Vilification is over the top

[Ned]

Originally posted by MrFun
Q -- we give the fundies our "attention" in order to refute their bigoted statements.

They are not bigoted to the extent they defend society's norms concerning the family. They are bigoted to the extent they denouce homosexuality as a deviant practice because this assumes there is a choice.

Mr. Fun, I can only home you can make this distinction. Attack the bigotry and not the family. In your other thread, you made a direct attack on families.

[Ned]

Q Qubed, Eisenhower, as Nixon did later, inherited a war long after the public consensus on waging the war to victory dissipated. Both did what was necessary to end the war on reasonable terms. The central failure lay not with Eisenhower and Nixon, but with those who squandered the earlier opportunity for victory while the public support for the war was overwhelming.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
this is why, che, you seem to be absolutely furious with me on the topic of social security, and why here, your anger is completely misplaced because i'm completely in agreement--in favor of gay marriage.

When it comes to moderates, I am reminded of a quote by Edmund Burke, "All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing." Conservatives are the evil, and moderates are the good men who do nothing.

[Ned]

All we really need to know about communists, che, is that they reverse the normal meaning of words.

[chequita guevara]

The devil may use scripture to his own benefit, Ned. You people are evil, and will say anything, tell any lie, stretch any truth, to get what you want. You are the enemies of humanity. Moderates don't get it, and that's what angers me about them.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ned


They are not bigoted to the extent they defend society's norms concerning the family. They are bigoted to the extent they denouce homosexuality as a deviant practice because this assumes there is a choice.

Mr. Fun, I can only home you can make this distinction. Attack the bigotry and not the family. In your other thread, you made a direct attack on families.

I'm not attacking families (although I misunderstood you in the other thread) -- in fact, I fully support stable families established by homosexual couples.

[Ned]

Mr. Fun, it looks like we have some common ground in our thinking.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
That's silly. Very few people are addicted to sex.

most guys my age are

Jon Miller

[Skanky Burns]

I am ashamed of Apolyton.

Only two people so far have voted for both options.

[Q Classic]

When it comes to moderates, I am reminded of a quote by Edmund Burke, "All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing." Conservatives are the evil, and moderates are the good men who do nothing.

che, i'm sorry you feel this way. really, i am. you are no better than the conservatives you seek to villify simply by the fact that you are so blinded by your ideology that you refuse to even consider their points of view. without even giving them a chance to defend their positions, you summarily decide that they must be Evil.

Nice to meet you, President Che W. Bush.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Q Cubed

When it comes to moderates, I am reminded of a quote by Edmund Burke, "All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing." Conservatives are the evil, and moderates are the good men who do nothing.

che, i'm sorry you feel this way. really, i am. you are no better than the conservatives you seek to villify simply by the fact that you are so blinded by your ideology that you refuse to even consider their points of view. without even giving them a chance to defend their positions, you summarily decide that they must be Evil.

Nice to meet you, President Che W. Bush.

I do consider their points of view. Then I go look at the facts. If I'm angry, it's because for quite some time now I've been giving them the benefit of the doubt, and not bother to check facts given to me by conservatives. Now that I am, I find a string of lies that have resulted in defimation of character, stolen elections, war, terrorism, etc.

Let's look at your idiotic CATO Institute thread. You just go and post something from the CI without even bothering to find out if its true or not. You're a dupe, because you want to believe it. You don't bother to find out that, in fact, that CI is lying through its teeth. So, now that you've given them a chance to lie to you, are you angry? (In case you don't think they've lied to you, you might wish to go read Adam Smith's posts in your thread.)

If it was so easy for him to discover those facts, why couldn't the CI have done it before they put out that lie-ridden tract. Because they don't care about the truth. They're liars. And they expect their supports and moderate dupes to just accept as fact what they've been given, without checking.

If a conservative tells me the sky is blue, I'm having my eyes checked.

[Q Classic]

if you look at my posts in that cato thread, you'll see that i view ss purely through the lens of self-interest. you'll note that i say the same thing about it that i do with affirmative action.

it doesn't work for me. it actually hurts me. therefore, i don't like it and would like to see it gone. at the same time, i state that if there was a way for it to actually help me, i wouldn't mind it at all.

is it some thoughtcrime to think in one's own self-interest?

i stopped posting in that thread after reading some posts by dr strangelove. he's got good points: not all old people are rich. i knew that already, though--the point is being missed in all the vitriol you've been tossing my way.

social security is broken. the current government does not have the balls to fix it. it doesn't look like any government in the forseeable future has the balls to fix it. nothing short of a revolution in power (as in removing the crusty old people who have neither the moral or intellectual integrity for anything outside of blustering posturing and replacing them with younger leaders who are actively interested in fixing all of the problems that they've already inherited) will fix it. i will have to pay for both my financial burdens, and the burdens of my predecessors. and that doesn't give me the right to be angry? the profligate spending sins of the fathers are being visited on the sons, and i don't have the right to be furious at the injustice of that? if america ceases to be the great nation that it used to be because of the inability of politicians to divert money properly, and i have to deal with america being a second-rate power, do i not have the right to be indignant about that?

leftists are just as bad as rightists in making BFAs and expecting moderates to buy into it. you had a helluva lot of moderates thinking that this war was about oil. you had moderates thinking that yeah, maybe perjury wasn't so bad, because who wouldn't lie about an affair? you had moderates thinking that abortion isn't really killing another human being.

as for the cato institute: when you get down to it, all think tanks operate the same way: they take information, filter it, and then publish their results, tinted, of course. yes, i'm prepared to admit the cato report does exaggerate things. but with the way things look right now, i'm not prepared to see us go that much more into debt to pay for a social security system that's clearly stealing from me with no promise of a return.

it grieves me that america is more factionalized than ever. it's even worse that being a moderate is about as unchic as being a white heterosexual male. it's sad when political rhetoric is dominated by ultrapartisans for both sides, squelching any real chance of getting things to work.

i'm sorry you feel that conservatives are Evil, che w. bush. obviously, if we're not with you, we must be against you. by the same token, we must be traitors and fifth columnists to people like ned and adam yoshida.

and in a sign that perfectly symbolises the middle, here's a nice middle finger for you. in fact, here's two.

(^) ^^ (^)

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
social security is broken.

No, it isn't. It only needs some readjusting.

you had a helluva lot of moderates thinking that this war was about oil.

The war was about oil. Perle even stated as much, obliquely. It wasn't solely about oil, nor even mostly about oil. But "no blood for oil" is easy to remember. That's why it sticks with you, as opposed to the more substantive arguments that were offered.

you had moderates thinking that yeah, maybe perjury wasn't so bad, because who wouldn't lie about an affair?

Perjury is crime. But impeaching the POTUS over lying to a question he shouldn't have been allowed to be asked about a prvate affair that was not against the law was BS. On the other hand, Bush lies constantly ("the vast majority of my tax cuts go to the lower class"-the bottom 60% of the US pop get less than 15% of the tax cut) just to site one easy example off the top of my head. One lied about something that was none of our business, the other lied about: his policies, his drug habits, his integrity, his military service, his corporate record, who he help and how at Enron, the capacity of the Iraq, and so on. (To be fair, Cltinon lied about a hell of a lot more than that, and I even wrote an article back then condemning it, but impeaching him over Lweinsky was a farce.)

you had moderates thinking that abortion isn't really killing another human being.

It isn't. Human beings have senitence. Fetuses do not.

as for the cato institute: when you get down to it, all think tanks operate the same way: they take information, filter it, and then publish their results, tinted, of course

No. The CI lies. They, like the Heritage Foundation, and the American Enterprise Institute, deliberately misconstrue facts, even go as far as making them up, in order to support their right-wing agenda. The have taken Hitler's big lie to their bossom. If you make a lie, make it a whopper, cuz no one will believe you have the audacity to tell such a big lie. If yuo repeat it loud enough, and often enough, people will accept it for the truth.

For example, let's discuss Paul Wellstone's memorial. Out of a more than three hours of a memorial, the right-wing seized upon ten seconds of dialogue by Wellstone's best freind, then hammer on it as if it were the only thing that happened during the whole memorial. They said that the only the Wellstone's were memorialized, and what about the workers who died in the crash. Yet somehow they missed the family of the pilot who died speaking or the brother of Wellstone's driver. They said that 20,000 people booed Trent Lott. There were a handfull of boos, but 20,000 would be easily audible on tape, and in fact, it is dificult to dicern them. They said the audience was orchestrated when to lauch, when to clap, and don't tell you that there weer screens for the hearing disabled, and the "laughing" and "clapping" appeared five seconds after such things occured. I could go on. The Republicans said that the Democrats had taken a memorial and turned it into a dirty, shaful, political event, when in fact, it was the Republican smear-job which did just that. That's the kind of people they are.