Tea Party protesters are civil, bathed and decent.
POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Sunday, April 26, 2009 16:18
VIEWED: 14086
PAGE 7 of 16
Quote:Um, nah. No. Sorry but I'll choose not to nod to Kwickos powerful intellect. What I see are are two enablers leaning on each other for support. There are others here doing it too. If Mr. isall proffered this opinion I'd consider it, but from you rue, sorry no.
Originally posted by rue:
you don't even recognize that your own logic is being reflected back at you
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
you're hearing shit from a Left wing site , made by Hillary Clinton. Her husband tried to blame Rush Limbaugh for the O.K. city bombings.
You have no credibility.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Read further down then. Jong calls me naive and I respond.
Originally posted by Storymark:
Not that I disagree with your point, but I felt it worth noting that you felt fit to chastise Kwiko and not Jong for literally the same words...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by bluesuncompanyman:Quote:Um, nah. No. Sorry but I'll choose not to nod to Kwickos powerful intellect. What I see are are two enablers leaning on each other for support. There are others here doing it too. If Mr. isall proffered this opinion I'd consider it, but from you rue, sorry no.
Originally posted by rue:
you don't even recognize that your own logic is being reflected back at you
That's a bit damning then, isn't it? You're freely admitting that you'll give differing levels of credence to the exact same information depending on whom in comes from. That's fine, just as long as you don't ever try to portray yourself as fair, balanced, or unbiased. Clearly you ARE biased.
That's not a condemnation or a criticism; it's a mere observation. We ALL tend to be biased. If we're honest, we can see and admit these biases, and then we can try to find a way to work around them.
What drives me nuts is people - AuRaptor is a shining example - who are completely and utterly blinded by their biases, so much so that they can't even admit that they HAVE such a bent.
Here he is telling me that the tea parties were completely grass-roots, unlike all those Soros-backed protests the left attends. I pointed out that this MAY NOT be so. I didn't claim that it clearly isn't so, or can't be true. I didn't call him a liar, a fuck-nuts, an idiot, a dumbass, a prick, or any of the things he routinely calls me. All I did was point out that there is SOME evidence that this is far from a simple grass-roots movement, and may in fact be strongly backed by Fox News. That's fine and good, Fox can do that - but don't try to tell me that their "coverage" of it is purely from a "news" standpoint. That's just ludicrous.
And rather than take that information and look into it himself, 'Rap decided to simply say, "You listened to Hillary. You have no credibility."
Mike
Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, rappy listens to limbaugh, so HE has no credibility.
Right, rappy?
Same logic.
---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You're quite the debater K. I'll hand you that. A great skill for all debaters to hone is to re-direct the debate into a direction they can control. And that is what you've done here, changed the focus to imply that if person A said a thing I'd disagree but if person B (Whom I like presumably) says the same thing...well I'd agree by george!
Originally posted by Kwicko:
That's a bit damning then, isn't it? You're freely admitting that you'll give differing levels of credence to the exact same information depending on whom in comes from.
Nope. Allow me to drag the point back into focus. I believe Rue to be a biased person. I always have. Certainly Rap is as well. Sometimes Rap espouses retroic that fits into my world view of economic liberty. Sometimes Rue will profer statements that fit my world view of personal liberty. I see their divergent paths as 2 parts of a greater whole.
You I see as older and wiser, but in no way less able to cut through the retroic yourself. Because Rue is so much like yourself you two lean back to back like Gump & Bubba in war. I've watched Rap and Wulf do the same thing.
To finish on the primary point I'll offer this: I seek wisdom from the wise. There are about 3 posters on fff that help me grow. Chris, for all his strangeness at times, has become one of those 3 over the years. Rue on the other hand is a person I've meet many times before. The heart is in the correct place to do good without the wisdom to consider all consequences. Just as Wulf's focused willpower is in the right place to take action without the wisdom to consider those consequences.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"To finish on the primary point ..."
I can't imagine what your post has to do with the topic. Speaking of redirecting ...
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by bluesuncompanyman:Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
I think all that is very noble. I also think it's very naive.
And your point is not lost on me. Yes it can be percieved as naive. True. But I will say this..the same could have been said to the patriots of the 1770's prior to the war. At that time a growing minority were disgruntled, fighting as they did against the Stamp Act of 1765, the Townshend acts of 1767, the Tea Act of 1773, or the Intolerable acts of 1774. To resist the supreme power of the combined might of the British Empire by a meer few was indeed regarded as naive (or more often foolish). But when the frustration grew...and grew....and grew...what was once naive became menacing.
One reason I love Firefly so much are the ideals of the Independents. They bled and died for planetary sovergnity. Who can protect us from Scavengers, or harsh conditions? From Slavers or Reavers? The Alliance? NO! We must stand on our own legs! We have the right to self govern. That fiction created by Joss Whedon resonates as loudly in my ears as the truth of the American Revolution. Those were the people who proclaimed 'Give Me Liberty or Death', and meant it.
I saw a lot of things at yesterday's tea party. There were even some scant counter-protestors. But their efforts were such a waste, they had no message. And then I saw the grand absurdity of a downtown panhandler gravitate towards the mass of humanity thinking this was like a Colts game or something where he could fleece beer/drug money. What he encountered was a mass of people who had heard speeches on the subject of self-suffenciecy and when he started begging I thought the people were going to tar him.
Well, sure - 'cause if you can't tar the ones who'd really benefit from it, tar the vagrant panhandlers. Everybody knows they're nothing more than failed politicians, anyway.
I reckon that's why Jesus said that thing about the poor always being with us - he knew that we would need surrogates for those times when tarring those who actually wanted tarring would prove impractical and/or inadvisable.
I certainly hope he got what was coming to him...or to somebody, at any rate...
ETA: Which reminds me - if the detainee abuse outcry becomes too unmanageable, maybe we can round up some vagrants and charge them with torture and war crimes. And then tar them.
And this is why I usually limit myself to nonsequiturs and one-liners...by the time I care enough to try and post a serious post, I'm about as coherent as a ferret on meth...
W W R D ?
What would Rorschach do?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Limbaugh is accurate 99% of the time. Everyone should listen.
He's more credible than most of the msm.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
