how to Bork a conservative

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Well... do you?

I'm the guy that jumped on a bikers back at age 15  trying to be a hero while he beat his girlfriend at a public beach, and subsequently received a beating from the biker, as well as his girlfriend as she too joined in kicking me whilst I was on the ground. Hope that answers your question.

[Sandman]

You really didn't need to dignify that with an answer.

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
I'm the guy that jumped on a bikers back at age 15  trying to be a hero while he beat his girlfriend at a public beach, and subsequently received a beating from the biker, as well as his girlfriend as she too joined in kicking me whilst I was on the ground. Hope that answers your question.

That was YOU!??

Nearly hurt my hand that day ...

[Ripsnort]

Sandman,...I know, felt compelled though...

Midnight, I still have your GF's shoe mark on my left cheek.

[whgates3]

bork was rejected because of his participation in the attempted watergate coverup (which is why he was nominated - a payoff for loyalty), particularly his participation in the "saturday night massacre". clarence thomas should have been rejected because he is unqualified.  i'm surpised bush couldn't have found someone qualified who was one of his guys, but it think he was seeking youth & dark skin, so maybe that narrowed down the field too much

[AKIron]

liars, damn liars, and liberals

[funkedup]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the brilliant black social critic Shelby Steele observes, there is in this country a pervasive “adherence to good racial manners,” which dictates, among other things, that on matters of racial sensitivity blacks hold the moral upper hand; and that even when whites feel themselves blameless, the appropriate response to such a challenge is to defer, retreating in sober self-reflection, if not outright apology. In fact, for an increasing number of us, this is a key part of the problem—and one that should be called by its rightful name: condescension. Far from helping us address the many morally complex and deeply divisive issues involving race, it has the opposite effect of silencing those who question the liberal orthodoxy and otherwise cutting off meaningful dialogue.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SHACK

[funkedup]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
This particular piece really stood out as I have observed in daily life:

Hell we've seen it on this board.

[Ripsnort]

I know funked, was hoping Midnight would see his own reflection without me holding the mirror up

[midnight Target]

Huh?

I was joking earlier, but you knew that.

What exactly am I being accused of here?

[Ripsnort]

Nothing, never mind (sees it flying right over the head)

[H. Godwineson]

One of the big turn-offs about the '60s for me was what I perceived as the death of civil discourse.  Shouting down an opponent is not a reasoned argument.  Nor is character assassination or attempts to twist what the opposition is trying to say.  The two sides of any argument should be presented in the press without editorial bias.  Sadly, that is a virtue that is not seen as a virtue by many of our "talking heads."

Regards, Shuckins

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by H. Godwineson
One of the big turn-offs about the '60s for me was what I perceived as the death of civil discourse.  Shouting down an opponent is not a reasoned argument.  Nor is character assassination or attempts to twist what the opposition is trying to say.  The two sides of any argument should be presented in the press without editorial bias.  Sadly, that is a virtue that is not seen as a virtue by many of our "talking heads."

Regards, Shuckins

Goes hand in hand with my "de-sensitivity of the American Culture" posts I've posted about in the past.  (Hi Sandman! )

[miko2d]

When it comes to discussion the position of the conservatives and libertarians is often: "The liberals are well-meaning people though misguided".

 The position of liberals is: "Those guys totally agree with our theories and views in private (how could those ever be wrong!), but publicly they say lies they do not believe in out of greed or vested interests".

 That makes for an easy discussion. "There is no need for me to examine your arguments since I am convinced you are intellectually agreeing with me anyway but just pretend you don't."

 So they just concentrate on guessing the reasons you would lie - like being an exploiter, a racist, an opressor, a nature despoiler, etc.

 miko

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Nothing, never mind (sees it flying right over the head)

lol, naw, I just ducked.

Regarding the shouting down, I agree. But please remember that in the 60's it was the reactionary right that used this ploy to discredit legitimate protesters.

One case in point, The inflamatory remarks of the Governer of Ohio prior to the Kent State shootings. Look it up.