Quote:
|
Originally Posted by xxSquirtxx
With all due respect, I have found the same in return. I have posted somewhat lengthy replies, and what I get is pretty much dismissal of what I had to say.
Two-way street, buddy. Climb down off of that horse.
|
I wasn't going to respond to this thread anymore, but I ran a search on all posts of yours in politics since you joined. Now, unless you've been here under a different name, I'm trying to find where you've been participating in a thoughtful, polite, and constructive manner yet still being summarily dismissed by liberals or anyone else for that matter.
I am going to take the time to post every single one of your replies so people can judge for themselves if what I'm saying about conservatives on this board making things up to prove a point (which is what you just did to chastise my responses) and pretty much playing the victim when they called out on their shit (like the ludicrous assertion that I'm a trolll for pointing out that constructive participation on this board lacks in no small part due to unwillingness to engage with one anothers' posts,
which would be the opposite of trolling).
Starting earliest first (ie, your first post in politics out of 27 total), here are your posts in their
entirety:
Quote:
The message is as plain as the nose on your face. Republican bashing - especially Bush bashing. Same old cliched bullshit...."war for oil"...yada yada.
What a blatant attempt at yet more liberal gnashing of teeth. *yawn*
|
Quote:
|
But surely no criticizing to be done of Clinton who could have had Saddam. Hmmm...
|
Quote:
Yes, we couldn't just stop with Kuwait's oil. 
|
Quote:
She got fired for that?
Fucking assholes.
|
Quote:
I must disagree with this.
Why does republican have to = asexual? Bullshit.
|
Quote:
You have a point. Whoopi Goldberg opened her big, fat piehole and slammed Bush, and Slimfast canned her. 
|
Quote:
You do realize how narrow-minded and stereotypical that sounds, don't you? Are you really that unaware of the diversity of the GOP?
Apparently.
Do you even know what a fiscal conservative is? Are you aware that a lot of Libertarians vote Republican?
I suppose, if I continue your line of thinking, I can say that all Democrats are immoral heathens, despite the fact that I know damn well there are countless (religious and nonreligious) very conservative Democrats.
|
Quote:
Apologies for not being more clear. My point is this: Republicans are a varied group. Just because one calls him/herself "Republican" does not mean he/she adheres to the morals of the far right.
I was merely pointing out that some here tend to lump "GOPers" into one small category without taking into consideration that we are as diverse, if not moreso, than Democrats. At least, from what I've witnessed over the years anyway.
|
Quote:
35...that's right, thirtyfuckingfive!!!! Dead on with Bob Dole. xxSquirtxx likes Bob Dole. And OMG -- I didn't even agree to banning graphic pornography! Scandalous!
My husband took this and got 24. We need to talk! Heh.
|
Quote:
FoolThemAll, Tammy Bruce IS gay. She's a very outspoken lesbian who sits quite right of center. She's great. Like most people, she wants accountability from both sides.
This whole thing is getting curiouser and curiouser. The page was a former page, for one, and he wasn't 16. He was 17. The age of consent in D.C. is 16. NOT that that makes it okay. I still think Foley is a nasty slimeball who damn well should have resigned like he did. Shame on him.
http://newsbusters.org/node/8096
Someone had these IMs for three years! I want to know who the hell had this info for that long.
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/20...e-scandal.html
Maybe he just should have taken his object of lust to Morocco to have sex with him.
|
Quote:
|
Absolutely in agreement with you.
|
Quote:
Wow. I don't even know where to begin here, as everything you just said is flat-out wrong.
Either you don't listen to Limbaugh, or you are getting some really lame talking points from Daily KOS. Or both. Limbaugh has from the beginning repeatedly condemned Foley's actions. So has Hannity, so has Boortz. It's disingenuous of you to say otherwise. The same goes for the GOP leadership. Foley's actions were condemned immediately - especially by Bush.
Quote:
"Asked about the scandal, Mr. Bush said, "This is disgusting behavior when a member of Congress betrays the trust of the Congress and the family that sent a young page to serve."
And so on down the line - the GOP have shunned Foley.
Also, some facts thus far:
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion...oley_inves.htm
Quote:
"The first thing to say is that there is no evidence that Speaker Dennis Hastert or anyone else in the Republican leadership knew anything about the sexually explicit instant messages until they were posted on abcnews.com on September 29. Within hours, Mark Foley resigned from the House of Representatives. Thus there was no coverup of the IMs. And there certainly have been no admissions, as Democrat Patty Wetterling running in the Sixth District of Minnesota charged in an ad, that the Republican leaders have admitted covering up improper sexually explicit behavior.
That said, there remain questions about whether Republican leaders responded properly to the charges made earlier that Foley had been sending "overly friendly" but not sexually explicit E-mails to former pages. None of the IMs that we know of were sent to current pages, for whom Congress has custodial responsibility, and some of them apparently were sent to former pages when they were 18 or older. Hastert has said that John Shimkus, the lead member of the bipartisan page board, talked to Foley and told him to stop all questionable contact with the pages. So far, so good. But there is the question of whether the leaders or other members had other knowledge of possibly improper conduct by Foley and what, if anything, they did about it.
And then, if you'd like to talk about how unbalanced things are:
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.as...20061012b.html
http://www.mrc.org/realitycheck/2006/fax20061011.asp
And the witch hunt now for gay Republicans: (from the party, BTW, who is all about gays having their privacy and "coming out" when the individual chooses, and not outed by an outside entity. Yeah, nice)
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...VjM2ZjODIzNjI=
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/orego...820.xml&coll=7
|
Quote:
Typical.
Facts - in through one ear and out the other.
Oh well.
I always think there are some rather intelligent people around TFP.
Then I read the politics forum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kutulu
xxSquirtxx:
Go ahead and live in a fantasy word where Hasart knew nothing. His staff admitted the next day that the issue had been discussed with Alexander's staff.
Go ahead and continue with your shitty reading comprehension. I never said that.
|
Quote:
If the Dems were like Zell Miller, I'd vote for 'em.
|
Quote:
LOL So?
What a typical response, too. 
Gosh. The same could be said of the intolerant, reactionary leftwingers.
|
Quote:
You mean "not if it was a Democrat." They get a pass.
I wonder -- do those of you who are screaming about abuse of power, etc. think Gerry Studds was abusing his power? Was what he did sexual...
|
Quote:
|
Nice dig. And total bullshit.
|
Quote:
Shit, that is hilarious!
I think South Park did a far better job with their conspiracy theory episode.
|
Quote:
Fucking children is only ok when they give consent.
How nice.
And, duhhh, Foley didn't "fuck" anyone, unlike Studds.
|
Quote:
Oh my god......because some people can't pull their heads out of their ass and put things in historical perspective.
**unnecessary insults removed**
|
Quote:
|
**unnecessary insults removed**
|
Quote:
Heh. Yeah, they loooove to pull that one out, don't they? 
|
Quote:
|
Oh my - the broad brush strokes. Where do I begin........
|
Quote:
|
Which are so unlike yours, correct?
|
--
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/search.php?searchid=723022
Now, these are
all of your posts and everyone curious can go to the link I provided to read them for one's self and make a decision.
That said, this is way off track and I apologize for that to people still interested in participating and other lurkers. BUT I saw it as necessary becaues the problem with trolls is that they drive away positive contributors and lurkers (who don't know the context within which arguments like this erupt). I would guess that if someone were reading this, he or she might be a bit baffled as to where I was coming from. And for that reader, I've been here for
years...longer than my account reflects due to multiple crashes. I no longer post here frequently, and now you have some insight as to why that might be the case.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
smooth I'm glad I have your not so subtle arrogance to tell me what makes someone smart because they like the kind of things you do |
You mixed cause and effect.
I never wrote that someone is intelligent
because of his or her entertainment/news sources, just that most TV watchers don't sit around the TV thinking about political affiliation or ideology. They just want to be entertained.
I think that smart people know the difference between entertainment and news.
Air america struck me as neither.
Quote:
|
You are quite eloquent is really saying nothing at all, congratulations, you would fit in nicely at any liberal dinner party where you can lament the poor state of the average american who only wants entertainment and doesn’t understand the refined things in life.
|
I'd like to go to one and I hope they're half the fun as the conservative dinner parties I've attended where we lamented the poor state of the average american who only wants entertainment and doesn't udnerstand the refined things in life (whatever those may be...I guess in this context substantive news is a refined thing in life...I don't feel ashamed for desiring it)
Quote:
I find Bill Myer dull, the BBC biased, and Chris Matthews a hack, and in the past have enjoyed Limbaugh who I have found to be very insightful.
Oh no, I must not be intelligent!
|
As stated, what you find interesting doesn't speak to me about your intelligence level.
Quote:
|
Liberal values? What would those be exactly? I’ve never seen liberal values in the parties that claim to represent Liberals, they seem to enjoy playing with the truth, so what are these ‘liberal values’?
|
I like your qualifier!
I've never seen a party claiming to represent Liberals hold liberal values either
Rather than speculate on what constitutes a monolithic value system, I'd have to say that one value corporate acculturated people possess is drive for profit. Seems straightforward there.
One value classical liberals have is positivism. I thought that was straightforward, too. But I guess I caught you off-guard with my notion that positivists would find people who play fast and loose with the truth to be counter-productive in a political domain.
Quote:
|
Why are you using classic definitions that have no bearing on the current usage? By the classic definitions many of todays conservatives are liberals, and liberals are conservative. It bears no meaning to ‘liberal’ radio as those are not liberals who wish to deconsolidate power. Do you use this to confuse the issue or are you trying to equate todays ‘liberal’ with the classic idea of liberal?
|
And I hearkened to the classical term because a lot of people in academia (from both sides of the political spectrum) adhere or fashion they adhere to that standard.
But as I'm not a positivist, I can't speculate much more on their value system. I can only suspect that if they were to be true to the standard of finding fundamental Truth that shock jockeys stretching Truth for entertainment would turn them from listening to it as a serious news forum.
Quote:
|
Translated, liberals are not going to listen to liberal ‘shock jocks’ like the stupid conservatives do.
|
Well, I guess. But I'd think my position was more along the lines that intelligent people aren't going to derive their political opinions from shock jockeys whose sole purpose is to entertain.
I have no idea what stupid conservatives do in their spare time as I don't know any. Perhaps they bang out inane responses on internet forums.
Quote:
I don’t know if Frank Herbert took this from somewhere else or not, but one line from his works always stood out in my mind because it seems to be true. It seems very fitting for your postings.
"The patterns, ahhh, the patterns. Liberal bigots are the ones who trouble me most. I distrust the extremes. Scratch a conservative and you find someone who prefers the past over any future. Scratch a liberal and find a closet aristocrat. It's true! Liberal governments always develop into aristocracies. The bureaucracies betray the true intent of people who form such governments. Right from the first, the little people who formed the governments which promised to equalize the social burdens found themselves suddenly in the hands of bureaucratic aristocracies. Of course, all bureaucracies follow this pattern. Ahhh, well, if patterns teach me anything it's that patterns are repeated."
Edit: and if I may add the Daily-show isn't really high commedy, its liberal commedy. I think what you really wanted to say was that 'conservatives who like my liberal sources of entertainment and news are smart.'.
|
If you find that interesting, you'd probably find Weber's notion of the Iron Cage and Michel's Iron Law of Oligarchy interesting, as well.
I find it absotlutely fucking hilarious that as soon as I put something in paragraph form, that's where ustwo's comprehension level falls to abysmal levels. I mean, I didn't call you stupid, ustwo, but your responses are illustrating an uncanny (and by that I suspect intentional) obtuseness...
I'll break it apart for you:
Here's what I wrote:
Quote:
Given the growing illiteracy, obesity, and poverty issues in our modern society, I don't see why any of this would be particularly shocking to anyone.
That is, it seems to me that a growing segment of our population is content to forget their shitty days while consuming goods and ideas from something like a TV that they can control with an on/off button.
And that's the extent of the conclusions I'd draw from that statistical data--
nothing about their voting habits
(other than to state that more often than not they DONT vote, rather than attaching them to any particular party or Bush as you put it),
nothing about their intelligence
(although their time seems at this point to be better spent than mine repeating myself to people in this thread),
ironic in that this point actually means that I think their waste of time is probably more pragmatic and "intelligent" than mine here, which is as stupid as banging my head against a wall...but in the spirit of my comprehensive exams coming friday where I actually WILL be banging my head against the wall I might as well get prepared
and certainly nothing about where these people live
(except that I would venture the grandaddy of them all, Jerry Springer from whom all this shit seemed to sprout and was realized its popularity from, seemed to be rooted in "trailer trash" exploitation).
|
So despite your best attempts to the contrary, everyone can see plain as the text of my own I'm quoting, that I'm not remarking on anyone's political affiliation or intelligence level based on the entertainment they consume.
And rather than risking a problematic parapraph...
I know smart people who watch and laugh at dumb shit...
but they don't take it as news.
I guess people watch and laugh at dumb shit because it takes their mind off the hard shit they have to deal with day in, day out.
If you can't get that point by now, then I don't really have to comment on your intelligence level, I just have to make sure I find out your real name before I have any dental work done in the Chicago area.