smugglers and terrorists. They are the ones to be shot. I should also clarify that lethal force against border crossers is only to be
undertaken by law enforcement or military personnel, not vigilantes. That's it, no more free passes. Next time you call me a rascist, I'll just call you a filthy liar.
If you want to see some actual Mexican-hating, check out the Anti-Defamation League's website.
"Are you and Dana still running with that perversion of what I said? Once again, the position is this: AFTER a responsible guest worker program can be worked out so that Mexicans can legally work here, THEN the only ones sneaking across the border will be drug smugglers and terrorists. They are the ones to be shot. I should also clarify that lethal force against border crossers is only to be undertaken by law enforcement or military personnel, not vigilantes. That's it, no more free passes. Next time you call me a rascist, I'll just call you a filthy liar."
Bullshit. You never said anything like that. You didn't say the only ones left would be drug smugglers, etc--even though that would be sheer idiocy in any case. You said ASSUME that they will be regardless--that after you called them "pop up targets." Here it is:
"I prefer the term "pop-up target" myself.
"Maybe someday, instead of printing pamphlets instructing illegals how to infiltrate our country, the Mexican government will post signs warning them that they may be shot on sight.
"My position stands: institute a responsible guest worker program, and assume anyone else is either a terrorist or a drug smuggler. Sniper rifles, not walls, are the answer."
http://blog.mu.nu/cgi/
splorp.cgi...entry_id=166753
Besides, G Rex, you've made other jingoistic comments before. You meant exactly what is indicated above: keep the Mexican that work for us at low wages but shoot on sight" all the rest of them that try to come here.
Here is another fine display of your hate:
"I guess now we can declare that Muslims are mindless savages, that Islam is not a religion of peace but rather a blueprint for world domination, and that we might as well stand back and let them murder each other over whether Ali was the true heir of Muhammed."
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...80214976628357/
Why don't you simply admit your crypto-fascism and stop pretending? You'll probably still be able to post your hatred at the usual right-wing DE blogs w/ total impunity.
Finally, I get to defend this. Tried to, but you banned me. It's called reductio ad absurdum, a logic trick, perhaps, but still rooted in logic.
The subtle racism of the left towards the Islamic world is akin to what the president called the soft bigotry of low expectations. I keep hearing rhetoric like, "democracy just won't work in the Muslim world" or "Saddam was the only form of government that could keep Iraq functional." Reductio ad absurdum, Muslims are mindless savages who can only be governed by brutal dictators.
How about, "our troops are caught in the middle of a civil war, and the presence of our troops in Iraq is only making things worse" or "the longer we stay in Iraq, the more terrorists are created." Reductio ad absurdum, we need to cut and run, because there's no hope of stopping them from killing each other over the Sunni/Shia split, which stems from the debated succession of the prophet Ali. The last line of my statement, which you left out, noted the sectarian bombings in Pakistan which occurred without our presence as a catalytic factor. Now we have similar attacks in Egypt, again, without US occupation as an excuse.
As for Islam being a religion of peace, vs. a blueprint for world domination, The argument that we should just stay out of the Muslim world altogether and hope they leave us alone is just wishful thinking, and led to 9/11. Radical Islam is a powerful and dangerous force in the world, and, like a virus, needs to be contained.
So anyway, you banned me for calling you on your soft bigotry towards Islam, misperceiving reductio ad absurdum as anti-Muslim hate speech. I'm not discussing this here anymore, since it's totally off thread. Feel free to lift your ban, and perhaps the discussion can go forward.
Commenting by HaloScan
