I'm starting to notice a pattern in my dealings with the rabidly right-wing blogs. On the rare occasions when they do want to discuss an issue, if you make too many arguments that they can't respond to, you get banned from their blog. And then, all too often, they continue to post responses on yours.
Is it just me, or does that behavior have the rich, nutty stink of hypocrisy?
I saw it very briefly from Robert Pavich, who didn't appreciate the fact that his hatred of homosexuals was not supported by the Bible.
More recently (and to a significantly greater extent), I saw it from Eric Graff (eMan) (no relation to the Eighties superhero).
I'm not clear as to my relationship with the boys over at K.O.O.K.s Manifesto - I just gave up on Andy because he likes to change the rules in the middle of the game, and it just wasn't worth my time. The K.O.O.K. recently commented here, and I don't know that I've been banned there (although Andy declared me a "non-commenter" or something like that), but that's how that stands.
(KOOK, if you're still around, welcome to the party. If you're the last one out, turn off the lights and lock the door, OK?)
Well, now, it seems that the kids over at Robinson Talking Points got tired of being unable to respond with anything resembling logic, and they're moderating their posts.
Down at the bottom of that last link - after getting a dismissive "Consider yourself moderated. Go have fun on your own blog" from Bud-D, he actually did post the response I fired off. Which is way more than I expect from people like him (so, y'know, kudos on that...)
And it's not like they don't have plenty of material for humor: Obama will make all of America socialist if we get universal health care (y'know, they never have answered why they believe that...), all liberals are Nazi's because the Nazi's supported environmentalism early on (that's from that last link I gave you, in fact), Ronald Reagan is a god (uh... yeah, you guys do know that he raised taxes twice after his first two years, because his "supply-side" tax cuts had produced massive annual deficits; in fact, by the time he left office, Reagan equaled the entire debt burden produced by the previous 200 years of American history, and started the deregulation cycle that led to Enron and this current mess).
However, I see no reason to try debating somebody when I have no guarantee that my responses will ever see the light of day. I don't bet on loaded dice, and I don't play when I know the game is rigged against me. When they don't like my response (the "silliness" that Bud-D decries) or don't have an answer, it just won't appear. I've seen that way too often, and it's a waste of my time to bother.
See, that's another pattern I find in right-wing blogs. They claim to be avid supporters of the Constitution, but more often than not, they either disallow comments or moderate them so heavily that nobody is heard who might possibly have a different viewpoint (or a firmer command of the facts). So that whole First Amendment thingy is completely ignored.
Of course, despite their big words, the average Right Winger isn't a big fan of any of the Amendments outside of the Second. The Fourth (unreasonable search and seizure, warrants) goes largely ignored with regards to either the Telecom issue or the prisoners in Guantanamo; in fact, the Fifth through Eighth fall by the wayside whenever "them Mooslim terrorists" get mentioned (particularly the Eighth, where they mention "cruel and unusual punishment"). And let's not even mention the Sixteenth (where they established income tax).
But their viewpoint on commenting is really just an aspect of their more authoritarian viewpoint of the world. They don't want to hear dissenting views. Remember "America: love it or leave it"? Or more recently, questioning your patriotism if you point out where the government is doing anything wrong? (Well, OK, that one only applied before Obama got elected...)
It's their nature: you don't have an answer? Go ad hominem right away. (You'll see multiple examples of that in both of my dealings with these Robinson kids.)
It's sad, but it's reality. (Oh, by the way, guys, two things. First, that motto? Docere et Vagire You do know that the closest translation is "to teach and to cry like a baby", right?)
(And the second thing: ToeJamm? Do yourself a favor and take a better picture. Seriously, dude. It looks like your buttplug is shorting out.)
Anyway. Tomorrow, more about health care.
__________
Update (8/17): Ooh, made a new friend! OK, in the near(ish) future, more about health care.
41 comments:
Mark, may God have mercy on your soul. You sit at your little desk and call God a lier. Romans the first chaper beginning in the 17th verse states:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown [it] to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify [Him] as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man--and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves,
who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature.
Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful;
who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.
May I repeat one line for you Mark?
Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man.
Keep it up. See where you end up Mark. You are nothing but a fool. It is so hard to pray for the soul of one so pompus as to call God a lier. I see you live in New Mexico. Hope you like the heat. Get used to it.
Eternity is like a Denny's Mark, you have smoking and non-smoking.
That would be a "liar", just for the record, deeply devout Anony.
And the author of Romans is Paul, Anony, and Paul had specific issues with ANY kind of sexuality, not just homosexuality. He thought for sure that The Rapture was right around the corner, so he. issued marching orders for the "true believers" for the short term
Hello, my anonymous friend! A week and a half ago, when I posted that video claiming that Obama was the Antichrist, you commented there, too! Welcome back!
See, I worked this out because you called me "Mark" then too. I assume this is because the counterpoint to that video was from Mark Chu-Carroll. You just apparently decided that I was him.
Because I'm just so awesome that I can be both a retired military guy, and, at the same time, a computer scientist/mathematician with really bad hair and a nerdy blog (but, I have to say, awesomely nerdy).
OK, now, dude. You have to understand. I'm awesome, in my own way. But I'm no mathematician or computer scientist. (If it makes you feel better, I do have bad hair. So there's that.)
If it helps, there was a time when I considered becoming a computer programmer. Went to technical school, learned a bunch of programming languages, like FORTRAN, COBOL, ACSII, DOS, (to an extent) BASIC, that kind of thing. And, you know, if I'd kept up with it, I'd be a rich motherfucker right now. Because in 1999, people who could program in COBOL made big money reprogramming all the crap that was about to lead up to Y2K.
But that didn't turn out to be my career path. Instead, I carried a gun and did stupid crap that made me no ducats.
So, where were we? Oh, right. Romans. Now, I can talk on that subject. See, in the military, when you were supposed to be alone somewhere guarding something, they took a dim view if you had a paperback novel hidden in your stuff, but nobody complained if you had a Bible. So while I usually had a readable book, I almost invariably had a Bible. And I ended up reading it, Genesis to Revelations, a couple of times.
And you know something? There's some serious fucked-up shit in there.
For example, let's take your quote. (Which, technically, does not start in Romans 1:17, but 1:18. But that's OK. I forgive you.)
First of all, let's talk about your translation. New King James? Really? If you want the beauty of the language, go with KJV. If you want clarity, my personal preference is NIV. But NJKV? You know that's considered a heretical translation by some people, right?
(Oh, and the Gideon Bibles? Those are all NKJV, and they're available in hotel rooms. Where a lot of people fuck.)
Now remember, Romans is all from Paul, who was the first born-again, and so can probably be forgiven for rhetorical excess.
(Well, you know, except by Jesus, who probably beat the crap out of Paul in the Afterlife. Even if Paul went to Hell, like he probably did for the amount he twisted Jesus' words; I'm thinking that Jesus probably made a specific field trip to Hell just to kick Paul in the face five or ten times.)
And for no real reason, you kept quoting all the way to the end of 1:31. I'm not clear why you did that, if your whole purpose was to quote Romans 1:22 (and half of 23 - why only half? Don't you love the birdies and the animals and things? God made them too, you know...).
Why did you keep going? Do you just like talking about the "lusts in their hearts" and their "vile passions"? Did it just titillate you to go on about hot man-on-man action?
I could go on about the mistranslation and misunderstanding of sinful man regarding these passages, but since that doesn't seem to be your purpose, I'm really not clear what you're looking for.
It is so hard to pray for the soul of one so pompus
Um... hang on. Didn't Jesus preach forgiveness for everyone?
so pompus as to call God a lier.
Dude, homeschooling did you no favors. Aside from your obvious failures at reading comprehension and spelling, you didn't even understand the Bible as well as you thought. You should probably work on that.
By the way. That last quote, about Denny's? Almost every Denny's in America is now 100% non-smoking. Welcome to the 21st century. Be sure to update your ignorant aphorisms.
OK, so reading over what I posted late last night, I realize that I did, in fact, fail to address the only thing you had there that resembled a "point."
I guess I was just a little to "pompus."
First of all, please tell me where I've called God a "lier." (Even if I spell it "liar," I never called Him one of those, either.) Overall, I don't really make fun of anybody's diety. (OK, except Xenu - that crap is just stupid.) I make fun of people.
Admittedly, I'm known to make fun of people's stupid misunderstanding of the Bible, but I back that up with scholarship and appeals to reason. So I'm not seeing where I might be making the Baby Jesus cry with that.
However, I'm guessing that what you meant to do was to cut that quote off a lot earlier, so it would have read:
Professing to be wise, they became fools
And I have never denied being a fool. I believe that everybody is. So what, exactly, is your point?
However, let's go back to the verse you quoted twice, Romans 1:22-23. Every translation I know of (and I double-checked a few, just to make sure I was remembering properly), words it just that way:
they ... changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. (NKJV)
(they) exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles (NIV)
changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things
What they're saying is, the people made graven images of God. It's that whole Ten Commandmenty thing - you know, where Charleton Heston comes down from the mountain and sees that they made a giant golden cow.
So, if you'll tell me where, exactly, I have committed the sin of idolatry, I'll be happy to answer those charges.
Mark, not once did you look in the mirror when you read my comments. This is not a discussion on Paul or what he thought or believed or what translation I use. You liberals are all tri-literalists and have to attack the source instead of answering for their own plight. This “You have to understand. I'm awesome, in my own way.” Crap is just your own puffy self making us all see you have ZERO humility. In no way could ANYONE find you awesome save yourself and your little tag along friend here on your blog who makes as much sense with his comments as a ham sandwich at Hanukah.
“(Well, you know, except by Jesus, who probably beat the crap out of Paul in the Afterlife. Even if Paul went to Hell, like he probably did for the amount he twisted Jesus' words; I'm thinking that Jesus probably made a specific field trip to Hell just to kick Paul in the face five or ten times.)”
What is this? How arrogant do you have to be to say such blasphemous garbage? Apparently, you have made up your mind to seek your own magnificence like Napoleon, Hitler and others who though they were just the biggest men of their time. And don’t go saying I am comparing you to Hitler, I am saying you’re acting like no one can tell you anything. THIS IS WHY YOU GET CUT OUT OF EVERY BLOG YOU COMMENT ON AND NO ONE PAYS YOU ANY MIND. YOU WILL NOT LISTEN, YOU JUST BOAST IN YOURSELF.
YOU DON’T LISTEN OR ADMIT ANY WRONG. YOU’RE NEVER WRONG.
YOU DON’T LISTEN OR ADMIT ANY WRONG. YOU’RE NEVER WRONG.
YOU DON’T LISTEN OR ADMIT ANY WRONG. YOU’RE NEVER WRONG.
YOU DON’T LISTEN OR ADMIT ANY WRONG. YOU’RE NEVER WRONG.
YOU DON’T LISTEN OR ADMIT ANY WRONG. YOU’RE NEVER WRONG.
YOU DON’T LISTEN OR ADMIT ANY WRONG. YOU’RE NEVER WRONG.
YOU DON’T LISTEN OR ADMIT ANY WRONG. YOU’RE NEVER WRONG.
YOU DON’T LISTEN OR ADMIT ANY WRONG. YOU’RE NEVER WRONG.
YOU DON’T LISTEN OR ADMIT ANY WRONG. YOU’RE NEVER WRONG.
Guess what. You’re wrong. Admission of bad hair is just garbage.
God helped me see I am flawed. Terribly flawed. Once God came into my heart and poured his light into this vessel, His light, His gold, showed through those flaws and made me whole. If you can’t see all fall short, if you insist you are the source of all that’s true and good, you will be dammed and you will burn.
YOU DON’T LISTEN OR ADMIT ANY WRONG. YOU’RE NEVER WRONG.
YOU DON’T LISTEN OR ADMIT ANY WRONG. YOU’RE NEVER WRONG.
YOU DON’T LISTEN OR ADMIT ANY WRONG. YOU’RE NEVER WRONG.
YOU DON’T LISTEN OR ADMIT ANY WRONG. YOU’RE NEVER WRONG.
YOU DON’T LISTEN OR ADMIT ANY WRONG. YOU’RE NEVER WRONG.
YOU DON’T LISTEN OR ADMIT ANY WRONG. YOU’RE NEVER WRONG.
Gee, NC, you sure do know how to attract some of the weirdest opponents ever!
This latest guy is definitely nuts. But he's got a long way to go to catch up to the e-boy or A-J.
Wow. So you're seven? Seriously, chanting the same thing over and over?
Still not Mark, by the way.
See, here's your problem, though. I don't particularly ascribe to your medieval, superstitious mumbo-jumbo. (I mean, really, God, the all-knowing, all-powerful creator of all that is, was, or will be, must have drop to his knees several times daily, and, in fact, gets cranky if He doesn't get that? That's a little petty, isn't it?)
How arrogant do you have to be to say such blasphemous garbage?
So you're saying you don't worship Jesus, and instead you worship Paul? Isn't that the only way that my statements could become blasphemous?
But I guess we're back to "have you actually read the Bible?" Please note how much of the New Testament has Paul ascribed as the writer. Paul never met Jesus (although he claimed to have met His ghost on the road - yeah, that one's easy to verify, right?), but decided that he, Paul, could make all the rules he wanted to. (For example, circumcision was entirely Paul's idea, not Jesus', and specifically against the decision of the other disciples.)
Apparently, you have made up your mind to seek your own magnificence like Napoleon, Hitler and others who though they were just the biggest men of their time
No, just smarter than people like you. No plans to invade Russia (particularly not in the winter, without setting up adequate supply lines...)
THIS IS WHY YOU GET CUT OUT OF EVERY BLOG YOU COMMENT ON AND NO ONE PAYS YOU ANY MIND. YOU WILL NOT LISTEN, YOU JUST BOAST IN YOURSELF.
Not even remotely. Just the odd one here and there. The ones run by people who can't bear to hear a voice of dissent (you know, the unamerican ones).
if you insist you are the source of all that’s true and good
Never did. Not once. I'll cheerfully admit that the GOP, as it currently stands, is becoming the source of far too much evil, though.
you will be dammed
By beavers? That would be cool.
You know, it seems like it was only 3 weeks ago (today) that I had this conversation with somebody else much like you. You're welcome to come here and express a viewpoint, but you should probably leave the tantrums at home. Or, as I told Eric:
There's other verses you might like, though (all NIV).
Psalms 37:8 - Refrain from anger and turn from wrath; do not fret—it leads only to evil.
Proverbs 20:3 - It is to a man's honor to avoid strife, but every fool is quick to quarrel
Ephesians 4:31 - Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice.
Also consider Proverbs 9:12, Colossians 3:13 and Romans 12:17-18. And then ask yourself why this agnostic is a better Christian than you are.
Oh you're better than all of us Mark. You're the greatest. I just hope I'm there to see you eat these words. Theres a reason why people like "Eric" and others engage you Mark. It's because you're so unbelievably arogant and God-awful lost.
Well, thank you for that glowing endorsement, "Anon."
Yo, Dio,
Are you starting to notice a similarity in styles here? The overly-sensitive tantrums, the inability to spell, the non-sequiter reference to you, the complete disinterest in engaging on any level other than the insult.
Is it just me? I'm not clear if this is somebody from the same home-school class, or Eric, being "smart" and stubbornly continuing to refer to me as "Mark" (although he continues that habit of repeating it more often than necessary).
Mark...To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without Faith, no explanation is possible.
As for this "Dio" guy, he just likes to be other people. His thoughts seem to always be your thoughts Mark. His life is mimicry, his passions merely quotations. If I am “Eric” then you must be “Dio” I have found you both to be genetically and verbally equivalent in every way.
You are like a rooster who believes the sun has risen to hear you crow. Nether of you recognize that you are the sole cause of your adversities. Adversity introduces a man to himself. You’re not willing or able to encounter or engage that adversary. A monkey, when he looks in a mirror, sees a monkey Mark. That makes the monkey better than you can muster. I look in the mirror and see many flaws in the reflection, but I don’t blame the mirror. You do.
You call yourself a better Christian as an atheist than I. Good luck with that. You really think you are better than all who resist you: A self-imposed minority. Heaven is not a place for perfect people. It’s for people who believe in God. You believe in yourself. Hell has lots of those folks Mark, lots and lots of them.
I can hear you now, singing that great old secular song as Hell takes you in:
“Let the record show, I took the blows, and did it MY WAY~~~~~~~~~”
"Mark..."
Man, there you go again with that "Mark" again. Why the heck do you insist on always calling him "Mark"? His name's Bill, not Mark, don'tcha know?
"To one who has faith"
Translation: To one who's been brainwashed by right-wing religious fanatics.
"no explanation is necessary."
Ah yes, the old a priori argument: "It's true, just because *I* say so!" Anon ol' pal, there's a good reason why an a priori argument is considered to be a logical fallacy. Look it up on the intarweb if you don't know what I'm talking about.
"As for this "Dio" guy, he just likes to be other people. "
Well that's funny, because from what I've seen from his postings, Diogenes seems quite content to be exactly who he is.
"His thoughts seem to always be your thoughts Mark.If I am “Eric” then you must be “Dio” I have found you both to be genetically and verbally equivalent in every way."
I guess it sure is shocking to you to find out there are some people who just happen to share the same political beliefs, isn't it my Anonymous friend? And once again, why do you keep calling Bill "Mark"?
"You are like a rooster who believes the sun has risen to hear you crow. Nether of you recognize that you are the sole cause of your adversities. Adversity introduces a man to himself. You’re not willing or able to encounter or engage that adversary. A monkey, when he looks in a mirror, sees a monkey Mark. That makes the monkey better than you can muster. I look in the mirror and see many flaws in the reflection, but I don’t blame the mirror. You do."
Now there's a classic case of projection if ever I saw one, bub.
"You call yourself a better Christian as an atheist than I. "
Well, bub, that's because from what I've seen, that's pretty much what he is. Christ believed in sticking up for the little guy, spreading the wealth, and blessing the peacemakers, and he also had no love for moneychangers in the temple. The posts I've seen from Bill on his blog seem to mirror Christ's beliefs much better than yours do. Of course, Christ also cared little for those who hypocritically brag about how religious they are, much like what you're doing, bub.
"Good luck with that. You really think you are better than all who resist you: A self-imposed minority. "
Once again, I see you really love projecting, don'tcha, bub?
"Heaven is not a place for perfect people. It’s for people who believe in God. "
If you think the way a mere mortal like you misinterprets what G-d likes in a person has earned YOU a trip to heaven, then I guarantee you're in for a nasty surprise when your time comes, bub.
"You believe in yourself."
And that's bad how, exactly?
"Hell has lots of those folks Mark, lots and lots of them. "
And I have no doubt at all you'll eventually be joining them, bucko.
"I can hear you now, singing that great old secular song as Hell takes you in:
“Let the record show, I took the blows, and did it MY WAY~~~~~~~~~”"
Man, I don't get you. First you rag on Diogenes because you think "he just likes to be other people," then you bitch at Bill for doing things his own way. So which is it, O Anonymous one? Is doing it your own way a good thing or a bad thing? Oh wait...you'll most likely answer it should be done "in G-d's way". Since we mere mortals shouldn't really presume to know for certain what G-d thinks, I believe we'd all be much better off to just accept each other for who we are rather than just denounce one another for who we're not (which is clearly what you really seem to love doing). And once again, what's with the "Mark" thing? Is Bill reminding you too much about some guy named "Mark" who always seems to out-argue you in some other forum? That wouldn't surprise me in the least, bub.
Steven
Spelling's better than e-boy's. Rhetoric's more mundane than A-J's.
But yeah, NC, some definite stylistic parallels.
I'm guessing the KOOK or some other munchkin from the KOOK POS.
Don't ya just love these Religious Rightwingnuts who seem to think that religion is supposed to be wielded like a sword, instead of a shield?
Actually, the KOOK tends to come off a lot better than that. He's at least educated...
Oh, and thanks for the support, Steven. ("Bub"? Are we using "bub" again? Damn, I'm out of touch...)
Oh, by the way, Anon, we'd all appreciate it if you'd at least gain a name. It takes like all of 5 seconds to register, and then we know it's you, and not some random atheist twisting your words and making you look foolish.
...more foolish...
OK, just a thought. Incidentally, though, when I look in the mirror, I see my flaws. I just don't choose to dwell on them. I've come to various arrangements with them, and I've become resigned. (Oddly, none of these arrangements involve random invisible sky fairies propping me up because I can't stand on my own. Strange, that...)
But, while you're trying to come up with your next insult, I'd appreciate it if you could look up the difference between "atheist" and "agnostic." It's subtle, possibly too much for you, but give it a look.
Now, I have a question for you, my new anonymous buddy. Feel free to pull in any of your friends who you might need to help you, if you like. The more the merrier. It's one of my biggest problems with your particular brand of religion. And while I won't say that I'll be suddenly converted if you can answer it, I have to say that it couldn't hurt.
So, we've established that you believe in Hell. As a specific place where the sinners go after they die.
Amd we'll take it as written that you believe in God. The Big Guy. All-powerful, all-knowing, the creator of the universe and everything that's in it, right? Knows everything: all that was, all that will be. And created all of us, right?
So, God, who created us, knows how we're going to turn out. And don't go pussying out with "well, we have free will, right?" Because in order to know everything, God has to know how we're going to choose to express that "free will."
I mean, God granted us free will, but He knew, for instance, that Jeffrey Dahmer would choose to drill holes in the skulls of young male Korean prostitutes, and occasionally choose to eat the random passerby. To qualify as "omniscient," He would have to know that, right?
(Technically, that kind of makes a mockery of the concept of "free will," but we'll ignore that for now.)
So, knowing in advance that Mr Dahmer was going to do what he "chose" to do, knowing that our boy Jeffy was going to commit these unforgivable sins, God still chose to create Jeffy, and go on to do these things. Knowing (because He knows everything) that Jeffy was going to Hell to suffer for all eternity.
So, really, God has a torture chamber in His basement, which He runs for His own amusement.
Am I reading this right? And please don't go to "Well, God's ways are mysterious" on us, because that one will need some explanation.
Please. Enlighten us, oh sage, you who, by your own admission, are filled with His light and thus made whole. We await your teaching.
(OK, technically, I do. I can't speak for anybody else.)
"I guess I was just a little to "'pompus'."
The correct verbage would be "too" rather than "to", Einstein (or is it Feinstein?)
I would've let is pass if not for the typical lib condescending attitude (and my appreciation of great irony).
"But that didn't turn out to be my career path. Instead, I carried a gun and did stupid crap that made me no ducats."
You carried a "gun" in the military? What size "gun" was this?
I am around.
I would not mind reasonable discourse. Sadly, not sure that is possible.
And Joel is not one of your fans for sure but he cannot really ban you. As of yet I have not banned anyone from my blog.
I do think you are around the bend though. This is not to say I wouldn't drink a beer with you. Just not sure that all your logic circuits function.
Slam - nice catch. I did indeed miss that one. ("Feinstein"? Doubtful.)
But to answer your question there, mostly it was 5.56 mm. Sometimes 9mm; once in a while (been years) with a 40mm attachment; rarely 7.62mm - thank gods for small favors).
____________
KOOK - thank you. Appreciate your support (if that's what... aah, fuggedabout it).
Thanks.
"Of course, despite their big words, the average Right Winger isn't a big fan of any of the Amendments outside of the Second."
Just the fact that you'd actually post such a ridiculous statement sends your credibility in the same direction as the President's poll numbers. Right Wingers are strong proponents of the Bill of Rights in their entirety.
Well, maybe, if you exclude rightwingnuts like Georgie Porgie and The Big Dick Cheney.
They, and many other rightwingnuts, aren't huge fans of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments, in particular.
"Diogenes said...
Well, maybe, if you exclude rightwingnuts like Georgie Porgie and The Big Dick Cheney.
They, and many other rightwingnuts, aren't huge fans of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments, in particular."
Please cite examples of such. And how about the libtards who suddenly are against the First Amendment? Freedom of speech is great, as long as you say what we want to hear.
Pat Riot
Simple. Too simple, almost:
Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure:
FISA searches. Warrantless searches conducted without even the pretense of FISA compliance. The ever-popular "Patriot" Act.
Fifth Amendment – due process:
Gitmo. Need more? How about Jose Padilla?
Sixth Amendment – Trial by jury and rights of the accused, Confrontation Clause, speedy trial, public trial, right to counsel:
See Fifth Amendment, above. Gitmo and Padilla.
Eighth Amendment – Prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment:
Abu Ghraib. Gitmo. Other unknown "black holes". Read the report due out on Monday about CIA abuses. Waterboarding. Electric drills. Mock executions.
As for your First Amendment red herring: even if you could prove that leftwingers have abused the First Amendment in town halls, that does not prove in any way your bald-faced (and erroneous) assertion that "Right Wingers are strong proponents of the Bill of Rights in their entirety." You're the one that grossly overstated your own argument; don't try to blame anyone else for your own error.
Yes, quite a simple response, from a simple mind.
You provided no examples of infringements of the Fourth Amendment. Perhaps this might enlighten you:
http://www.usdoj.gov/archive/ll/paa-dispelling-myths.html
Fifth Amendment - Jose Padilla and Gitmo:
Jose Padilla received due process long ago, and hopefully will perish in custody:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Padilla_(prisoner)
Due process regarding Gitmo has happened and is happening:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp
Sixth Amendment - See above.
Eigth Amendment - Now this one is a bit tricky. What's your definition of cruel and unusual punishment? Waterboarding (which was done to how many terrorists?) is done to members of the U.S. Military. Electric drills? Where??? Mock executions? Where??? How do you know what's in a CIA report 48 hours before it's released?
You use the term "Other unknown 'black holes'". If they're unknown how can you assert they exist? It's a bit ironic you (in a very overly-defensive manner) accuse someone of grossly overstating an argument, when you can't provide any evidence to back yours up.
You really had us laughing with your "red herring" comment. That's a high school debate term used by a team that can offer no defense or refutation of fact (and it fits quite nicely into your summary). You claim the First Amendment is a "red herring" because you can't argue the point. Sadly, you can't even admit that leftwingers have abused the First Amendment in town halls.
Perhaps I was erroneous in consider someone of such limited scholarship and understanding would realize that the Right Wing is a strong proponent of the Bill of Rights in it's entirety.
Pat Riot
Laughable.
Jose Padilla got his due process thanks to the U.S. Supreme COurt, who thoroughly rebuked the Bush/Cheney regime. And any progress on due process at Gitmo and elsewhere isn't the result of anything that Bush/Cheney did. The only time they ever changed their approach one iota is when they got caught with the arms in to their elbows in the cookie jar.
Waterboarding is done by terrorists? Wow, that's a standard we want to hold ourselves to, isn't it? Not something as high as the Geneva Conventions or anything like that, eh? And waterboarding is done to our own servicemen? No, it's not. Not even close. Waterboarding is SIMULATED in a training context, to allows servicement to know what they might encounter on their end. Waterboarding, when you now you can call off the exercise if you need to, isn't nearly the same.
As for your definition of "red herring" maybe you need to go back to high school. A red herring is a device used to divert attention from the truth or untruth of a central argument. YOU framed your own argument by saying (and re-stating) that rightwingnuts are strong proponents of the entire Bill of Rights. And, when faced with significant evidence that your postulate was faulty to begin with, you try to divert attention from your error and re-frame the argument. And you compounded your error by using one of the more sophisticated counter-arguments, the ever-popular "Oh yeah? Well, YOU guys are worse than we are!" The intellectual equivalent of "Yo Momma!"
You're wrong but worse, you're just not worth the effort. Perhaps NC will choose to engage you, since it's his blog and he has more patience than I do in dealing with gnats. But I'm done. Enjoy your weekend, regardless.
So you admit Padilla did receive due process. Thank you.
And you admit Gitmo detainees are receiving due process (although your Bush Derangement Syndrome kicked in and you had to clarify none of this was due to the evil conspirators Bush/Cheney).
Hopefully you learned something from going to the links I posted and reading the information. I am somewhat doubtful you did, as it would require an open mind.
Yes, waterboarding is done by terrorists...not to mention hundreds of other nasty things. The real world can be quite dangerous. Does the Geneva Convention apply to terrorists? As someone with over 25 years of active and reserve duty (not sure how much experience you have), I can assure you waterboarding is done. There is no way to SIMULATE waterboarding. How would you even go about that? Tell the subject to imagine water is being poured on his face? The SIMULATION to which you refer is actually holding someone down on an inclined board and dumping water on the subject's face. Your bumbling attempt at describing the practice is pathetic. You claim "Waterboarding, when you can call off the excercise if you need to, isn't nearly the same." Waterboarding is always called off, what are you talking about? You don't indefinitely keep someone under water.
Once again, thanks for confirming your pedestrian grasp of debate. The Right is strongly supportive of the Bill of Rights (as I just provided many links countering your assertions). As a member of my university's debate team, we used to laugh at the "red herring" label, as it's a term entry level debaters like to use when they don't understand the argument and have no evidence to offer.
You are stupid, but worse, you don't realize you are stupid. And yes, you are done. Congratulations, you finally got something right.
Pat Riot
"So you admit Padilla did receive due process"
Thanks entirely to the U.S. Supreme Court, and no thanks at all to Bush or Cheney.
"your Bush Derangement Syndrome kicked in"
Kinda like your Obama Derangement Syndrome is kicking in now, huh?
"Yes, waterboarding is done by terrorists...not to mention hundreds of other nasty yap yap yap..."
Ah yes, the old "hey, we may be bad, but the others are WORSE, dammit!" excuse. Sorry, bub, but I'd much rather we not lower ourselves to the standards of barbarians.
"Once again, thanks for confirming your pedestrian grasp of debate."
Project much?
"The Right is strongly supportive of the Bill of Rights... "
...except, of course, when they're not, as proven repeatedly by Diogenes and others.
"You are stupid, but worse, you don't realize you are stupid"
Classic case of projection if ever there was one, bub.
Wow. Can I just take a day or two off? I mean, really, is there anything scarier than a half-educated conservative?
Well, yeah. There is. The completely uneducated conservative. Because of how easy it is for people to play them like the ignorant chumps they are.
Sorry I left you to cover the mail, Dio. You know, work and stuff.
But hey, we have a new friend here. I'll address my next response to him. (I'll guess "him," despite any lingering questions regarding "his" name.)
But I've already established space limitations that prevent me from talking to both you and "him," and to be honest, I don't want to leave you out, but I really enjoy batting down idiots like this guy. Hence the split response.
Oh, by the way, it's my anniversary this weekend. Despite the stereotypes you get from people like "Pat Riot" and his ilk, I've been married for 21 years (which is, technically, 15 years longer than the average Republican Senator. Go figure.)
Yo, Pat! Welcome to the party! Now, I'm going to go quickly here; this is all ground that we've covered before. But that's OK: sometimes we have to go over things again. Not everybody's reading comprehension is up to the task of seeing reality.
You provided no examples of infringements of the Fourth Amendment
Followed by a link (not embedded, because you aren't up to the task of using html) to the DOJ FAQ.
Sadly, Bush's wiretapping program was huge and unprecedented, and didn't just cover overseas communications.
Everybody argued Padilla, so let's move on to Guantanamo and the continued detention of detainees without charges.
Now, I know this will cause cerebral hemorrhages in my GOP friends, but this is one of the many places I disagree with Obama.
Back in May, Obama made a speech where he said he will create a system of "preventive detention" for accused terrorists without a trial, to keep them locked up indefinitely if they "cannot be prosecuted (but) pose a clear danger to the American people." Even as he paid homage to "our values" and "our timeless ideals," he wanted to keep people in prison with no charges or proof of a crime.
See, that's the thing about Obama. He's a centrist. I'm not. He isn't a socialist or a Marxist or the "most liberal president ever" or whatever Fox News is claiming this week. He's a centrist.
And he's wrong about this one. But meanwhile, you can't make the claim that the Guantanamo inmates are "receiving due process" when even the President admits that they aren't.
What's your definition of cruel and unusual punishment? Waterboarding ...is done to members of the U.S. Military.
To a limited extent, yes it has. And you know something? The members of the military who've had the Disney version of waterboarding done to them admit it's torture. Hell, we prosecuted Japanese for doing it after WWII, why don't we do it now?
What's your definition of cruel and unusual punishment? ... Electric drills? ...Mock executions? ...How do you know what's in a CIA report 48 hours before it's released?
So you admit you don't read the news? Do you restrict yourself to Fox News because the real world scares you too much? Here's how you learn about a CIA report "48 hours before it's released."
The report describes how one detainee... was threatened with a gun and a power drill during the course of CIA interrogation. ...interrogators brandished the gun in an effort to convince him that he was going to be shot. (They) also turned on a power drill and held it near him. "The purpose was to scare him into giving [information] up"
Are you starting to see a pattern here? The fact that you haven't heard about something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. For instance:
You use the term "Other unknown 'black holes'". If they're unknown how can you assert they exist?
Since most of America has known about this particular abuse since 2005, what, exactly, is your excuse for ignorance this time?
Despite your dismissive attitude, you have no more support for the concept of "debate" than you do for the principles held forth in the Constitution. Now, as a member of your "university's debate team" (I'll assume Liberty University, failing any other evidence), do you have any facts to support your ridiculous claims?
I'm just curious.
But then I go and leave out Steven K, who is doing an admirable job of supporting the truth (as opposed to the revisionist history put forward by the GOP) as well.
Damn, I've always proudly referred to myself as "antisocial bastard," so social niceties tend to get away from me at times. My only excuse is that it was late, and I can apparently be rude to people on both sides of the political spectrum. Just in different ways.
Thanks, bub, for carrying my water here. (Is that the right phrase? "Carrying my water"?)
(I am trying to work on that "social thing, if you're curious. I'm even on Facebook - admittedly, I mostly use it for timewasters like Mafia Wars, Pirates and the like... hmmm... Initially got on because 33% of my offspring are several thousand miles away, and this is one of the ways he communicates. But there it is.)
Hey, glad I could help out, NC. Yeah, I've finally logged onto my proper Blogspot account, which for some reason I've been unable to do on my home PC, darn it. When I log on from my work computer (during off hours, of course) it works just fine.
Anyway, I don't worry too much about you being late or anything 'cos I know you've got other obligations. Thanks just the same. Peace out, dude.
Steven K
"Thanks entirely to the U.S. Supreme Court, and no thanks at all to Bush or Cheney."
Thanks for displaying your BDS again.
"Kinda like your Obama Derangement Syndrome is kicking in now, huh?"
Could you please post the quotes of me mentioning Obama or his policies? (And you talk about projection...*smirk*).
"Ah yes, the old "hey, we may be bad, but the others are WORSE, dammit!" excuse. Sorry, bub, but I'd much rather we not lower ourselves to the standards of barbarians."
Well, "bub"...what you'd rather do isn't necessarily a reflection of what's best for the defense of the country. And if you'd rather not lower to the standards of barbarians, then a lot of very useful military training would be abolished.
"...except, of course, when they're not, as proven repeatedly by Diogenes and others."
Diogenes hasn't really "proven" anything, aside from the fact that he's emotionally driven and mentally challenged.
Well, aside from the fact that you're still anonymous, and so we can't really establish a trail of custody here...
1. Random accusations of "Obama Derangement Syndrome" vs "Bush Derangement Syndrome" don't do anybody any good. Especially since both sides hold the other to different standards. (Think about it for a second...)
And if you'd rather not lower to the standards of barbarians, then a lot of very useful military training would be abolished.
Well, having gone through that training, I'd like to point out that you're full of shit.
And finally, I can't help but point out that in attacking Dio, with no evidence on your side, I'm seriously starting to suspect that you've been lurking for a while and have an agenda.
I mean, not to be rude or anything, but Dio keeps throwing out facts and pointing out the obvious. So to throw out random insults that don't reflect reality makes me wonder if we don't have a history with you...
Being new, let me make sure I follow protocol here: Yo, Nameless. Thanks for the welcome, although refering to your blog as a party is a bit much: I've seen funeral processions that were livelier and more upbeat.
Regarding your marriage that is 15 years longer than the average Republican senator (do you have any proof of that statistic?): what "stereotype" do I have? Perhaps a better question would be "why would I care how long you've been married?"
Projection certainly is an apt description of your MO: calling people whose beliefs you're unable to understand, half-educated or uneducated. Ah, young, misguided liberal, please sit back and allow your mind to open just a bit.
Now, please bear with me, as it will take a while to sort through all your ramblings.
You were critical of links that were posted, as they weren't in what you deem the proper format. Every other time I post links they are automatically embedded. Perhaps the error lies within your blog? It is quite rich that your first three "embedded links" of your latest post (Tuesday, August 25, 2009 Random Musings) lead to absolutely nowhere. You may want to get that fixed before harping too much on anyone else. Perhaps it's you who's not quite up to the task of html? (There's that projection again).
Now, did you have a problem with the DOJ website info? Was it a bit tough for you to comprehend?
Your next embedded link is funny. You and your "ilk" (great word), like to blame that evil right-wing Fox News for such blatant reporting, yet you post a link from "The Guardian". Nice to see you aren't buying any far-left fringe propaganda.
And the hits just keep on coming: Obama is a centrist? That's like saying Ted Kennedy is a moderate drinker.
If you think the architect of "Cash for Clunkers", massive bailouts and the proposed health care scheme is "centrist", you really are lost.
Tell you what, to illustrate that point, here are a couple of links regarding Obama's poll numbers. You remember the polls? Liberals relied on them everyday during the Bush administration, but over the last few months, there's been nary a mention of them. Anyway, these polls are a reflection of the "centrists" (or moderates) turning on the President's policies:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/08/obama-poll-numbers-down.html
http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx
Hell, if he was such a centrist, why are the Blue Dogs not supporting his policies? Hopefully those links worked for you. If they don't open by clicking on them (like your latest posted links), you can just cut and paste and get to the pages.
Whew, it's late. And you certainly ramble on, jumping from topic to topic. Tomorrow, the history lesson continues. Maybe by then you'll have those embedded links fixed and your html will be up to snuff.
Pat Riot
I've seen funeral processions that were livelier and more upbeat.
Me too - I lived in New Orleans for a few years as a kid.
But if the dolorous tone offends you, why do you keep coming back? I welcome all viewpoints, but I don't want you dragging yourself here against your will.
(do you have any proof of that statistic?):
Well, no. I don't know of anyplace that compiles that. You're welcome to - there's a little over 200 of them, right? (Counting the House and Senate together)
You'll have to explain your methods. I mean, if he was still in Congress, would you really count Larry Craig's marriage? What about John Warner, married 3 times? Would you average his marriages together? (One of them was to Elizabeth Taylor - shouldn't he get bonus points for that?)
But et's talk about the current GOP. Does Vitter lose points for his prostitutes? I mean, admittedly, they were female (really a nice change for a GOP sex scandal) but the diapers put an ugly spin on the whole thing, don't they?
John McCain, who abandoned his first wife to marry his mistress? Yeah, she counts both as a trophy wife and the power behind his bank account, but you've got to penalize that kind of behavior.
But I'll stand behind my little joke for now. Tell me when you have something there.
"why would I care how long you've been married?"
Easy. It's my blog.
calling people whose beliefs you're unable to understand, half-educated or uneducated.
Oh, no. I understand them quite well. I just find them morally repugnanat all too often.
Ah, young, misguided liberal
I appreciate it, but right there in the sidebar it says "I did 21 years in the military" - trust me, that wasn't from birth.
allow your mind to open just a bit
Too late. It's already wide open, to the point that things frequently fall out, kappa-like.
It is quite rich that your first three "embedded links"... lead to absolutely nowhere
True. Serves me right for taking notes in Word - those "smart quotes" fuck up everything.
did you have a problem with the DOJ website info?
No. But you're claiming that the DOJ making excuses in 2007 for their own actions, have a non-biased viewpoint? I felt that a more rounded viewpoint might be in order. Oh, and the Guardian bothered you? How about the Washington Post or the New York Times? I'm sorry that you don't read the news, but this is sometimes referred to as the "Information Age."
If you think the architect of "Cash for Clunkers",
The astoundingly successful program that might be responsible for Ford posting their first annual gains in years?
massive bailouts
You know Bush started that by blindly handing cash to the banks, right?
and the proposed health care scheme
You know the "architect" for that is a little group called "Congress," right? Just checking.
And yes, Obama is a centrist - everybody but the worst partisan hacks can see that. (Not that I'm implying anything about you...)
His polls? It's a tragedy. 57% overall approval rating (LAT) or 51/44 (Gallup). He only has a clear majority of the American people on his side. What a disaster!
(By the way, cutting and pasting the links won't give you a click-through. It's a Blogspot thing. You've actually got to type stuff like "a=href" - it's a little more work, but we aim for a more educated audience.)
It's not so much the doldrous tone, moreso the doldrums of your blog in general.
You begin your reply by saying you have no statistical evidence to support your claim of the average length of a GOP senator's marriage. I am seeing a trend here of you posting "facts" with no evidence. And no, I am not going to look up this data. You are the one with the burden of proof. Why make such statements when you can't back them up?
Then, after backpeddling, and admitting you have no evidence and thus, really don’t know what you’re talking about, you ask me to explain my methods, and launch into a short diatribe regarding the marital difficulties of a few senators. Fair enough. It's interesting to note you left out John Edwards. And on the subject of failed marriages, how about the late Lyin'...errr, Lion of the Senate, Teddy Kennedy? I will give the dems credit on this: They usually maintain wives and mistresses without a great deal of difficulty. And if problems do arise, they know how to “take care of the problem” (Chappaquiddick and Gary Condit come to mind immediately.)
Great point about the evidence of prostitution in the Vitter scandal. I checked up on the use of diapers, but was unable to find any "evidence" of such, aside from what was being stated on the leftoid blogs. I did read the following articles in which Jeanette Maier stated, among other things, "He was not a freak. He was not into anything unusual or kinky or weird."
http://blog.nola.com/updates/2007/07/no_madam_ids_vitter_as_client.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19685977/
Since you seem interested in the subject, let's bring up prostitution and the role it plays in politics. Probably no better example than Massachuesetts' very own skin merchant, Bonnie Fwank, who takes matters into his own hands (and other orifices):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/tours/scandal/gobie2.htm
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2005/10/02/to_be_frank/
It's funny to see Fwank had answered a personal ad for a "hot bottom", and later fixed parking tickets for Gobie. How ironic, Gobie was always "backing in" where he wasn't supposed to be. Congressman Fwank truly is a guy who hates to leave his buddy's behind.
Notice a trend? A republican gets nailed (no pun intended) doing something wrong, and he's out of office. A lib does something wrong (drowns a young woman, operates a prostituion ring) and he continues to serve for decades.
Pat Riot
Now, if you’ll recall, you are the one who brought up my name (and invoked my “ilk”) with regards to the length of your marriage. Your marriage, religion, diet, ethnicity, sexual preferences or taste in coffee mean nothing to me, so please don’t waste time speculating on how I may or may not feel about the things you do on your time.
My reference to your age (young liberal) was not in chronological terms, rather in terms of your juvenile approach to issues. Your 21 years in the Air Force mean little in terms of how old you are (chronological or otherwise), and the fact that you have stated you’ve undergone certain training is a complete fabrication: your AFSC pretty much regulated you to more limited duties at Travis AFB, F.E. Warren, and Kirtland , among other places. You can peddle that garbage to the leftoids on here, but please don’t try pulling that crap on intelligent people.
Why do you use such vulgar terms in your blog? I mean, yes, it’s your blog, but are you really that limited in your intellectual repertoire? Hmmm…well, now that I look over your blog in greater detail, I withdraw that last question.
Now, let's get into the points you are struggling to make:
In your last attempt at a rebuttal, you posted a link to a Washington Post article from nearly four years ago stated that those "other unknown black holes" existed according to "former intelligence officials and diplomats". Apparently these sources don't have names (funny how left-leaning sources usually don't have names, although they are usually "experts" or "insiders").
No thanks, I like to see the names of the folks who are making the accusations (I think there's something in the Constitution about that too). In summary, just because you read something, or see it on television doesn't make it true. Take for instance this next item:
You claim members of the military who've had the "Disney version of waterboarding done to them admit it's torture" and post a link to Jesse Ventura chewing scenery with The View hags. Jesse Ventura, can't even represent his service correctly:
http://cursor.org/stories/seal_or_udt.htm
Let's see, Ventura has spent most of his adult life as an actor, wrestler, and politician. He makes a living trying to convince people what he is saying and doing is real. Perhaps next time you can use expert testimony from King Kong Bundy or "Macho Man" Randy Savage. I really used to like Jesse, but after his recent statements concerning 9/11, I am concerned he may have received a few too many piledrivers or done a few too many steroids back in his days in the squared circle.
“Cash for Clunkers” an “astoundingly successful program”??? Yes, so successful that it’s lifespan was less than one month. If it’s so successful, why doesn’t the government keep offering to buy cars? Oh, right, because they’re out of money. My favorite part of your argument is saying the program “…might be responsible for Ford posting their first annual gains in years” It “might be responsible”??? That’s what you hang your hat on? It “might be responsible…“?
How about getting back to us when it IS responsible. By the way, you mention Ford…weren’t they the domestic automaker who didn’t take bailout money? Maybe that’s the reason for their first annual gains in years. It just “might” be.
It’s odd hearing you defend the program because (as you say) it “might” help the corporation. Apparently, dealerships aren’t too keen on the plan:
http://www.baynews9.com/content/36/2009/8/22/511784.html?title=Some+dealerships+drop+Cash+for+Clunkers+program+early&cid=rss
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/money/20436839/detail.html
http://www.miamiherald.com/business/breaking-news/story/1193630.html
Why would you take the side of Wall Street over Main Street in this issue?
Yes, you finally got something right: Bush did start blindly handing out cash to the banks. Many of us were hoping this trend would end with the current administration.
“You know the ‘architect’ for that is a little group called ‘Congress‘, right? Just checking.”
No, wasn’t aware “Obamacare” was created by Congress. And if it was, why are so many in Congress (Blue Dogs, most notably) against the plan?
Seeing you argue Obama is a centrist is great. Please keep typing that. It’s funny to see someone so out of touch with reality take himself so seriously. I noticed you finally posted a link to back up a claim. Terrific! You are learning, hopefully I can broaden your horizons in that regard. Unfortunately, the top story on the page you link to is from Fox News!!! (*Gasping in horror!!!*) Dare I read it? I’ll take a chance…And upon reading it, we find…Obama is taking a “centrist approach in his first 100 days”. It does not say anything about the man being a centrist. It says he was playing politics to save his behind. Oh, and it does have a rather unflattering photo of him giving the secret handshake to a grinning Hugo Chavez.
Again, I ask, if he IS a centrist, why so much internal strife in getting his health care agenda passed?
If you think the guy who’s overseen the auto bailout, the bank bailouts, the proposed healthcare scheme, and seems hell-bent on having a chicken in every pot and a czar in every office, is centrist, you obviously didn’t read all of that article from the LA Times and the Gallup Polls showing that centrist voters are quickly jumping from the Good Ship Obama. It was refreshing to see that you had read at least some of the linked articles (at least the parts you wanted to believe) and can see that Obama is human and his poll numbers at this stage in his Presidency are about average to those of our last few Presidents and dropping steadily from his first couple months in office.
Pat Riot
Oh, please. Obama's points are dropping faster than a gay prostitute at Barney Prank's house.
Are you really going to try to say that the Democrats have some kind of ethical benchmark, and the GOP, who at least promote family values, are entirely without ethics? Are you serously going to claim that, and still try to act like you have any grasp on reality, logic or reason? All GOP bad, all democrats good?
That is just a sad, partisan attack. At least Ted Kennedy admitted he had flaws (even if he then went on to castigate every other Republican member of Congress for not living down to his expectations).
Your just sad, Cynic.
Pat Riot
Wow. Unless I'm miscounting, there's at least 4 "Pat Riot's" here.
Well, 5 if you count me. But their definition of patriotism includes support for torture and the attacks on a sitting president during a time of war. And since we learned from Hannity and his ilk during the last 8 years, that kind of thing is unpatriotic and unamerican, so I think we can assume that this group name is meant ironically.
Anyway, let's see what we have here.
Gregory/Pat, I find it interesting that you're so fixated on my little joke. (Used, incidentally, to explain why I wasn't here to defend myself.) But, since you brought it up, why would I have mentioned John Edward or Ted Kennedy, since we were talking about the length of the average Republican marriage? Nice try at muddying the waters, though.
Likewise you bring up Barney Frank (and a prostitute he paid for sex once - Frank was subsequently cleared of all charges, and reprimanded for fixing Gobie's parking tickets) as if he had any bearing on the length of a GOP marriage. Why is that?
And then you finish up with:
A republican gets nailed (no pun intended) doing something wrong, and he's out of office. A lib does something wrong (drowns a young woman, operates a prostituion ring) and he continues to serve for decades.
You're absolutely right! No Democrat has ever had his career destroyed for an extramarital affair. Well, except for John Edwards... OK, his career was already pretty much over anyway (and weirdly, you even mentioned him earlier)... Gary Hart... Eliot Spitzer... Brock Adams... Jim McGreevy...
Hmmm...
OK, so there are Democrats who get smacked when they get caught, but Republicans get smacked around harder than the Dems do, right?
Well, except for John McCain, who cheated on his injured first wife and eventually married his mistress. And then ran for president last year, and has been in the Senate for 25 years or so.
Oh, and Sen. David Vitter (who you also mentioned), who retains his senior Republican positions in the Senate and is a lock to be the GOP's nominee for his seat in 2010.
ummm... and Rudy Giuliani, who cheated on his first two wives, and even used public money and policemen to carry on his affairs (including having cops walk his mistress' dog). But Giuliani regularly appears on Fox and other networks as a national Republican mouthpiece.
Oh, and Newt Gingrich, who got his first divorce in 1981, after forcing his wife, who had helped put him through graduate school, to haggle over the terms while she was hospitalized with uterine cancer. And in 1999, he was caught in an affair with a 33-year-old congressional aide while spearheading the impeachment proceedings against President Clinton. But he's everywhere on the news, he's definitely a force in the GOP, and a lot of people are talking about him as president in 2012.
So, you're right. The Democrats celebrate their sexual indiscretions, unless they're ruined by them... And the Republicans kick their canoodlers out, unless they don't...
Damn, that whole argument seems to be breaking down somewhere, doesn't it?
Now, as to my anonymous "Pat Riots" - hello, kids. Do you know each other?
Quickly, now:
Your marriage, religion, diet, ethnicity, sexual preferences or taste in coffee mean nothing to me
Well, you're in the wrong place. I compulsively spill all those details. Except the coffee - don't drink much of that.
your AFSC pretty much regulated you to more limited duties at Travis AFB, F.E. Warren, and Kirtland
And, in fact, I was stationed in all 3 of those places, among others. But I'm afraid that you're wrong, in that there are Security Forces in pretty much every air base in the world.
The two career fields, Security and Law Enforcement, were combined - again - in 1997. So I'm afraid your "knowledge" is a little out of date. But don't worry - it doesn't reflect badly on you characterizing yourself as an "intelligent person." Really, it doesn't.
Why do you use such vulgar terms in your blog?
Because I'm a vulgar guy, both shallow and debased. I rejoice in matters both philosophical and scatological, and I giggle like a third-grader at the use of the term "boobies." I'm like a Renaissance man with butt jokes.
you posted a link to a Washington Post article from nearly four years ago
Yes, linked around the phrase "since 2005," so what's your point?
funny how left-leaning sources usually don't have names, although they are usually "experts" or "insiders"
OK, so I think that's your point. Actually, you'll find that "inside sources" are news-guy speak for people who'll talk to a reporter, but don't want their names used because they don't want to be fired. Or (in this case) because the information was still classified. It has nothing to do with the news source's "leftist leanings" - they've been doing this for decades. (Here's some more for you.)
(continued - damn, I say "quickly now," and there's so much crap it takes 2 more posts...)
I'm surprised you don't know about things like "inside sources." Not much of a reader, huh?
Like, for example, while you try to poke fun at Jesse "the Body" Ventura (which is pretty easy to do, really), you didn't get a chance to read this, for example. Written by a former JAG and current judge at the US Court of International Trade, and it discusses the historical precedents on waterboarding, which was universally a crime until Bush decided to claim that it wasn't: people from Japanese prison guards to Texas sheriffs have been convicted of using it on people in their custody. (You know it was developed by the Spanish Inquisition, right? They called it toca, or tortura del agua.
“Cash for Clunkers” an “astoundingly successful program”???
Yup. Did exactly what it was supposed to - kickstarted sales. They were budgeted for a billion, but it was so popular, they reallocated money from other "green" stimulus programs.
Oh, funny thing. Those links you gave? The first on is about a dealer chain who pulled out of C4C because they're worried about it expiring before they get all their cars submitted - they even talk about how they liked the program and the dealers even describe it as a success. Same with the third. All three talk about dealers being frustrated because it's slow (huh, government, slow. Imagine that). Might want to check stuff like that before you use them as examples...
My favorite part of your argument is saying the program “…might be responsible for Ford posting their first annual gains in years” It “might be responsible”???
Well, they posted a 17% increase in sales, grabbing a 1.9% market share. But they still have another quarter where they can fuck up their annual sales figures. Hence, "might."
No, wasn’t aware “Obamacare” was created by Congress
Yup. Look it up. House has one version, Senate another. Obama hasn't even told them what he wants, except for the most general terms (he might on Monday, according to those "inside sources" you hate so much).
Again, you don't read much, do (any of) you?
why so much internal strife in getting his health care agenda passed?
You mean, aside from Republicans blocking anything he tries to accomplish? Why do you think they've been branded "the Party of No"?
Good lord, you're a prolific little group of Pats.
DAMMIT, NC!!!!
I'm sitting here, leisurely enjoying your systematic dismemberment of the Night of the Living Pat Riots, sipping my Mountain Dew, and then I get to:
"... I'm like a Renaissance man with butt jokes."
And the damn Mountain Dew comes shooting out my nostrils.
Put a little warning in there, willya, man? That stuff stings!
Post a Comment