[Lemmy]

N_Fiddlediddle N_Fiddlediddle:

The only thing I know about 'Bigotry' is it's a thing you Prog types name-call people who dare to disagree with your nonsense.

Actually what I am is what's called a "cultural Libertarian". Look it up.

No, you're a nut-job, radicalized by too much time reading nonsense on the internet, just like Islamic terrorists and moon-landing deniers.

Diddler Diddler:

That's still more Libertarian than a fraud Progressive like yourself will ever be.

More with you and labels, labels you almost never get right. You must go through a lot of Dymo tape.

Diddler Diddler:

But back on subject.

Back on subject would be you answering the question I asked you earlier: My campaign? What campaign is that?

[martin14]

Lemmy Lemmy:

N_Fiddlediddle N_Fiddlediddle:

The only thing I know about 'Bigotry' is it's a thing you Prog types name-call people who dare to disagree with your nonsense.

Actually what I am is what's called a "cultural Libertarian". Look it up.

No, you're a nut-job, radicalized by too much time reading nonsense on the internet, just like Islamic terrorists and moon-landing deniers.

Diddler Diddler:

That's still more Libertarian than a fraud Progressive like yourself will ever be.

More with you and labels, labels you almost never get right. You must go through a lot of Dymo tape.

Diddler Diddler:

But back on subject.

Back on subject would be you answering the question I asked you earlier: My campaign? What campaign is that?

Ah yes, the child molester accusations have returned.

Well done Lamey, be sure everyone here will take you much more seriously now.

Not.

[Lemmy]

martin14 martin14:

Ah yes, the child molester accusations have returned.

Huh? Accusations? Returned?

moron14 moron14:

Well done Lamey

No different from this.

moron14 moron14:

be sure everyone here will take you much more seriously now

Seriously in the way you and Fiddlediddle are taken seriously?

[desertdude]

Lemmy Lemmy:

moron14 moron14:

be sure everyone here will take you much more seriously now

Seriously in the way you and Fiddlediddle are taken seriously?

Only in their own minds.

[N_Fiddledog]

Well seriously enough that you 2 can't seem to get enough of being educated by me.

I mean, hear you go again, right.

But Lemmywinks' whining here seems to come down to name-calling. Very well, you're a fraud. When a fraud calls names believe he's just trying to hide his fraudulence.

Here he's supporting a movement to control free enterprise when it behaves in a way he disapproves of that can not be shown to exhibit actual harm anywhere but in his own mind. Libertarians don't do that. He claims he is one. He's not. He's a fraud. He call me names. So what. Names from a fraud.

Professor Butt-Gerbil calling names from up the Progressive butt hole while he pretends he's a Libertarian. I don't actually care, but it is fun to reply in kind.

As to Denser. Pffft. I flick him away like a bug.

[Unsound]

Lemmy Lemmy:

martin14 martin14:

Ah yes, the child molester accusations have returned.

Huh? Accusations? Returned?

Uhh, yeah. I read your post twice to be sure. I don't see anything about child molesting.

[Lemmy]

FiddlyDiddly FiddlyDiddly:

Here he's supporting a movement to control free enterprise when it behaves in a way he disapproves of that can not be shown to exhibit actual harm anywhere but in his own mind.

Who's supporting a movement to control anything? This is the third time you've been asked this.

[martin14]

Unsound Unsound:

Lemmy Lemmy:

martin14 martin14:

Ah yes, the child molester accusations have returned.

Huh? Accusations? Returned?

Uhh, yeah. I read your post twice to be sure. I don't see anything about child molesting.

Pfffffffffffffffff

Third time lucky, but maybe this time check the top of the quoted parts,
where FD's name has been changed to 'Diddler'.

And then you can tell me you don't know what a diddler is.

[Public_Domain]

[Unsound]

Pretty thin dude.

[DrCaleb]

martin14 martin14:

Third time lucky, but maybe this time check the top of the quoted parts,
where FD's name has been changed to 'Diddler'.

And then you can tell me you don't know what a diddler is.

Someone who cheats or swindles?

[N_Fiddledog]

Lemmy Lemmy:

FiddlyDiddly FiddlyDiddly:

Here he's supporting a movement to control free enterprise when it behaves in a way he disapproves of that can not be shown to exhibit actual harm anywhere but in his own mind.

Who's supporting a movement to control anything? This is the third time you've been asked this.

It shouldn't need to be explained. But another thing that makes a prog a prog is he seems to think the rest of the world is too dumb to observe the obvious and recognize it as such.

So just to prove to you that as always, you're wrong, here's the obvious.

There's this other thing you Regressive/Progressive types do where you lie by implication.

You imply a thing and it's obvious to anybody what you're implying, but if you get called on it you offer an indignant "Huh... "

Martin just offered an example with the use of the insult "Diddler". Of course there's an implication there of nastiness, which was the truth of his implication. It required the sudden appearance of the whole little prog squad to pretend there isn't.

In the OP of this thread the politicians or whoever they were, were also using that trick of obvious implication with plausible deniability.

It's obvious what they're pushing for. Without saying it plainly they're saying "Attack, attack. Write letters like we did. Put the pressure on. Make big business pay for daring to use a name we disapprove of."

Now when you support the essence of that and I suggest it's beyond implication that you and Andy did, then I also suggest there's no problem with me semi-facetiously calling the implication a fact and calling it your campaign.

And again supporting the implications in the OP is not Libertarian. Also your continual obvious implication with plausible deniability of things that in real light of day suggest authoritarianism and collectivism is habitual. Hell, I've seen you imply things like gun control and enforced controls justified by global warming alarmism are necessary tenets of libertarianism. That's what I mean by fraudulent.

[Lemmy]

martin14 martin14:

Third time lucky, but maybe this time check the top of the quoted parts,
where FD's name has been changed to 'Diddler'.

And then you can tell me you don't know what a diddler is.

Where I'm from a "diddler" is a dog-fucker, a shirker of work/duty, a lazy ass.

"Get to work you lazy, fucking diddler." "Go get a job, diddler."

So, yeah, whatever.

[Lemmy]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Lemmy Lemmy:

FiddlyDiddly FiddlyDiddly:

Here he's supporting a movement to control free enterprise when it behaves in a way he disapproves of that can not be shown to exhibit actual harm anywhere but in his own mind.

Who's supporting a movement to control anything? This is the third time you've been asked this.

It shouldn't need to be explained. But another thing that makes a prog a prog is he seems to think the rest of the world is too dumb to observe the obvious and recognize it as such.

So just to prove to you that as always, you're wrong, here's the obvious.

There's this other thing you Regressive/Progressive types do where you lie by implication.

You imply a thing and it's obvious to anybody what you're implying, but if you get called on it you offer an indignant "Huh... "

Martin just offered an example with the use of the insult "Diddler". Of course there's an implication there of nastiness, which was the truth of his implication. It required the sudden appearance of the whole little prog squad to pretend there isn't.

In the OP of this thread the politicians or whoever they were, were also using that trick of obvious implication with plausible deniability.

It's obvious what they're pushing for. Without saying it plainly they're saying "Attack, attack. Write letters like we did. Put the pressure on. Make big business pay for daring to use a name we disapprove of."

Now when you support the essence of that and I suggest it's beyond implication that you and Andy did, then I also suggest there's no problem with me semi-facetiously calling the implication a fact and calling it your campaign.

And again supporting the implications in the OP is not Libertarian. Also your continual obvious implication with plausible deniability of things that in real light of day suggest authoritarianism and collectivism is habitual. Hell, I've seen you imply things like gun control and enforced controls justified by global warming alarmism are necessary tenets of libertarianism. That's what I mean by fraudulent.

So, if I break down your raving rant to its point, you're saying that I think the Trump name should be forcibly removed from the tower? That's the position you're attributing to me? If so, how did you come to that conclusion when I never said anything remotely like that? Putting words in people's mouths and labels on their backs. That's what you do, nutsy, that's what you do.

When in the fuck did I ever say I thought that Trump should have to take his name off a building? When did I ever say I supported Councilor Matlow's call? How did you ever conclude that that was my position? Pinhead.

[N_Fiddledog]

First of all..."raving rant"...that's a little redundant, isn't it Professor? Do you know of another kind of rant?

Just kidding, but for somebody who claimed he was going to "break it down" you don't appear to have heard it, so I don't know what you thought you were going to accomplish.

The 'nothing' we've become accustomed to, I suppose.

Basically what I accused you of was what I called "obvious implication with plausible deniability".

Tell you what. You don't seem able to, as you say, "break it down," so how about I do it (not for you, but for anybody who forgot how it works.)

The way it works is the implication is clearly there, but it's not specifically there. In this way you can do what you just did. Deny it.

Here's how it worked this time.

In the OP a couple of political Progressive types were pretending to be outrageously outraged that Donald Trump had his name on buildings and they were going to do something about it, let me tell you. What exactly? Not much really. Write nasty letters and such, but one gets the implication they'd like to rouse some rabble and be the heroes by leading an Anti-Donald attack from others.

Whatever...fun's fun.

But a few brave posters here made the mistake of noticing what they called "Liberal twat fanbois" or "pansy Liberals".

Oh oh...

This looks like a job for Lemmywinks.

From deep within the Progressive gut there was a stirring. The muffled sound of rapid little padded footprints echoed up the alimentary canal. A little head poked out the anal orifice and chattering bursts of scurrilous, snot and snark repeated into the halls of CKA like little toy rifle fire. Rat-a-tat-tat-tat.

The only far-left Libertarian in existence let the right wing know they were sad and bigoted mouth breathers, and even worse, probably a bunch right wing Sun media readers for daring to challenge the sainted Josh of Progtopia in his call to arms against the dreaded Trump.

So the implication there is Josh of the Left is right, and the real Right is wrong. Which btw is a little curious, because aren't Libertarians supposed to be right wingers?

I know I am, but I'm just a 'cultural Libertarian.' Apparently there's some sort of super special, top secret Canadian Libertarianism that only leftist butt-gerbils know the inner workings of or something.