The Party of Tolerance: Truth vs. Fantasy

[TemplarKormac]

There is a big difference between bloggers and talking heads calling people names and actual legislation being passed by political parties

Show us some GOP sponsored legislation that improves tolerance for minorities, women, gays, handicapped.....

The Bill Of Rights.

BTW, tolerance is just another word for favouritism to a liberal.

The correct term is equality, not tolerance. Liberals are extremely intolerant of those in the opposition.

The Bill of Rights was written by the same founders who wrote the rest of the Constitution -- Liberals.
Republicans wouldn't even be invented until 1854. You could look it up.

Lovely revisionist history. Classical Liberals held none of the modern liberal stances of today. They would have wanted nothing to do with modern liberalism. Yes, they were Classical Liberals, who hold the conservative values of limited government, free speech, the right to bear arms and form militias and whatnot.

Man, you're digging yourself into a deep hole here.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Templar, so let me get this straight. If you advocate for the rights of black people or women, you can't ever criticize the political views of certain blacks or certain women?

Believe it or not, I support the equal treatment of homosexuals under the constitution. Same with blacks, and women. I don't know how you came up with that, but it's clear you're reaching for other points.

Scenario 1:

Liberal A says: "Black People should be treated equally, fairly and protected from racism!"

Black Republican B says: "I agree! Black folks shouldn't live in poverty, they should be able to find jobs and get rich!"

Liberal A says: "You're a traitor to your party and to your race! How can you be a Republican?! You... you UNCLE TOM!"


Scenario 2:

Liberal Woman A says: "I want women to be treated with respect and fairness!"

Republican Woman B says: "Yes, that would be great! Would that apply to me if I am pro-life?"

Liberal Woman A replies: "No. How can you be against women's rights? You're a whore."


Scenario 3:

Liberal A says: "I support religious diversity and tolerance! People should be able to believe and worship what they want!"

Christian Conservative B replies: "I am a Christian, I don't believe in gay marriage and I think abortion is wrong."

Liberal A says: "Why is your faith so mean and intolerant to gays and women?"


If this doesn't illustrate my point, I don't know what would short of a pop up picturebook would.

Oboy - a whole field of strawmen!

Anybody got a match?

How can you call them "strawmen" when haven't proved them to be strawmen? Do you throw those words out like I do latin? Huh? Do you even know what a strawman is?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Your article says it was in the DNC platform in 2008. So not mentioning Jerusalem as the undivided capital, doesn't mean Obama and the DNC don't necessarily believe it, they may very well have done it to be politically expedient(which is cowardly towards Iran and one of the reasons I voted for Romney). Even if they dont believe it, it doesn't make them anti-Jewish. Obama has several Jews as advisors and in top positions in the cabinet(not to mention donors). I think they are ill-informed and naive, certainly not anti-semitic. As a Jew, I have some tolerance for foreign policy stupidity, but none for anti-semitism. I would speak out against it if it were occurring.

Also, you keep harping on removing the god language. I wouldn't mind if the GOP did this either. It doesn't make one anti-christian to remove the term, secularism is not anti-christian, secularism allows for religious pluralism and inclusion, things I support. I would not stand for intolerance towards any religious group, including Christians.

As for the NAACP, they may support Democrats on the whole, but they aren't controlled by the Democratic leadership. They do as they wish. You said so yourself, they are a black and primarily liberal organization, why should they be obligated to give airtime to black conservatives? And how does this make democrats anti-black? All this shows is that regardless of color, Democrats and liberals attack people for their conservative or republican ideology. That isn't racist at all.

I think you take yourself too seriously. You are just a guy on a message board. You come off a bit weird when you talk about yourself as a "research machine" and talking about a forum as an "arena".

Excellent points throughout.

Alright, drop the pop-poms. At least he argued me. You're nipping at my heels like a Chihuahua on crack.

 

[Pogo]

More Northern Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Bill of 1964 than Northern Republicans percentage wise and number wise in both the house and the senate. And more Southern Democrats voted for the Civil Rights than Southern Republicans both numbers wise and percentage wise in the house and Senate. The transition of the Democrat party to a primarily liberal party began during the Civil Rights period, thus isolating the southern conservative base they used to hold.

Your point?

Have you been hawking this thread for 15 hours? Even I found the time to sleep.

Anyhow, it doesn't matter who voted for what, Stein, the mere passage of that bill started a change in the south, which wasn't brought on by Nixon's Southern Strategy. If anything, Nixon took advantage of that emerging shift to win some some of the Southern States. It largely failed because of the fact he failed to take all but one of the states that joined and formed the initial Confederacy in March of 1861.

I already covered this but neither Nixon nor Humphrey won the South in 1968, because they had a homeboy from Alabama on the ticket. And as a bonus track he wuz a good little racist. So 1968 is off the table as far as analyzing the Southern Strategy, though Nixon did win the Carolinas, Virginia and Tennessee. Come 1972 he won them all.

The Civil War was over 100 years old at this point, but it was still fresh in the minds of many southerners who were most likely born and raised to parents and grandparents who played witness to and heard stories about the Reconstruction Era. When that bill was passed, it more likely than not reignited a resentment over the South's defeat in the Civil War.

So now, after all that, you're saying it DID happen.



You'll make a good politician, TK.

 

[Esmeralda]

More Northern Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Bill of 1964 than Northern Republicans percentage wise and number wise in both the house and the senate. And more Southern Democrats voted for the Civil Rights than Southern Republicans both numbers wise and percentage wise in the house and Senate. The transition of the Democrat party to a primarily liberal party began during the Civil Rights period, thus isolating the southern conservative base they used to hold.

Your point?

Have you been hawking this thread for 15 hours? Even I found the time to sleep.

Anyhow, it doesn't matter who voted for what, Stein, the mere passage of that bill started a change in the south, which wasn't brought on by Nixon's Southern Strategy. If anything, Nixon took advantage of that emerging shift to win some some of the Southern States. It largely failed because of the fact he failed to take all but one of the states that joined and formed the initial Confederacy in March of 1861.

I already covered this but neither Nixon nor Humphrey won the South in 1968, because they had a homeboy from Alabama on the ticket. And as a bonus track he wuz a good little racist. So 1968 is off the table as far as analyzing the Southern Strategy, though Nixon did win the Carolinas, Virginia and Tennessee. Come 1972 he won them all.

The Civil War was over 100 years old at this point, but it was still fresh in the minds of many southerners who were most likely born and raised to parents and grandparents who played witness to and heard stories about the Reconstruction Era. When that bill was passed, it more likely than not reignited a resentment over the South's defeat in the Civil War.

So now, after all that, you're saying it DID happen.



You'll make a good politician, TK.

Yep, just like Rep. Michael Grimm. No awareness of what is really going on and losing his temper very, very easily.

 

[Pogo]

If you were smart you would have ignored the obvious baiting nature of the thread and posted example of how you are kind, and forgiving, and tolerant. Instead, TK played all of you like a fiddle.

Is that right? You see it like that huh? Excellent judgement.

I'm a liberal Democrat silly person. You are all progressives. You, give people like me, a bad name, so yes, I DO have excellent judgment.

Well apparently not, if you just blanket-statemented the entire population of the thread

 

[Pogo]

Your point?

Have you been hawking this thread for 15 hours? Even I found the time to sleep.

Anyhow, it doesn't matter who voted for what, Stein, the mere passage of that bill started a change in the south, which wasn't brought on by Nixon's Southern Strategy. If anything, Nixon took advantage of that emerging shift to win some some of the Southern States. It largely failed because of the fact he failed to take all but one of the states that joined and formed the initial Confederacy in March of 1861.

I already covered this but neither Nixon nor Humphrey won the South in 1968, because they had a homeboy from Alabama on the ticket. And as a bonus track he wuz a good little racist. So 1968 is off the table as far as analyzing the Southern Strategy, though Nixon did win the Carolinas, Virginia and Tennessee. Come 1972 he won them all.

The Civil War was over 100 years old at this point, but it was still fresh in the minds of many southerners who were most likely born and raised to parents and grandparents who played witness to and heard stories about the Reconstruction Era. When that bill was passed, it more likely than not reignited a resentment over the South's defeat in the Civil War.

So now, after all that, you're saying it DID happen.



You'll make a good politician, TK.

Yep, just like Rep. Michael Grimm. No awareness of what is really going on and losing his temper very, very easily.

I meant the doubletalk and see-sawing on his position but -- yeah, that too. It will give him a nice week-long news window one day when he has such a meltdown while in office. But then he can get his own talk show. And we'll be able to say we knew him when...

I'm a-gittin' all misty.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I already covered this but neither Nixon nor Humphrey won the South in 1968, because they had a homeboy from Alabama on the ticket. And as a bonus track he wuz a good little racist. So 1968 is off the table as far as analyzing the Southern Strategy, though Nixon did win the Carolinas, Virginia and Tennessee. Come 1972 he won them all.



So now, after all that, you're saying it DID happen.



You'll make a good politician, TK.

Yep, just like Rep. Michael Grimm. No awareness of what is really going on and losing his temper very, very easily.

I meant the doubletalk and see-sawing on his position but -- yeah, that too. It will give him a nice week-long news window one day when he has such a meltdown while in office. But then he can get his own talk show. And we'll be able to say we knew him when...

I'm a-gittin' all misty.

Oh brother. You two just compared me to Micheal Grimm? How? Do I threaten to break people in half and throw them second story balconies?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Your point?

Have you been hawking this thread for 15 hours? Even I found the time to sleep.

Anyhow, it doesn't matter who voted for what, Stein, the mere passage of that bill started a change in the south, which wasn't brought on by Nixon's Southern Strategy. If anything, Nixon took advantage of that emerging shift to win some some of the Southern States. It largely failed because of the fact he failed to take all but one of the states that joined and formed the initial Confederacy in March of 1861.

I already covered this but neither Nixon nor Humphrey won the South in 1968, because they had a homeboy from Alabama on the ticket. And as a bonus track he wuz a good little racist. So 1968 is off the table as far as analyzing the Southern Strategy, though Nixon did win the Carolinas, Virginia and Tennessee. Come 1972 he won them all.

The Civil War was over 100 years old at this point, but it was still fresh in the minds of many southerners who were most likely born and raised to parents and grandparents who played witness to and heard stories about the Reconstruction Era. When that bill was passed, it more likely than not reignited a resentment over the South's defeat in the Civil War.

So now, after all that, you're saying it DID happen.



You'll make a good politician, TK.

Yep, just like Rep. Michael Grimm. No awareness of what is really going on and losing his temper very, very easily.

I did? Pogo got whipped and then started spamming my thread with all sorts of invective, which never included a real argument. He lost his temper at that very moment.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So you are only tolerant if you support conservative views? I got ya.

Interesting definition of tolerance and acceptance you got their buddy.

Generally tolerance means you allow dissenting views, doesn't mean you have to agree with them, believe it or not, you can tolerate an opinion and strongly debate the issue and attack the opinion of the other person. Tolerance doesn't mean no criticism.

So you are only tolerant if you support conservative views? I got ya.

Where did I say that? I am tolerant of all views. I allow people to have their own views as opposed to certain liberals. Freedom of opinion is something I hold dear, whether you are a liberal or a republican or anyone else. I have risen to the defense of many liberals on this board. I am friends with blacks, liberals, gays, women and Muslims in real life.

I am calling out hypocrisy. If you can't hold that one view equally and for all without applying different versions of it to certain people, you are a hypocrite, and thus intolerant. That's it, that's all.

Sadly this seems to be TK's pattern: when faced with rhetorical blowback, melts down, declares the adversary a "hypocrite", "liar", etc, declares himself the winner, and brilliant if he do say so hisself, and then storms out the door. Somebody needs to grow up.

Which is consistent with being an ignorant, naïve 25 year old with poor, superficial knowledge of the topics he addresses, this failed thread is yet another example of that; it’s embarrassing, really.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I already provided proof Helms opposed the Civil Rights Act.

"An unreconstructed Southern conservative, he began his political career in the Democratic Party in the days when many white Southern politicians championed racial segregation and most blacks were disfranchised. He moved to the Republican party in the 1970s. Helms was the most stridently conservative politician of the post-1960s era,[4] especially in opposition to federal intervention into what he considered state affairs (integration, the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act). Helms conducted a 16-day filibuster to stop the Senate from approving a federal holiday to honor Martin Luther King, Jr."

"Helms' editorials featured folksy anecdotes interwoven with conservative views against, amongst others, "the civil rights movement, the liberal news media, and anti-war churches".[15] He referred to The News and Observer, his former employer, as the "Nuisance and Disturber" for its promotion of liberal views and support for civil rights activity.[17] The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, which had a reputation for liberalism, was also a frequent target of Helms' criticism. He referred to the university as "The University of Negroes and Communists", and suggested a wall be erected around the campus to prevent the university's liberal views from "infecting" the rest of the state. Helms said the civil rights movement was infested by communists and "moral degenerates", and described Medicaid as a "step over into the swampy field of socialized medicine".[15]
On the 1963 civil rights protests, Helms stated, "The negro cannot count forever on the kind of restraint that's thus far left him free to clog the streets, disrupt traffic, and interfere with other men's rights."[18] He later wrote, "Crime rates and irresponsibility among negroes are a fact of life which must be faced".[19]"

Jesse Helms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, once again, why did he wait for 9 years? Where did he specifically state that the Civil Rights movement was responsible for his defection? Oh yeah that's right. He didn't defect from the Party along with Strom Thurmond in a fit of protest.

Uh... Strom Thurmond first defected in 1948 when he ran on the States Rights (Dixiecrat) party, because he didn't like the Democratic platform and the moves and noises Truman and Humphrey were making toward civil rights. Then he came back to the Democrats because, again, a party is a means to an end, that end being getting elected, and the DP still held the power in the South, as it had since the Civil War and the fall of the Whig party. When Thurmond and the rest bolted again in the '60s and '70s, that monolithic power structure in the South simply morphed from blue to red.

That (1948) is exactly what Trent Lott was referring to at Thurmond's birthday party when he put his foot in his mouth about if Thurmond had been elected "we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years".

History. Gotta have it.

And not one mention of Jesse Helms anywhere in that statement. Red herrings, gotta love it. You completely missed the point. I was referring to Jesse Helms, not Strom Thurmond.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Where did I say that? I am tolerant of all views. I allow people to have their own views as opposed to certain liberals. Freedom of opinion is something I hold dear, whether you are a liberal or a republican or anyone else. I have risen to the defense of many liberals on this board. I am friends with blacks, liberals, gays, women and Muslims in real life.

I am calling out hypocrisy. If you can't hold that one view equally and for all without applying different versions of it to certain people, you are a hypocrite, and thus intolerant. That's it, that's all.

Sadly this seems to be TK's pattern: when faced with rhetorical blowback, melts down, declares the adversary a "hypocrite", "liar", etc, declares himself the winner, and brilliant if he do say so hisself, and then storms out the door. Somebody needs to grow up.

Which is consistent with being an ignorant, naïve 25 year old with poor, superficial knowledge of the topics he addresses, this failed thread is yet another example of that; it’s embarrassing, really.

How has this thread failed? Show me. Give examples.

By

1) Attacking my age
2) Insulting my intelligence
3) Insulting my maturity
4) Not addressing the topic
5) Attempting to derail the thread

You have made my points for me. You, Pogo, Esmeralda and Clayton are all intolerant. You claim to be tolerant, but you're nowhere even close. Even after being admonished by a fellow liberal, you sink your teeth into him and move merrily on along.

Seriously guys, this is rank childishness. When you can actually prove to me that liberals are tolerant in every way they claim, then I will rescind my claims. Not before.

 

[American4Americ]

From what I've garnered from TemplarKormac's posting, he prefers to think of people in broad swaths constantly saying "the feminists should be in outrage when any woman is threatened", or "the far right should do this" as though each group is one monolithic person.

It seems that you like to use the case of individuals to proclaim an entire group as something which seems to be faulty reasoning, but that is just me.

 

[Pogo]

1) Ed Schultz calls Laura Ingraham a "talk slut" on his radio show:

This is relevant to what? One talk show host slams another talk show host; what's this got to do with politics or parties?



Again, a talk show host (comedian this time) criticizing political figures... and again, so what? Bill Maher is not a politician.

Both (1) and (2) involving plays on words, one notes...



Uh- what "Democrats [sic] racist attacks"? What "liberal racism and misogyny"? No such thing was even claimed in that video. I had to watch the whooooole thing ... five and a half minutes I'll never get back... for nothing.

Methinks you should watch your own stuff before you post it rather than creating points and threads on the basis of what some clown named a YouTube video, because this one made no point at all. This entry has as much basis as this bullshit thread from yesterday. That is, none.

Once again, a comedian making a joke, and once again, is there a point coming sometime soon? This is why I wasn't going to put a dent in my day with this tripe. And once again, comedians are not politicians.

And btw, the butt of the joke isn't Palin's son. It's the Fox Noise audience. Duh?
------------------------------------------------------------------



"The Blaze"

No agenda there, nope.

Note the word I bolded. It's important. Once again, no evidence.

Let's see what we're up to now on the point scoreboard:

Still holding at zero. At least it's consistent.



"The Examiner"... wait, we just did this above with the Fox Nose video that went nowhere. So when somebody edits a Wiki it means ... Democrats?

Is this gonna take much longer?

Because I have a meeting of the Society for Putting Things on Top of Other Things to get to. I usually don't bother but after this thread I think I'm missing out...

------------------------------------------------------------------




ALL THAT to observe that you see a politician waffling? Stop the presses!

How does this earth-shattering news make your point? Or indeed any point at all?

----------------------------------------------



You're rambling again; you cited this above. And once again, how exactly does a political party's editing its own platform and campaign speeches become "intolerant" simply because you're not one of the editors?



What I decide is you need to get over yourself. What you have here is a multi-headed strawman with rambling points that go nowhere. I think you get smitten with the written (typed) word and lose the forest of meaning for the trees of the words and the artful phrase carefully lathed just so; in the process you forget to assign them meaning or direction. Sheer volume does not a case make.

And I also think you need to graduate to slightly higher reading fare that Glenn Beck and the Exuminer. And when you do use them, take a critical eye for a change.

Finally I think all the noises you've made in the past about being a neutral or independent political thinker have just been obliterated with this exercise in naked hyperpartisan demagoguery. That's gonna leave a mark.

Uh hes a liberal political talk show host, genius. Second, liberals claim they stand for women. Except when they are Laura Ingraham and company. It isn't "one talk show host slams another." It's one liberal belonging to a party who stands for women, slamming a woman. Hence the relevance and the hypocrisy.

That makes no sense at all. Standing for equality for (in this case) women does not mean and can not mean that no woman can ever get criticized for anything. HOly shit this is like fourth grade logic here.

Why are you so dismissive of it? I don't give a damn if he's the fucking Lion King, Pogo. Stop obfuscating. Lets say he said this about Hillary or Michelle, would you be so dismissive of it then? No, you would probably call him a) racist or b) misogynistic. Oh but it's okay when he only jokes about Republican women. But "so what, he's not a politician" you say.

Because he's a comedian. Grow UP already. Public figures are targets for comedians. Public figures have ALWAYS been targets for comedians. And ... this just in... comedians are still not politiicans.

Apparently you had your head in your nether regions when Mia Love's wikipedia page was vandalized by some anonymous liberals. That's

Read up before you speak up.

Sick: Wikipedia entry calls Mia Love ?dirty, worthless whore? and ?House ******? | Twitchy

Know that part earlier where I noted, "that makes no sense"? This one has creeped into Negativeland. No, I wasn't the one who edited Mia Love's Freaking Wiki page if that's what you're implying. I don't even know her. But do go on with the hallucinations, this is most fascinating.

Why are jokes about her son okay? Huh? Why are you trying to shift the point? It's fine to go after the audience, but her son?

Why are you acting stupid? The joke is about Fox News viewers -- not the Palin son. And again, it's a fucking comedian. Not a "Democrat". You're only digging your own fallacy deeper.

You don't joke about anybody's disability not even if they aren't the main subject of the joke. Hence why Obama was forced to apologize for his "joke" about the Special Olympics (forgot that little tidbit, didn't you?)

No idea what you're talking about. Link?

Once again, I don't care who he is, he could be Mufasa himself. He will answer for his intolerance.

Are you threatening somebody? What if he runs to the mods?

Geez, you've gone off your rocker. Your inflammatory style takes away from your argument. Nevermind that they showed their true feelings about Christians in that convention.

I didn't watch either convention, but what the fuck do "Christians" have to do with politics?

Oh that's right, you don't answer that one.

160 of 192 countries recognize the existence of Israel. Your point about Jerusalem is moot.

No it's not "moot", it's one you got wrong and I corrected you and you can't man up to just admit it, that's what it is. I posted nothing about who recognizes Israel. Nice try.

The intolerance lies in the fact they don't recognize Israel as a nation state, and thus believe Israel should capitulate to the Palestinians and revert to indefensible borders.

As noted I didn't watch the convention, so ..... link to where they said this?

Oh and nevermind the fact the DNC flipped it's position not 24 hours later under intense pressure by the Romney campaign.

Fascinating ... so the guy from the opposition has a say in a political party's platform.
Ya learn sump'm every day.

You can do nothing but attack me or my sources. Is there an actual argument in there somewhere?

I don't need to attack you. I have your posts. The arguments are all over the thread by now. You can continue to ignore them, or call me a "troll" or "liar" or 'hypocrite" (like you did Stein) in your little hissyfits, or you can man up and face them.

First of all, it speaks to his intolerance of homosexuals. He doesn't care about people he can manipulate. This also speaks to the liberal attitude as well. Do you care about their rights? Or their votes?

I don't even know what we're talking about here. Maybe you should have left the quotes in.

What I decide is you need to get over yourself. What you have here is a multi-headed strawman with rambling points that go nowhere. I think you get smitten with the written (typed) word and lose the forest of meaning for the trees of the words and the artful phrase carefully lathed just so; in the process you forget to assign them meaning or direction. Sheer volume does not a case make.

What you decide is that my argument is a strawman... without so much as trying to explain how. All you're doing is spewing self righteous anecdotes for all to see. You've attacked my sources, dodged multiple points, and acted like a 2 year old.

Ah, 2 year old. I didn't think of that one. Touché. Guess I'm licked.

What I decide is that you're self absorbed, you're overtly arrogant and hostile. You think your points are always right, always better and always irrefutable. Got news for you Pogo, life isn't a perch for you to sit upon and look down on the peons below.

What a sore loser. As several people have noted by now, you need to grow up. You can't just live on Danth's Law and expect anything but successful self-delusion.

Why would I argue a point that I didn't think was right?
I mean, why do you do it?

And I also think you need to graduate to slightly higher reading fare that Glenn Beck and the Exuminer. And when you do use them, take a critical eye for a change.

Finally I think all the noises you've made in the past about being a neutral or independent political thinker have just been obliterated with this exercise in naked hyperpartisan demagoguery. That's gonna leave a mark.

Think what you will of me Pogo. I don't answer to your standards of what "hyperpartisan" are, given you are hyperpartisan yourself. You're probably so far left of center that I seem "hyperpartisan."

I'm sorry if I hurt your feewings, Pogo, but right now, liberals make themselves easy targets with the intolerance they exude toward people who disagree with them. I am quite well aware of what Republicans say and do, and some of it is just as bad as what I've demonstrated with liberals. The difference between the two, is that one side owns up to the mistake, while the other side shields the perp from the consequences of their words.

I made a good point, you made a childish one. I took you for a good debater, but you've done nothing but throw a tantrum tonight.

Yeah yeah, once again, Danth's Law, and once again, boring. Sore loser.

 

[TemplarKormac]

From what I've garnered from TemplarKormac's posting, he prefers to think of people in broad swaths constantly saying "the feminists should be in outrage when any woman is threatened", or "the far right should do this" as though each group is one monolithic person.

It seems that you like to use the case of individuals to proclaim an entire group as something which seems to be faulty reasoning, but that is just me.

Seriously?

This is the exact mindset you Republicans have with the Tea Party, so don't think of lecturing me, kid. That mindset has divided your party for the majority of a decade now. You lost two elections because you were too busy eating each other alive to bring a cogent message to America when it needed you the most. Uh huh. You Republicans should be embarrassed. If you somehow manage to screw up the next two elections, I will myself proclaim Republicanism to be dead.

 

[TemplarKormac]

This is relevant to what? One talk show host slams another talk show host; what's this got to do with politics or parties?



Again, a talk show host (comedian this time) criticizing political figures... and again, so what? Bill Maher is not a politician.

Both (1) and (2) involving plays on words, one notes...



Uh- what "Democrats [sic] racist attacks"? What "liberal racism and misogyny"? No such thing was even claimed in that video. I had to watch the whooooole thing ... five and a half minutes I'll never get back... for nothing.

Methinks you should watch your own stuff before you post it rather than creating points and threads on the basis of what some clown named a YouTube video, because this one made no point at all. This entry has as much basis as this bullshit thread from yesterday. That is, none.

Once again, a comedian making a joke, and once again, is there a point coming sometime soon? This is why I wasn't going to put a dent in my day with this tripe. And once again, comedians are not politicians.

And btw, the butt of the joke isn't Palin's son. It's the Fox Noise audience. Duh?
------------------------------------------------------------------



"The Blaze"

No agenda there, nope.

Note the word I bolded. It's important. Once again, no evidence.

Let's see what we're up to now on the point scoreboard:

Still holding at zero. At least it's consistent.



"The Examiner"... wait, we just did this above with the Fox Nose video that went nowhere. So when somebody edits a Wiki it means ... Democrats?

Is this gonna take much longer?

Because I have a meeting of the Society for Putting Things on Top of Other Things to get to. I usually don't bother but after this thread I think I'm missing out...

------------------------------------------------------------------




ALL THAT to observe that you see a politician waffling? Stop the presses!

How does this earth-shattering news make your point? Or indeed any point at all?

----------------------------------------------



You're rambling again; you cited this above. And once again, how exactly does a political party's editing its own platform and campaign speeches become "intolerant" simply because you're not one of the editors?



What I decide is you need to get over yourself. What you have here is a multi-headed strawman with rambling points that go nowhere. I think you get smitten with the written (typed) word and lose the forest of meaning for the trees of the words and the artful phrase carefully lathed just so; in the process you forget to assign them meaning or direction. Sheer volume does not a case make.

And I also think you need to graduate to slightly higher reading fare that Glenn Beck and the Exuminer. And when you do use them, take a critical eye for a change.

Finally I think all the noises you've made in the past about being a neutral or independent political thinker have just been obliterated with this exercise in naked hyperpartisan demagoguery. That's gonna leave a mark.

Uh hes a liberal political talk show host, genius. Second, liberals claim they stand for women. Except when they are Laura Ingraham and company. It isn't "one talk show host slams another." It's one liberal belonging to a party who stands for women, slamming a woman. Hence the relevance and the hypocrisy.

That makes no sense at all. Standing for equality for (in this case) women does not mean and can not mean that no woman can ever get criticized for anything. HOly shit this is like fourth grade logic here.



Because he's a comedian. Grow UP already. Public figures are targets for comedians. Public figures have ALWAYS been targets for comedians. And ... this just in... comedians are still not politiicans.



Know that part earlier where I noted, "that makes no sense"? This one has creeped into Negativeland. No, I wasn't the one who edited Mia Love's Freaking Wiki page if that's what you're implying. I don't even know her. But do go on with the hallucinations, this is most fascinating.






Why are you acting stupid? The joke is about Fox News viewers -- not the Palin son. And again, it's a fucking comedian. Not a "Democrat". You're only digging your own fallacy deeper.



No idea what you're talking about. Link?



Are you threatening somebody? What if he runs to the mods?




I didn't watch either convention, but what the fuck do "Christians" have to do with politics?

Oh that's right, you don't answer that one.



No it's not "moot", it's one you got wrong and I corrected you and you can't man up to just admit it, that's what it is. I posted nothing about who recognizes Israel. Nice try.



As noted I didn't watch the convention, so ..... link to where they said this?



Fascinating ... so the guy from the opposition has a say in a political party's platform.
Ya learn sump'm every day.




I don't need to attack you. I have your posts. The arguments are all over the thread by now. You can continue to ignore them, or call me a "troll" or "liar" or 'hypocrite" (like you did Stein) in your little hissyfits, or you can man up and face them.



I don't even know what we're talking about here. Maybe you should have left the quotes in.



Ah, 2 year old. I didn't think of that one. Touché. Guess I'm licked.



What a sore loser. As several people have noted by now, you need to grow up. You can't just live on Danth's Law and expect anything but successful self-delusion.

Why would I argue a point that I didn't think was right?
I mean, why do you do it?

And I also think you need to graduate to slightly higher reading fare that Glenn Beck and the Exuminer. And when you do use them, take a critical eye for a change.

Finally I think all the noises you've made in the past about being a neutral or independent political thinker have just been obliterated with this exercise in naked hyperpartisan demagoguery. That's gonna leave a mark.

Think what you will of me Pogo. I don't answer to your standards of what "hyperpartisan" are, given you are hyperpartisan yourself. You're probably so far left of center that I seem "hyperpartisan."

I'm sorry if I hurt your feewings, Pogo, but right now, liberals make themselves easy targets with the intolerance they exude toward people who disagree with them. I am quite well aware of what Republicans say and do, and some of it is just as bad as what I've demonstrated with liberals. The difference between the two, is that one side owns up to the mistake, while the other side shields the perp from the consequences of their words.

I made a good point, you made a childish one. I took you for a good debater, but you've done nothing but throw a tantrum tonight.

Yeah yeah, once again, Danth's Law, and once again, boring. Sore loser.

One liners do not an argument make. You will have to come up with something better than "it makes no sense" as an argument. Citing "Danth's Law" ad nauseam does not make up for the lack of a position from you.

 

[Pogo]

Pogo, one of your replies was pulled earlier by Doc. He said you threatened me in some manner. I didn't report you, someone else did apparently. Go back a few pages and see his red post, I suggest you inquire further.

Bull SHIT.
I know what the fuck I posted there, Joe Hardy. Because it was the only post I left before I went out. After you posted "oh yeah I'm shakin' in my boots pal", I posted "you're not gonna need boots, more likely stitches, but if you don't mind I can definitely use the boots".

Now how the FUCK is that a 'threat' in its context?
Some of y'all are stone cold jellyfish who seriously seriously need to grow a pair.

And don't sit there and tell me "somebody else did apparenty" -- my whole question about 'who made a threat' was in answer to YOUR post that cited "threats". "Somebody else apparently" didn't cite the presence of "threats"-- you did.

You claimed you read my post but you cant find where Doc cleaned my thread. I replied "Are you threatening me?" Before you replied, Doc had pulled my comment and yours and reprimanded you for making a threat. As per the rules, "no direct or implied threats of violence" meaning literal or metaphorical. Don't get your tighty whities in a bunch with me, I didn't report you. You would do well to take a chill pill.

Who the fuck do you think you're dealing with here?

I got no "reprimand", poster. The first I heard about any of this was your (again that's YOUR) reference to "threats". That's why I asked about it. And number two, you do not talk about Mod actions on the forum. Number three, as I told you I had stuff to do, and went and did it; I would have no knowledge of your pissant whining and martyr-complexing while I was away. You seriously seriously need to grow the fuck up and get over this childish obsession with posting bait threads and then throwing tantrums when other posters call you out for bullshit.

You didn't stir the shit but you just happen to be the only one to mention "threat", and you just happen to have the rules by your side verbatim.

Uh huh.

You're a damn coward. And btw I'm loading that Stein guy up with green dots just because you negged him for being right.

But don't go away mad... I have a little song for your diaper rash... mi mi mi...

 

[Pogo]

Every now and then....an intelligent person gets pulled into the TK vortex. Chemical showers are prescribed.

Oh nose! It's Hitler again!

 

[Pogo]

I'm still waiting for at least ONE, liberal to debate me seriously. Pogo failed miserably. The troll brigade failed miserably. Is this how liberals are? Is this how they debate? Wow. Color me shocked. I though there were actually seriously minded liberals out there wanting to set the record straight. All I ran into was bunch of children in adults clothing.

So humble. I am tearing up.

Danth Himself is admitting defeat in the face of such sparkling logic.

We had the logic of Socrates; we had that of Plato, of Aristotle... now we've developed the logic of "waaah trolls liars waah you're attacking me by being right waaah I win".

I think I liked the old guys better.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Holy crap Pogo, you missed the point entirely. I never said people are immune to criticism, I said that the Democrats don't mind criticizing people on the other side, but never once bothering to criticize their own.

Ted Kennedy leaves a woman to die in the Chappaquiddick. Given how liberals stand for women, you'd think there would be outrage. Well, no. He became the "Lion of the Senate."

Anthony Wiener cheats on his wife by sending naked pictures to coeds. Once again, being the party who stands for women, there wasn't much outrage, even after he did it again.

John Edwards cheats on his dying wife by having an affair with another woman. Remember, this party claims to stand for women, but no.

Bill Clinton cheats on his wife by having an affair with Monica Lewinsky. Alas, the party who claims to stand for women did not take him down for it. Even the uber feminist Gloria Steinem didn't lay into him.

Mark Sanford cheats on his wife by slipping away to South America to have an affair with a woman there. Was he excoriated by Liberals for his behavior? Not really.

So, when Liberal men refer to conservative women in utterly detestable ways or treat women like two bit prostitutes, where is that party which stands for women? Standing idly by. Where are the feminists? Nowhere to be seen.

So you got to ask yourself, are you the party of tolerance? Nobody is immune from criticism so long as they belong to the other party. Then it's game on.