|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
If by "America"; you mean the vision of the Founding Fathers, then I love America. But it’s hard to keep that vision in front of me when the majority of "Americans"are fundamentalist, fascistic, homophobic, racist, sexist, ignorant, American Idol-loving morons who think Bush is a strong leader.
While probably a bit of an exaggeration, I must say I find that statement very understandable. A lot of the people in this country(I don't feel entitled to discuss other countries, so I'll leave them out) are racist, sexist, homophobic and ignorant. Perhaps even I am some of those things, subconsciously, despite my best intentions. Every day I see something that affirm such a belief. However, I have no strong desire to leave the country, and I question just how much of the world is drastically better in this regard.
Please correct me if I'm off-base here, but I'm getting the feeling that you're presenting Pat Tillman being attacked as an example of the left-wing attacking the right-wing. Now, I didn't know the guy myself, but everything I've heard about him from his friends suggests to me that he was a fairly liberal man, himself. The "peace-loving hippie"(a quote from his former coach) kind that you seem to so vehemently despise. He simply wanted to feel like he was doing something that mattered, and that something wasn't going to be football.
MisterJLA is RACKing awesome.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6 |
Quote:
Animalman said:
Please correct me if I'm off-base here, but I'm getting the feeling that you're presenting Pat Tillman being attacked as an example of the left-wing attacking the right-wing.
You're off base.
The venonmous attack on Tillman was not cited as an example of the left attacking the right. It was presented as an example of the left attacking a fallen soldier.
How is that anything but beyond the pale?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896 |
Fair enough, it just seemed like most of this thread(....and quite a few others here, actually) has been devoted to examples of the "left vs. right" debate, rather than about America, the country, the ideals, the symbol.
MisterJLA is RACKing awesome.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6 |
That's why I started this thread. The "Do Liberals Hate the President" thread was starting to branch out into this topic.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
Last edited by whomod; 2004-06-02 8:23 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6 |
From MainToday.com
For a moment or two, right around the time he heard himself called a "fascist" and a "Nazi," Bill Whitten began to wonder if it was all worth it.
The ex-Marine from Yarmouth had tirelessly spent the last 18 months raising what now stands at $14,000 and counting to erect a U.S. flag over Fort Gorges. Now here he sat Monday evening seeking final approval from the Portland City Council and, right out of the red, white and blue, a young man stood up to the microphone and linked Whitten's good name to the likes of Mussolini and Hitler.
"I couldn't believe what I was hearing," Whitten said after the council unanimously approved his plan. "I was just totally dumfounded."
And with good reason. For all we hear these days about the political rantings of Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the Rabid Right, this week's City Council meeting offered a glimpse at the opposite - but equally mind-numbing - end of the spectrum.
Call them the Livid Left.
"Fort Gorges is at the entrance to Portland Harbor - it's the first thing people see coming in on the Scotia Prince. What's wrong with flying an American flag out there?" Whitten said. "I just can't comprehend how someone could hate something so much - when that same thing has given them so much."
That someone would be Shawn Loura. You may have seen him in recent months standing atop the rounded stone barriers on the edge of Monument Square, flashing the peace sign to motorists as they wait at the Congress Street stop light and wonder if he ever loses his balance.
Make no mistake about it. Monday evening, Loura took a tumble.
While a handful of others objected to the Fort Gorges flag for reasons ranging from the practical (the city needs a formal policy for accepting gifts) to the political (the Bush administration has so co-opted the flag that it is now synonymous with support for the war), it was Loura who left everyone slack-jawed with his two-cents worth: Whitten's flag doesn't signify democracy and freedom. It reflects Nazism and fascism.
"I'm sitting there thinking, 'Gosh, sometimes we make things more complicated than they are.' " recalled City Councilor Peter O'Donnell, who opposes the war himself but had no problem telling Loura he'd gone "way over the line."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
 A shame the La Cucaracha " Why do you hate America" strip has expired. Still, Tom Tomorrow's peice has the same gag.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37 |
Quote:
whomod said:
A shame the La Cucaracha " Why do you hate America" strip has expired. Still, Tom Tomorrow's peice has the same gag.
What does this mocking, vicious, unsubstantiated stereotype
of Republicans, devoid of any facts whatsoever,
actually say ?
Other than that you have a pathological need to slander
Republicans, in order to suit your pre-conceived biases.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896 |
You really like the word "vicious" don't you? Everything's "vicious".
You viciously open the refridgerator door every morning. Then viciously slide some bread into the toaster.
MisterJLA is RACKing awesome.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37 |
Quote:
Animalman said:
You really like the word "vicious" don't you?
Everything's "vicious".
You viciously open the refridgerator door every morning.
Then viciously slide some bread into the toaster.
Not "everything" is vicious. I frequently use the word to
describe bitterly partisan and divisive liberal tactics.
And vicious describes those tactics very well.
It's not a word I've used to describe anything else.
vicious:
1. Having a nature of vice, evil, or immorality; depraved;
debased.
2. Addicted to vice, immorality, or depravity; malicious;
reprobate; evil.
3. Characterized by spite or malice: vicious gossip.
4. Failing to meet a standard or criterion; having fault,
flaw or defect; a vicious syllogism.
5. Impure, foul, diseased.
6. Disposed to or characterized by violence or
destructive behavior.
7. Behaving in an unruly or potentially dangerous manner.
8. Being of an extreme or intense degree: a vicious
hurricane.
9. Natural disposition to malicious and destructive
behavior, and often associated with moral depravity.
I gave color emphasis to the definitions specified in my
use of the word. It is a word very appropriate to the
liberal tactics I use it to describe.
As usual, animalman, your intent is to maliciously
discredit me through deceptive misrepresentation, rather
than to make any reasoned point. I ignored your earlier
attack a few days ago, because your pettiness truly
warrants no answer:
http://www.rkmbs.com/Number=297147
There's nothing I need to say. Your remarks are disproven
by my earlier comments in the topic, and by your own
hysteria.
You seem to really want a fight. But I really don't have
enough respect for your views to bother obliging you.
When you demonstrate an ability to discuss the issue,
instead of smear tactics and personal attacks that divert
from the issue, we can have a discussion.
That should be sometime after Hell freezes over.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
What does this mocking, vicious, unsubstantiated stereotype
of Republicans, devoid of any facts whatsoever,
actually say ?
Other than that you have a pathological need to slander
Republicans, in order to suit your pre-conceived biases.
psst....
Look at the title of the thread.
I'd cut and paste the untold times you slandered "liberals" as well as myself as hating America, helping the terrorists, undermining democracy. etc. etc. but frankly I really can't be arsed to do that. Needless to say, methinks thou dost protest too much.
Glad to be back guys. 
http://www.workingforchange.com/column_lst.cfm?AuthrId=43
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37 |
I haven't "slandered" you once, Whomod.
Your malicious glee in the misfortune of our troops
repeatedly over the last year --across endless topics--
makes your lack of patriotism self-evident.
You cheer gleefully at American losses, because you feel it
somehow makes your point, in your pathological vendetta
against Bush.
At every point, you've sided with the enemies of the United
States, and churned out partisan propaganda from venomous
partisan liberal websites, doing everything in your power
to undermine American opinion here on RKMB (and from what
you say, on many websites) doing everything in your
power to smear the reputation of your own country, and
undermine national resolve to stop the gathering threat
against our country.
And not with facts on your part. But with every
half-baked slanderous unproven allegation to come
down the pike.
Before there is any evidence of wrongdoing, you can
be counted on to shit on America the moment the first hint
of an allegation breaks.
And methinks I "doth protest" just enough.
Your "facts" are far from it.
Your "facts" cry out for something that's actually substantiated.
Which myself and others "doth" provide.
- from Do Racists have lower IQ's...
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896 |
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
As usual, animalman, your intent is to maliciously discredit me through deceptive misrepresentation, rather
than to make any reasoned point. I ignored your earlier
attack a few days ago, because your pettiness truly
warrants no answer.
You seem to really want a fight. But I really don't have enough respect for your views to bother obliging you.
When you demonstrate an ability to discuss the issue,
instead of smear tactics and personal attacks that divert
from the issue, we can have a discussion.
That should be sometime after Hell freezes over.
No, DTWB. I tried using reason on you, a long time ago, again and again, and you simply deflected it and bombarded me with more "vicious"es and "malicious"es and "vitrol" and "smear tactics", words that seem to make up more than half your vocabulary.
I'm through treating you as a rational person, because you're quite clearly not. I don't want to "fight"(I'm sure a fight would merely consist of you using those catchphases of yours, anyway), I'd just like you to acknowledge how full of shit you are.
At the end of the day, if you think you occupy more than a moment of my time, you're sorely mistaken. In truth, the only time I spend with you in mind is time spent wondering how some people can be so articulate and well-read, yet be so ignorant and single-minded at the same time.
And no, it has nothing to do with politics. G-Man, wannabuyamonkey, bsams, rex, thedoctor, even Mr.JLA sometimes, I get where they're coming from. We don't always agree politically, but I still get what they're saying, and more importantly, why they're saying it. You, however, you seem to be more preoccupied with your own "war against those damn liberals" than anything else. I don't get that.
MisterJLA is RACKing awesome.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37 |
Quote:
Animalman said:
.
No, DTWB. I tried using reason on you, a long time ago,
again and again, and you simply deflected it and bombarded
me with more "vicious"es and "malicious"es and "vitrol"
and "smear tactics", words that seem to make up more than
half your vocabulary.
Well, excuse me for using the words malicious,
vicious, vitriol and smear tactics to
accurately describe spineless and deceptive liberal
tactics.
Just because you don't like the words, or
find my use of them in contrast to your own opinion, does
not allow you to dictate my ability to use those words.
And I'm not the only conservative on these boards to use
those words, much as you'd like to accuse me of being
fanatical in my views in using those words.
I hasten to add that many liberals on these boards
have used those words as well.
If you "get" the views of G-man, britneyspearsatemyshorts,
MisterJLA, etc., and treat them more respectfully (which I
certainly don't see evident in your prior posts, or
theirs ) then goody for you.
I think you don't get my views because you don't want
to.
It's certainly not a fault of mine, I've stated my
views clearly and in considerable detail.
And as I've said many times in the "It's not about oil
or Iraq.." topic and others, there are plenty of
Democrats and liberals who do not resort to
divisive rhetoric and smear tactics who I do have
respect for, including Joseph Biden and Joseph Lieberman,
Sam Nunn and others.
As I've said many times and you choose to ignore, I
think both sides have valid ideas, and I resent the
current climate where Democrats/liberals slander, demonize
and smear Republicans, and then act like it's Republicans
who are being divisive.
But of course, you choose to deceitfully misrepresent me as
hating all Democrats and liberals, ignoring that I've
posted my respect for the valued opinions of Lieberman,
Biden, Nunn and others.
The liberalism I hate is the deliberate misrepresentation
and attempts to sweepingly invalidate my vews through
deceitful charicatures and misrepresentation that you've
demonstrated in the last few posts.
It's not "all liberals" I despise. It's deceitful
liberal jerks like you !
Quote:
animalman said:
.
I'm through treating you as a rational person, because
you're quite clearly not. I don't want to "fight" (I'm
sure a fight would merely consist of you using those
catchphases of yours, anyway), I'd just like you to
acknowledge how full of shit you are.
Have you EVER treated me with respect ?!?
I hate responding to your posts, because you are so locked
into your opinion.
I've seen you do the same thing in the COMICS and MEDIA
sections that you do in the DEEP THOUGHTS section, where
you just repeat your opinion and re-state your attacks
like 12 times, whether it's world issues, or someone
expresses distaste for a movie or comic book that you
like. You're obsessive as hell.
And you just beat it to death and never let go, sucking
anyone who exchanges posts with you to the bottom.
Quote:
animalman said:
.
At the end of the day, if you think you occupy more than a
moment of my time, you're sorely mistaken. In truth, the
only time I spend with you in mind is time spent wondering
how some people can be so articulate and well-read, yet be
so ignorant and single-minded at the same time.
What is this psycho-babble ?!?
You basically declare holy war on me, then claim you don't
spend a moment of your time with my opinion ?
On the contrary, you seem pathologically obsessed
with my opinion.
All I did was state an opinion on the issue.
You're the one calling me names, and
"foaming at the mouth", as you accused me of two
days ago, in the Michael Moore topic I linked:
1) I state an opinion on the issue.
2)You launch a personal attack on me for my opinion of
the issue.
3)And then, laughably, you call this treating me "rationally"?!?
You, sir, are the one who is so full of shit.
Quote:
animalman said:
.
And no, it has nothing to do with politics. G-Man,
wannabuyamonkey, bsams, rex, thedoctor, even Mr.JLA
sometimes, I get where they're coming from. We don't
always agree politically, but I still get what they're
saying, and more importantly, why they're saying it. You,
however, you seem to be more preoccupied with your
own "war against those damn liberals" than anything else.
I don't get that.
Oh, what a crock !
Your past posts toward G-man, BSASMS, Rex, Mr JLA, etc.,
certainly demonstrate no more respect than you've shown
for my views.
You launched personal attacks on me here and in the
previous Michael Moore topic, instead of discussing
the issue, and then act like I attacked you, instead
of the other way around, as the situation truly is.
It would please me to no end if you'd just ignore my posts,
and fuck off.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Those comics serve to demonstrate one thing..... Liberals aren't really that funny.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Those comics serve to demonstrate one thing..... Liberals aren't really that funny.
Well, Al Franken was funny for a long time on
Saturday Night Live, until he went all political,
turned bitter and lost his sense of humor.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
I'm just sayin' 
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896 |
For someone who hates my posts DTWB, you sure like responding to them.
I especially like the part where you say I've declared "holy war' on you. That's good stuff!
Yes, I did use to treat you with respect(I'd go back and post some examples, but I don't know how many have been deleted, I'll look later). You just never returned it. Instead you'd just use every opportunity to hop onto your soapbox and preach out about how awful liberals are. Notice how the Michael Moore thread progressed.
I said, in reponse to Snapman:
Quote:
The only real fact anymore is that anyone can spin facts to get their specific point across.
No "viciousness", no "vitrol", no "smear tactics", just what I thought was an honest assessment of what both sides of the argument tend to do. You, in response to me, then go off with this:
Quote:
Yes, according to liberals, 'truth is relative'.
Which is just a liberal Thoughtspeak way of saying liberals can ignore facts
Followed by this Ann Coulter-like statement:
Quote:
Liberalism should be a crime punishable by banishment to an Islamic state.
How do you honestly expect me to react to that? As though it's evidence of a fair, accurate, rational thinker? I'd take it as a joke, but it's fairly consistent with what you normally say, in just about every topic here.
Just for fun, let's go waaaaaay back to the root of all this, I think you can look back at this thread. The infamous "Canada to Allow Same-Sex Marriage" thread. I had responded to some of your arguments, politely, with no malice whatsoever intended(afterall, this was the first online discussion we'd ever had), and you came right back with this:
Quote:
Every last one of these nitpicking dissections of yours toward my quoted answers has already been addressed.
Basically, all you've done is come back and say you don't like my answers, and spun them into a nullified category through disinformation.
Needless to say, I was a bit surprised at that one. My response was as followed:
Quote:
Oh, I see. I thought I was participating in a discussing, an exchange of ideas.
I've listened to your argument, I've taken in your points, and I've even tried to ask questions(specifically, on the Canada thing) so as to better understand your perspective. This is an extremely long thread, but from the few pages I did peruse, I didn't see you address those points.
Though I might not agree with them, I never said I "don't like" your answers. Infact, I think I've remained pretty civil throughout my posts. I haven't insulted you or called you names. I haven't generalized you(as you've done to me) or belittled your position. I'd just like to have an honest conversation about a prevalent topic in today's society.
You came back with this:
Quote:
I answer questions (and Captain Sammitch and others) and you come right back and say the same thing of "how can you justify your position, it's just ignorant of you to say that?" when I (and others) just answered.
You just come back and back and back, and offer the same objections and arguments over and over, to points already answered.
You say it's a long topic.
Well, yes it is. But if you're going to accuse me of things, then I think you have a responsibility to read what I and others have already said.
So, now you've put words in my mouth, stating that I said you were "just ignorant"(when I said nothing of the sort), and then you claimed I had accused you of things.
My response, which is too long to post(you can go back and read it if you choose), was once again polite and respectful. I even deflected the part where you said:
Quote:
Again, that's your soapbox editorial, and taking another dig at what I clearly already answered, but you just felt a need to editorialize one last time your self-presumed intellectual superiority on the issue.
with my response:
Quote:
I assume no intellectual superiority. I was simply presenting my point of view, in contrast to you presenting yours. That is, after all, what message boards are for. At no point did I state or suggest that my idea was better than yours. You're more than entitled to express your opinions in any discussion, just as I am.
After all that, you, once again, came back with a fairly nasty response:
Quote:
Animalman, you've done it once again.
You've gone point-by-point through my long post where I was careful to address every issue you raised, and you just came back ONCE AGAIN, ignored my points, just re-stated what you believe, claimed I didn't make my case (by which I can only assume that you can't read, because I've been detailing the case for my perspective since page 2 of this topic).
You've again ignored my arguments and simply re-stated your side, when your side is already abundantly clear.
All you've done is smother my opinion in yet another long post of your attempted deconstruction, re-spin, and misrepresented me as allegedly not having made my case, when in truth I have.
Over and over.
To this day, even after reviewing the discussion just now, I still don't see where I did all this to you, but that's beside the point.
As you can see, we didn't exactly get off on the right foot in our online relationship. I'll gladly admit that recently I've belittled and discredited you, but to suggest that that's always been the case is, quite simply, incorrect. I'm fairly sure there are other examples where I've tried to discuss something with you in a mature and respectful manner, only to have my posts tossed aside as if they're completely worthless, but I don't have the energy to look any more right now. I already spent way too much time breaking down the above example(probably for no other reason than to put myself at ease).
MisterJLA is RACKing awesome.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 34,398 Likes: 38
"Hey this is PCG342's bro..." 15000+ posts
|
|
"Hey this is PCG342's bro..." 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 34,398 Likes: 38 |
animalman: Quote:
.
And no, it has nothing to do with politics. G-Man,
wannabuyamonkey, bsams, rex, thedoctor, even Mr.JLA
sometimes
"Even"?
"Are you eating it...or is it eating you?" [center] ![[Linked Image from i13.photobucket.com]](http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a275/captainsammitch/boards/banners/blogban3.jpg) [/center] [center] ![[Linked Image from i13.photobucket.com]](http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a275/captainsammitch/boards/banners/jlamiska.jpg) [/center]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
MisterJLA said:
animalman:
Quote:
.
And no, it has nothing to do with politics. G-Man,
wannabuyamonkey, bsams, rex, thedoctor, even Mr.JLA
sometimes
"Even"?
Huh? Where did I come into this?
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
I feel neglected. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37 |
Quote:
Animalman said:
For someone who hates my posts DTWB, you sure like responding to them.
When they're less personally directed at me, I simply ignore them.
Quote:
Animalman said:
Yes, I did use to treat you with respect (I'd go back and post some examples, but I don't know how many have been deleted, I'll look later). You just never returned it. Instead you'd just use every opportunity to hop onto your soapbox and preach out about how awful liberals are. Notice how the Michael Moore thread progressed.
I'll grant that you demonstrated a degree of respect, a surface veneer of politeness, but there is still condescension and a subtle undertone of you're-a-nut-to-believe-what-you-beleive in the way you addressed me in the gay marriage topic you linked.
And as I said, I answered your questions OVER AND OVER AND OVER in that topic, not new questions, not new or subtle details unexplored, but THE SAME QUESTIONS, over and over !
And as I said in the quoted Gay Marriage topic, each time you didn't acknowledge the validity of the points I made, you just restated the same condescending liberal views and said basically, how can you possibly believe what you believe.
The part you quote, which is clearly my worn out patience, but still far more polite than your attacks on me here, ignores and glosses over that my phrasing --even with the limited firmess that you criticize-- is at the tail end of politely answering long post after long post of yours, and basically wasting my time trying to get through to someone (you !) who absolutely refuses to see my point of view, no matter how much time I spend answering your posts and detailing my opinion.
Quote:
Animalman said:
.
I said, in reponse to Snapman:
.
Quote:
The only real fact anymore is that anyone can spin facts to get their specific point across.
.
No "viciousness", no "vitrol", no "smear tactics", just what I thought was an honest assessment of what both sides of the argument tend to do. You, in response to me, then go off with this:
Quote:
Yes, according to liberals, 'truth is relative'.
Which is just a liberal Newspeak way of saying liberals can ignore facts
Followed by this Ann Coulter-like statement:
Quote:
Liberalism should be a crime punishable by banishment to an Islamic state.
How do you honestly expect me to react to that? As though it's evidence of a fair, accurate, rational thinker? I'd take it as a joke, but it's fairly consistent with what you normally say, in just about every topic here.
I think it's clear that this was not a literal call to make liberalism a crime punishable by banishment to an Islamic state. CLEARLY, I was saying that liberals who wax philosophic in arguments that bypass reality ( reality being that: In wars, American soldiers die, enemy soldiers and civilians die, that wars are messy and mistakes are made in even the most just of wars... ) and these liberals would see things differently if forced to live in a repressive Nazi-like Muslim state.
The only thing clear in your response is that you disagree with my views.
The rest is your caricatured, overly serious literal interpretation of what I said.
I think any trained monkey could see that liberals in this topic, at the point I made this comment, leap vindictively on every last suggestion that Bush has done something wrong.
And simultaneously, rationalize every failing of Democrats.
You (Animalman) feigned mild disagreement with Moore, while saying you agreed with the premise of the movie, and found much of it factual.
That, sir, is doublespeak. You either approve of Moore's propaganda attacks or you don't.
Liberals eagerly endorse any half-baked slander (Michael Moore, Whoopi Goldberg, Al Franken, Richard Clarke...) that supports their cause.
Liberals eagerly endorse these tactics.
Perhaps not all liberals, but certainly most liberals, (including Tom Daschle, Nancy Pelosi, Hilary Clinton, Al Gore, Howard Dean, John Kerry, etc., etc.)
So once again, if the core Democrat leadership is initiating these divisive attacks, what evidence is there that these slanderous tactics are not the standard of Democrats nationwide?!?
And once again, where is this mythical group of liberals who are critical of these tactics, of slandering Bush and Republicans with baseless vitriol ?
Quote:
Animalman said:
Just for fun, let's go waaaaaay back to the root of all this, I think you can look back at this thread. The infamous "Canada to Allow Same-Sex Marriage" thread. I had responded to some of your arguments, politely, with no malice whatsoever intended(afterall, this was the first online discussion we'd ever had), and you came right back with this:
Quote:
Every last one of these nitpicking dissections of yours toward my quoted answers has already been addressed.
Basically, all you've done is come back and say you don't like my answers, and spun them into a nullified category through disinformation.
Needless to say, I was a bit surprised at that one. My response was as follows:
Quote:
Oh, I see. I thought I was participating in a discussing, an exchange of ideas.
I've listened to your argument, I've taken in your points, and I've even tried to ask questions(specifically, on the Canada thing) so as to better understand your perspective. This is an extremely long thread, but from the few pages I did peruse, I didn't see you address those points.
Though I might not agree with them, I never said I "don't like" your answers. Infact, I think I've remained pretty civil throughout my posts. I haven't insulted you or called you names. I haven't generalized you(as you've done to me) or belittled your position. I'd just like to have an honest conversation about a prevalent topic in today's society.
You came back with this:
Quote:
I answer questions (and Captain Sammitch and others) and you come right back and say the same thing of "how can you justify your position, it's just ignorant of you to say that?" when I (and others) just answered.
You just come back and back and back, and offer the same objections and arguments over and over, to points already answered.
You say it's a long topic.
Well, yes it is. But if you're going to accuse me of things, then I think you have a responsibility to read what I and others have already said.
So, now you've put words in my mouth, stating that I said you were "just ignorant"(when I said nothing of the sort), and then you claimed I had accused you of things.
My response, which is too long to post(you can go back and read it if you choose), was once again polite and respectful. I even deflected the part where you said:
Quote:
Again, that's your soapbox editorial, and taking another dig at what I clearly already answered, but you just felt a need to editorialize one last time your self-presumed intellectual superiority on the issue.
with my response:
Quote:
I assume no intellectual superiority. I was simply presenting my point of view, in contrast to you presenting yours. That is, after all, what message boards are for. At no point did I state or suggest that my idea was better than yours. You're more than entitled to express your opinions in any discussion, just as I am.
After all that, you, once again, came back with a fairly nasty response:
Quote:
Animalman, you've done it once again.
You've gone point-by-point through my long post where I was careful to address every issue you raised, and you just came back ONCE AGAIN, ignored my points, just re-stated what you believe, claimed I didn't make my case (by which I can only assume that you can't read, because I've been detailing the case for my perspective since page 2 of this topic).
You've again ignored my arguments and simply re-stated your side, when your side is already abundantly clear.
All you've done is smother my opinion in yet another long post of your attempted deconstruction, re-spin, and misrepresented me as allegedly not having made my case, when in truth I have.
Over and over.
To this day, even after reviewing the discussion just now, I still don't see where I did all this to you, but that's beside the point.
As you can see, we didn't exactly get off on the right foot in our online relationship. I'll gladly admit that recently I've belittled and discredited you, but to suggest that that's always been the case is, quite simply, incorrect. I'm fairly sure there are other examples where I've tried to discuss something with you in a mature and respectful manner, only to have my posts tossed aside as if they're completely worthless, but I don't have the energy to look any more right now. I already spent way too much time breaking down the above example(probably for no other reason than to put myself at ease).
As I said, while I don't think you ever truly gave respect for my opposing views, you were at least more polite on the surface, while dismissing my views over and over with a how-can-you-possibly-believe-what-you-believe condescending tone.
You characterize me in this long quote-and-spin of the excerpted Gay Marriage topic as leaping at every attempt to admonish you, but ignore that I tried to politely answer all your questions, until you repeatedly dismissed my arguments and just re-stated your abundantly already stated perspective, while dismissively deflecting mine.
And completely wore out my patience.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896 |
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
I'll grant that you demonstrated a degree of respect, a surface veneer of politeness, but there is still condescension and a subtle undertone of you're-a-nut-to-believe-what-you-beleive in the way you addressed me in the gay marriage topic you linked.
Maybe with the "oh, I thought we were having a discussion" comment, but that was only after you snapped at me. I still treated your comments with respect, while you rarely did.
Quote:
CLEARLY, I was saying that liberals who wax philosophic in arguments that bypass reality (that in wars, American soldiers die, enemy soldiers and civilians die, that wars are messy and mistakes are made in even the most just of wars... ) would see things differently if forced to live in a repressive Nazi-like Muslim state.
No, that wasn't "clear", considering that's not what you said, nor what you've consistently said, in nearly every one of your posts.
Quote:
You (Animalman) feigned mild disagreement with Moore, while saying you agreed with the premise of the movie, and found much of it factual.
That, sir, is doublespeak. You either approve of Moore's propaganda attacks or you don't.
1.I don't feign anything, and yet again, as you've done countless times, assuming that how I really feel and how I say I feel are two seperate things, then, furthering the insult, telling me how I feel. I've defended Michael Moore some, and I've also blasted Michael Moore some. I stated the aspects of F9/11 that I liked, and the aspects that I didn't.
2.I never, ever said that I found "much" of Moore's films to be factual.
3.I really don't care about what you consider to be his "propaganda attacks". To me, it's a film. Not a political talk show.
Quote:
So once again, if the core Democrat leadership is initiating these divisive attacks, what evidence is there that these slanderous tactics are not the standard of Democrats nationwide?!?
The fact that not all liberals are Democrats(myself, and most of my friends, included)? The fact that I find politicians to be about as representative of the general population as I do Texas Chainsaw Massacre representative of southern behavior?
Quote:
And once again, where is this mythical group of liberals who are critical of these tactics, of slandering Bush and Republicans with baseless vitriol ?
There's that word again!
I don't know how you expect me to answer this one. I think that if they really saw some of the criticism of Bush as baseless, they wouldn't approve.
Quote:
As I said, while I don't think you ever truly gave respect for my opposing views, you were at least more polite on the surface, while dismissing my views over and over with a how-can-you-possibly-believe-what-you-believe condescending tone.
You characterize me in this long quote-and-spin of the excerpted Gay Marriage topic as leaping at every attempt to admonish you, but ignore that I tried to politely answer all your questions, until you repeatedly dismissed my arguments and just re-stated your abundantly already stated perspective, while dismissively deflecting mine.
And completely wore out my patience.
I never "dismissed" your arguments. I questioned certain parts(what normally happens in a discussion), asking for clarification, elaboration or explanation of other parts where I felt it was needed. I suppose the place where we disagree the most, is to the extent in which you've answered those questions. You seem to think it's clear that you have, I think it's clear that you haven't.
MisterJLA is RACKing awesome.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896 |
Quote:
Captain Sammitch said:
I feel neglected.
I didn't mention you because, for the most part, you seem to remain neutral, as opposed to those I mentioned.
Not a personal attack. I have no "fucktard" list.
MisterJLA is RACKing awesome.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
I'm still trying to figure out how and where I got mentioned and was it good or bad?
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896 |
I was just listing examples of those that I may not agree with politically, but I can see where they're coming from in there posts.
MisterJLA is RACKing awesome.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37 |
Quote:
animalman said:
I never "dismissed" your arguments. I questioned certain parts (what normally happens in a discussion), asking for clarification, elaboration or explanation of other parts where I felt it was needed. I suppose the place where we disagree the most, is to the extent in which you've answered those questions. You seem to think it's clear that you have, I think it's clear that you haven't.
With all due respect, if I leave 10 or more detailed posts with examples in response to your inquiries (as I respectfully did in the Gay Marriage topic, until you wore out my patience, after many polite and lengthy responses on my part) and you still don't get it, or choose not to get it, then it's a waste of my time to post further.
You didn't simply "question certain parts" of my comments to that topic, you just repeatedly dismissed my views, and re-stated your own views, over and over. It was an endless circle, which I opted out of.
Your posts here in this topic are directed at me, and I'm still bored with this exchange.
It's lengthy line-by-line deconstruction of what you subjectively/angrily/inaccurately believe I meant in my posts.
And I think I was clear enough in my posts to the many political topics I've posted to, in detailing precisely what I believe, what I object to in the debating tactics of a vast percentage of liberals in general, and of a few abrasive liberals on the RKMB boards in particular.
And your inability to understand my profusely explained perspective will not be resolved by another 1120 posts or so on my part.
You have an opinion. I have an opinion. Let's learn to deal with it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
Quote:
Animalman said:
Quote:
Captain Sammitch said:
I feel neglected.
I didn't mention you because, for the most part, you seem to remain neutral, as opposed to those I mentioned.
Not a personal attack. I have no "fucktard" list.
Oh. Well thanks. I'm not politically neutral 100%of the time, but I see no reason to start fights over it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6 |
Today's Ithaca Journal has a letter to the editor from Miriam Rice, supporting terrorist attacks on U.S. soldiers: If the United States is ever invaded and occupied by a more powerful country ... it is likely that Americans will fight back in self-defense. Should this happen, will [the media] call those who fight to defend the independence of the United States "rebels" and "insurgents?" I don't think so. And yet that is exactly how it and other media refer to Iraqi citizens fighting to regain control of their country after an unprovoked attack by the United States. I find these words not only inaccurate but morally offensive. Were the U.S. Army not in Iraq, these people would not be fighting us. It would be more suitable to refer to them as "the Iraqi resistance."
Speaking of "more suitable," perhaps it would be more suitable to refer to Ms. Rice as "Baghdad Miriam"....or even "evil, traitorous skank"? So much for "support the troops, just not the war..."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Other than that you have a pathological need to slander
Republicans, in order to suit your pre-conceived biases.
Heh.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6 |
With the return of whomod, it just seemed time to revive it. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6 |
You know, if Ann Coulter had had her way, these "resistance fighters" would be good Christians by now.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
With the return of whomod, it just seemed time to revive it.
G-Man...........
You do realize that as a mod, you're supposed to encourage debate and not contribute to needless flame wars and baiting, right?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 46,308
Who will I break next? 15000+ posts
|
|
Who will I break next? 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 46,308 |
Quote:
whomod said:
You do realize that as a mod, you're supposed to encourage debate and not contribute to needless flame wars and baiting, right?
If you left, there wouldn't be any flame wars.
November 6th, 2012: Americas new Independence Day.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
Quote:
rex said:
Quote:
whomod said:
You do realize that as a mod, you're supposed to encourage debate and not contribute to needless flame wars and baiting, right?
If you left, there wouldn't be any flame wars.
No. If you'd stop using the word "pussy" or "commie" to describe people you disagree with, then there'd be no flame wars.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 46,308
Who will I break next? 15000+ posts
|
|
Who will I break next? 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 46,308 |
Well maybe if you would stop being such a pussy commie, people would agree with you more.
November 6th, 2012: Americas new Independence Day.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
Quote:
rex said:
Well maybe if you would stop being such a pussy commie, people would agree with you more.
Which I suppose goes hand in hand with "Do Liberals hate America" which seems to ease so many far right wing minds here.
"Ah yes, Liberals DO Hate America, pay them no mind".
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
You know, if Ann Coulter had had her way, these "resistance fighters" would be good Christians by now.
|
|
|
|
|
