He didn't state an opposing view. He said it was wrong. Do you understand the difference?
You are incorrect. Saying something is wrong IS a view. Saying the person is bad or evil for holding the view is what shuts down the debate, a tactic Democrats have been honing for a while now. If I think Affirmative Action is wrong and should not be adopted as policy, that is my view. Your view might be that it is good and should be adopted. I might say it's morally wrong and unfair or I might say that it is a divisive policy that will be ineffective. Either way I have opened up debate not shut it down. If you say "You oppose it because you are racist" that is shutting debate down. That is a tactic you have used in this very forum many times. Do you see the difference?
How does it differ from you accusing people of Anti-Semitism?
If you want to know, singling out Israel for special attack or criticism when you ignore the rest of the worlld's atorcities is anti-semitism. Claiming Jews have dual loyalty is anti-semitism. That is the only time I have ever used the word in this forum. I have never accused anyone criticizing ot attacking me or any other Jewish person of anti-semitism except in these cases.
I could see if someone says "Obama sucks because he favors his own black people" calling that racism. Saying I dislike Obama because I think he is arrogant is not racist. Saying I think Obama is a horrible president is not racist just because he is black. In fact expecting him not to be subject to criticism because of his race is actually the racism.
It is true that there is also little tolerance for the left viewpoint by many on the right but many on the right do not claim to stand for tolerance.
Many people on the left, people like me, don't claim to stand for tolerance. It seems to me that is a label grabbed by the right to paint everyone on the left with a broad brush. It is a lie and it does disrespect me as a person.
He didn't state an opposing view. He said it was wrong. Do you understand the difference?
You are incorrect. Saying something is wrong IS a view. Saying the person is bad or evil for holding the view is what shuts down the debate, a tactic Democrats have been honing for a while now. If I think Affirmative Action is wrong and should not be adopted as policy, that is my view. Your view might be that it is good and should be adopted. I might say it's morally wrong and unfair or I might say that it is a divisive policy that will be ineffective. Either way I have opened up debate not shut it down. If you say "You oppose it because you are racist" that is shutting debate down. That is a tactic you have used in this very forum many times. Do you see the difference?
Hold on, though. At that point you have a person who claims you are a racist when you know you are not, and if he basically walks away from you, who is the loser in the exchange?
You seem and always have seemed to hold those you label as "leftist" in very poor regard. Why would an outrageous claim of racism from such a person even bother you? Rejection of "debate?" Really?
Can one side really claim some high moral ground with political rhetoric? I saw a classic post from someone on FB not too long ago..."All you idiot liberals know how to do is insult people!"
Umm...
Nothing said here bothers me personally really. But if I really thought someone was beyonf rational discussion I wouldn't engage with them at all. Facebook is filled with nutjob anti-semetic groups. I don't bother to post there and attempt to change their sick minds. The fact that I discuss this shows the respect I have for the people engaged in this discussion. If I didn't respect them I wouldn't do it. That is not true for everyone. Some people join these forums for a safe place to attack people like calling them "idiot liberals" There are a number of liberals here who engage in debate and there are some who don't. The same is true for those ont he right of the spectrum. Life is too short to deal with that.
It is true that there is also little tolerance for the left viewpoint by many on the right but many on the right do not claim to stand for tolerance.
Many people on the left, people like me, don't claim to stand for tolerance. It seems to me that is a label grabbed by the right to paint everyone on the left with a broad brush. It is a lie and it does disrespect me as a person.
That is why I like to distinguish the term liberal from the term leftists. Liberals (like Alan Dershowitz) believe strongly in the free exchange of ideas from a philosophical point of view. That's why Dershowitz has defended odious clients in first amendment matters. The ACLU used to do this as well. Leftists believe int he implementation of their ideas by any means necessary. It is one of the things that distinguishes the two groups. One seeks to persuade, the other will do whatever it has to including lie to get the ideas IT KNOWS to be right implemented. Thank you for being one leftist honest enough to admit it. Of course as a small l liberal, I think its totally dangerous to our free society to have one side think it is right and correct to act this way whether I agree with the substance or not. But you think otherwise and I respect that. I will oppose it but I respect your passion and integrity.
One seeks to persuade, the other will do whatever it has to including lie to get the ideas IT KNOWS to be right implemented.
When it comes to politicians, persuasion is also known as doing whatever has to be done including lie to get the ideas one KNOWS to be right implemented. It is not a left/right thing, it is a political thing.
Leftists believe int he implementation of their ideas by any means necessary. It is one of the things that distinguishes the two groups. One seeks to persuade, the other will do whatever it has to including lie to get the ideas IT KNOWS to be right implemented. Thank you for being one leftist honest enough to admit it.
Really? Any means necessary? Now I'm what? An eco terrorist?
Doug - that is a reprehensible characterization of me as a person.
Leftists believe int he implementation of their ideas by any means necessary. It is one of the things that distinguishes the two groups. One seeks to persuade, the other will do whatever it has to including lie to get the ideas IT KNOWS to be right implemented. Thank you for being one leftist honest enough to admit it.
Really? Any means necessary? Now I'm what? An eco terrorist?
Doug - that is a reprehensible characterization of me as a person.
You should know by now that he throws all kinds of made up stuff out there thinking that something will stick. I got news for Doug. His jello doesn't stick to a wall. He says some of the most bizarre and factually incorrect things while presenting in a demeanor of a know it all. I've alluded before that no one is better at mixing opinion in with a 1/4 teaspoon of fact.
You should know by now that he throws all kinds of made up stuff out there thinking that something will stick. I got news for Doug. His jello doesn't stick to a wall. He says some of the most bizarre and factually incorrect things while presenting in a demeanor of a know it all. I've alluded before that no one is better at mixing opinion in with a 1/4 teaspoon of fact.
Mixed up with a pound of hysteria and box of hyperbole.
You should know by now that he throws all kinds of made up stuff out there thinking that something will stick. I got news for Doug. His jello doesn't stick to a wall. He says some of the most bizarre and factually incorrect things while presenting in a demeanor of a know it all. I've alluded before that no one is better at mixing opinion in with a 1/4 teaspoon of fact.
Mixed up with a pound of hysteria and box of hyperbole.
I think we're on to something - the makings of a Whipping Post Pie.
Don't leave out the snark. Vital ingredient.
Don't leave out the snark. Vital ingredient.
Just more of alloak's "snark and awe shucks". 😛
Don't leave out the snark. Vital ingredient.
Just more of alloak's "snark and awe shucks". 😛
Hee hee.
You are incorrect. Saying something is wrong IS a view. Saying the person is bad or evil for holding the view is what shuts down the debate, a tactic Democrats have been honing for a while now. If I think Affirmative Action is wrong and should not be adopted as policy, that is my view. Your view might be that it is good and should be adopted. I might say it's morally wrong and unfair or I might say that it is a divisive policy that will be ineffective. Either way I have opened up debate not shut it down. If you say "You oppose it because you are racist" that is shutting debate down. That is a tactic you have used in this very forum many times. Do you see the difference?
Ridiculous. For the billionth time, I think some of the extreme anger and criticism of him stems from his race, and if you don't understand the different between that and calling those people a racist, then that is your problem, not mine. Keep making the accusation though.
It's not logical to compare gay marriage to affirmative action. A better comparison would be to say "I think interracial marriage is wrong". Gay marriage and interracial marriage affects no other person in the scenario - it is strictly a moral issue. To say they are wrong is discriminatory based on gender, sexual orientation, and race. Even if religion is the excuse, religion shouldn't meddle in the affairs of other's private lives, nor in state and federal law. Affirmative action can be argued that it has a direct affect on other qualified candidates who get excluded because of race.
Bhawk: I saw a classic post from someone on FB not too long ago..."All you idiot liberals know how to do is insult people!"
Umm...
doughron: If you say "You oppose it because you are racist" that is shutting debate down. That is a tactic you have used in this very forum many times. Do you see the difference?
doughron: In fact expecting him not to be subject to criticism because of his race is actually the racism.
Classic indeed Bhawk.
You are incorrect. Saying something is wrong IS a view. Saying the person is bad or evil for holding the view is what shuts down the debate, a tactic Democrats have been honing for a while now. If I think Affirmative Action is wrong and should not be adopted as policy, that is my view. Your view might be that it is good and should be adopted. I might say it's morally wrong and unfair or I might say that it is a divisive policy that will be ineffective. Either way I have opened up debate not shut it down. If you say "You oppose it because you are racist" that is shutting debate down. That is a tactic you have used in this very forum many times. Do you see the difference?
Ridiculous. For the billionth time, I think some of the extreme anger and criticism of him stems from his race, and if you don't understand the different between that and calling those people a racist, then that is your problem, not mine. Keep making the accusation though.
It's not logical to compare gay marriage to affirmative action. A better comparison would be to say "I think interracial marriage is wrong". Gay marriage and interracial marriage affects no other person in the scenario - it is strictly a moral issue. To say they are wrong is discriminatory based on gender, sexual orientation, and race. Even if religion is the excuse, religion shouldn't meddle in the affairs of other's private lives, nor in state and federal law. Affirmative action can be argued that it has a direct affect on other qualified candidates who get excluded because of race.
God has spoken.
sorry if logic eludes you.
sorry if logic eludes you.
I am no stranger to logic. Your shortcoming seems to be that you firmly believe there is only one way to see things. Your way. That in itself has zero to do with logic. Understand?
Oh I see. I forgot to put "IMO" in my last post. My bad.
she couldn't beat a junior senator from chicago in 2008 when she was a shoe-in. maybe a moron like martin o'malley or deval patrick will run. someone a little younger. she won't run anyway. too old to handle the campaign trail. health issues will surface
Funny how people see things differently. I, and many others, didn't see them as moderate at all. They came off as staunch conservatives to me.
Take it from a staunch Conservative.....No.
They could not win with those two, they would get beaten much worse if they ran ricky perry, ted cruz, newt or that retarded, wanna-be bass player, dough-boy from arkansas 😛
[Edited on 10/10/2014 by pops42]
you're a moron. couldn't you use different word than "retarded"? no wonder i never take you seriously
she couldn't beat a junior senator from chicago in 2008 when she was a shoe-in. maybe a moron like martin o'malley or deval patrick will run. someone a little younger. she won't run anyway. too old to handle the campaign trail. health issues will surface
Yeah keep telling yourself that when they are swearing her into Office with first man Bubba Clinton at her side. IMHO she will run and win going away with the campaign machine that Bubba will build her and the unlimited campaign money that will flow into her war chest. Man it is going to be a tough next 10 years for conservatives.
she couldn't beat a junior senator from chicago in 2008 when she was a shoe-in. maybe a moron like martin o'malley or deval patrick will run. someone a little younger. she won't run anyway. too old to handle the campaign trail. health issues will surface
Yeah keep telling yourself that when they are swearing her into Office with first man Bubba Clinton at her side. IMHO she will run and win going away with the campaign machine that Bubba will build her and the unlimited campaign money that will flow into her war chest. Man it is going to be a tough next 10 years for conservatives.
Whenever I hear those say she won't run, I take it as a contrary indicator.
she couldn't beat a junior senator from chicago in 2008 when she was a shoe-in. maybe a moron like martin o'malley or deval patrick will run. someone a little younger. she won't run anyway. too old to handle the campaign trail. health issues will surface
Yeah keep telling yourself that when they are swearing her into Office with first man Bubba Clinton at her side. IMHO she will run and win going away with the campaign machine that Bubba will build her and the unlimited campaign money that will flow into her war chest. Man it is going to be a tough next 10 years for conservatives.
Whenever I hear those say she won't run, I take it as a contrary indicator.
I haven't really heard anybody say that she isn't running. I still have a feeling her name won't be on the ballot Election Day. I have no choice but to stick to that prediction now that it's on the record in the Allman Brothers Band Whipping Post.
she couldn't beat a junior senator from chicago in 2008 when she was a shoe-in. maybe a moron like martin o'malley or deval patrick will run. someone a little younger. she won't run anyway. too old to handle the campaign trail. health issues will surface
Yeah keep telling yourself that when they are swearing her into Office with first man Bubba Clinton at her side.
If you are proven correct, one thing is for sure -- She's got one helluva mess to clean up.
she couldn't beat a junior senator from chicago in 2008 when she was a shoe-in. maybe a moron like martin o'malley or deval patrick will run. someone a little younger. she won't run anyway. too old to handle the campaign trail. health issues will surface
Yeah keep telling yourself that when they are swearing her into Office with first man Bubba Clinton at her side.
If you are proven correct, one thing is for sure -- She's got one helluva mess to clean up.
Really? What mess are you talking about?
she couldn't beat a junior senator from chicago in 2008 when she was a shoe-in. maybe a moron like martin o'malley or deval patrick will run. someone a little younger. she won't run anyway. too old to handle the campaign trail. health issues will surface
Yeah keep telling yourself that when they are swearing her into Office with first man Bubba Clinton at her side.
If you are proven correct, one thing is for sure -- She's got one helluva mess to clean up.
Really? What mess are you talking about?
Initially she should be thinking about tying up some loose ends and put out a few fires. Like making sure some guy can't jump the fence and walk right into the White House if he feels like it.
Then maybe see to it that agencies like the EPA and IRS aren't frying hard drives and losing important information.
Then, over to the VA and check on those fake waiting lists.
Should a private be able to steal NSA files if he wants them? Check on that.
Consider putting some minds together that are capable of launching a web site if necessary.
Get a handle on those "rogue" IRS agents.
Be informed! Assemble the staffing and/or establish some means of staying abreast of what's going on. Don't find out the next day on TV like Obama does.
How's that for a start, just to get warmed up?
[Edited on 10/15/2014 by alloak41]
When government officials can tell me all about the cell phone call to Aunt Esther 30 minutes
ago, but don't know Vets are dying while waiting for treatment on fake waiting lists. Well, you
might say priorities are a little out of whack?
she couldn't beat a junior senator from chicago in 2008 when she was a shoe-in. maybe a moron like martin o'malley or deval patrick will run. someone a little younger. she won't run anyway. too old to handle the campaign trail. health issues will surface
Yeah keep telling yourself that when they are swearing her into Office with first man Bubba Clinton at her side.
If you are proven correct, one thing is for sure -- She's got one helluva mess to clean up.
Really? What mess are you talking about?
Initially she should be thinking about tying up some loose ends and put out a few fiJres. Like making sure some guy can't jump the fence and walk right into the White House if he feels like it.
Then maybe see to it that agencies like the EPA and IRS aren't frying hard drives and losing important information.
Then, over to the VA and check on those fake waiting lists.
Should a private be able to steal NSA files if he wants them? Check on that.
Consider putting some minds together that are capable of launching a web site if necessary.
Get a handle on those "rogue" IRS agents.
Be informed! Assemble the staffing and/or establish some means of staying abreast of what's going on. Don't find out the next day on TV like Obama does.
How's that for a start, just to get warmed up?
[Edited on 10/15/2014 by alloak41]
Wow. Such serious problems the Republic is dying.
she couldn't beat a junior senator from chicago in 2008 when she was a shoe-in. maybe a moron like martin o'malley or deval patrick will run. someone a little younger. she won't run anyway. too old to handle the campaign trail. health issues will surface
Yeah keep telling yourself that when they are swearing her into Office with first man Bubba Clinton at her side.
If you are proven correct, one thing is for sure -- She's got one helluva mess to clean up.
Yeah you are right she will have to continue the work Obama started cleaning up the trainwreck Bush left.
Obama will leave her with a much more stable situation then the Sh*t sandwich Bush left Obama.
she couldn't beat a junior senator from chicago in 2008 when she was a shoe-in. maybe a moron like martin o'malley or deval patrick will run. someone a little younger. she won't run anyway. too old to handle the campaign trail. health issues will surface
Yeah keep telling yourself that when they are swearing her into Office with first man Bubba Clinton at her side.
If you are proven correct, one thing is for sure -- She's got one helluva mess to clean up.
Yeah you are right she will have to continue the work Obama started cleaning up the trainwreck Bush left.
Obama will leave her with a much more stable situation then the Sh*t sandwich Bush left Obama.
I'll ask the question once again that went unanswered the first time. Who was out running around
harassing lenders and suing banks in the 90's on behalf of ACORN?
Hint: It wasn't George Bush
It would seem that Barack Obama had a lot more to do with the sh*t sandwich than Bush did.
The mess Obama inherited was a lot of his own making.
