Well, a most interesting development out of the bush admin is that you have colin with little power and condi with near total subservience, while all of the whites have gone on a wacko spree with little resistance.
These reactionaries rely on myths for every part of their platform, from "iraqi wmd" to "liberal media." At least we know that the reactionaries can only hold the illusion for so long.
Yes, folks it's three, yes three attacks for the price of one.
On the rare occasions that a conservative does have an informed thought that is free of bigotry and prejudice, liberals will happily debate the issue. Or at least explain - slowly and carefully, using small words - why the thought is flawed. (Insert big smiley here to show that I don't really think all conservatives are selfish, stupid, prone to a simplistic worldview and scared of anything that is Not Like Us).
That doesn't sound like a 'request' to me.
And that just comes accross as petulant.
Oh yeah, the Rall cartoon sucks. If you're going to look for the humor in yet another needless death it had better be a good joke.
Well thanks for addressing the Rall cartoon. As for the request, there isn't a person I know who ends up making the same request three or four times and not having a tone or edge to what they are requesting. Shawn was intentionally derailing the thread and needed to stop.
Lastly, I'm so glad that personal insults are okay as long as you add a small disclaimer.
Ahhhh...I see what you're getting at. You're scrambling around for another way to imply that anyone who is opposed to the war in Iraq must hate all American soldiers and want them to suffer and die.
Sorry. World's just not that simple.
You are right is isn't that simple. I have not said that anyone who is opposed to Iraq hates all soldiers. However the reverse of that is that mouthing support in platitudes doesn't truly mean you support the troops as well. Plenty of people have questioned Iraq. However Tillman was serving in Afghanistan. The comic not only made note of it, but implied that he went over to Afghanistan simply to kill Arabs out of pure hate. He has Tillman saying, "Never mind the fineprint, do I get to kill Arabs."
That to me goes well beyond debate and criticism of Iraq. It goes to the very nature of the person himself.
I don't care if he calls himself Jesus Christ. What he calls himself isn't the issue. What's at issue is your characterization of his politics as somehow representitive of something other than his own politics.
This, again, is a typical Limbaugh tactic:
1) Point out some extremist or whacko who associates himself with liberalism
2) Describe that person as representative of all liberals
3) Talk about maggot infested liberals
4) Somehow bring Bill Clinton into it
You're not sure?
Bite me.
Cheers
Scott
My characterization of his politics is right on. Are you saying that the left hasn't been associated with the anti-war movement regarding Iraq and Afghanistan? I didn't say all or even most liberals. I said some.
Ironically, you demonstrate that which you claim to deplore. You claim you don't like how Rall stands alone, yet attempt to link me with Limbaugh.
As for not being sure on the insults, I get so many of them tossed at me in these "moderated" forums, that I don't really rank them anymore.
And as for "Bite me," you can consider it as exibit A in the proof of said behavior.
Shawn was intentionally derailing the thread and needed to stop.
Nick
The point you still fail to see is that your initial post was so calculated in it's attack on "liberals" that the preceding responses were nothing short of inevitable. You actually derailed your own thread from any hint of logical discussion with the tone (and title) of your very first post.
Karl Rove would be out of a job if he ever took absurd advice like that!
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Would you be less likely to vote for George Bush if you knew that he was high on cocaine when he gave the order to invade Iraq? Would you be less likely to vote for him if you knew that he had fathered multiple illegitimate black babies? Would you be less likely to vote for him if you knew that he was Satan incarnate?
It's a cartoon that implies Republican racism. Amazingly enough multiple instances of this even in this thread is not proof in some eyes that crying racism is a tactic of the political left.
Tillman was serving in Afghanistan. The comic not only made note of it, but implied that he went over to Afghanistan simply to kill Arabs out of pure hate. He has Tillman saying, "Never mind the fineprint, do I get to kill Arabs."
That's one of the reasons why I reckon the cartoon sucks. To make that assertion without supporting evidence is unfair.
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
However the reverse of that is that mouthing support in platitudes doesn't truly mean you support the troops as well.
Do you beleive that liberals (in general) are insincere in their support and concern for the wellbeing of members of the armed forces because liberals (again, in general) do not support the policies of the Bush administration? How does this make sense? One has nothing to do with the other.
unless it's true. It can't always be just a tactic.
It's a tactic since there is no basis it is true. It is just an ad-hominem attack. The party of the Democratic Party is filled with racist and racism. We aren't even talking about ancient history. Al Gore's dad helped filibuster the Civil Rights Act. There is no proof the Republican party or Republicans in general are racist. It is just a continual implied insult.
It's a tactic since there is no basis it is true. It is just an ad-hominem attack. The party of the Democratic Party is filled with racist and racism. We aren't even talking about ancient history. Al Gore's dad helped filibuster the Civil Rights Act. There is no proof the Republican party or Republicans in general are racist. It is just a continual implied insult.
Nick
ups... you said racist... you must be a liberal...
As for not being sure on the insults, I get so many of them tossed at me in these "moderated" forums, that I don't really rank them anymore.
Nick
Poor Trumpty . . . got his feewings hurt . . . .
playing that victim status again hunh?!
The lone stand-out, heroically standing against the slings and arrows of barbarous 'Liberality'!!
how's this for an insult: you are acting like a spoiled pompous child . . . . dragging this thread on and on . . . whining over and over about how a 'backhanded' insult may or may not have happened . . . you are an embarrassment to Conservatives, just as Rall is an embarassment to 'Liberals'
and I will go on about the thread so far, even though THE ONLY THING that you are going to respond to is the 'backhanded insults' . . . (even though I thought they were pretty straight forward)
When you call someone's support for the soldiers mere 'platitudes' what would real support look like?
Is it not support to care about the soldiers well being and the countries' well being at the same time? isn't it support to hope that the duty for which a soldier is sacrificing is one that is worthy of that sacrifice? meaning that it is beneficial for the country and the world and not simply misguided?
As I said in another post -the one about how Wollfowitz didn't even know how many soldiers he had sent to their deaths-:
Quote:
What I find is that those of us typing at keyboards (you included) are all of us removed from the reality of the soldiers:
You claim support by supporting no matter what they are sent to do . . . even if it is resulting in their heroic but needless deaths
I claim support for them because I want what is truly in their and our countries' best interests . . . that means NOT sending them into needless deaths that are the result of an agenda motivated by IDEOLOGICAL goals.
in order to clarify what I mean by IDEOLOGICAL goals SEE THIS THREADoh yeah . . . . pay no attention to those other long winded posts therein besides mine
I looked at the cartoon. Tillman enlisted in the army, he knew the risks. The sad part is that he died as a result of foreign policy decisions which were more to do with the enhancement of privately owned wealth, as opposed to the defense of the United States. The Afghans were defending themselves....people tend to do that sort of thing when invaded. Any anger should be directed towards the architects of this ongoing war series, rather than the cartoonist.
What I find is that those of us typing at keyboards (you included) are all of us removed from the reality of the soldiers:
You claim support by supporting no matter what they are sent to do . . . even if it is resulting in their heroic but needless deaths
I claim support for them because I want what is truly in their and our countries' best interests . . . that means NOT sending them into needless deaths that are the result of an agenda motivated by IDEOLOGICAL goals.
Something I have yet to figure out is how I would be supporting my cousins, uncle, friends and coworkers (not to mention my sister's friends) by vocalizing support for unmistakably misguided policies that could very well result in them being wounded or killed while participating in actions that are counter-productive for US national security and global stability.
Well, we all know that the only good conservative is a dead conservate, (becuase they're all so stupid, of course).
The thread should be locked when people like dmz post hateful garbage like this. He is contributing nothing other than spreading hate and it makes you wonder what it would take to be banned from here. I have a feeling I already know what the answer is. The lack of people condemning this kind of thing tells me all I need to know. And don't give me thoe standard "we don't dignify such posts with a response" because your silence condones it.
Comments
Originally posted by giant
Then life must really suck for you right now.
Well, a most interesting development out of the bush admin is that you have colin with little power and condi with near total subservience, while all of the whites have gone on a wacko spree with little resistance.
But then we have this kind of stuff:
http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/...ws/4898492.htm
These reactionaries rely on myths for every part of their platform, from "iraqi wmd" to "liberal media." At least we know that the reactionaries can only hold the illusion for so long.
Yes, folks it's three, yes three attacks for the price of one.
Nick
Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
On the rare occasions that a conservative does have an informed thought that is free of bigotry and prejudice, liberals will happily debate the issue. Or at least explain - slowly and carefully, using small words - why the thought is flawed. (Insert big smiley here to show that I don't really think all conservatives are selfish, stupid, prone to a simplistic worldview and scared of anything that is Not Like Us).
That doesn't sound like a 'request' to me.
And that just comes accross as petulant.
Oh yeah, the Rall cartoon sucks. If you're going to look for the humor in yet another needless death it had better be a good joke.
Well thanks for addressing the Rall cartoon. As for the request, there isn't a person I know who ends up making the same request three or four times and not having a tone or edge to what they are requesting. Shawn was intentionally derailing the thread and needed to stop.
Lastly, I'm so glad that personal insults are okay as long as you add a small disclaimer.
Nick
Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
Ahhhh...I see what you're getting at. You're scrambling around for another way to imply that anyone who is opposed to the war in Iraq must hate all American soldiers and want them to suffer and die.
Sorry. World's just not that simple.
You are right is isn't that simple. I have not said that anyone who is opposed to Iraq hates all soldiers. However the reverse of that is that mouthing support in platitudes doesn't truly mean you support the troops as well. Plenty of people have questioned Iraq. However Tillman was serving in Afghanistan. The comic not only made note of it, but implied that he went over to Afghanistan simply to kill Arabs out of pure hate. He has Tillman saying, "Never mind the fineprint, do I get to kill Arabs."
That to me goes well beyond debate and criticism of Iraq. It goes to the very nature of the person himself.
Nick
Originally posted by midwinter
I don't care if he calls himself Jesus Christ. What he calls himself isn't the issue. What's at issue is your characterization of his politics as somehow representitive of something other than his own politics.
This, again, is a typical Limbaugh tactic:
1) Point out some extremist or whacko who associates himself with liberalism
2) Describe that person as representative of all liberals
3) Talk about maggot infested liberals
4) Somehow bring Bill Clinton into it
You're not sure?
Bite me.
Cheers
Scott
My characterization of his politics is right on. Are you saying that the left hasn't been associated with the anti-war movement regarding Iraq and Afghanistan? I didn't say all or even most liberals. I said some.
Ironically, you demonstrate that which you claim to deplore. You claim you don't like how Rall stands alone, yet attempt to link me with Limbaugh.
As for not being sure on the insults, I get so many of them tossed at me in these "moderated" forums, that I don't really rank them anymore.
And as for "Bite me," you can consider it as exibit A in the proof of said behavior.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Shawn was intentionally derailing the thread and needed to stop.
Nick
The point you still fail to see is that your initial post was so calculated in it's attack on "liberals" that the preceding responses were nothing short of inevitable. You actually derailed your own thread from any hint of logical discussion with the tone (and title) of your very first post.
Originally posted by shetline
Karl Rove would be out of a job if he ever took absurd advice like that!
Originally posted by midwinter
Would you be less likely to vote for George Bush if you knew that he was high on cocaine when he gave the order to invade Iraq? Would you be less likely to vote for him if you knew that he had fathered multiple illegitimate black babies? Would you be less likely to vote for him if you knew that he was Satan incarnate?
Ahh Rove. King of the push polls.
Originally posted by New
Keep setting up those strawmen.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Keep setting up those strawmen.
Nick
it's a cartoon, dummy.
Originally posted by buckeye
1. I'm not a Democrat.
2. Having a racialy diverse cabinet does not exclude racists from office. It is simply good political strategy.
Originally posted by midwinter
Heh. He can't be a racist! He's got good friends who are black!
Implying people are racist is still a personal attack.
Nick
Originally posted by New
it's a cartoon, dummy.
It's a cartoon that implies Republican racism. Amazingly enough multiple instances of this even in this thread is not proof in some eyes that crying racism is a tactic of the political left.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Tillman was serving in Afghanistan. The comic not only made note of it, but implied that he went over to Afghanistan simply to kill Arabs out of pure hate. He has Tillman saying, "Never mind the fineprint, do I get to kill Arabs."
That's one of the reasons why I reckon the cartoon sucks. To make that assertion without supporting evidence is unfair.
Originally posted by trumptman
However the reverse of that is that mouthing support in platitudes doesn't truly mean you support the troops as well.
Do you beleive that liberals (in general) are insincere in their support and concern for the wellbeing of members of the armed forces because liberals (again, in general) do not support the policies of the Bush administration? How does this make sense? One has nothing to do with the other.
Originally posted by New
unless it's true. It can't always be just a tactic.
It's a tactic since there is no basis it is true. It is just an ad-hominem attack. The party of the Democratic Party is filled with racist and racism. We aren't even talking about ancient history. Al Gore's dad helped filibuster the Civil Rights Act. There is no proof the Republican party or Republicans in general are racist. It is just a continual implied insult.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
It's a tactic since there is no basis it is true. It is just an ad-hominem attack. The party of the Democratic Party is filled with racist and racism. We aren't even talking about ancient history. Al Gore's dad helped filibuster the Civil Rights Act. There is no proof the Republican party or Republicans in general are racist. It is just a continual implied insult.
Nick
ups... you said racist... you must be a liberal...
I think it is about time.
Originally posted by trumptman
As for not being sure on the insults, I get so many of them tossed at me in these "moderated" forums, that I don't really rank them anymore.
Nick
Poor Trumpty . . . got his feewings hurt . . . .
playing that victim status again hunh?!
The lone stand-out, heroically standing against the slings and arrows of barbarous 'Liberality'!!
how's this for an insult: you are acting like a spoiled pompous child . . . . dragging this thread on and on . . . whining over and over about how a 'backhanded' insult may or may not have happened . . . you are an embarrassment to Conservatives, just as Rall is an embarassment to 'Liberals'
and I will go on about the thread so far, even though THE ONLY THING that you are going to respond to is the 'backhanded insults' . . . (even though I thought they were pretty straight forward)
When you call someone's support for the soldiers mere 'platitudes' what would real support look like?
Is it not support to care about the soldiers well being and the countries' well being at the same time? isn't it support to hope that the duty for which a soldier is sacrificing is one that is worthy of that sacrifice? meaning that it is beneficial for the country and the world and not simply misguided?
As I said in another post -the one about how Wollfowitz didn't even know how many soldiers he had sent to their deaths-:
What I find is that those of us typing at keyboards (you included) are all of us removed from the reality of the soldiers:
You claim support by supporting no matter what they are sent to do . . . even if it is resulting in their heroic but needless deaths
I claim support for them because I want what is truly in their and our countries' best interests . . . that means NOT sending them into needless deaths that are the result of an agenda motivated by IDEOLOGICAL goals.
in order to clarify what I mean by IDEOLOGICAL goals SEE THIS THREAD oh yeah . . . . pay no attention to those other long winded posts therein besides mine
Originally posted by pfflam
What I find is that those of us typing at keyboards (you included) are all of us removed from the reality of the soldiers:
You claim support by supporting no matter what they are sent to do . . . even if it is resulting in their heroic but needless deaths
I claim support for them because I want what is truly in their and our countries' best interests . . . that means NOT sending them into needless deaths that are the result of an agenda motivated by IDEOLOGICAL goals.
Something I have yet to figure out is how I would be supporting my cousins, uncle, friends and coworkers (not to mention my sister's friends) by vocalizing support for unmistakably misguided policies that could very well result in them being wounded or killed while participating in actions that are counter-productive for US national security and global stability.
Originally posted by dmz
Well, we all know that the only good conservative is a dead conservate, (becuase they're all so stupid, of course).
The thread should be locked when people like dmz post hateful garbage like this. He is contributing nothing other than spreading hate and it makes you wonder what it would take to be banned from here. I have a feeling I already know what the answer is. The lack of people condemning this kind of thing tells me all I need to know. And don't give me thoe standard "we don't dignify such posts with a response" because your silence condones it.
Originally posted by New
ups... you said racist... you must be a liberal...
Oh I assure you I am on some issues.
Nick