Perfidious charities, Catholic and Protestant

[Spartacus]

The richest man in the world owns a controlling interest in the most influential newspaper in the world, and has a vested interest in minimizing and stories involving illegal immigration, by which he made and continues to make his fortune, and which is also an issue that most reporters, being liberal power fantasists with all-too-real ambition and organizations dedicated to influencing the Narrative, are heavily sympathetic to.

Yes, I most certainly do think that the motivations to attack Catholics in general is going to lose to the motivation to not offend your employers and to not give the other side ammunition in the immigration issue, which has been thoroughly hushed up whenever possible, and is only now being talked about because the media can't avoid it.

I know these people better than you. They're serious about their fight and you're not.

So do you believe that the Catholic Church is laundering government money through Catholic Charities to pay for lawsuit settlements, but that the media isn't reporting on it because people will be too scandalized by the fact that private charities eligible for federal funding will try to secure as much federal funding as possible, and knowing about large sums of government money going to charities would turn people against liberalizing our immigration laws? Am I correctly summarizing your argument?

[Epoetker]

Am I correctly summarizing your argument?

Of course not, but you never had an interest in doing so to begin with, given your eager willingness to employ the Monica Lewinsky Defense at the first sign of trouble. Get thee behind me, Clinton, your father was Ted Kennedy, and he was a liar and murderer from the beginning.

[Spartacus]

Of course not, but you never had an interest in doing so to begin with, given your eager willingness to employ the Monica Lewinsky Defense at the first sign of trouble. Get thee behind me, Clinton, your father was Ted Kennedy, and he was a liar and murderer from the beginning.

Which part(s) of my summary are incorrect?

[Jesse]

Said the puppet.

You really don't like when facts are brought up that discount your bizarre conspiracies do you? Are you really that out of it? Please tell me though, who am I a puppet for? This should be enlightening.

[Truthseeker]

Of course not, but you never had an interest in doing so to begin with, given your eager willingness to employ the Monica Lewinsky Defense at the first sign of trouble. Get thee behind me, Clinton, your father was Ted Kennedy, and he was a liar and murderer from the beginning.

"Monica Lewinsky Defense"? You mean bombing the poor Serbs? Oh, "My answer depends on what you mean by 'is,'" right?

[Darth Executor]

why is Jesse still posting, you'd think the nuclear grade stupid post I mercilessly mocked would be enough to make him rethink his priorities

[Jesse]

why is Jesse still posting, you'd think the nuclear grade stupid post I mercilessly mocked would be enough to make him rethink his priorities

Oh Darth, are you stalking me? When you asked me if I was a women, I didn't think much of it. But now, it is feeling a bit creepy. What post did you mercilessly mock? I missed it. Which means you are really bad at it.

[Darth Executor]

Oh Darth, are you stalking me? When you asked me if I was a women, I didn't think much of it. But now, it is feeling a bit creepy. What post did you mercilessly mock? I missed it. Which means you are really bad at it.

The one where you claim that a site belongs to a certain group because people of that group post there. It was so stupid I couldn't believe you'd give me such an easy shot. It's like massacring an island full of Norwegian Labour Party politicians' kids.

[Jesse]

The one where you claim that a site belongs to a certain group because people of that group post there. It was so stupid I couldn't believe you'd give me such an easy shot. It's like massacring an island full of Norwegian Labour Party politicians' kids.

Oh that one! Ok Darth, I must ask for your forgiveness. I thought you were kidding. It was a post of so little substance I thought it was another one of your jokes. I even laughed at it later, my bad. Though I wouldn't call two measly posts "mercilessly" though. Mocking sure. Bad mocking. But it was still mocking.

Of course the whole problem with that post of yours was that nothing I said was refuted. I think most people here would agree that if someone is using an Onion article as proof for an argument, then it shouldn't be taken seriously. Maybe you disagree.

[Darth Executor]

Of course the whole problem with that post of yours was that nothing I said was refuted. I think most people here would agree that if someone is using an Onion article as proof for an argument, then it shouldn't be taken seriously. Maybe you disagree.

There is nothing to refute, "vdare lol" is not an argument, it's the animal bleating of an ignoramus and a textbook logical fallacy. The analogy with The Onion is stupid because The Onion is a joke website whereas Vdare is a decent source of news, and particularly news that don't make it into the librul dominated mainstream.

[Jesse]

There is nothing to refute, "vdare lol" is not an argument, it's the animal bleating of an ignoramus and a textbook logical fallacy. The analogy with The Onion is stupid because The Onion is a joke website whereas Vdare is a decent source of news, and particularly news that don't make it into the librul dominated mainstream.

No, the analogy is correct Darth. VDare is a joke site. Though not an obvious one like the Onion. The whole reason why VDare does articles no one else will is because save for Slate, no one in their right mind would. It's a conspiratorial site that no one would quote from if they expect to be seen as credible.

[Darth Executor]

No, the analogy is correct Darth. VDare is a joke site. Though not an obvious one like the Onion. The whole reason why VDare does articles no one else will is because save for Slate, no one in their right mind would. It's a conspiratorial site that no one would quote from if they expect to be seen as credible.

Ad populum, ad hominem, poisoning the well, did I miss any more "arguments" that you've made?

[Jesse]

Ad populum, ad hominem, poisoning the well, did I miss any more "arguments" that you've made?

How could I possibly poison a well that was poisoned before I got there? Please tell me why no other media outlets use VDare as a source for anything at all? Why is it that nothing VDare posts can be verified by any other media outlet? Even by ones that would be sympathetic? Could it be that they are not credible? God Forbid right?

[Darth Executor]

How could I possibly poison a well that was poisoned before I got there?

The well was clean and the water in it sweeter than the gruel that pours out of Reason or Patheos or whatever garbage web site you go for your daily brain tickling.

Please tell me why no other media outlets use VDare as a source for anything at all?

What kind of stupid question is this? Why would mainstream media outlets (I assume you mean mainstream media, vdare gets plenty of use from other media outlets) quote a web site that is toxic to their evil agenda?

Why is it that nothing VDare posts can be verified by any other media outlet?

I highly doubt you've actually read even a fraction of what VDare posts. It's telling because you think a web site that posts the syndicated column of a southeast Asian is a "white nationalist" web site. They routinely comment on mainstream media news and use mainstream sources.

Even by ones that would be sympathetic? Could it be that they are not credible? God Forbid right?

They ARE quoted by media outlets that would otherwise be sympathetic.

No MAINSTREAM media is sympathetic to them because their primary purpose is to stem the tide of third world refuse that both mainstream conservative and liberal elites want to use to turn America into their own personal banana republic. Why quote and answer them when they can just ignore them knowing useful idiots like you will just march along in your perpetual daze, never lifting a finger to stop your inevitable end, which looks somewhat like this, only less underpants and more conga line 70 men deep lining up behind you for the ultimate political rebuttal:



Nevermind that this entire post is just another giant logical fallacy. Even if no other web site quoted them it would have jack all to do with the accuracy of their claims.

[Jesse]

The well was clean and the water in it sweeter than the gruel that pours out of Reason or Patheos or whatever garbage web site you go for your daily brain tickling.



What kind of stupid question is this? Why would mainstream media outlets (I assume you mean mainstream media, vdare gets plenty of use from other media outlets) quote a web site that is toxic to their evil agenda?



I highly doubt you've actually read even a fraction of what VDare posts. It's telling because you think a web site that posts the syndicated column of a southeast Asian is a "white nationalist" web site. They routinely comment on mainstream media news and use mainstream sources.



They ARE quoted by media outlets that would otherwise be sympathetic.

No MAINSTREAM media is sympathetic to them because their primary purpose is to stem the tide of third world refuse that both mainstream conservative and liberal elites want to use to turn America into their own personal banana republic. Why quote and answer them when they can just ignore them knowing useful idiots like you will just march along in your perpetual daze, never lifting a finger to stop your inevitable end, which looks somewhat like this, only less underpants and more conga line 70 men deep lining up behind you for the ultimate political rebuttal:



Nevermind that this entire post is just another giant logical fallacy. Even if no other web site quoted them it would have jack all to do with the accuracy of their claims.

I am not sure why you think I would get news from Reason or Patheos. I do read Ben Witherington on Patheos though.

Well before you go fully unhinged on this, let's keep it simple. We are talking about a specific article that is talking about Catholic Charities using a refugee racket to pay off sex crimes. You are telling me no mainstream media outlet wouldn't be salivating to get that on the front page of everywhere? That would hardly be toxic to them since you both have the same enemy.

Yes I know. And you have many black friends too, right? When a website says that they indeed do hire white nationalists to write for them, excuse me for thinking they might lean white nationalist. How silly of me.

Ok, who are they quoted by that are sympathetic? If I am wrong about that, I will admit it. I haven't seen it.

I know you like to throw out your knowledge of fallacies. Can you give me any actual refutation though? My whole point is that their claims are not accurate.