Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Hortlund on July 12, 2002, 04:45:24 AM
-
For justice has arrived, and she comes in the form of a beautiful woman.
Political "debate" in this country is insufferable. Whether conducted in Congress, on the political talk shows, or played out at dinners and cocktail parties, politics is a nasty sport. At the risk of giving away the ending: It's all liberals' fault.
As there is less to dispute, liberals have become more bitter and angry. The Soviet threat has been vaporized, women are not prevented from doing even things they should be, and the gravest danger facing most black Americans today is the risk of being patronized to death.
And yet still, somehow, Tom DeLay (Republican congressman from Texas) poses a monumental threat to democracy as we know it. The left expresses disagreement with DeLay's governing philosophy by calling him "the Meanest Man in Congress," "Dangerous," "the Hammer," "the Exterminator," and the "Torquemada of Texas." For his evident belief in a Higher Being, DeLay is compared to savage murderers and genocidal lunatics on the pages of the New York Times. ("History teaches that when religion is injected into politics-the Crusades, Henry VIII, Salem, Father Coughlin, Hitler, Kosovo-disaster follows.")
Liberals dispute slight reductions in the marginal tax rates as if they are trying to prevent Charles Manson from slaughtering baby seals. Progress cannot be made on serious issues because one side is making arguments and the other side is throwing eggs-both figuratively and literally. Prevarication and denigration are the hallmarks of liberal argument. Logic is not their metier. Blind religious faith is.
The liberal catechism includes a hatred of Christians, guns, the profit motive, and political speech and an infatuation with abortion, the environment, and race discrimination (or in the favored parlance of liberals, "affirmative action"). Heresy on any of these subjects is, well, heresy. The most crazed religious fanatic argues in more calm and reasoned tones than liberals responding to statistics on concealed-carry permits.
Perhaps if conservatives had had total control over every major means of news dissemination for a quarter century, they would have forgotten how to debate, too, and would just call liberals stupid and mean. But that's an alternative universe. In this universe, the public square is wall-to-wall liberal propaganda.
Americans wake up in the morning to "America's Sweetheart," the Today show's Katie Couric, berating Arlen Specter about Anita Hill ten years after the hearings. Or haranguing Charlton Heston on the need for gun control to stop school shootings. Her co-host, Matt Lauer, wonders casually why the federal government has not passed a law on national vacation time. The New York Times breathlessly announces "Communism Still Looms as Evil to Miami Cubans" and Time magazine columnist Barbara Ehrenreich gives two thumbs up to "The Communist Manifesto" ("100 million massacred!").
We read letters to the editor of the New York Times from pathetic little parakeet males and grim, quivering, angry women on the Upper West Side of Manhattan hoping to be chosen as that day's purveyor of hate. These letters are about one step above Tiger Beat magazine in intellectual engagement. They are never responsive, they never include clever ripostes or attacks; they merely restate the position of the Times with greater venom: I was reminded by your editorial that Bush wasn't even your average politically aware Yalie; he was too busy branding freshmen at his fraternity house.
In the evening, CBS anchor Dan Rather can be found falsely accusing Republicans of all manner of malfeasance or remarking that a president who has been impeached, disbarred, and held in contempt for his lies is an "honest man." Diane Sawyer pronounces that "the American people" are yawning at the news that the president was engaging in sodomy with a cigar and oral-anal sex with a White House intern.
Hollywood movies preach about kind-hearted abortionists, Nazi priests, rich preppie Republican bigots, and the dark night of fascism under Senator Joe McCarthy. Hollywood starlets giddily announce on late-night TV how much they'd like to give Bill Clinton a "certain type of sex" (as Paula Jones called it).
And then Americans wake up for another day of left-wing schlock, beginning their day with the CBS Early Show's Bryant Gumbel somberly asking smut peddler Hugh Hefner for his views on a presidential campaign.
We read national magazines that pretend to be reasonable while seething with the impotent violence of women. We wade through preposterous news stories on Enron, global warming, Tawana Brawley, "plastic guns," the melting North Pole, the meaning of the word "is"—until you can't keep up with the wave of lies. It's like being in an earthquake listening to all the gibberish.
When arguments are premised on lies, there is no foundation for debate. You end up conceding to half the lies simply to focus on the lies of Holocaust-denial proportions. Kind and well-meaning people find themselves afraid to talk about politics. Any sentient person has to be concerned that he might innocently make an argument or employ a turn of phrase that will be discerned by the liberal cult as a "code word" evincing a genocidal tendency. The only safe course is to be consciously, stultifyingly boring.
It isn't just public figures who have to be worried-though having millions of people listening to their spontaneous on-air remarks obviously raises the stakes a bit. But even a private conversation can be resurrected a decade later. Just a few years ago, a killer walked largely because a detective involved in the case had used the "N-word" almost ten years earlier. In a conversation with his then-girlfriend, Mark Fuhrman spun out imaginary dialogue for a movie script, and in so doing committed a hate crime. If the jurors in the O. J. Simpson case could have given Fuhrman the death penalty, he'd be sitting on death row right now. Cutting off your ex-wife's head is a lesser offense in America than using certain words.
Vast areas of public policy debate are treated as indistinguishable from using the N-word (aka: the worst offense against mankind). Thus, Representative Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) took issue with the Republicans' proposed tax cuts, saying: "It's not 'spic' or 'cupcake' anymore. They say, 'Let's cut taxes.' "
The spirit of the First Amendment has been effectively repealed for conservative speech by a censorious, accusatory mob. Truth cannot prevail because whole categories of thought are deemed thought crimes.
For a fleeting moment, after the September 11 attack on America, all partisan wrangling stopped dead. The country was infused with patriotism and amazingly unified. The attack on America was such a colossal jolt, liberals even abandoned their endless pursuit of producing some method of counting the ballots in Florida that would have made Al Gore president.
Liberal sneers about President Bush's intelligence suddenly abated—at first for reasons of decorum, but then because of the indisputable fact that Bush was a magnificent leader. In a moment of crisis, the truth overcame liberal naysaying. After having demeaned President Bush as a lightweight frat boy hopelessly ignorant of foreign policy, even Democrats were overcome with relief that Al Gore was not the president.
The bipartisan lovefest lasted precisely three weeks. That was all the New York Times could endure. Impatient with the national mood of patriotism, liberals returned to their infernal griping about George W. Bush-or "Half a Commander in Chief," as he was called in the headline of a lead New York Times editorial on November 5, 2001. From that moment on, the left's primary contribution to the war effort was to complain.
They complained about the detention of terror suspects, they complained we were going to lose the war, they complained about military tribunals for terrorists, they complained about the Bush administration's failure to solve the anthrax cases instantly, they complained about monitoring terrorists' jailhouse conversations, they complained about the war taking too long, they complained about a trial for John Walker, they complained about (nonexistent) ethnic profiling at airports, they complained about the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo, and they complained about Bush's "axis of evil" speech.
And they complained about all the damn flag-wavers. The infernal flag-waving after 9/11 nearly drove liberals out of their gourds. For the left, "flag-waving" is an epithet. Liberals variously called the flag a "joke," "very, very dumb," and-most cutting-not "cosmopolitan." New York University sociology professor Todd Gitlin agonized over the decision to fly the flag outside his apartment (located less than a mile from Ground Zero), explaining: "It's very complicated."
It must have been galling that no one in America cared. Eventually, the New York Times gave up harping about Bush's handling of the war and turned its full attention to attacking Enron.
Here the country had finally given liberals a war against fundamentalism and they didn't want to fight it. They would have, except it would put them on the same side as the United States. In the wake of an attack on America committed by crazed fundamentalist Muslims, Walter Cronkite denounced Jerry Falwell. Falwell, it seems, had remarked that gay marriage and abortion on demand may not have warmed the heart of the Almighty. Cronkite proclaimed such a statement "the most abominable thing I've ever heard." Showing his renowned dispassion and critical thinking, this Martha's Vineyard millionaire commented that Falwell was "worshipping the same God as the people who bombed the World Trade Center and the Pentagon" (the difference being liberals urged compassion and understanding toward the terrorists).
-
Indeed, an attack on America by fanatical Muslims had finally provided liberals with a religion they could respect. Heretofore liberals deemed voluntary student prayers at high school football games a direct assault on the Constitution. But it was of urgent importance that Islamic terrorists being held in Guantanamo be free to practice their religion. This despite the fact that we had been repeatedly instructed that the terrorists were not practicing "true Islam."
Less than three months after Islamic terrorists slaughtered thousands of Americans, ABC's 20/20 ran a major report titled "Abortion Clinics in U.S. Targeted by Religious Terrorists." As Jamie Floyd reported: "Since September eleventh the word 'terrorists' has come to mean someone who is radical, Islamic, and foreign. But many believe we have as much to fear from a homegrown group of anti-abortion crusaders."
New York Times columnist Frank Rich demanded that Ashcroft stop monkeying around with Muslim terrorists and concentrate on anti-abortion extremists. Rich claimed that only pure political malice could explain Attorney General Ashcroft's refusal to meet with Planned Parenthood while purporting to investigate "terrorism."
Yale law professor Bruce Ackerman recommended dropping the war against global terrorism ("declare victory at the first decent opportunity"!) and instead concentrate on "home-grown extremists." In lieu of a military response against terrorists abroad and security precautions at home, liberals wanted to get the whole thing over with and just throw conservatives in jail.
Rarely had the great divide in the country been so manifest. Liberals hate America, they hate "flag-wavers," they hate abortion opponents, they hate all religions except Islam (post 9/11). Even Islamic terrorists don't hate America like liberals do. They don't have the energy. If they had that much energy, they'd have indoor plumbing by now.
Long before the war, conservatives had a vague sense that liberals didn't much like them. Consider that a president whom liberals themselves called "indefensible, outrageous, unforgivable, [and] shameless" had staved off removal from office merely by calling his opponents "right-wing Republicans." It was apparent then that we were dealing with a species of primitive religious hatred.
Clinton's lies under oath in a judicial proceeding were such a shock to the legal system that just weeks before every Senate Democrat would vote to keep him in office, the entire Supreme Court boycotted Clinton's State of the Union address—one of many historical firsts in the Clinton years. That stunning rebuke was meaningless. Liberals were impervious to any logic beyond Clinton's mantra that his opponents were "right-wing Republicans."
Professional Democrats have clintonized the entire party and they will destroy anyone who stands in their way. All that matters to them is power. They believe their moral superiority allows them to do things that would appall ordinary people.
In May 2001, former Clinton strategists James Carville and Paul Begala released a "Battle Plan for the Democrats" on the op-ed page of the New York Times. Their central piece of advice was for Democrats to start calling President George Bush names. "First," they said, liberals must "call a radical a radical." Other proposals included calling Bush dangerous and uncompassionate: "Mr. Bush's agenda is neither compassionate nor conservative; it's radical and it's dangerous and the Democrats should say so."
That's it. That's the new plan. It's the same as the old plan. Call Republicans names.
In a comic spasm of sophistry, the Democrats' Big-Think men wrote: "We don't believe the spin that stopping Mr. Bush's assault on middle-class programs will hurt Democrats with voters." Evidently someone was retailing the yarn about an "assault" on the middle class being hugely popular. But Carville and Begala begged to differ. (Even the editor must have been overwhelmed by the spin on that one.) These must have been the guys who helped President Clinton formulate his thoughtful response to Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America." In his unifying, statesmanlike way, President Clinton referred to it as a murderous hit man's assignment, repeatedly calling it the "Contract on America." Go out right now and ask any liberal what was objectionable about the "Contract with America" and see if you get a more reasoned argument than that.
Meanwhile, the left's political Tourette's syndrome has gone completely unremarked upon. All parties to the debate carry on as if it's totally normal for two of the most famous Democratic consultants to be recommending name-calling as political strategy. Clinton seemed to be making a good argument against impeachment by perseverating about a "right-wing" conspiracy out to get him.
An annoying typical Republican response to liberal hate speech is to attack one's friends in order to appease one's enemies. Democrats still hate the Republican appeasers; they just hate them a little less. And when it comes time for the left to tear down the conciliators, these Republican "moderates" won't have many friends left willing to defend them. As Winston Churchill said, appeasement reflects the hope that the crocodile will eat you last. With some portion of (admittedly craven) Republicans casually acknowledging the liberal premise that conservatives are mean and hateful, the left is emboldened to carry on with ever greater insolence.
Taken from
Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right, by Ann Coulter
-
Runtime error 10049
Translation buffer overflow
..... rebooting user .....
beep beep .....
-
Warning: Exception roadkillException must be caught, or it must be declared in throws clause of this method.
-
Thank you Hortland. Ann Coulter tells it like it is, that's for sure. She is also a very beautiful woman, and gutsy. I have a lot of respect for her.
Les
-
Yeah, she is my favourite too. I have read just about every column by her since the Florida recount debacle. And it is impossible not to fall in love with her :)
-
lmao, a "free market" conservative whining about "liberal bias" in the market driven media. Oh the irony. :rolleyes:
-
Hopefully more will see the truth & common sense in her words before its too late
But I have my doubts as America on average is quickly becoming a medicated (legal & illegal), over weight, lazy & ignorant society at an alarming rate. "It ain't my fault" & "Who cares?" are this country's "battle cry" less than 10 months after the worse attack on American soil by foriegners in our history :rolleyes:
-
she's a republican (conservative). in my eyes, no better and no worse than a democrat (liberal).
-
Look, that text was generated from a Rep-based architecture, running the widely popular commercial OS Whine-doze.
Whine-doze stuff is never compatible with anything hence the compile errors.
Now, that's not any worse than the Da(e)mnsodumb architectures with their auto-generate threat software. But let's recognize it for what it is; non standard stuff introduced to make money for Whine-doze.
I say: slash that text generator.
:D
-
Ann Coulter is just another crank that wishes she were Rush Limbaugh.
What a whine... Having read it, I immediately have trouble recalling any of it.
Truth?
Bah... Seaching for truth is a waste of time.
Truth is relative.
Give me facts.
-
I didn't read it. Too long and I'm too lazy. But I do like reading the responses. I think sandman really likes her.:)
-
Originally posted by hblair
I didn't read it. Too long and I'm too lazy. But I do like reading the responses. I think sandman really likes her.:)
LOL... I just want to know what she looks like upside-down.
(http://216.176.194.128/Images/ac.jpg)
-
I don't know which is more laughable, the stupid squeak who wrote this crap...or the idiots who believe that the media is controlled by the *left* wing.
From Bartcop. (http://www.bartcop.com)
The Myth of the "liberal" media
Let's do a "what if" so I can make a point. I think it's a good one.
I think it's so good, I'd like to hear from anyone who disagrees.
What if a show like Dateline did a "hatchet job" on George W. Bush?
It wouldn't have to really be a hatchet job, but any honest appraisal of that idiot's
qualifications would prove he's a non-thinking rich man's boy - and that's all.
But what would happen if Dateline did an unflattering portrait of Bush?
I'll tell you what would happen:
The vulgar Pigboy would spend at least three hours saying it wasn't true
and he'd offer hours of rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Bill O'Reilly would spend at least an hour on his show saying
it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Sean Hannity would walk all over Alan Colmes for an hour that night,
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Eva Von Zahn would spend at least an hour that night saying it wasn't true
and she'd offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
The Beltway Boys would spend at least an hour that night saying it
wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Brit Hume and Tony Snow would spend at least an hour on Sunday
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Juan Williams and Mara Liason would spend their entire allotted time
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
John McLaughlin would spend at least an hour on his syndicated show
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Chris the Screamer would spend at least an hour on his show
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
G. Gordon Liddy would spend at least three hours on his radio show
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Laura the potato would spend at least an hour on her radio show
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Michael Medved would spend at least an hour on his radio show
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Sam and Cokie would spend at least an hour on This potato
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
George (Judas Maximus) Steffi and George (dumb as a chimp) Will
would spend their entire allotted time swearing that it wasn't true.
Bob Scheiffer would spend at least an hour on Face the potato
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Tim the Catholic would spend at least an hour on Meet the potato
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
John Hockenberry would spend at least an hour on his show
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Ollie North would spend at least an hour on his radio show
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Robert Novak would spend at least an hour on his cable TV show
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Paul Weyrich would spend at least an hour on his cable TV show
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Still with me? We're close to the end...
BSNBC's Brian Williams would spend at least an hour on his show
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Wolf the potato would spend at least an hour on his show saying
it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Bill Schneider and Candy Crowley would do an hour special on CCN
(Clinton Cock Network) saying it wasn't true, and offering rebuttal.
John Stossel would have a special on ABC: Is lying OK for liberals?
Then Howie Kurtz would spend 30 minutes on Reliable Sources asking
if the media wasn't being too hard on a developmently-disabled child.
Barbara Olson would write a book condemning Dateline.
Ann Coulter would write a book condemning Dateline.
Laura Ingraham would write a book condemning Dateline.
Peggy Noonan would write a book condemning Dateline.
Andrew Sullivan would write a book condemning Dateline.
William Safire would write a book condemning Dateline.
OK, we're going to call the above "Exhibit A."
Now, everyone on that list has done at least a dozen hit pieces on Clinton.
My question is, Where is "Exhibit B?"
When those 38 people attack Clinton and his cock, who does the rebuttal?
Even you ditto-sheep have to admit that nobody on that list
has EVER defended a fabricated lie against the president.
There is no "Exhibit B," because there are so few liberal voices on television.
The closest you can get is Eleanor on McLaughlin or Geraldo, but there is barely
a liberal whisper on television, even though there are DOZENS of right-wing,
Smirk-apologist shows whose livelyhood is lying about liberals.
I don't think you ditto-heads can offer an answer.
Wallow in your angst Hortlund.
-
A brunette with *bad breath*.
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
LOL... I just want to know what she looks like upside-down.
(http://216.176.194.128/Images/ac.jpg)
:D
-
There in lies a key difference.
I don't wonder what Eleanor Clift looks like upside-down. :D
(http://eleanorclift.com/eleanor.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
There in lies a key difference.
I don't wonder what Eleanor Clift looks like upside-down. :D
(http://eleanorclift.com/eleanor.jpg)
Yes, but the real question is does Eleanor Clift want to know what Ann Coulter looks like upside down? :eek: :D :D :D
-
I don't care that much. Both sides are amazinhunks who want your money and your freedom. The republicans are the lesser of the two evils right now. I don't watch the "news" but I vote. I don't need to hear some talking head explain why taking away my guns makes me safer in order to vote on the subject. I certainly don't need to hear that more govenment programs funded by me are for my own good.
The less government the better.
lazs
-
Oh fediddleing hell. First I agree with Udie. Then with Creamo. And now with Lazs.
Hm, Dubya must be fingering the Doomsday button again.
-
Originally posted by StSanta
Oh fediddleing hell. First I agree with Udie. Then with Creamo. And now with Lazs.
Hm, Dubya must be fingering the Doomsday button again.
LOL :D Is it getting cold down there Santa? :)
-
Well gee guys, I didnt see that one coming...
Cant argue with the facts, make up stuff about her, call her a squeak, belittle her in any way you can. And here I had lost my faith in decency and good manners.
I find it pathetic. I dont know who's worse though...the one who didnt read it at all (complicated with lots of words huh) or the one who seems incapable of coherent thought (I dont want truth, I want facts...try to look up those two words in a dictionary).
You are a sick diddlying breed you liberals. Now go sodomize eachother.
For Weazel:
If you first look at Coulters post, you will see nothing but facts. She has to really...because if she would post one sentence that was made up by her, if she would get one quote wrong the liberal media would crucify her.
The take a look at your post. Listings like that doesnt really impress anyone. "This is what I think would happen if..." is not the best way to win an argument. Especially against a lawyer who sticks to the facts. And you just quoting him without any own contribution is even worse, but I suppose it tells everyone a great deal about your level of intelligence. Let me guess, you find it too hard to come up with something original of your own, so you just quote someone else instead? But you fail to realize that the guy you quoted were just making stuff up?
How is life as a retard treating you these days anyway?
-
Well gee guys, I didnt see that one coming...
Cant argue with the facts, make up stuff about her, call her a squeak, belittle her in any way you can. And here I had lost my faith in decency and good manners.
Wait, I just got here. Who're you talking about - Hillary?
;)
Hi, my name's leonid ... comrade.
-
Originally posted by weazel
I don't know which is more laughable, the stupid squeak who wrote this crap...or the idiots who believe that the media is controlled by the *left* wing.
From Bartcop. (http://www.bartcop.com)
Wallow in your angst Hortlund.
heheh weazel I just read this post and 2/3 of the names that guy put on his "conservative" list are so blantantly liberal it's pitiful. come on man you can do better! :D
-
Shes HOT, is she from FOX news? Thpugh the hottest news star is Ashleigh Banfield, hubba bubba. Beauty and brains.
PS: When women are attractive as that then can yap about whatever they want, is ok. However there are time limits impossed.
:D
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Well gee guys, I didnt see that one coming...
Cant argue with the facts, make up stuff about her, call her a squeak, belittle her in any way you can.
What facts did she present for us to argue against? Seemed to me like she was spewing a bunch of loaded,completely biased vitriol.
ie: All right-wingers are complete morons. Okay now lets have a debate about it.
You made two statements. None on the actual rant itself so nothing to argue there. And two on the author. Apparently she's represents the way you feel about justice. And apparently you think she's a hot chick. Way to marginalize her.
So we could argue that she doens't represent what just is for us, or we debate wether or not she's a hot chick. I guess most of us chose the later. But remember you brought that little of mysogenie into the tread in the first place.
And here I had lost my faith in decency and good manners.
You are a sick diddlying breed you liberals. Now go sodomize eachother.
How is life as a retard treating you these days anyway?
You might start regaining faith in decency and good manners by starting to work on your own.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
What facts did she present for us to argue against? Seemed to me like she was spewing a bunch of loaded,completely biased vitriol.
[/b]
Did you read the article? Or are you just trying to be smart and/or funny?
Based on your later remarks I guess the later.
Thanks for trying.
-
Yes, I did.
Thanks for not trying at all.
-
Please... point out the "facts."
I didn't see any.
-
Im not sure whether you guys are just playing dumb to test me or if you really are that thick.
How about this, I grab a random passage, and let me highlight the facts in bold.
...liberals returned to their infernal griping about George W. Bush-or "Half a Commander in Chief," as he was called in the headline of a lead New York Times editorial on November 5, 2001. From that moment on, the left's primary contribution to the war effort was to complain.
They complained about the detention of terror suspects, they complained we were going to lose the war, they complained about military tribunals for terrorists, they complained about the Bush administration's failure to solve the anthrax cases instantly, they complained about monitoring terrorists' jailhouse conversations, they complained about the war taking too long, they complained about a trial for John Walker, they complained about (nonexistent) ethnic profiling at airports, they complained about the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo, and they complained about Bush's "axis of evil" speech.
Happy?
-
I stopped reading because there were no pictures Steve! :o
-
Originally posted by weazel
I don't know which is more laughable, the stupid squeak who wrote this crap...or the idiots who believe that the media is controlled by the *left* wing.
From Bartcop. (http://www.bartcop.com)
Wallow in your angst Hortlund.
glad you didn't type all that, what a waste of my time reading it - hate to think you wated your time typing it :)
BTW it is a load of crap, as stated in other posts beside the Fox news guys, the rest you listed cept a few are as liberal as they come
-
The media is, was, and always will be liberal. Sensationalism sells news, and liberals just seem better able to capitalize on the tactic.
-
C'mon Kieran. You make it sound as if there were no market for conservative views.
-
As I read these posts, a cardinal is incessantly pecking at the window behind me.
Perhaps he wants to offer some commentary. It would probably be more intelligent than some of the other guff seen here.
Oh...wait! The bird feeder is empty. If he wants it refilled does that mean he's a Democrat? Or is he a Republican trying to tell me he doesn't need my help to find a meal?
Puzzled, Shuckins
-
I didn't say or mean that. I mean that the liberal side is better at exploiting the media than the conservative side. It doesn't mean the conservatives don't try; they are hopelessly inept at it.
The market is determined by viewership. Sensationalism sells, and in my opinion (right or wrong) the liberal side is more effective in this approach than the conservative side- hey, this should be obvious by the very nature of their relative constituencies.
Let's take a current topic: religion. How many news stories are currently running about Catholic priests molesting boys? It is a problem, it should be exposed, but how many stories about homosexual child molesters do you see running? Bound to be far more of them out there than only the Catholic priests, right? Instead, what should be an issue about homosexuality and child molestation becomes an issue of the corruption of religion. Who do you think slanted that view?
Is there a market for conservatives? Of course there is. What happens if a conservative spouts conservative views? Remember Dan Quayle? The press thoroughly enjoyed themselves in making him a buffoon because of his comments. Everyone was quick to get in line to call him a fool, so much pushing and shoving to tell the best Quayle joke. Now we have Bush, made out by the liberals to be retarded, when in fact his I.Q. is probably higher than most of his detractors (remember, average is 100 points) who are merely miming what the machine tells them.
Is Bush the greatest president we ever had? Not even close. Is he the worst? Not even close. He isn't the danger to life as we know it on this planet, as some posters here suggest frequently. He doesn't check polls to see what he is thinking every day, and right or wrong, he does stick to his views and overall plan. In short, he leads, which is what I wanted when I voted.
-
BTW Sandman, have you seen what happens when there is a discussion on this BBS concerning religion? I take one side, and several others take turns getting the best one-liner in. I'm not a far-right conservative (how could I be, working as a teacher), but my views are, shall we say, unpopular.
Hey, don't take that as "Woe is me", it's par for Christians in this society. I am not an apologetic Christian, and I know there is going to be ridicule in virtually every discussion. The amazing thing to me is how Christians on this board are spun to be the most disgusting group of beings to ever walk the planet, yet the verbal attacks almost inevitably begin on the other side. This is a parallel to society as a whole in my view. Quite a conundrum, you are going to be attacked, and you are not allowed to respond with anything but a smile- or so the expectation goes. If a Christian should be foolish enough to lose his or her temper, the other side will use it as proof of the failing of religion.
So in the media environment we have it is far easier for the liberal side to exploit the media for it purposes than it is for the conservative, mostly religious faction.
-
Two people standing near each other can witness a crime, if questioned afterwards they invariably will have different opinions or recollections of what transpired. ;)
Hortlund:
After reading that roadkill *conservative* fairy tale you posted I felt justified in adding something just as ignorant and asinine in rebuttal.
"The take a look at your post. Listings like that doesnt really impress anyone. This is what I think would happen if..." is not the best way to win an argument.
Especially against a lawyer who sticks to the facts. And you just quoting him without any own contribution is even worse, but I suppose it tells everyone a great deal about your level of intelligence."
Wow...I bet your dicks going to be really sore after stepping on it.
I added 33 words of commentary to the article from Bartcop, over twice as many as you added to the article by the trailer park trash Coulter squeak.
Your "Especially against a lawyer who sticks to the facts" comment has wonderful comedic value.
Having known a few lawyers personally as well as employing others for legal matters you obviously must wear a blindfold and ear plugs in court.
I can honestly say that some of them are decent folks when away from the job...one I know well privately admits that when on a case with a potentially large windfall his ethics shrink in corellation to the sum he will recieve for a favorable verdict.
Be sure to check any future clients of yours for flea and tick collars.....parasite. :D
-
After reading that roadkill *conservative* fairy tale you posted I felt justified in adding something just as ignorant and asinine in rebuttal.
[/b]
Name one thing in the quote I posted that is not true. Name one fact she has gotten wrong. Unless you do that, why do you say that it is a "conservative fairy tale"?
Ignore, evade, shift focus. That is all you are capable of doing. Instead of taking the debate, instead of arguing over the issues presented, instead of answering at all, you act like a rude obnoxious amazinhunk.
I have met so many like you Weazel. You act as if you knew all the answers to all the important questions. You act as if you are right, and anyone who dares to disagree with you is not only wrong, but also evil or dangerous.
But in reality, you dont have any answers at all. In reality you are incapable of arguing, because you have not bothered to learn the facts. All you are capable of is being rude, alternatively trying to get some witty one-liner in.
I have checked some of what you have posted on these boards before Weazel, and guess what. I have yet to read one intelligent or interesting comment from you. You are a clown. All you are capabel of is attacking people for their beliefs, calling them names, trying to throw in witty one liners here and there. You seem to do anyting just so you can avoid getting caught in a situation where you actually have to think or argue. Much easier to just blurt out "that is just conservative roadkill" and leave it at that.
You are pathetic. I can respect some liberals because they have their beliefs, and they do their best to explain them or defend them. But all you have is hate. Hate and low IQ. You disgust me.
-
Does she say who wrote the editorial or was it the opinion of the Times? No, because that would expose her to discussing whatever the editorial was about.
Which of course she will not do because in the very next paragraph she has a laundry list of issues that she wants the reader to associate with the New York Times. Obviously all of those things were not in that editorial column, which probably wasn't even written by the staff of the newspaper.
Ann's Logic:
"An editorial in the New York Times, who's author and subject I will not reveal, said something bad about Bush.
Therefore, liberals and the New York Times support terrorism. "
She is intellectually dishonest and her writing style can confuse people not familiar with critical thinking.
Originally posted by Hortlund
...liberals returned to their infernal griping about George W. Bush-or "Half a Commander in Chief," as he was called in the headline of a lead New York Times editorial on November 5, 2001. From that moment on, the left's primary contribution to the war effort was to complain.
They complained about the detention of terror suspects, they complained we were going to lose the war, they complained about military tribunals for terrorists, they complained about the Bush administration's failure to solve the anthrax cases instantly, they complained about monitoring terrorists' jailhouse conversations, they complained about the war taking too long, they complained about a trial for John Walker, they complained about (nonexistent) ethnic profiling at airports, they complained about the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo, and they complained about Bush's "axis of evil" speech.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
BTW Sandman, have you seen what happens when there is a discussion on this BBS concerning religion? I take one side, and several others take turns getting the best one-liner in. I'm not a far-right conservative (how could I be, working as a teacher), but my views are, shall we say, unpopular.
We're opposite sides of the same coin. :)
Given a choice, I'll argue for tolerance. I'll tolerate your religion as long as you (and everyone else) will tolerate my lack of same. It's a big world and a big country. There's room for peaceful coexistence.
-
Originally posted by weazel
A brunette with *bad breath*.
:D
Weazel has erotic dreams of this one :D
-
I'm sure Janet was hot during the Depression. :)
-
Weazel and other left wing whackos...
Is this the sort of site you get your info from??
http://www.bartcop.com/
-
Or.....
Oh poor little Iraq! Why side with YOUR country?
http://www.bartcop.com/
-
Cool poster. :)
What could be more American than a dissenting opinion?
-
Ah yes the dissenting opinion of "America is always evil!"
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Name one thing in the quote I posted that is not true. Name one fact she has gotten wrong. Unless you do that, why do you say that it is a "conservative fairy tale"?
What *exactly* in her hate manifesto is there to debate about?
Her grasp of reality is *tenuous* at best, ......and I'm being kind giving even that much credibility to her ditto head rantings.
A person could easily turn the tables and attack the right wing simply by changing a few names and phrases around in her feeble literary attempt to quantify Americas "left".
Ignore, evade, shift focus. That is all you are capable of doing. Instead of taking the debate, instead of arguing over the issues presented, instead of answering at all, you act like a rude obnoxious amazinhunk.
Oh gee...I'm soooo sorry that I'm not intelligent or cultured enough to play by the rules you desire. :rolleyes:
I don't sugercoat my opinions, I refuse to compromise my personal integrity in an attempt to avoid offending or hurting peoples feelings by speaking the truth as *I* perceive it.
This isn't a court room where you have a judge to see that "etiquette" is observed...and a baliff to make sure the people like you who "work" :rolleyes: there don't get their prissy sensibilities offended or bellybutton kicked by the folks they screw.
"I have met so many like you Weazel. You act as if you knew all the answers to all the important questions. You act as if you are right, and anyone who dares to disagree with you is not only wrong, but also evil or dangerous.
But in reality, you dont have any answers at all. In reality you are incapable of arguing, because you have not bothered to learn the facts. All you are capable of is being rude, alternatively trying to get some witty one-liner in."
Heh, thats right, I have all the answers...,.but occasionally some are the wrong ones.
But.... unless I'm shown proof of an error committed I don't worry too much,....and when I recognize I've erred I don't duck and run from the consequences...I expect to make mistakes in my life, on those occassions I do err, I try to correct it to the best of my ability.
It's no secret I've stuck my foot in my mouth on occasion around here, on the occasions that I have an appropriate apology was made to the people who deserved one.
"I have checked some of what you have posted on these boards before Weazel, and guess what. I have yet to read one intelligent or interesting comment from you. You are a clown. All you are capabel of is attacking people for their beliefs, calling them names, trying to throw in witty one liners here and there. You seem to do anyting just so you can avoid getting caught in a situation where you actually have to think or argue. Much easier to just blurt out "that is just conservative roadkill" and leave it at that.
You are pathetic. I can respect some liberals because they have their beliefs, and they do their best to explain them or defend them. But all you have is hate. Hate and low IQ. You disgust me.
Look closely into my eye and tell me......Do you see any concern in it regarding your opinion of me?
Not that I expect you to value my opinions any more than I do yours, after all you allow your opinion to be formed by another sheltered and clueless parasite, it amazes me that a person could be smart enough to pass the BAR exam, yet still show themselves to have less common sense than a house cat on the loose for the 1st time.
Being intellectually dishonest probably comes easy to you since you claim to be an attorney., I value honesty and integrity far too much to compromise myself in such fashion.
Your chosen career along with the light weight intellect you display in these threads illuminates the shallowness of your character and the masculine weakness that led you to a career as a professional parasite, unable to survive without a host....
Damn...considering the wretched existance you lead I *almost* feel sorry for you. :p
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Eagler:
"glad you didn't type all that, what a waste of my time reading it - hate to think you wated your time typing it
BTW it is a load of crap, as stated in other posts beside the Fox news guys, the rest you listed cept a few are as liberal as they come"
Yup, irregardless of the amazinhunk it comes from....shit is toejam.
It's a steaming pile,...but think about this for a moment, even "a pathetic, low IQ, hate filled, sodomizing liberal" like me, knows that once the pile of toejam I brought was mingled with the one he delivered it all looked and smelled the same...actually I'm surprised he noticed the toejam I brought at all...he failed to notice that Coulters was a steaming pile.
Lemme guess..since shes a *conservative* her toejam doesnt stink? :D
-
Originally posted by weazel
Lemme guess..since shes a *conservative* her toejam doesnt stink? :D [/B]
Well of course ya doofus... look at her! She poops peaches :)
-
Ah, but Sandman, look to where I ever expressed a negative opinion of anyone based on their religion (or lack thereof), or shown them disrespect. While you're looking, look to see those that have been negative to because of my religion. See what I am saying?
-
Like I said... two sides of the same coin. :)
-
ok here ya go:)
-
LOL! :D
-
Originally posted by krazyhorse
ok here ya go:)
Wow... that's not brunette...
Hey! It doesn't smell either.
-
ok:D damn yall are a tough crowd geez, drum rolll please he wanst a the smell now :) try the scratch n snif
-
This board, nearly every day, reinforces my decision to not follow any of the two major political parties. I'm only registered to one so I can vote in primaries for one of the parties (Florida is a closed primary state).
:)
Tho, I must admit, some of the throat biting is entertaining!
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Ah, but Sandman, look to where I ever expressed a negative opinion of anyone based on their religion (or lack thereof), or shown them disrespect. While you're looking, look to see those that have been negative to because of my religion. See what I am saying?
I hope you don't see a disagreement with a religious stance as a negative opinion.
It might surprise you to know that I am not an atheist at all, but I will always argue against a close relationship between government and religion.
By Some twisted Conservative publicity potato - Liberals hate America, they hate "flag-wavers," they hate abortion opponents, they hate all religions except Islam (post 9/11). Even Islamic terrorists don't hate America like liberals do. They don't have the energy. If they had that much energy, they'd have indoor plumbing by now.
Flat out lie. Nuff said.
-
Originally posted by CH3
lmao, a "free market" conservative whining about "liberal bias" in the market driven media. Oh the irony. :rolleyes:
Hurricane is dump. :D
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Flat out lie. Nuff said.
Actually no, it isnt. She has made her case pretty well in that post. Id say it is up to you to present some further elaboration before I'll accept that statement as the truth.
And if you only knew how pathetic you appear when you add this little line up there: "By Some twisted Conservative publicity potato".
I really expected more from you midnight. If you dont have anything better to say, then just shut the hell up. I mean it is pretty obvious that 99% of the liberals that frequent these boards are incapable of intelligent debate, and the second they are faced with an opposing opinion they quickly throw out an insult or two before they retreat behind some "conservatives are evil"-smokescreen.
Just take a look at the kind of responses this thread has produced. p a t h e t i c
I thought you were above that, but I guess you are no better then the rest of the liberal scum that hovers around here.
Sad really.
-
MT-
Of course I don't take exception to disagreement. We're cool, don't worry about that. ;)
Hortland-
Speaking as a bit of a conservative, tone down the rhetoric a bit. It is not at all accurate to depict all liberals on this board as incapable of intelligent debate. My experience is quite the opposite. Further, name-calling knows no political boundaries.
Either the substance of what you say carries your argument or it doesn't, no need to get hateful.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Actually no, it isnt. She has made her case pretty well in that post. Id say it is up to you to present some further elaboration before I'll accept that statement as the truth.
And if you only knew how pathetic you appear when you add this little line up there: "By Some twisted Conservative publicity potato".
I really expected more from you midnight. If you dont have anything better to say, then just shut the hell up. I mean it is pretty obvious that 99% of the liberals that frequent these boards are incapable of intelligent debate, and the second they are faced with an opposing opinion they quickly throw out an insult or two before they retreat behind some "conservatives are evil"-smokescreen.
Just take a look at the kind of responses this thread has produced. p a t h e t i c
I thought you were above that, but I guess you are no better then the rest of the liberal scum that hovers around here.
Sad really.
ROFL!
"Liberals Hate America" - Lie - I am Liberal, I love America.
"They hate Flag wavers" - Lie - I am Liberal, I fly the flag DAILY!
"They hate all religions except Islam" - Lie - I am Liberal, I don't hate religions.
And I think you're being too hard on yourself Steve. Your responses have only been slightly pathetic. :p
-
Midnight. I can see that you are not taking this seriously. And that is ok, you dont HAVE to reply here you know. But please stop throwing in idiotic replies like that. Why do you have to act like an amazinhunk? Not only does it make you appear as intelligent as a 7yr old, it only pisses me off too.
Take a look at your reply..
"I am a liberal and I like flagwaving". Therefore she is not only wrong, apparently she is a twisted conservative media potato too.
-
No... it's twisted conservative media potato that smells like fish?
-
Hmmm, a few giggles, avacado jokes, and a pic of a fish (or was that Janet Reno?).
A cool way to waste ten minutes. Thanks guys! :)
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
No... it's twisted conservative media potato that smells like fish?
no..that would be YOUR MOTHER.
-
Ok, ok, break it up. Go back to your corners and come back fighting.:D
Les
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
For justice has arrived, and she comes in the form of a beautiful woman.
LOL, you can't be serious. You must be letting your 'little' head do the thinking for you instead of your big one. You need to get out more ;)
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
no..that would be YOUR MOTHER.
Nevermind... not worth it.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Midnight. I can see that you are not taking this seriously. And that is ok, you dont HAVE to reply here you know. But please stop throwing in idiotic replies like that. Why do you have to act like an amazinhunk? Not only does it make you appear as intelligent as a 7yr old, it only pisses me off too.
Take a look at your reply..
"I am a liberal and I like flagwaving". Therefore she is not only wrong, apparently she is a twisted conservative media potato too.
Aww Jeeez! Did I piss you off?
Well then try to reply to this:
If she says "Liberals hate America" and I as a Liberal don't hate America, the logical conclusion is .............. (times up) .......... She must be either WRONG or LIEING. Take your pick.
I do apologize for talking badly about your girlfriend. She really isn't twisted.
:cool:
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Aww Jeeez! Did I piss you off?
Well then try to reply to this:
If she says "Liberals hate America" and I as a Liberal don't hate America, the logical conclusion is .............. (times up) .......... She must be either WRONG or LIEING. Take your pick.
I do apologize for talking badly about your girlfriend. She really isn't twisted.
:cool:
As I said, you are arguing like a 7yr old. But fine, Ill play along. I will admit that she is either wrong or lieing after you have proven that you dont hate America.
Good luck, and thanks for playing.
-
Just who are the liberals anyway? To some (usually the most vocal it seems) a liberal is anybody to the left of Pat Buchanan/Pat Robertson/Rush/Hitler :)) They view a MOR opinion as being a scandalous (thanks to our Spanish friends for my new word) liberal diatribe.
What about the libertarians and anarchists? I would say I'm somewhere in between. I like the environment but found the Clinton administrations EPA positions to be unrealistic and excessive (covered a few issues in detail). I find both parties embrace of big business (any merger will do, bigger is better, shareholders come first before customers and employees) to be frightning.
There are plenty of conservative and even a few liberal media potatos. I say few, because, again, it seems that just presenting two sides of story is LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS to some arch conservatives, but there are few I've seen who are Naderites, etc. Frankly, anybody you see on TV is a media potato, just like most politicians are political potatos, regardless of how they paint their positions for public consumption. You don't make it to Washington without money and a certain amount of ethical flexibility, and you can't get to the top in network news without ruthlessness and a cerain ethical ambiguity.
If you want half the truth with a lot of editorial slant, see Fox. If you want a general lack of substance and a lot of hot air speculation, see CNN (except for breaking news). CNBC, I have to check it out more. Editorial writers? Some good and balanced with both conservative and liberal leanings, but many know how to play to their selected demographis and get a lot of exposure and financial rewards as a result.
Charon
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
As I said, you are arguing like a 7yr old.
Also by Hortlund - no..that would be YOUR MOTHER
I guess all you left out was the nanner nanner.
I also guess that logic is not taught in Swedish schools. Your girlfriend has made a statement that is at best a generalization and at worst chauvinistic bigotry. The burden of proof is not on Me sir, I didn't make the inane foolish statement, she did. How did she prove "Liberals hate America". And if you try to justify her idiocy by saying "she didn't mean ALL Liberals" then I could use the same stupid logic to claim that "Conservatives are Racist Nazi's" because I don't mean ALL Conservatives.
I realize you are a young man Steve. I believe Dylan said it best:
"I was so much older then. I'm younger than that now"
Someday you will truely realize the extent of what you don't know.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Someday you will truely realize the extent of what you don't know.
Which seems to happen sometime between the ages of 33 and 40.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
The burden of proof is not on Me sir, I didn't make the inane foolish statement, she did.
"Liberals Hate America" - Lie - I am Liberal, I love America.
"They hate Flag wavers" - Lie - I am Liberal, I fly the flag DAILY!
"They hate all religions except Islam" - Lie - I am Liberal, I don't hate religions.
It is always up to the person making the statement to substantiate it.
You can see her line of argumentation at the top of this thread. I'm still waiting for yours.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
It is always up to the person making the statement to substantiate it.
You can see her line of argumentation at the top of this thread. I'm still waiting for yours.
I see you have ignored the logic so I'll try a different approach.
Her line of argument goes something like this:
A liberal media outlet says a bad thing about flag waving....
Therefore liberals hate flag waving.
Kind of like:
A noted conservative has stated that he feels Blacks are inferior...
Therefore conservatives are racists.
or:
A Berlin newspaper reported in the autumn that German Nazis look to Sweden for guidance. Swedish Nazis have established a leading role in White Power music, releasing 342 CDs last year.
Therefore music in Sweden is White Power music.
All of the above are true yet in terms of their value, meaningless. Just like the rant you posted at the beginning of this thread.
oops, forgot one.
Stating a fact of history ("History teaches that when religion is injected into politics-the Crusades, Henry VIII, Salem, Father Coughlin, Hitler, Kosovo-disaster follows.")
therefore the NY Times is anti religion. ---- no wait, this one would just be a lie.
-
wimp
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
wimp
?
-
!
-
I will accept your silence as an astute surrender to a superior arguement.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I will accept your silence as an astute surrender to a superior arguement.
Thanks m8, you actually brought a smile to my face there. :)
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I see you have ignored the logic so I'll try a different approach.
Her line of argument goes something like this:
A liberal media outlet says a bad thing about flag waving....
Therefore liberals hate flag waving.
Kind of like:
A noted conservative has stated that he feels Blacks are inferior...
Therefore conservatives are racists.
[/b]
Actually I think she has more examples than that. Let me take a wild guess here, and say that you havent read that book ...have you? Or her columns? She started writing syndicated columns during the presidential elections, and if you want I can give you a link to a page where you can find them all.
Also, note the difference in your choice of words. "A liberal media outlet" and "a noted conservative". Exactly what do you mean when you say "liberal media outlet"? Are you talking about a form of media (such as television) a specific newssource (such as Washington post) or a single writer (such as a columnist)?
A Berlin newspaper reported in the autumn that German Nazis look to Sweden for guidance. Swedish Nazis have established a leading role in White Power music, releasing 342 CDs last year.
Therefore music in Sweden is White Power music.
[/b]
That conclusion is not supported by the underlying argumentation. I hope you see that. It would have been correct if you wrote "therefore some music in Sweden is white power music", the way you wrote it now, one gets the impression that ALL music in Sweden is white power music...which is wrong.
All of the above are true yet in terms of their value, meaningless. Just like the rant you posted at the beginning of this thread.
[/b]
Actually no. Your examples are either too vauge or based on factual errors (or in other words they are outright wrong).
Stating a fact of history ("History teaches that when religion is injected into politics-the Crusades, Henry VIII, Salem, Father Coughlin, Hitler, Kosovo-disaster follows.")
therefore the NY Times is anti religion. ---- no wait, this one would just be a lie.
Exactly what religion did Hitler inject into politics?
Knowledge is a wonderful thing midnight...you should try it sometime.
-
Hortlund
your wasting your time and breath
showing some of these libs the truth is like teaching a monkey how to fly a jet
I think you'd have more luck with the monkey :)
-
Truth is relative, Mr. Eagler. :)
-
Gentlemen,
Can we leave out of our argument statements such as "truth is relative?"
That's strictly a matter of opinion!
Regards, Shuckins
-
Incredible!
Hortlund! Dude! You have used my very example to show that my example is wrong. Thereby agreeing with me. Cool.
That conclusion is not supported by the underlying argumentation. I hope you see that. It would have been correct if you wrote "therefore some music in Sweden is white power music", the way you wrote it now, one gets the impression that ALL music in Sweden is white power music...which is wrong.
EXACTLY !!!
And ALL LIBERALS DON'T HATE AMERICA!!! Even though your girlfriend made it sound like they do. If my statement is wrong, so is hers. This was exactly what I was pointing out. As an attorney, isn't it bad to step on your own dick while arguing? ;)
Actually I think she has more examples than that. Let me take a wild guess here, and say that you havent read that book ...have you? Or her columns? She started writing syndicated columns during the presidential elections, and if you want I can give you a link to a page where you can find them all.
Also, note the difference in your choice of words. "A liberal media outlet" and "a noted conservative". Exactly what do you mean when you say "liberal media outlet"? Are you talking about a form of media (such as television) a specific newssource (such as Washington post) or a single writer (such as a columnist)?
I could have said a Conservative Newspaper, or a Conservative Leader, or a Liberal Leader, or a Liberal TV Show. It wouldn't make a difference. The vague wording was by Ann Coulter, I just duplicated it with a few minor changes to prove my point. I will post it again:
"Liberals Hate America" - An indefensible lie and you are well aware of that if your schooling has been at all valid.
I haven't read her book, I am commenting on the article you posted. Why should I assume that she has backed her argument in other areas?
Exactly what religion did Hitler inject into politics?
Your joking of course. "Injecting religion" doesn't necessarily mean supporting it. You can inject a religion into your politics as the enemy also. I hope this doesn't require any further elaboration.
On a more philosophical level he also used many symbols, rallys, oaths etc. to create a "religion" out of National Socialism, but that is not the intended definition and is a subject for a whole other thread.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
On a more philosophical level he also used many symbols, rallys, oaths etc. to create a "religion" out of National Socialism, but that is not the intended definition and is a subject for a whole other thread.
Oh yes please, so dumb bastards like that AKSWulfe-dude can get a new opportunity to call me a nazi again.
-
Hortlund! Dude! You have used my very example to show that my example is wrong. Thereby agreeing with me. Cool.
Uh..I have read this sentence 10 times now and I still dont understand it. If you go back and reread the posts, you will realize that this part:
If my statement is wrong, so is hers.
doesnt quite work, since what you posted was based on factual errors, while hers is based on verified facts. If Im saying that you are wrong because you are using lies to prove a non-existant point, it is not the same thing as saying that she (who is using verified facts to prove a point) is.
But thanks for trying.
-
factual errors? where?
A Berlin newspaper reported in the autumn that German Nazis look to Sweden for guidance. Swedish Nazis have established a leading role in White Power music, releasing 342 CDs last year.
is a fact.
Music in Sweden is White Power music.
is a fact.
just like
A noted conservative has stated that he feels blacks are inferior.
is a fact (Look up Jesse Helms)
Conservatives are racists
is a fact.
Are ya catching on pumpkin?
"Liberals hate America" - Based on verified facts huh? BS. Where in her entire article did she prove that a Liberal hates America? Just one Liberal! Can you find it?
A "P" did "Q"
"P"s do "Q"
factual as hell aint it?
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Truth is relative, Mr. Eagler. :)
only to a lib :)
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Truth is relative, Mr. Eagler. :)
Are you saying Eagler is a relative of your's Sandman?:)
Seriously Sandman, would you please explain your thinking. I've never heard that before, and am curious why you would say that?
If truth is relative, then it seems there is nothing other than opinion to form a basis of what may be perceived as truth.
One example of truth, by my way of thinking, is mathematics, specifically calculus, which I believe was introduced as an advanced form of algebra in Spain by the Moors. Many mathematical systems at the time were Roman based, and did not included the concept of the zero, (no, not the A6m, hehe.)
Here's a thought, for what it's worth. Zero represents infinity, a single point that can never be reached, but is there nevertheless. We all accept that as a mathematical truth. We can't see it or touch it, but it's there.
Mathematics is the only exact science we on Earth know of. I'm somewhat puzzled that people accept a science based on the idea of infinity, yet struggle with the concept of God, which is also infinity...alpha and omega, the beginning and the end.
I disagree with some of you that God was invented by primitive peoples. Quite the contrary. Faith aside, I will argue that the evidence of the existence of God is established by the exact science of mathematics alone, without even going into religious doctrine. In fact, it seems downright unscientific to outright dismiss the idea of God, with so much evidence pointing in that direction.
Thank you for bearing with me on this. I know it has nothing to do with the thread...just something I had to say.
Les
-
"Truth is relative."
Spoken like a true communist......
-
Originally posted by Leslie
Seriously Sandman, would you please explain your thinking. I've never heard that before, and am curious why you would say that?
If truth is relative, then it seems there is nothing other than opinion to form a basis of what may be perceived as truth.
Les
Without getting into the whole relativism quagmire...
It's a perception thing. What I perceive as the truth might not be the same thing that you perceive. So... when we argue that Ann Coulter is telling the truth, are we saying that her perception is the absolute truth or are we saying that she's not lying?
Certainly, one can argue that there is an absolute truth. The difficulty is proving it.
Anyway... I don't much care for the term. It's much simpler to decide what is factual and what is not.
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
"Truth is relative."
Spoken like a true communist......
Name one thing I've ever said that is consistent with communism. Or... we're you simply name calling and this is the best that you could come up with?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
factual errors? where?
A Berlin newspaper reported in the autumn that German Nazis look to Sweden for guidance. Swedish Nazis have established a leading role in White Power music, releasing 342 CDs last year.
is a fact.
Music in Sweden is White Power music.
is a fact.
just like
A noted conservative has stated that he feels blacks are inferior.
is a fact (Look up Jesse Helms)
Conservatives are racists
is a fact.
Are ya catching on pumpkin?
"Liberals hate America" - Based on verified facts huh? BS. Where in her entire article did she prove that a Liberal hates America? Just one Liberal! Can you find it?
A "P" did "Q"
"P"s do "Q"
factual as hell aint it?
Maybe this is a language-thing. The sentence "Music in Sweden is White Power music." Is wrong. It should be "Some music in sweden is White Power music."
And you should be aware, midnight, that the quote I posted is a small section of the first chapter of a book describing the phenomena of liberals and their lies.
-
"Name one thing I've ever said that is consistent with communism."
Here we go:
"Truth is relative."
You have no idea just how often this was used in communism, in fact actually most diddlyed up totalitarian propagandist "politically correct" tyrannies with an an agenda.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Maybe this is a language-thing. The sentence "Music in Sweden is White Power music." Is wrong. It should be "Some music in sweden is White Power music."
I'm glad you finally saw the light. Her form of propaganda is often used by both sides of the political spectrum.
Some music in Sweden is white power music.
Some Liberals hate America
Some Conservatives are racists
Leaving out the word "some" doesn't make the sentence wrong, just misleading. Ms. Coulter tends to leave out the "some" a lot. Which makes her writing suspect.
-
and Grunherz...... two communists were talking:
IS TRUTH RELATIVE?
(A dialogue between Socrates and Protagoras)
Protagoras: Truth is relative. It is only a matter of opinion.
Socrates: You mean that truth is mere subjective opinion?
Protagoras: Exactly. What is true for you is true for you, and what is true for me, is true for me. Truth is subjective.
Socrates: Do you really mean that? That my opinion is true by virtue of its being my opinion?
Protagoras: Indeed I do.
Scorates: My opinion is: Truth is absolute, not opinion, and that you, Mr. Protagoras, are absolutely in error. Since this is my opinion, then you must grant that it is true according to your philosophy.
Protagoras: You are quite correct, Socrates.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
You have no idea just how often this was used in communism, in fact actually most diddlyed up totalitarian propagandist "politically correct" tyrannies with an an agenda.
You're absolutely right.
I have no idea.
Can you give examples, please?
-
changed histories
people airbrushed out of photos
signed "confessions"
political correctnes
official turuths
propaganda as news
-
Hehe,
"What we got hea, is a failya to communicate"
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I'm glad you finally saw the light. Her form of propaganda is often used by both sides of the political spectrum.
Some music in Sweden is white power music.
Some Liberals hate America
Some Conservatives are racists
Leaving out the word "some" doesn't make the sentence wrong, just misleading. Ms. Coulter tends to leave out the "some" a lot. Which makes her writing suspect.
Yes, leaving out the word "some" does make the sentence wrong that is what I have been trying to say all the time. And you have yet to show me a factual error in her writings. (there are none)
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
and Grunherz...... two communists were talking:
IS TRUTH RELATIVE?
(A dialogue between Socrates and Protagoras)
Protagoras: Truth is relative. It is only a matter of opinion.
Socrates: You mean that truth is mere subjective opinion?
Protagoras: Exactly. What is true for you is true for you, and what is true for me, is true for me. Truth is subjective.
Socrates: Do you really mean that? That my opinion is true by virtue of its being my opinion?
Protagoras: Indeed I do.
Scorates: My opinion is: Truth is absolute, not opinion, and that you, Mr. Protagoras, are absolutely in error. Since this is my opinion, then you must grant that it is true according to your philosophy.
Protagoras: You are quite correct, Socrates.
Correction: two homosexual communists (homosexuality was quite normal in ancient Greece.)
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Yes, leaving out the word "some" does make the sentence wrong that is what I have been trying to say all the time. And you have yet to show me a factual error in her writings. (there are none)
OK, then it makes the sentence wrong, so her sentence "LIBERALS HATE AMERICA" is WRONG................DAM!!
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
For justice has arrived, and she comes in the form of a beautiful woman.
WOW i had no balls to start to read that.... but is she single ? :cool:
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
LOL... I just want to know what she looks like upside-down.
(http://216.176.194.128/Images/ac.jpg)
ehm ehm ... well she isnt as pretty as i hoped :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by weazel
A brunette with *bad breath*.
:D
NAAA YOU #&*(^&*@#*& (@#$^#( HOLE THIS IS FREAKING UGLY BLONDE . !!!!!!!!! DONT EVER TOUCH BRUNETS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! specialy not from mediterranean Area ;)
last beatiful thing on this world and he is squeaking it
ccccccccc..........
:D :D
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
changed histories
people airbrushed out of photos
signed "confessions"
political correctnes
official turuths
propaganda as news
A little thin on the specifics, don't you think?
-
All that happened and everyone who lived under communism or studied it knows about it.
I dont wanna waste my time putting it up for you. Because it seems you are either a delusional pro-communist left wing idiot or are just trying to argue by deflection and always asking for something else.
You are living in some la-la land if you dont see how "Truth is relative" is a disasterous idea which has killed and opressed millions over the centuries. There is only one truth, only one thing actually ever happends. Granted there are different perspectives but there is only one truth.
Anyway you obviously have much more patience than I for pointless debates and endless arguing. I really shouldnt care because in real life situations I would just write people like you off and move on.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
A little thin on the specifics, don't you think?
Actually (if you are serious with your question) it would appear that you are more thin on education.
But ok, how is this, under the category of people airbrushed out of photos:
Trotskij removed from pictures with Lenin.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Actually (if you are serious with your question) it would appear that you are more thin on education.
But ok, how is this, under the category of people airbrushed out of photos:
Trotskij removed from pictures with Lenin.
What does Lenin and Trotskij have to do with Socrates and Protagoras?
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
What does Lenin and Trotskij have to do with Socrates and Protagoras?
They are all dead communists?
-
Truth is relative.
Everything you posted supports this Grunny. The "truth" the people in oppressed societies know is relative to the information allowed. I think this is what sandman is getting at, but to relate communism to the philosphy of truth is just silly.
Everything you disagree with may not be leftist liberal commie tripe.:rolleyes:
Hortlund........
Your grasp of standard logic is lacking.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
All that happened and everyone who lived under communism or studied it knows about it.
I dont wanna waste my time putting it up for you. Because it seems you are either a delusional pro-communist left wing idiot or are just trying to argue by deflection and always asking for something else.
You are living in some la-la land if you dont see how "Truth is relative" is a disasterous idea which has killed and opressed millions over the centuries. There is only one truth, only one thing actually ever happends. Granted there are different perspectives but there is only one truth.
Anyway you obviously have much more patience than I for pointless debates and endless arguing. I really shouldnt care because in real life situations I would just write people like you off and move on.
That's because "truth is relative" is a philosophical statement, not a political one.
BYE.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Truth is relative.
Not if you believe in God.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Not if you believe in God.
ROFL
I guess you want to conceed Ms. Coulter is jsut a mistaken propagandist then.
Amen.
:D
-
"What I told you was true, from a certain point of view."
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Not if you believe in God.
Ah! A religious argument! :)
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Granted there are different perspectives but there is only one truth.
ehm ehm ....
there is no true
you are dust and you will be dust again .. dont worry
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Not if you believe in God.
well God .. ehm ehm .....
i dont need to belive in god to be decent
so i do not :p
-
"This thread is breakin up Cap'n. I canna hold her together much longer. The dilithium sense crystals are about to blow!"
-
Nr 1: -"I suggest warp speed Captain."
-
Captain: -"Make it so."