Posted on 02/25/2007 2:07:53 PM PST by Al Simmons
< Laz mode> I'd hit it. < /Laz mode>
He was kind of weird, but I chose to make light of his comments. They were so bizarre than one could hardly take them seriously. I personally thought my "South Park Satan" reply was inspired. But by then he was gone. Maybe he's just suspended for a time. I believe he might have been there before as 'lazmataz' (different spelling) a few years ago.
When the law is not on your side, argue the facts; when the facts are not on your side, argue the law; and when neither the facts nor the law are on your side, pound the table.
In Peach's case, she's gone from arguing faulty facts, to feigning deliberate ignorance when confronted with her false claims, to hysterical name calling in an attempt to cover up both. Fortunately I think most people are intelligent enough to easily see these antics for what they really are.
I didn't know you were stupid. You can't even follow along on the thread and see that dirtboy's claim that I posted a, gasp, Wipedia link were debunked? It was an Answer.com link and my post used their reporting. Period.
But carry on,ace. You're showing your stupidity with each post to me and it's proving quite entertaining.
What's your next trick, Peach? Parsing "is" for us?
The entire point is, you were so hell-bent to show Reagan signed a "liberal" abortion bill that when the 1967 legislation was shown to be anything but liberal, you jumped on a mis-cite to claim he signed a second bill. In an ask.com link that clearly was from Wikipedia. On other words, you are more than willing to roll like a dog in unsubstantiated crap to try and drag down the Reagan legacy. And then, in the next post, you claim that Rudy having a book in the Reagan library bookstore is proof of his conservatism. You're a rank hypocite.
#1. It was Answer.com not Ask.com.
#2. It wasn't clearly Wikepedia unless one clicked on the links within the narrative of Answer. Since I posted the entire narrative straight out of Answer, I would think it was clear to anyone with a brain that I didn't click on the links that takes one to Wikepedia.
#3. But keep being a drama queen about the biggest bunch of minutia baloney I've seen on FR in a looong time.
Your real picture is prettier than that caricature of yourself.
Once again, in your eagerness to show Reagan signed a liberal abortion bill, you went with an unsubstantiated claim from answer.com - posted DIRECTLY from Wikipedia under a Wikipedia banner. Once you provided the link, other freepers figured out the problem within minutes - something you apparently couldn't be bothered to do in your haste to parry the fact that the bill Reagan signed in 1967 was not the liberal monstrosity you had been claiming. So having been caught in one lie, you perpetuated another.
Once again, there is nothing to see about Wikepedia on the Answer.com link I gave unless one clicks on some of the underlined or colored words in the narrative.
Now, I know you're dense, but surely you aren't that dense. So little drama boy, shove off.
This is the offending link you provided which you said took one to Wikepedia:
As governor in 1970, Reagan signed into law California's liberal abortion rights legislation, before Roe v Wade was decided. However, he later took a strong ... www.answers.com/topic/ronald-reagan
447 posted on 01/23/2007 10:41:19 AM EST by Peach (The Clintons pardoned more terrorists than they captured or killed.)
As you can see, it's an Answer.com link.
Silly me, I've been taking your word for it that part of that link that I copied in that post on 1/23/07 took a person to Wikepedia.
Well, I just went back to Answer.com and went to that section (reposted below) and not a single link in the section I posted in January takes anyone to Wikepedia.
Care to try again or do you just not mind being known as a liar making another mountain out of another molehill?
This is from the link and narrative I provided in January:
Abortion
As governor in 1970, Reagan signed into law California's liberal abortion rights legislation, before Roe v Wade was decided. However, he later took a strong stand against abortion. He published the book Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation, which decried what Reagan saw as disrespect for life, promoted by the practice of abortion. However, two of the three Supreme Court justices he selected, Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy, voted to uphold Roe v. Wade.
http://www.answers.com/topic/ronald-reagan
Now, the words abortion, Supreme Court, Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy and Roe v. Wade are underlined in the Answer.com link provided above.
That means we can click on those words and we will be taken to another link. And guess what drama boy? Not one of those links takes anyone to Wikepedia. Not one.
So I'll ask you again: Show me specifically where I linked to Wikepedia in my post about Reagan and abortion, because you sure haven't been able to do it yet.
Peach, the ENTIRE SECTION was copied from Wikipedia. Each section in that Answer.com link is from a different encyclopedia source. You cited from the section pasted in its entirety from Wikipedia - there is a large banner at the top of the section that says "Wikipedia".
I saw it immediately when you linked to it. But, then again, I was trying to verify your claim, instead of looking to make a dishonest attack on a great conservative icon.
Well I'll tell you what.
It doesn't make sense to me that different browsers would show different "pictures" or banners. I've looked all through that answer.com link and have yet to see anything about Wikepedia.
Now, I hardly know why you've been practically hyperventilating over this for a month, aside from the fact that Wikepedia has been known to have problems with the information posted within their categories.
You're certainly selective in your outrage, however, given that I've pinged you a couple of times now when I've seen some of your fellow ragers use Wikepedia as a source and you've not said a word to them.
So, here's the deal. I realize you don't know how to post live links. So have one of your buddies help you. Have them post where under that abortion section I posted it says Wikepedia.
I've posted from my computer what it says and Wikepedia is clearly not present. So why don't you do the same.
Blue bars at the top of each section. Britannia. Wikipedia. The section you cited was pasted directly from Wikipedia.
Now, I hardly know why you've been practically hyperventilating over this for a month
Just to show people how far you have gone to perpetuate a myth that Reagan signed a liberal abortion bill.
You're certainly selective in your outrage, however, given that I've pinged you a couple of times now when I've seen some of your fellow ragers use Wikepedia as a source and you've not said a word to them.
This is too funny. TOO FUNNY! You deny citing Wikipedia, but turn around and ping me to get after others citing Wikipedia! BWHAHAHA! That's as funny as the time you tried to attack Reagan for not asking for a PBA ban when it wasn't even an issue until two years after he left office!
I give you. You're not a liar.
You're just dumb enough to make it seem like you're one.
Enjoy your Pyrrhic victory.
Okay - I just went back and looked AGAIN.
There are different sections under the Answer.com link. Some are called Who. Some are Answer themselves sections. And the abortion section IS under a single banner called Wikepedia.
So I'll tell you what, from now on when you bring this up, I'm going to bring up the fact that you said I linked to Act.Com. LOL
Typical tactic of yours, Peach. Try to draw moral equivalence to my minor memory mistake WHEN YOU DENIED CLAIMING THAT REAGAN SIGNED TWO ABORTION BILLS.
I got the big picture right, you got it wrong. But that's what happens when one isn't in a huge rush to attack someone like Reagan. You have time to get the details straight and check your sources.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...........
Look what else slithered in the cat door...
Hey, dirt, the guy who can't debate, but smears all, no matter what is being posted.
Hey drama boy: When someone pointed out that Answer had it wrong, I dropped it. But carry on with your little drama; it's of no interest to anyone but you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.