What is it about humor? It seems inevitable now. Whenever one of our NewsBusted episodes gets popular, it inevitably attracts left-wing haters who get enraged that something poking fun at their sacred cows is allowed to even exist at all.
I'll be checking in later today with a few choice examples of today's dose of liberal peace and love but in the mean time, have a look at the comments yourself. Notice also how many of these left-wingers blindly rate us "one-star" just because NewsBusted is conservative.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
The lock-step comment is
March 5, 2008 - 14:45 ET by balboaThe lock-step comment is false. Certain types of liberals will leave the same kinds of comments, just as certain conservatives always bag on Jon Stewart.
Have you read them?
March 5, 2008 - 14:49 ET by Matthew SheffieldAlmost all of the YouTube lefties' behavior breaks down as follows:
That is just one segment of
March 5, 2008 - 14:58 ET by balboaThat is just one segment of the left side of politics. I have stated that I don't think the videos are very funny, but have conceded when I thought certain jokes worked.
Again, I could generalize and say that all conservatives, based on comments from this site, are in lockstep over Jon Stewart. But I don't think that's true.
You misread my post boa
March 5, 2008 - 15:02 ET by Matthew SheffieldI said YouTube lefties. I don't know what non-YouTube lefties would think since they can't post comments.
Your ideological colleagues over there do react in a lockstep manner, it's plainly obvious.
And they're most likely all
March 5, 2008 - 15:08 ET by balboaAnd they're most likely all pinheads who think it's totally "rad" to tell people off, think being rude is the same as being honest, etc.
and we NEVER see that
March 5, 2008 - 15:10 ET by sarcasmoOr "lock step" thinking, around here! ;)
JMR
PS How's that for a one-liner, Matthew?
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
Lots of people here
March 5, 2008 - 15:16 ET by Matthew Sheffielddo think similarly about things, however, NB commenters are quite a bit less lockstep in their behavior and certainly nowhere near as vile as most cyberlefties.
Post something about
March 5, 2008 - 15:24 ET by balboaPost something about Letterman or Stewart and we'll see that "less lockstep" works. Maybe less vile, but no less lockstep.
Spoken like someone who
March 6, 2008 - 04:17 ET by sarcasmoHasn't been (repeatedly, time after time...) presented with the following "conservative" comment: "you have yet to prove to us that you are not molesting little boys. Why is that?" I am told by the Whiner that I'm not "adult" enough to fathom the conservative nuance of this "argument." One standard, folks. Conservatives hate it when I bust your double-standards here just like lefties hate it when I nail theirs, but I'll keep callin' 'em like I see 'em. If Bal tries to get away with a double-standard for the left, I'm on him like white on rice, too.
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
Why do you suppose
March 5, 2008 - 15:13 ET by Matthew SheffieldYouTube lefties act that way pretty much en masse? I am curious what your opinion on that is.
Because they're the
March 5, 2008 - 15:23 ET by balboaBecause they're the angriest bunch of loons? People who get so upset over a silly internet comedy video that they actually take the time to respond.
Because they view conservatives as snakes who just want to tell people what to believe, and so they're "rebelling" against what they see as brow-beating, condescending comedy akin to their parents telling them to get a haircut and turn down the rock 'n roll.
Bal (& Matthew)
March 5, 2008 - 16:08 ET by MrShyFirst off Matthew, congrats on getting featured on the YT homepage! (how did that happen?)
Bal, I think what we're trying to underscore here is.... just how uncivil and foul-mouthed and over-the-top irrational with hatred the left has demonstrated itself to be over and over. I will assert that this is MUCH more a behavior reflected in liberals than in conservatives.
A big part of it is precisely as you made the analogy just now: liberals are like kids that haven't grown up, and republicans are, well.... grown-ups, who have more personal responsibility and value things like "common decency", "respect thy neighbor", "manners", etc.. Do you think people like the ones who left these simply lovely comments I found (and pasting below) are people I'd want to have as my neighbor?
Here you go, NB'ers (excuse the awful language here, of which I did a lot of asterisk'ing out... I'm only the messenger):
god i hate this ugly non funny p***y face b*tch
Man conservatives have poles shoved up their asses if they find any of this funny.
racist b*tch... cher wannabe, go back to the midwest white trash
Nice laugh track, d*****bag. You look like Cher when you do that stupid thing with your mouth.
Wow is this what conservatives consider comedy, god,yall are repressed. Try living you closeted gay b***ards
Conservatism...about as cool as taking a bath with your dad
I hate this b*tch everytime she says a lame as joke she has that little smirk on her facee
Theres something about her face ... just makes me wana slap her for some reason
This is simply horrible. I really wonder which old rich white man donates his money for this sh*t?
I'm sorry but there is only one tired old cliche'd phrase that I can use that might help save this show, (and I think everyone will agree with me when I say this) ahem... SHOW YOUR T*TS!!! This is further proof that right wingers are incapable of humor.
Jay Leno taking a sh*t is funnier than this.
stupid racist bullsh*t this was trash
I just barfed in my mouth and swallowed it.
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
I think you're partially
March 5, 2008 - 16:22 ET by balboaI think you're partially right. The left tends to be more passionate, which leads to misdirected passion, the right tends to be more reserved. The right is always seen as "the Establishment," and the left doesn't want to be told anything by the Establishment, by varying degrees the more "out there" the liberal.
But it's false to say flat-out that liberals are all immature and that all conservatives are mature. Here's a comment about a Jon Stewart video on YouTube:
If Jon Stewart - like the rest of the liberal pieces of s**t on this
planet - had it thier way no civilian would ever own a gun again.
Liberal f**king suck!!!!!!!!!!
Wow Bal, you found "a"
March 5, 2008 - 16:34 ET by MrShyWow Bal, you found "a" foul-mouthed comment in the vast YouTube universe from a conservative! :p
But seriously, yes, I am not throwing at you a full-blown generalization, and there are ugly people of all stripes in the world. But again, I scanned the NB video posting for only about 5-10 minutes and found that many foul, gutter language-filled rants. You found one under Jon Stewart.
And yes, you are right about the birth of the liberal movement, being borne from a desire to "stand up" to the old, staid , "authoritative" "establishment". But like you're admitting, those are all out-dated, mean-spirited, false stereotypes. And they continue to be perpetrated more than any other stereotype, and still accepted and even advocated by the mainstream... media, music, you name it.
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
The stereotypes are
March 5, 2008 - 16:38 ET by balboaThe stereotypes are outdated, but each side holds on to certain elements that make their side what it is. In general, liberals (IMO) have wanted to help people directly, so they're all for welfare. Conservatives would much rather people helped themselves. It's like the "teach a man to fish" saying.
I think the right still sees a lot of what the left believes in as misguided empathy, while the left still sees a lot of what the right believes in as cold.
I concur with that
March 5, 2008 - 16:51 ET by KhyrisI concur with that judgement whole-heartedly, so long as it says nothing about which one of those precepts is more accurate to reality.
Balboa - liberals don't want to help people directly
March 5, 2008 - 16:56 ET by Dee Bunkconservatives do. That's why they give much more time and money in relation to their earnings than liberals do. Liberals don't trust themselves to give and be disciplined enough to help people so they want to be forced by the government. The amount of waste that from going through the government vs going through a charity or just helping someone directly is exponential.
On top of the waste, people who receive money from the government start to feel entitled to it but people who receive from charities are thankful and want to help themselves so that they can in turn help someone else as they have been helped.
Liberals are the establishment - not Conservatives. It's the liberal laws that have imposed on all of our lives far more than any conservative ones. Conservatives want less laws and regulations.
Help me out, Dee. What do
March 5, 2008 - 17:02 ET by balboaHelp me out, Dee. What do you mean by direct and indirect help?
PUSH!!! I can see the head!!!
March 5, 2008 - 18:30 ET by tracheostomy:turning cartwheels w/joy:
Please Dee, I'm begging you to respond to this.
Or anyone for that matter. I'm not as good at explaining what she was referring to. But you're on the right track Bal!!!
A new baby conservative is about to be BORN!!!!
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
I'll take a stab at it
March 5, 2008 - 18:48 ET by Mica the MagnificentPeople who receive money from charity know it can be stopped at any time because the charity has a vested interest in doling out it's money prudently.Therefore, the reciprients show appreciation.
People who receive money from the gov't believe the money came from big corrupt corporations that stole that money anyway. So why not stick it to the BIG GREEDY corporations and simply claim what could have been rightfully yours anyway?. Besides, the government said it was o-k.
Am I close?
Trach & DB
March 5, 2008 - 19:02 ET by MrShyThe opening ("Push!!!....") is great! :)
Dee Bunk has a few gems. One being the direct-indirect thing, totally, and also this one:
Liberals are the establishment - not Conservatives.
That's perfect, and so true.
Back to conservatives giving/helping directly and liberals indirectly... this reminds me of a saying from the mother of an old friend of mine. It sums up perfectly the PC-but-totally-selfish climate of the left:
Save the whales, and f*ck you.
How people "care" about things all over the world, but are really ugly people to the person next to them -- not unlike those filthy youtubers. It's also a another great way of defining compassion that is "indirect".
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
Sorry bal - I didn't have time to get back yesterday.
March 6, 2008 - 08:23 ET by Dee BunkDirect help is working at soup kitchens and many other things that churches do to provide assistants to the poor. It's also giving your money for the purpose of helping the poor rather than counting on the government to do it.
Hold on a second...
March 6, 2008 - 14:04 ET by SyriusDee,
The public & private schools in my area have mandates for community participation/ service in order for the student to graduate. The students must complete a certain number of hours to fulfill there graduation requirements. This "liberal" idea is to strengthen the bond between the individual and his/her part in society. So far, this "socialist" liberal program has had a dramatic positive impact on securing the thought in children to give back to society. So explain to me how conservatives are way ahead in community outreach programs? I'm sure you could provide facts and charts on how 'conservatives' have a more positive impact on society than the 'liberals'
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
Syrius - forced charity isn't charity
March 6, 2008 - 17:47 ET by Dee BunkWhat next - do you want to start forcing adults to provide community service in addition to taking their money? There is nothing wrong with having children perform community service and it's far from a liberal idea.
There have been numerous studies about charitable giving and conservatives always come out on top. I don't have time to look the stuff up for you. You aren't paying enough attention. Most liberals write it off as the religious right giving to their churches (which shouldn't be written off anyway because churches help people) but if you are really interested there is a book called "Who Really Cares: America's Charity Divide - Who Gives, Who Doesn't and Why it Matters" by Arthur C Brooks.
In his book he dispels the myth that conservatives only exceed in giving to Churches. He shows how they give more even with church taken out of it and they also contribute more time to charity. The book also talks about how the U.S. gives more than any other country proportionally. John Stossell did a special on this issue and that's where I heard about the book. If you don't feel like reading it maybe you can find that episode somewhere.
Conservatives give more at every level and even those who make less than people on welfare and govt assistance give to charity. Funny isn't it how people making less than people on welfare can afford to give money to charity? Think about it!
Weak arguments...
March 6, 2008 - 18:20 ET by SyriusDee,
Proof not conjecture. Just because it seems or feels that conservatives give more than liberals, doesn't make it so. As for the US giving more than any country does not mean it was the conservatives of the country bonding together and giving support to other countries. When you speak of the US, you speak for everyone meaning Americans not just conservatives. According to this site, giving to other nations seems to be a bone of contention for some conservatives.
As for Stossell, what a joke of a reporter...he should be working for a more fair and balanced network.
The only way to force adults into providing community service and taking their money is by way of the sentence handed down by the judge.
As far as I am concerned- Charity begins at home. Provide for your family first and foremost. Support your community as best you can with your time and/ or your money.
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
Syrius,
March 6, 2008 - 18:33 ET by tracheostomySy: Proof not conjecture. Just because it seems or feels that conservatives give more than liberals, doesn't make it so.
Citing names is part of making the case for valid evidence. Dee cited two names (authors) and you disregarded one at the outset on an immediate; subjective basis yourself ("Weak arguments"). You completely blew it off.
No, it is your responsibility to disprove citations when cited. For example. . .
Sy: As for Stossell, what a joke of a reporter...he should be working for a more fair and balanced network.
It just so happened that Leon said pretty much the same to me when I also cited an author on this very thread.
Cut the crap Syrius, and bring in some of Stossel's statements and actually disprove them. Stop making such subjective judgements of Dee's citations and accusing others of doing the same.
It's not only a waste of everyone's time, but it can be seen as dishonesty on your part.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
thanks for the support trach - I don't have a lot of time to
March 6, 2008 - 20:11 ET by Dee Bunkdeal with these type of baseless claims by people like him so I'm glad when someone else can contribute so that his distortions don't go unchallenged.
Syrius - weak to the uninformed like you - you make no argument
March 6, 2008 - 18:38 ET by Dee BunkI told you a book you could read with the info and you obviously have no interest. I've read many different articles that have said this also (they're usually buried) but I'm not going to look it up for you because you choose to remain uninformed on the subject. Conservatives give in droves to people in other countries for the Sunami, earthquakes and many things. Conservatives prefer to give themselves and don't want the government giving because it rarely reaches the intended target anyway. Liberals expect the government to do it and then their hands are clean. They don't care that much of the money ends up being used by the powerful(not the poor) in the Country it's given to. Yes liberals give to charities outside the U.S. but conservatives give more proportionally.
The U.S. is the most conservative country and we give the most proportionally. We can give more only because of our conservative principals yet liberals want to turn us into poorer people who rely on the government like they do in other countries. It's crazy.
I'm responding...
March 6, 2008 - 18:57 ET by SyriusDee,
Give me a chance to look it up. The key to these threads, I hope, is to raise consciousness. Some stay put and never expand their knowledge. I try to gather as much information from different perspectives and hopefully understand differing points of view. I make mistakes-I'm human it's the way I evolved.
The attack mentality of this site is astonishing and only compounded by the anonymity of its bloggers.
Faith is just belief without facts or evidence. Go ahead and believe in conservatives giving more than liberals if it gets you through the night. Just be prepared for evidence to the contrary. I'm going to try and prove you wrong.
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
I'll be waiting syrius - I told you I have read several things
March 6, 2008 - 19:40 ET by Dee Bunkyou admit you haven't and are going to go searching only for info that contradicts. I'm not believing in anything because I've read things on the subject. You haven't and now you are going around trying to prove your baseless religion to be justified.
Make sure you don't go giving anything in total dollars because the rich elite are on the left and that would distort the numbers (another thing most liberals don't realize). You have to look at things that put it in terms of % of income - anything else is meaningless.
Just a question...not a dodge...(or a ford)...
March 6, 2008 - 19:14 ET by SyriusDee,
If a conservative was not able to write off the charitable donation as tax deduction, would they continue to donate?
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
o_O OHHH!!! SNAP!!! You
March 6, 2008 - 19:22 ET by tracheostomyo_O
OHHH!!!
SNAP!!!
You should have saved that one for a new thread Syrius. More people would have noticed it that way.
:thinking:
Regardless of it's "oomph" value, it's still essentially an argument to motive fallacy.
I like it. It's certainly inflammatory enough.
But it doesn't hurt Dee's main point a bit.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Found a discussion on this topic w/...
March 6, 2008 - 19:25 ET by SyriusDee,
The link-
http://www.outsideth...
It also links to other discussion.
More to follow with a conclusion if time permits...Okay, Trach?
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
That's great. Keep 'em
March 6, 2008 - 19:31 ET by tracheostomyThat's great. Keep 'em coming. I'm headed for work now. Back in a while.
I just hope the whole "tax write off" argument-to-motive. . .thing isn't the main thesis for your side.
That would end it all real quick.
Later!
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Syrius - that lame disucssion makes no valid points and
March 6, 2008 - 20:08 ET by Dee Bunkthe most it even tries to say is that the gap isn't as large as Brook's data say. It doesn't even deny that the gap exists. Their biggest argument is that they don't BELIEVE (not facts) that liberals make more than conservatives on average. All those Hollywood liberals and billionaire philanthropists and trust fund babies do add up. It's a complete fallacy that Republicans are the party of the rich elites. Conservatives just have more rich people who have to work hard for their wealth.
You sure are open minded. You can't read the book - only criticism of the book by liberals who provide no data of their own. I can tell that any discussion with you is pointless. You don't let anything penetrate that doesn't fit your dogma.
Syrius,
March 6, 2008 - 20:55 ET by tracheostomyRe: Steve Verdon's retorts in particular. . .
Retort #1. He needs to prove it's a straw-man argument. The original author explicitly stated “conventional wisdom” on his part. So no foul for Greg. He had his disclaimer at the outset and Steve conveniently ignores it.
Quote: “. . .but still the notion that conservatives are greedy SOBs who don’t care about the poor and less fortunate is a standard type of rhetoric used by the Left.”
And nothing but simply more rhetoric piled on by Mr. Verdon. Two wrongs don't make a right. Why he wasted his time responding to “conventional wisdom” with an equal amount of rhetoric is beyond me. Waste of time on his part.
Retort #2. Mr. Verdon acknowledges a true statement, “This is exactly right. . “ and then runs frantically for the definitions of “conservative.” Well, that would destroy the entire premise, wouldn't it? In order to even have such a discussion to begin with, you would need to agree there is such a thing as these two ideologies, “liberal” and “conservative.”
You can keep the entire liberal ship from sinking if you keep it floating on the airy ambiguity of the definition of “conservative,” or any other word for that matter. The strategy is to leave everything in a stasis of ambiguous doubt, so that nothing gets settled. Dirty pool indeed. Cowardly too.
Oh, that's the whole blog? Shorter than I thought from the scroll bar.
I was ready for something much longer and finished this up during my break. What a piece of crap link that was. Syrius is guilty of linking to someone that is practicing the very thing he criticizes conservatives of doing.
If they do in fact, exist at all. . .! o_O < ???
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Syrius - liberals are stupid enough to give for a tax right off
March 6, 2008 - 19:54 ET by Dee Bunkconservatives aren't. Conservatives give to give and realize that it costs them money even though they can deducted it from income. If someone in the highest tax bracket gives $1,000 to charity they only save $350 in taxes. They would save $750 by not giving.
As the statistics in Who Really cares prove - conservatives give more across the board (as a % of income) whether they are in the 10% tax bracket or the 35%.
Correct. Imposed
March 6, 2008 - 18:01 ET by tracheostomyCorrect.
Imposed "charity" is not true charity.
There's that old semantics problem again. The only way to have any honest debate Syrius, is mutual agreement on our mutual language and not arbitrarily re-defining it where convenient.
But then this would put liberals at a clear disadvantage.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Such as...
March 6, 2008 - 18:41 ET by SyriusPJ,
..."Liberal Fascism" defined by Jonah Goldberg.
There's that old semantics problem again. The only way to have any
honest debate Syrius, is mutual agreement on our mutual language and
not arbitrarily re-defining it where convenient.
The problem with "conservatives" is trying to pin them down on their own definition of themselves which is, so far, impossible. They try to claim to have a monopoly on morality when their actions are to the contrary. So, instead of trying to label everyone with some inane definition- define yourself or conservatism so I can have a better understanding on how to relate to you and the rest of this bunch-what I consider to be radical right wing authoritarian followers. As a matter of reference- "Conservatives without a Conscience" by John Dean.
Gotta love dscott and the tagline I use everyday.
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
Sy: "Liberal Fascism"
March 6, 2008 - 18:54 ET by tracheostomySy: "Liberal Fascism" defined by Jonah Goldberg.
Hey, that's also a valid citation. You can even make a great forum thread out of that one and run all the conservatives round in circles, like Shawn's doing in his freedoms thread.
If you decided to play fair about such a thread, it might bring some real facts to light. Who's game? :raising hand: Me!
Sy: The problem with "conservatives" is trying to pin them down on their own definition of themselves which is, so far, impossible.
Nahh-nah--don't give up so quick man. That would make an awesome thread in it's own right as well.
Sy: They try to claim to have a monopoly on morality when their actions are to the contrary.
Needs proof. If you got the ammo, use it, don't sit there holding it.
Sy: As a matter of reference- "Conservatives without a Conscience" by John Dean.
There's your third. Cite away, please. Go get 'em Tiger!!
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
And another thing Syrius. . .
March 6, 2008 - 19:06 ET by tracheostomyI noticed you abandoned ship on the topic of "charity" thyar.
So can I hand the "charity trophy" to Dee now? Since you appear to be taking this thread off-road to distract everyone and all.
EDIT: Nevermind. He's gonna take another crack and "look it up" as stated above.
That's fair. Just don't keep us waiting and remember the traffic is tight here. You might want to make it your own brand-new topic.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Interesting...
March 6, 2008 - 20:35 ET by SyriusDee,
For the sake of argument, Brooks studied behavioral responses to statisical studies weakly linking the two. From a sheer number of respondents in a self-indentification survey...
http://www.elections...
...the number of conservatives exceeds the number of liberals.
Averages over the 32 years-
1869 respondents,
29.06% conservative, and
18.69% liberal.
Just from a numbers game, I would have to concede the debate trophy if every respondent gave the same amount- the conservatives would have contributed more than the liberals. A weak conclusion about conservatives giving more.
So, until tomorrow...good night.
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
wrong syrius - you don't make sense and you aren't trying to
March 6, 2008 - 21:09 ET by Dee Bunkunderstand. You are just throwing out garbage. He isn't talking in terms of total $'s given which is what you assume with your argument. I specifically told you to not give any data on that because it's meaningless.
He states things in terms of who gives more as a % of their income so if anything a larger sample could drowned out the bigger givers. More people identify themselves as conservatives than they do as liberals. Many liberals define themselves as moderate so you will never get as big of a sample with them. They are in denial. A true sampling would only make the difference even greater.
This table shows that in 2004 23% considered themselves in a liberal category whereas 32% considered themselves in a conservative category. This spread is not that different from the spread you see in his numbers. I can't link right now so you'll have to cut and paste
http://www.elections...
Bal
March 6, 2008 - 16:09 ET by RESTLESS 1While I understand Trach's excitement over the blessed event, I don't see how Dee could make it any clearer. I was thinking the exact same things Dee was while reading over this thread, right down to "liberals ARE the establishment". Back it my younger, rock-n-roll rebel days, I felt emboldened by righteous indignation as well. Glad to know I can hold on to that as conservatives are now the ones "fighting the power".
And if you can't see that giving to charities and volunteering to help the poor are directly helping others while government handouts are indirect and coerced, then I fear that Trach may have to put the cigar back in his breast pocket.
not passionate...!
March 5, 2008 - 16:44 ET by wizardjrLefties are out of control infantiles throwing childish fits when something displeases them. The potty mouth rantings most clearly demonstrate it.
Ronald Regan had passion. Bill Clinton had passion. Did you hear them ranting in four letter words in public? I think not. Passion does not require explatives for emphasis. Check in to the Sunday morning religious shows. There's some serious passion. I don't hear swearing.
"Passion" is just another rationalization and excuse for inexcusably childish behaviour in lieu of adult argument. A bit of riddicule from both sides is acceptable and expected. Foam at the mouth ad hominem attacks are not.
Passion can turn quickly
March 5, 2008 - 16:48 ET by balboaPassion can turn quickly into overzealous fits.
I think it starts with passion, then for some becomes fanatic raving, where you get the attacks and vitriol.
It's not passion - it's immaturity
March 5, 2008 - 16:58 ET by Dee BunkIt's not passion - it's immaturity
I get his point
March 6, 2008 - 12:01 ET by KhyrisYou're both right, so I'm not sure what the argument is...
Both are driven by passion, but I think what you term "immaturity" is a lack of some kind of control to direct that passion constructively AND considerately.
MrS... I left a little
March 5, 2008 - 16:46 ET by bigtimerMrS...
I left a little after navywife or whatever her user name was stating there was racism in the video...I saw the others too...
They are absolutely disgusting, immature, vile little mindless creatures.
The barf in my mouth and swallowed it was a real whiz-bang of a comment now wasn't it?
I cannot believe this country has raised these pathetic little wonderment's....what zombies.
Shameful.
bigtimer
March 5, 2008 - 18:40 ET by MrShyHey BT, yeah, it's really grotesque.... and you're right, the perfect word: shameful.
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
Oh please boa...how often
March 5, 2008 - 14:51 ET by bigtimerOh please boa...how often do you really go there and read the pathetic, disgusting, immature, filthy comments?
I've read them. Those
March 5, 2008 - 14:59 ET by balboaI've read them. Those people don't represent ALL liberals and democrats.
They ain't heavy...
March 5, 2008 - 15:44 ET by acumen"Those people don't represent ALL liberals and democrats."
I agree Bal. Based on the obvious lack of individual rational thought "those people" seem to more aptly represent bezerkeley middle schoolers that were given a day off to protest the US military.
Much like the silent majority of Muslims that are against Islamic extremists (except of course in...surprise...Iraq), I continue to wait patiently for all the "tolerant" liberals and dems to speak out against liberal extremists.
Hey I wish those people
March 5, 2008 - 16:12 ET by balboaHey I wish those people would shut up. I think extreme attitudes are needed for some things and in some situations, but they've got too much of a voice in our party, IMO. I think we need a new branch of RLs: Reasonable Lefties.
Reasonable lefties?
March 5, 2008 - 16:27 ET by futbolisgreat1Reasonable lefties? that's an oxymoron!
Even more "reasonable" lefties like Alan Colmes or those that work in Foxnews are butchered and hatefully attack by the left wingers. Even Alan Colmes, whom I considered somewhat of a more moderate Liberals defend left wing filth like William Ayers.
I mean, even so called well educated Liberals fall in lock step behind their hate and attack of Foxnews.
You know, I am sick and
March 5, 2008 - 16:24 ET by futbolisgreat1You know, I am sick and tired of Liberals using the easy copout..."These left wingers don't represent Liberals." Yet, you find these "tolerant", hateful Liberals in prestigious universities verbally and physically attacking Conservatives they want to silence. You find these Liberals all over the Liberal blogs, liberal websites and Democratic Presidential blogs....
I am sorry, I have heard Balboa's line from countless Liberals, yet funny enough, it is these "tolerant", hateful, filthy Liberals the ones that are in charge of the Democratic party right now.
I find it amusing how the Liberal media, left wing pundits love to paint Conservatives and Republicans with a broad brush and love stereotyping us, yet they are unwilling to do the same with the left.
Sorry, can't have it both ways.
Part of the Liberal mantra, regardless of how Liberal you are is being intolerant towards any belief or view that doesn't match Liberalism. True, not all Liberals hate and spew hateful filth towards Conservative, but I do believe that the great majority of Liberals involved in politics, involved in Liberal causes are hateful, are intolerant and love to spew hate and filth towards Conservatives and Republicans.
You just don't find the level of hate, intolerance and filth in Right wing blogs and websites as you find them in left wing blogs and websites.
You don't find the level of hate in pro-lifers that you find in pro-abortionists towards people that they disagree with. While 99.9% of pro-lifers do not attack pro-baby murderers, 99.9% of pro-abortinist verbally and physically attack pro-lifers. go to a pro-lifer march where pro-baby murderers are also at and you will be shock at the evil, hateful, speak and attacks spewed by pro-baby murderers. In fact, just go watch an anti-war left wing march...all you find is hate for the USA, for the military, for anyone that disagrees with the Liberals. Funny for "these people" not being main stream Liberals you do find them everywhere in the Liberal movement.
Its like so many of my Liberal friends here in Illinois, they find it impossible to believe that Liberals verbally, and physically attacked me in my Alma Mater for being the president of the Pro-life group. They are in shock when they hear Liberals in other college campuses physically and verbally attack Conservatives.
Liberals that only vote and complain are such naive individuals. They have ZERO clue to who their party is made up and who their militant members are. Liberals live in such tiny boxes.
Get off your couch, get off your meaningless life and see the world for what it is, a world full of hateful, intolerant Liberals that will do anything, and I mean anything to silence anyone that opposes them.
Sorry, those people that posted in YoutTube do represent a great majority in the Liberal/Democrat movement/party.
hey futbol - long time no see - You are exactly right
March 5, 2008 - 17:18 ET by Dee Bunkand thank you for having the courage to be President of the Pro-life group.
Liberals are much more hateful in every aspect. They like to point to Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh as hate on the right all the time, but our politicians don't act like that. Their own leaders spew much more hate than Coulter or Limbaugh not to mention the thousands of famous public hate mongers on the left. Most liberals have not even heard Limbaugh or Coulter, they take the word of their own hate spewers.
Ann Coulter is "Hateful"
March 6, 2008 - 12:11 ET by KhyrisAnn Coulter is "Hateful" because she says "Hateful Things" ....
... failing to mention that 90% of "Hateful Things" said are merely a mocking parroting of something hateful a liberal said the day before.
She wished Justisce Souter was dead! .... no, she was mocking a liberal for wishing Justice Thomas was dead the day before
She wished John Edwards was dead! .... no, she was mocking a liberal for wishing Dick Cheney was dead the day before
The other 10% of "outrage" is always manufactured out of whole cloth by misunderstanding innocent statements, like the whole "You're a jew-murdering nazi!" characterization which liberals assigned to her because she used the word "perfected" in a religious context.
Right now, I'm forcing a liberal friend of mine to read "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" and find something "Hateful" contained therein.
Good job Khyris - I don't think I could get any of my liberal
March 6, 2008 - 17:51 ET by Dee Bunkfriends to read that. I haven't read any of her books only because I'm not really big on political books.
agreed, Bal
March 5, 2008 - 14:51 ET by sarcasmoHumor is a matter of taste. And I'm far from being a lefty, at least on fiscal issues, yet I've rated past episodes that weren't the least bit funny one-star. I call 'em like I see 'em...
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
sarc... Just how often do
March 5, 2008 - 14:54 ET by bigtimersarc...
Just how often do you go and read the comments from the lefties?
The COMMENTS sarc.
not too often, but
March 5, 2008 - 14:58 ET by sarcasmoI was not discussing (much less defending) the comments. I only said I rate the un-funny ones with one star.
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
That's nonsense
March 5, 2008 - 14:56 ET by Matthew SheffieldOne star is a rating you should give to videos where the person is inaudible, the video quality is poor and the production stinks. Your position is utterly illogical.
So how should I rate
March 5, 2008 - 14:59 ET by sarcasmoTotally-unfunny videos??
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
That FCC letter video
March 5, 2008 - 15:00 ET by Matthew Sheffieldyou linked to earlier was totally unfunny and boring even though I agreed with it!
I still wouldn't have given it 1 star though. 2 at the worst.
I don't have it handy
March 5, 2008 - 15:03 ET by sarcasmoBut I found it hilarious...5 stars, IIRC. Again, humor's a matter of taste, and you haven't yet said how totally unfunny videos should be rated.
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
I wouldn't presume to say
March 5, 2008 - 15:06 ET by Matthew Sheffieldjust that ratings should reflect the overall production quality, intelligence (or funny/unfunny deliberate lack thereof), and your level of agreement with the jokes.
Your sense of humor is more toward rants than one-liners which is why you have trouble realizing why lots of libertarians and conservatives like the show.
Ok, and that's fair
March 5, 2008 - 15:09 ET by sarcasmoBut in the past some of my comments, which were NOT unduly negative & had constructive suggestions for "NewsBusted," got deleted here, despite direct relevance to media bias. I wasn't impressed, and that probably didn't help the ratings that day...
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
One star can mean anything,
March 5, 2008 - 14:59 ET by balboaOne star can mean anything, not just the technical aspects of a video.
Matthew...hey thanks for
March 5, 2008 - 14:49 ET by bigtimerMatthew...hey thanks for the reminder, I got distracted yesterday and forgot to go over there like I usually do later in the afternoon, I have time today though.
Time for some laughter and reading the high intelligence of the little angry lefties.
Fun fun fun.
Results of years of proper training
March 5, 2008 - 14:54 ET by Mica the MagnificentThe many two to four word 'comments' are the result of years of training in keeping it short for fear of running out of spray paint.
Oh almost forgot
March 5, 2008 - 14:59 ET by Matthew SheffieldAnother classic lefty behavior: The fake "I am a conservative and I hate this." When it is obvious from looking at their profile that the person is a liberal pretending to be one.
The same thing happens on
March 5, 2008 - 15:41 ET by bigtimerThe same thing happens on the Washington Journal with the phone callers calling on the republican line...they may start off with..."I'm a republican but"....blah blah blah...the leftist diatribe starts.
bt, I think Matthew just described John McCain.
March 5, 2008 - 20:32 ET by R D HelmLOL-And yeah, I know, I'm a horrible human being.
But I don't care. :-)
Theme for Election '08: I want my mommy!
I went to YouTube
March 5, 2008 - 15:30 ET by MichiganManand viewed a video of Barack Obama. It was basically pictures of Obama with some music and clips from his speeches. I commented to the people there who were swooning over this video that they should take some time and see what Obama really stands for before calling him President Obama instead of wanting to vote for him based on this video. I point out his liberal rating and that what I have read at his website about "doubling spending" on just about everything and how under Obama the government will be even more involved in our lives (which is something they complain Bush is doing). I am told that it must suck to be so cynical and other comments like that. Typical responses that I totally expected and much like the comments about Newsbusted.
Astute observations are not liberal traits
March 5, 2008 - 16:17 ET by spiderdanAsk a liberal, "Why Obama"?
The range of answers will not only amuse, but amaze you. Legitimate Americans take stock in issues -- liberals and the assortment of feckless YouTube contributors exposed here have no such capacity. So paranoid and intellectually corrupt are these people; they remind me of someone that lost a girlfriend because he passed gas during a romantic interlude, then blames the girl for not "appreciating the wholeness of self".
I despise liberals because they aren't smart, cool, or capable of saving their mom from drowning in a cup of coffee.
I don't know how you get to
March 5, 2008 - 16:27 ET by balboaI don't know how you get to a point where you actually despise nearly half of the population, or come up with these blanket "observations."
balboa, I don't know
March 5, 2008 - 16:39 ET by futbolisgreat1balboa,
I don't know about the person you responded to above, but I don't despise half of the population, I despise their level of ignorance, their lack of education, their lack of wanting to get informed. Also, I believe most self-ascribed Liberals do not know the meaning of being a Liberal in politics. They go with the meaning that has been spoon fed to them by the media.
Most Liberals are Liberals because they are poorly informed. They have college degrees, Masters degrees, even PhDs, yet I find Liberals to be some of the most poorly informed individuals on planet Earth, from current events to history. It is like they live in a bubble that has been created by the so called sophisticatd shows they watch and listen to in NPR and PBS. They have been brain washed by newspapers like the New York Times, USA Today by magazines like Newsweek, US News.
I work with college professors, and it never ceases to amaze me how many of them will defend a point by saying....well I heard on NPR, I read in the New York Times......or comments like, "The media policies politicians and government..." obviously when they are done with their Liberal soap box and you ask them, "so, who policies the media..." all you get is a blank stare and a repetion of the Liberal talking points they read in the Liberal newspapers or heard in NPR/PBS.
Being a Liberal is easy, all you have to do is sit infront of your television and watch the half-hour nightly news. Being a Conservative takes deep thought, it takes analyzing what you have heard, researching, etc. I find the Liberal mind to be lazy and cowardly. 99% of Liberals go with the flow and are terrified of going against it. Most Liberals are into the latest fad, whether it is clothing, movies, television shows, etc. They are terrified of going against the grain. Funny enough, they believe themselves to be mavericks, to be outsiders, they are too self-absord to realize that they are part of the masses. You find these all over Chicago, especially amongst the "sophisticated" Liberal Yuppies of Chicago.
Two types of Liberals, blue collar Liberals and white collar Liberals. Difference.....one paid tens of thousands of dollars to be brainwashed by Liberal professors, the other one was brainwashed by the nightly news. One thing all Liberals have in common, they are weak minded.
Being a Conservative takes
March 5, 2008 - 16:43 ET by LeonBeing a Conservative takes deep thought
As clearly evidenced in the post above with your DEEP, well-thought out vomiting of tired generalizations. Ha.
You must be joking with this tripe.
Balboa, I give you
March 5, 2008 - 16:52 ET by futbolisgreat1Balboa,
I give you evidence number one that backs up my thesis......Leon.
He is the type of intolerant, hateful Liberal that you find all over the Liberal movement.
They can't stand different point of views, they cant' stand the truth.
Instead of proving your thesis wrong, what do all hateful Liberals like Leon do? attack your character, who you are, etc.
Leon is but a carbon copy of millions of Liberals that are so rampant in the Liberal movement. You find his hateful and intolerant kind in universities all over the USA, as members of pro-baby murder groups, in anti-USA, anti-military groups.
The sad part is that people like Leon are so self-absorbed, so poorly informed, so selfish, that they honestly believe themselves to be unique, cutting edged, rebels.
It is quite sad to see. Leon is representative of 99% of Liberals in America. Hateful, intolerant, anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Israeli, anti-military, poorly informed.
Whoa you are
March 5, 2008 - 16:56 ET by LeonWhoa you are delusional!
Haha.
1) I'm on
the floor laughing at the idea that you actually call your post of
garbage a thesis! Wow. That is amazing. Truly amazing.
2)
You're complaining that the problem with liberals is that they are
hateful and immature....in the same post as you claim to hate 50% of
the population for...wait for it...immature reasons.
Incredible!
Your view of yourself is tragically
warped. I do really feel badly for you. So much anger with
so little to back it up. It must be brutal to wake up every day
seething over fictional strangers that don't exist
No personal attacks
March 5, 2008 - 16:59 ET by Matthew SheffieldBoth you and futbolisgreat are doing it here. Let's end this thread of the discussion.
Mr. Sheffield, With all
March 5, 2008 - 17:11 ET by futbolisgreat1Mr. Sheffield,
With all the respect that is due to you. I do not believe I have enganged in personal attacks towards Leon.
I do believe whole heartly what I have stated. At no point have I insulted Leon.
I am unsure since when pointing out that someone is hateful and intolrant become a personal insult.
I do believe I have been respectful. If stating truths about the left wingers like those who posted in YouTube, like those that post in Thinkprogress.org, DemocraticUnderground, HuffingtonPost, etc is hateful and making personal attacks on others, then I am more than willing to take credit for it. I do not believe that I have insulted anyone or been hateful. I can't help it if Leon decides to take what I have said personal.
... :-\
March 5, 2008 - 17:16 ET by balboa... :-\
Matthew
March 5, 2008 - 17:12 ET by MrShyCan we also reject all posts with the word "Whoa" ?
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
Whoa, MrShy...I mean "hold
March 5, 2008 - 17:52 ET by JerWhoa, MrShy...I mean "hold on there, sport"...can you submit a list of acceptable alternatives?
Jer
Wait a cotton pickin'
March 5, 2008 - 17:59 ET by bigtimerWait a cotton pickin' second...
Wait a cotton pickin'
March 5, 2008 - 18:15 ET by JerWait a cotton pickin' second...
I like it, bt...except the phrase is generally worded "wait a cotton pickin' minute". Having picked cotton myself, there is not much that can be accomplished in a "second".
Jer
Jer
March 5, 2008 - 18:00 ET by MrShyYes.
hold on there, sport
:)
There's also:
wait a minute
stop right there
now now
you can't be serious *
(* h/t John McEnroe)
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
Whoa... let's not get
March 6, 2008 - 12:44 ET by Jack BauerWhoa... let's not get carried away here!
AS I said Leon, Instead
March 5, 2008 - 17:16 ET by futbolisgreat1AS I said Leon,
Instead of the personal attacks, prove me wrong.
Prove that pro-baby murderers who march opposite of pro-lifers do not verbally and physically attack pro-lifers.
Prove that those Liberals that march in anti-war, anti-USA, anti-military rallies are not intolerant who can't stand anyone that opposses their views. Just look at Code Pink, go see the anti-USA marches that take place at Berkely, the town and University.
Just go to any Liberal march....full of communist, pro-Che flags, anti-USA, anti-military, flag burning marches. They rant hateful things and verbally and physically attack anyone that dares try to oppose them.
Sadly enough, today's Liberalism is full of hate and intolerance. Believe me, FDR, JFK, Harry Truman, would not be welcome in the Democratic party, in the Liberal movement today.
Fut, It's not possible to
March 5, 2008 - 17:19 ET by LeonFut,
It's not possible to prove broad generalizations that have no basis in reality wrong.
I'm not claiming there are ZERO liberal nuts. Sure they exist.
I'm just not sure they add up to 99% of liberals or 50% of the population.
That's the part of your argument that makes you look absurd.
fut has never looked absurd
March 5, 2008 - 17:22 ET by bigtimerfut has never looked absurd Leon.
Thanks Bigtimer..... It
March 5, 2008 - 17:41 ET by futbolisgreat1Thanks Bigtimer.....
It jut never ceases to amaze me how quick individuals like Leon are to label those they disagree as hateful....for example, I have repetedly seen him label anyone that believes that homosexuality is wrong as a hateful Conservative or Republican....
yet, Leon is unwilling ot admit the level of hate and intolrance that exists in his side of the eisle.
I mean, he was in the Open Thread today attacking Moses, Hebrews, etc, He constantly attacks Christians here on Newsbusters.org, yet he doesn't see his attacks as hate. He only sees people speaking out against homosexuality as hateful.
Sadly, this is a very old tactic used by the left....communist, socialist, Liberals use it all the time. Blame the other side of what they do.
fut... Hear!
March 5, 2008 - 17:46 ET by bigtimerfut...
Hear! Hear!
Always glad to see you here...you are missed by me anyway, long time no see.
Carry on...
Leon, Since when did I
March 5, 2008 - 17:29 ET by futbolisgreat1Leon,
Since when did I claim that 50% of the population is Liberal? furthermore, since when did I claim that I hate Liberals or 50% of the population.
Please read my post a bit more closely. You will see that I specificaly said, "I don't hate Liberals, but their ignorance, intolerance and hate..."
I believe that countless polls actually show that less than 20% of the American population claims to be Liberal. Just because you vote Democratic, like about 50% of the population do, it doesn't mean that 50% of the population in the USA is Liberal.
Just like all those that vote Republican are NOT all Conservatives.
Most Americans label themselves moderates who fall a bit to the right or left.
I am unsure where you got that I claim hate for 50% of the population or that I believe 50% of the population in America is Liberal.
leon, my premise is that
March 5, 2008 - 17:36 ET by futbolisgreat1leon,
my premise is that Liberal nuts exist in much greater numbers than Liberals and Democrats are willing to admit.
I mean, why is it that not only do you constantly hear, but I have personal experience with the hateful intolerance of the left in college campuses. Will you deny this? This is rampant in all colleges in America.
Will you deny that pro-abortionist verbally and physically attack pro-lifers?
Will you deny that Liberals in Berkely, the city and college enlist underage kids to spew hateful things at the military, at those that support our military?
I am unsure why you want to deny this. The left has a huge hate and intolerant problem. This is not generalizing, these are facts.
You are more than willing to label Rush, Hannity, and other conservative personalities as hateful. In fact, you have even called me hateful for me stating that acts of homosexual sex are wrong, yet you are unwilling to see the great intolerance and hate that is so rampant in your side of the eisle. why?
Fut, I feel like I say
March 5, 2008 - 17:44 ET by LeonFut,
I feel like I say the same thing to you
everytime. Your anecdotal evidence can not be used to make
wide-sweeping generalizations.
1) i will deny there
is rampant hate on college campuses. I never experienced this and
in fact, I never once had a professor share their political beliefs in
class. Somehow it just wasn't appropriate to bring up W in
physics class. This is a tired argument that people have been
pushing since Vietnam. I don't buy it and I don't buy your
stories. So I WILL DENY that there is rampant hateful
intolerance on college campuses. It's all bs and I think you know
it.
2) yes I will deny that pro-choicers physically and
verbally attack pro-lifers. Do you have any evidence? Could
you show me that this occurs with any sort of regularity. This
perfectly exhibits your major problem - make a claim and then fail to
back it up, call other person a moron. Show me some evidence that
this behavior is common place.
3) I will deny that
liberals in berkely employ children to spew hateful things.
Again. Evidence would really help your argument. Got any?
4) If these are facts, why do you never provide any facts? Give us some proof. Back up what you say.
Otherwise
you look and sound like the homeless guy outside my office that screams
about the end of world every morning I walk buy. He thinks he's
right too. Sadly he doesn't quite have the evidence to back it
up.
Leon, 1) So, you are
March 5, 2008 - 18:06 ET by futbolisgreat1Leon,
1) So, you are using your anacdotal evidence to deny what I am claiming? let's turn it around on you....you claim that one you don't believe my personal experiences and two, you don't believe in anecdotal evidence.
Why should I believe you then and believe that you never heard a professor state his own personal views in the classroom? You don't want to believe me just because you never experienced hate in a college campus?
I could careless if you believe me or not. Facts are facts. I am a political science major, I heard plenty of professors go on rants against Republicans, Bush, Conservatives. I had plenty of Communit professors. In fact, William Ayers, a member of the Weatherman group, was a professor of mine. Will you deny that William Ayers belongs to a hateful and intolerant terrorist group. Will you deny that on 9/11 Mr. Ayers said that his group didn't do enough to destroy America?
Will you deny that Liberal groups have attack Ann Coulter and the likes in college campuses? Will you deny that Ann Coulter has been thrown pies in college campuses by Liberals? Will you deny that Minuteman have been attacked verbally and physically by Liberals at college campuses?
Read post below, read David Horowitz, more than enough evidence that you are 100% wrong about Liberal hate in college campuses. Are you open minded enough to read any of his books and find out the truth?
2) Go to this webpage, it is just but the tip of the iceberg of how pro-abortinist attack pro-lifers. Clear pro-abortion violence and intolerance towards pro-lifers. Will you deny this.
Leon, just like you, I work. I rarely post on Newbusters, don't have the time to go all over the place to provide evidence, but hopefully this is a start.
I am wondering how now you will deny these facts. As I said, you are more than willing to label anyone you disagree hateful and intolerant, yet by your own admission you are unwilling to believe that your side if hateful and intolerant, why? Just because you don't read it in Thinkprogress.org, in the New York Times, just because you don't hear it in NPR, see on PBS, the nightly news, CBS, NBC, etc?
Shall we talk about the left wing eco-terrorists ELF story that Newsbusters has blogged about? would you call this group a left wing group which is tolerant and loveable?
Fut, Where'd you go to
March 5, 2008 - 19:43 ET by LeonFut,
Where'd you go to school?
I can't go further until you share some details. PM me if you don't want to share.
ha Leon
March 5, 2008 - 18:09 ET by candance1) I've been in classrooms where professors trashed Republicans and made their personal opinions known. I won't say it happens at every school but I can attest to at least three schools where it does happen.
I don't buy it and I don't buy your
stories.
So much for coming to NB in search of respectful debate.
2) There have been several news accounts of this, most notably this one from a while back or this little gem from YouTube. But whatever. Leon says this stuff never happens.
Candance, You are
March 5, 2008 - 19:41 ET by LeonCandance,
You are outrageous.
Fut challenged me to deny that ALL colleges are bastions of liberal hate and intolerance.
I responded with what I know. My college experience. (ps
furthermore I'd love to see some examples of liberal bias in the
sciences, i.e. mathematics, engineering, biology, etc. - good luck
sweetheart)
It
is now his responsibility to prove to me that all college campuses are
how he described them. I think he'll be hard pressed to back this
claim. Methinks Liberty College doesn't fit this bill, thus
not ALL colleges are liberal bastions of hate.
You see? Want me to draw a picture? I can. I'm pretty artistic.
As
for your isolated news accounts, I asked for him to show that these
things happen with any sort of regularity. Women kill their
children in isolated incidents. Does that mean all women kill
their children?
Here are left wingers using
March 5, 2008 - 18:14 ET by futbolisgreat1Here are left wingers using children in an anti-military protest.
will you deny the facts Leon? why do you have such blinders on?
now that I have provided evidence as you asked, now you provide evidence that I am wrong.
You said that you wouldn't believe me until I provided evidence. Now if you want to be taken seriously, from now on, any time you make a claim make sure you provide evidence.
but your game is an old Liberal game. You have made countless claims on Newsbusters against conservatives and republicans and Christians without providing hardcore evidence, yet you demand that those you disagree with provide their own evidence to back up their assertions.
I hope from this day forth, whenever you make a claim, you have evidence to back it up.
Well Futbol, if you ever do
March 5, 2008 - 18:22 ET by tracheostomyWell Futbol, if you ever do manage to corner a liberal on the specifics, there's always the old standby claim that the specifics you point to are only a rare exception and don't apply to the whole.
My professors did it to me all the time.
I simply call it shucking and jiving without ever standing for something you believe in. Why have any convictions anyway, if it's all relative to begin with?
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
tracheostomy, Agreed.
March 5, 2008 - 18:30 ET by futbolisgreat1tracheostomy,
Agreed. College professors did it to me all the time. But they had a hard time doing it when I was attacked by pro-abortionist in my campus. Or when UIC Liberals attacked the Republican club, but praised professors like William Ayers.
Liberals love to generalize about Conservatives, they are always claiming how we are all white, racist, homophobic, Christian males who are full of hate. Ask them for evidence of this, they don't provide it. But the second you make a claim about Liberals they fall all over themselves demanding proof and evidence. The second you provide it to them, they either stay silent or claim that that is not representative of all Liberals.
Trach, Fut and yourself
March 6, 2008 - 07:44 ET by LeonTrach,
Fut and yourself keep claiming you had these negative experiences with liberals in your colleges.
Where'd you go that this was happening?
I went to one of the most liberal colleges in the country and politics and Ideology were never discussed in the classroom. I have a science degree and arts degree so I was in a wide array of classes. Never saw any liberal propaganda, never heard any talk of Bush, never heard anything at all.
So I'm curious to know where you two went to school that you were getting so much heat. Why are you so hesitant to share?
Why is it so difficult to keep Leon on track???
March 6, 2008 - 17:50 ET by tracheostomyLeon: So I'm curious to know where you two went to school that you were getting so much heat. Why are you so hesitant to share?
Because you will use the classic lib tactic to try to make my schools into the rare exception of your argument.
In my case, it doesn't count because I had different majors at different times, and furthermore they were mostly specialized.
I attended one of the best Med-tech schools in the country, one Bible college, and one secular liberal arts college. Hmm. . .which is the majority college in-topic here, and what is everyone usually going to college expected to take? What kinds of professors are 99% universally encountered in college? That's what Futbol was getting at, that's what I automatically understood, and that's what you refuse to discuss Leon.
There are quite a few universities out there in the US, and your request just makes me clam up harder for that reason. Why do the particular names matter in this case anyway? Names don't even matter here to begin with, when I could easily lie about the name of the college, right?
So why ask?
So you can attack the particulars of course, and divert off-topic into an area no one can share across country.
I gave you every opportunity to come up with a particular that you demanded that we could all relate to. But you refused.
Why?
Was it laziness?
It didn't fit your agenda?
The fact that you don't really understand Horowitz to begin with?
It could be any of these.
I had a similar encounter in a science debate with another lib here on NB. I cited Michael Crichton at one point, and he was immediately smacked down as an author and not a scientist. As a matter of fact, it turned out to be an argument from ignorance based on common knowledge. It turned out the lib I was talking to simply assumed Crichton wasn't a member of the scientific community.
So it is here on this thread Leon, that you are doing the exact same thing as well with David Horowitz.
This is nothing but intellectual dishonesty in action.
Stop the smokescreens and start a real debate. I'm willing to take it to the particulars as you accuse everyone else of not doing. . .but what about you Leon?
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
trach, Kuz ,Leon is a drive by typer, Just maybe hes BETA testin
March 6, 2008 - 17:57 ET by upcountrywaterDNC talking points?
Iranian uranium; Iranian ICBM's; Iranian satellites..CHANGE is comming BELIEVE in that!
Trach, Your unwillingness
March 7, 2008 - 10:01 ET by LeonTrach,
Your unwillingness to share the names of these universities is bizarre. Again, are you embarassed? One of the best Med-Tech schools eh? Why so scared to share?
How can I attempt to challenge your claims if I have no idea where you went to school?
Furthermore, it would be interesting to get the opinions of anyone else on this website that may have gone to these schools.
The problem with the liberal hate at colleges argument on Newsbusters is that nobody is every willing to name a school, thus rendering their argument useless.
Name the schools or end the debate. The choices are simple.
Stop it Leon.
March 7, 2008 - 17:15 ET by tracheostomyL: Your unwillingness to share the names of these universities is bizarre
I already explained that, and you're badgering.
L: Again, are you embarassed?
If I were, it would still do nothing to further your side of the argument, which has grown super-cold. Maybe you can keep it in your pocket and somehow use it to nail me with later. :rolleyes:
L: How can I attempt to challenge your claims if I have no idea where you went to school?
Just as I stated above in my previous post. Just keep pretending not to see it. I know you're attempting to divert and I'm opting out before you get your meathooks in. Why don't you cultivate a little trust here first? You're pretty barren in that regard.
I can say any college I want here. It doesn't matter one bit. It's the equiv. of padding your own resume (which is low enough to begin with).
L: The problem with the liberal hate at colleges argument on Newsbusters is that nobody is every willing to name a school, thus rendering their argument useless.
No. And there's a reason for it which you refuse to accept. You're a cheater. You simply don't want to look at my author who researched and cited multiple accounts.
No, you prefer to isolate one school at a time. You're choosing this route because of its inherent weakness. You prefer it over the stronger wall of a Horowitz book, which contains multiple accounts as opposed to my one. You're not even as brave as Syrius, who willing to honestly attempt to defend his position. No, you're behaving like some jackal; trying to pick off the weakest in the herd.
1. It's second-hand info from only one former student and 100% irrelevant for that reason alone.
2. It's not even close to valid/compiled research on a given topic, it's only a single personal account.
3. If I did name the school*, you would have no other information on it, other than my personal account anyway. Are you writing a book, or are you just trolling? Why not opt for a source containing multiple accounts and more valid research, other than trolling for names?
4. Like the song says, "be true to yer school, just like you would to your girl or guy." Do you really believe I'd somehow hang my school off the ceiling for you to use as your personal punching bag?
-PJ
*Let's say for example if I told you that I attended North Carolina Central University. What could you possibly do with it? Hm? Absolutely nothing. And BTW, I didn't go there either.
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Leon, You fit well with
March 5, 2008 - 18:24 ET by futbolisgreat1Leon,
You fit well with what an old Venezuelan proverb says, "No ahi peor siego, que el que no quiere ver." Roughly translated to, "There is no worst blind than he who refuses to open his eyes."
The evidence to back my assertions are right there, now where are yours?
You made the assertions, with ZERO evidence to back it up...
1) That there is no Liberal violence and hate in college campuses. (where's your evidence). Just like you said I am not allowed to use my anecdotal evidence, you aren't allowed to use your personal experience, right?
2) That pro-abortinists do not attack pro-lifers (where's your evidence)
It seems to me that you are the one that fits well with the homeless man by your office who screams all day long on top of a soap box. You are all talk and nothing to back it up.
You want respect, give what you demand from others. Just like you demand evidence, make sure that you first provide your own before you ask others to provide that which you are asking for.
Fut, Do you understand
March 5, 2008 - 19:37 ET by LeonFut,
Do you understand debate at all?
You made absurd claims and then challenged me to deny them.
I denied them.
As the original claim maker, your task now
is to show me that I'm wrong. You can't make unfounded claims and
then challenge me to find evidence to the contrary. That's simply
not how it works.
Are you kidding?
Leon, are you kidding
March 5, 2008 - 20:50 ET by futbolisgreat1Leon,
are you kidding me? I believe evidence was provided. Yes, my first couple of posts had no backing, then to silence you I provided evidence.
So, yes, now it falls on you to prove me wrong. THAT IS HOW IT WORKS.
furthermore, please show where I have stated that all colleges in the USA are full of Liberal hate? sorry my friend, you put that in yourself. No where have I said all USA colleges are full of Liberal hate.
I believe Jer should be telling you not to put words into other peoples mouth, but he is too busy trying to attack my assertions.
Of course, we all know that Liberals can put up claims without evidence, right? Yes
we all know that Liberals are allowed to generalized about Conservatives, right? Yes
and we all know that in the Liberal mind it is ok for Liberals to put words into the mouth of Conservatives....
but....God help a Conservative that dares act the same way as a Liberal.
You made claims contrary to mine, it does fall on you to prove that your claims are true and that mine are wrong.
Since when in a court of law can you point at a defendant and say..."He is guilty because I said so!" Remember, it falls on the accuser to prove their case, not on the defendant. We are all innocent until proven guilty.
Other than claiming that I am wrong, you haven't proven a thing. Your word isn't good enough Leon.
As I said, don't ask for that which you can't provide first.
Fut, Let's look at your
March 6, 2008 - 07:55 ET by LeonFut,
Let's look at your original claims and the resulting evidence you've provided.
I mean, why is it that not only do you constantly hear, but I have personal experience with the hateful intolerance of the left in college campuses. Will you deny this? This is rampant in all colleges in America.
I denied this claim. You have yet to show any evidence of this happening. Not one single citation. As such, I will await your presentation of evidence and respond accordingly. Until then you can't challenge me to prove you wrong. You've made the claim and have since failed to back it up. Chop, chop.
Will you deny that pro-abortionist verbally and physically attack pro-lifers?
You post a link to a garbage website with stats and literally ZERO sourcing for those stats. Talk about absurd propaganda. Let's get some actual numbers for this one please. What you've shared so far is not evidence.
Will you deny that Liberals in Berkely, the city and college enlist underage kids to spew hateful things at the military, at those that support our military?
Again, you haven't posted any evidence of this. You've provided one link about an insane mother in OLYMPIA, not Berkely, using her children to protest. I agree she is sick. However, this article has nothing to do with your above claim. When are you going to back your claim up that Liberals in Berkely, the city, and the college enlist underage kids to spew hateful things at the military? We'll be waiting for this tin foil masterpiece.
Fut, these are the three claims you've made that I've asked you to back up. You've really only attempted to back up the abortion one and you did so with a garbage website. What about your other two original claims? How can you even pretend that you've provided evidence for them?
You proclaim that your post was some great thesis, however, you ignored the most important part of a thesis. The evidence that supports it.
We can only continue the discussion if you begin to substantiate your original claims. Until then we're just spinning our wheels. So take a deep breath, open up your google, and get cracking.
Leon, you showed up late
March 6, 2008 - 17:53 ET by tracheostomyLeon, you showed up late to the party long after it had ended.
Stop picking through the mess for leftovers and turn the lights off. You can always pick it up in a later thread.
Stick a fork in it.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Photos for thought...
March 6, 2008 - 20:20 ET by ArmedDadhttp://zombietime.co...
Okay Leon. . .
March 5, 2008 - 17:59 ET by tracheostomy:pulling on gloves:
This won't hurt a bit. You can continue the debate normally, right after I've disarmed your main defense and shown others here how to do the same.
Leon: It's not possible to prove broad generalizations that have no basis in reality wrong.
I have no problem with that statement. However, it is not as concrete as it appears. The basis in reality the broad statements are founded on simply are not mentioned.
I agree with everything Futbol wrote because of the specifics Fut is alluding to that make up the broad generalization you are attacking, the only question is, "Do the conservatives have time to prove it?"
Yes. We can when taken point-by-point and person-by-person. This is what NB is about. You might think it's a conservative site masquerading as something else, but the opposite is really true. This is exactly what they do. The names and statements made by the names cited in the blogs themselves are the specifics you say are not there, Leon.
Any one of us is capable of narrowing the broad spectrum on the generalization down to suit you.
For example, have you ever read The Professors, by David Horowitz? Mr. Horowitz is not only a former flaming liberal himself, but he also cites one of the broad generalizations you accuse Futbol of making about college professors.
And this comment was also brought to you by a former flaming liberal.
So in the end, you are now confronted with facing the following question, now brought down from the broad ---> to the specific:
Which one of David Horowitz's statements do you claim are:
1. Unproven?
2. Have no basis in reality?
3. Or are"wrong" as you state?
There you go. No more broad accusations ever again. You'll have to find another trick.
And any one of your opponents can do this with any other specific author, and spank you with it over and over and over again, night and day, until you wake up and smell the coffee.
The same-old internet tricks of the past ten years don't play anymore. Let's discuss the specifics and stop playing games, shall we?
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
"Say it ain't so,
March 5, 2008 - 18:41 ET by Jer"Say it ain't so, Joe"...
Futbol: Leon is representative of 99% of Liberals in America. Hateful, intolerant, anti-Christian, anti-Israel, anti-military, poorly informed. [Emphasis mine]
trach: I agree with everything Futbol wrote....
Having read [I would guess] at least 80% of your posts during my nine months at NB, I am literally shocked that you--a virtuoso at critical thinking and analytical precision--would actually agree with such a profoundly and demonstrably absurd statement.
Jer
Amen, Jer.
March 5, 2008 - 18:44 ET by balboaAmen, Jer.
Jer, really, profoundly
March 5, 2008 - 19:06 ET by futbolisgreat1Jer,
really, profoundly and demonstrably absurd statement.... why because you said so? and who said Liberals don't believe themselve to be gods. Because Jer said so, it is o, right Jer? Typical Liberal.
Isn't that fun of you to say....now care the provide the evidence that proves that my statement is "profoundly and demonstrably absurd"?
Evidence has been provided to prove Leon wrong....now do you care to provide your evidence besides, "Jer believes it" to show how you are right?
I also believe that Trach provided hardcore evidence.
Once again, neither your nor Leon provided any evidence besides your believes.
Isn't fun of Liberals demand evidence and proof, but you can make your statements without anything to back it up.
Balboa, I wouldn't be so quick to agree with Jer. The man is backing up Leon and neither one provides any evidence. Althoug Leon did demand that others provide it.
"The Rule of Holes"...futbol
March 5, 2008 - 19:26 ET by Jer"The Rule of Holes"...futbol: When you're in one, stop digging.
Also, stop stuffing words in my mouth I never said. I referred to one specific statement of yours which I submit is profoundly and demonstrably absurd. That statement is clearly quoted in my post to trach. This isn't about "backing Leon" or "liberals believing they're gods". Stick to the facts.
Do you honestly think that the large numbers of Christian liberals are anti-Christian?...that the large numbers of Jewish liberals are anti-Israel? Get real.
You made the 99% allegation. You back it up.
Jer
You have nothing on me Jer,
March 5, 2008 - 19:49 ET by tracheostomyYou have nothing on me Jer, not even with your expertly cherry-picked statements.
"Hateful, intolerant, anti-Christian, anti-Israel, anti-military, poorly informed."
I agree with this because all of it can be the result of an inverse effect of being poorly informed. That is IMO, the basis for liberal thought in general. Generally speaking, it's another one of Futbol's broad statements that I clarified in other posts.
I also clarified it for Bal.
Oh my, Jer's jail door just magically swung open. If there's no more questions, I hope you don't mind if I walk out into the sunshine. . .
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
trach...I'm not in the
March 5, 2008 - 20:13 ET by Jertrach...I'm not in the business of locking people up for expressing opinions...if you think you've been jailed, I'm sorry, but you are free to leave whenever you please. [The key's in the door.]
However, you chose to toss away one of the more important cherries I picked: futbol's claim that 99% of liberals are "hateful, intolerant, etc." Either eat it or put it back in the basket.
Jer
No, I explained it Jer.
March 5, 2008 - 20:25 ET by tracheostomyNo, I explained it Jer. Don't make me quote myself. I find it just as insulting to quote myself as it is to rub your nose in it.
So please, don't make me do it.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Insulting to whom, trach...
March 5, 2008 - 20:40 ET by JerInsulting to whom, trach...you or me? Please feel free to rub my nose in it. But if you simply can't bring yourself to repost this explanatory quote, perhaps you can give me a hint as to where it can be located elsewhere in the thread. I love scavenger hunts.
Remember, I'm expecting it to compellingly support the 99% allegation about liberals.
I'm not stalling Jer. I
March 5, 2008 - 20:56 ET by tracheostomyI'm not stalling Jer.
I stated:
"I agree with this because all of it can be the result of an inverse effect of being poorly informed. That is IMO, the basis for liberal thought in general."
Therefore I can agree with it. Do you wish for me to elaborate on it? I can do that for you, if you're unable to comprehend it as written.
Further, I have clarified my stance in posts to others on this thread today.
Therefore, you cannot say it doesn't exist.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
trach, just so I understand,
March 5, 2008 - 21:06 ET by balboatrach, just so I understand, you believe that 99% of Liberals in America are Hateful, intolerant, anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Israeli, anti-military, poorly informed, because all of it can be the result of an inverse effect of being poorly informed, which you believe is the basis for liberal thought in general.
Correct Bal. It's the
March 5, 2008 - 21:23 ET by tracheostomyCorrect Bal. It's the basis for any generally hateful, intolerant, anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Israeli, anti-military mindset to begin with. Not just liberals.
Now am I saying that all liberals are all of those things at once? No. I don't believe Fut said that either. But do I believe 99% of liberals are hateful, intolerant, anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Israeli, and anti-military?
Yep. Because if you find one that isn't at least a few of those things, he or she is most certainly a few of the others.
And the fact is they cannot tell you why. Not after the third of fourth probing question.
Thus, I believe the behaviors that liberals exhibit above are simply a result of being poorly informed. Sometimes it's also the result of severe constipation.
That is also how I can say there also can be sensible, mature, hard-working, intelligent liberals as I stated below, because most of the smart ones (the 1% that Fut gave them credit for) know when to get out of Dodge.
The rest? I'm not even that willing to label them as quickly. For example Bal, I don't believe you are a flag-waving liberal based on your statements. I just think you're something of an equal-opportunity skeptic. Also take what I said about Jer. I haven't known him long enough to slap the stamp on his forehead.
But yeah, I'm pretty comfortable with my agreement that 99% of liberals are hateful, intolerant, anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Israeli, and anti-military.
I'd prefer to insert the word "either" in between "are" and "hateful," but that would fail to include the bulk of liberalism that are two or more of those behaviors.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Hm...I can't figure out if I
March 5, 2008 - 21:38 ET by balboaHm...I can't figure out if I should be really insulted or ask more questions...
I can only hope that the majority of the democratic party doesn't fall into your liberal category. I refuse to believe that there are that many who are hateful, etc. I've grown up among many, many democratic families, and never knew any of them to display the traits you describe.
That's where the real
March 5, 2008 - 21:48 ET by tracheostomyThat's where the real horror is, Bal.
That's where Reagan (former lib, "shh" don't tell anyone) got off the bus a few stops ago.
Our local news interviewed people at an Obama rally. They asked them why they weren't at the Clinton rally held at the same time.
Quote: "Because he's for change." (w/a big smile)
In fact, Obama wasn't even there, even though Hillary was.* They were willingly attending just to see Michelle stand in.
That's something quite a bit other than free-thought thyar, you think?
Gotta wrap this up and go to work. Back later.
-PJ
*Edit: Attendance was even larger at our Obama rally, even though he wasn't actually there, what's up with that?
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Balboa, Although I am not
March 5, 2008 - 21:49 ET by futbolisgreat1Balboa,
Although I am not always nice to you...I must say that you do make a lot more sense than 99% of the Liberals I debate.
Please do not make the same assumption that Leon and Jer obviously have.
I do not believe that most Democrat party voters are Liberals. In fact, I believe that most Democrats, just like most REpublicans are in the middle falling a bit to the right or left.
Democrats do not always equal Liberal, although Liberal does always equal Democrat.
I know quite a few Democrats that are patriotic, American soldiers, individuals that would give up their lives in a second for this country. However, I know quite a few Liberals that hate this country, hate the military, hate Christians, etc.
While there is plenty of things that you say I disagree with, especially your constant defense of the American media, I believe you fall more into the Democrat voter than the hating Liberal.
I hope this makes sense.
Seconded
March 5, 2008 - 21:51 ET by tracheostomyAgreed.
(Now I'm late for work)
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
No need to elaborate unless
March 5, 2008 - 21:22 ET by JerNo need to elaborate unless you are so inclined. My reading and comprehension skills are adequate.
In my opinion, your explanation falls short, and therefore I can comfortably continue to disagree with futbol's claim. If you believe it to be sufficiently supportive, that is certainly your prerogative, and I won't argue the point further.
And I would never, ever accuse you of stalling.
Jer
No problem Jer,
March 5, 2008 - 21:29 ET by tracheostomyOpinions being what they are, you're not obligated to prove why you think my explanation falls short. But I clarified it to Bal anyway.
Jer: And I would never, ever accuse you of stalling.
Thank you. I take great pride in not keeping an opponent waiting around. I believe they deserve a fair and detailed answer.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
How does Jer statement make
March 5, 2008 - 21:54 ET by futbolisgreat1How does Jer statement make any sense?
He claims to be able to read and comprehend and that this "great" ability of his is more than enough for him to comfortably keep on asserting that my assertion is wrong.
Jer, get off your soap box and give some concreate evidence of why I am wrong.
You can't claim that someone's elses statement is wrong because you can read and comprehend. WOW!
You didn't allow me the same leeway that you want Trach and I to grant you....provide evidence or admit you are wrong.
Maybe you can answer a question that I ask of all Liberals...
Why do you Liberals always demand that Conservatives provide evidence of our assertions, yet you are unwilling to do it first? why?
I hope that your great reading and comprehension skills are good enough to allow you to answer this difficult question that stumps 99% of Liberals.
Trach, Didn't you
March 5, 2008 - 21:02 ET by futbolisgreat1Trach,
Didn't you know....Because Jer claims that I am wrong about me saying that 99% of Liberals are hateful, it makes Jer correct.
Jer fails to see that he is doing exactly what he is accusing me of doing. He fails to see that just like me, he made a comment about 99% of Liberals without specifics or backings.
he wants me to back up my statment, yet he is unwilling to back up his. Typical Liberal.
He made the accusation that my statement was absurd and wrong. In a court of law it is not the defendant that has to make a case, it is the accuser, the prosecutor, in this case Jer.
What he fails to see too is that after Leon challenged me I actually provided evidence.
Jer on the other hand wants us to believe that my comments of 99% of Liberals being hateful is absured because Jer said so.
You see, Liberals like Jer want the world to believe them because they said so, they are gods. Jer can demand evidence, but careful if you dare demand evidence to back up his statement. (Of course when Conservatives provide evidence they discount it or say it is not true because they don't like the messenger-Leon attacking David Horowitz).
Man, it is fun to play with mental midgets like Jer.
It is also obvious by Leon's and Jer's posts that they have not bothered to read and check out the evidence provided to them.
Futbol,
March 5, 2008 - 21:09 ET by tracheostomyCorrect. Fair is fair, right?
What about the 1% wiggle room you actually allowed for liberals? I have actually met a few well-informed liberals, and those are some SCARY cats indeed.
I haven't seen very many of those here on NB though.
Personally, I am willing to give Jer the benefit of the doubt. I haven't looked up his profile yet, and I haven't engaged with him much at all, so I'm still holding out that he might not be a liberal, even though he argues like one.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Trach, Well Jer didn't
March 5, 2008 - 21:19 ET by futbolisgreat1Trach,
Well Jer didn't bother to ask anything of me, he just made the statement, "Futbol's statement is demonstrably absurd." he didn't bother to say how or to back it up. He said that I need to back up my 99% statement, yet he didn't back up his own statement. Unsure why Liberals always demand that others back up their statements, yet they are unwilling to back up their own.
He then got a hissy fit when I called him out and said he was a Liberal.
He then started spewing how Liberal Christians and Jews can't possibly hate other Christians and Israelis. I showed him historical facts of how people of the same groups hate and kill each other. He started foaming at the mouth and instead of proving my historical data wrong he attacked my grammar and spelling (see below) without ever proving that any of my statements are wrong.
He acts, speaks and "debates" like a Liberal. If you walk, speak and move like a duck, you are a duck.
It is fun to see individual like Jer, who believe themselves to be gods, make complete idiots out of themselves. he is your typical condescending Liberal that doesn't like to be wrong.
This is where Futbol and I
March 5, 2008 - 21:38 ET by tracheostomyThis is where Futbol and I differ. I think to be a full-blown lib, you have to have a stated conviction to that effect, or a real defined commitment to the ideology.
Else, you're simply a misinformed liberal like the professors you refer to. I loved those examples, BTW.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Trach, Let's analyze this
March 5, 2008 - 21:31 ET by futbolisgreat1Trach,
Let's analyze this statement from Jer to me...
------------"The Rule of Holes"...futbol March 5, 2008 - 19:26 ET by Jer
"Do you honestly think that the large numbers of Christian liberals are anti-Christian?...that the large numbers of Jewish liberals are anti-Israel? Get real."
Jer-------------
You see. according to Jer, we must believe that large numbers of Liberal Christians are not anti-Christians and that a large number of Liberal Jews aren't anti-Israeli because as he said....I need to "Get real.". He doesn't need to back up his statements, all he needs to do to prove that he is correct and that I am wrong is demand that I "Get real.".
How dare anyone demand from the almighty god Jer proof of his statements, his is correct because we all need to "Get real.". Of course, any assertions that anyone else makes that Jer disagrees with we must back up because unlike him, we can't just make statements and expect almighty god Jer to believe them. However, we must believe his statements because as he said we need to "Get real.".
Typical Liberal that has the voices in his head telling him that he is a god. I mean c'mon Trach, we have to believe Jer because we all need to "Get real."
Ok, I'll stop, I am not being charitable, I am having too much fun at the expense of a Liberal. Not nice of me. We are not suppose to pick on intellectual inferior beings like Jer. I completely and utterly apologize.
Hey Jer, do feel free to correct my grammar and spelling. I give you permission.
Jer, You make other quite
March 5, 2008 - 20:44 ET by futbolisgreat1Jer,
You make other quite ridiculous comments.
1) You claim that Liberal Christians can't hate Christians. Now, I guess you have never heard of Irish Protestants fighting and killing Irish Catholics, right? Both Christian groups!
2) Another example, Muslims hating and killing Muslims. Shietes killing Sunnis and vice-versa.
3) You claim that Liberal Jews can't hate Israelis....another ridiculous comment from you. I guess you never studied how some Jews actually helped Nazis kill other Jews, eh? I guess you have never heard of Israeli traitors helping Muslims attack Israel, eh? I guess you haven't read much from the pastor of Obama's church, eh? a Liberal and a Israeli hater. Or how about Farakhan, who claims to support Obama, also an Israeli hater. How about Jimmy Carter another self-admitted Israeli hater....shall I continue with the list?
4) I guess you never heard of the American colonist Benedict Arnold attack his own people, right?
Just because you claim to belong to a group or actually belong to a group or ideology it doesn't mean that you can't hate that group or members of your own ideology.
Not much of a thinker are you my friend. You are as condescening as you are uneducated. Please, please before you start attacking people that you don't know, make sure you bring some real ammunition to the fight.
Do yourself a favor, stay in the sidelines are read my posts, your education by me is free of charge and we both know how Liberals love free-bees, right?
Jer, You make other quite
March 5, 2008 - 20:44 ET by futbolisgreat1Jer,
You make other quite ridiculous comments.
1) You claim that Liberal Christians can't hate Christians. Now, I guess you have never heard of Irish Protestants fighting and killing Irish Catholics, right? Both Christian groups!
2) Another example, Muslims hating and killing Muslims. Shietes killing Sunnis and vice-versa.
3) You claim that Liberal Jews can't hate Israelis....another ridiculous comment from you. I guess you never studied how some Jews actually helped Nazis kill other Jews, eh? I guess you have never heard of Israeli traitors helping Muslims attack Israel, eh? I guess you haven't read much from the pastor of Obama's church, eh? a Liberal and a Israeli hater. Or how about Farakhan, who claims to support Obama, also an Israeli hater. How about Jimmy Carter another self-admitted Israeli hater....shall I continue with the list?
4) I guess you never heard of the American colonist Benedict Arnold attack his own people, right?
Just because you claim to belong to a group or actually belong to a group or ideology it doesn't mean that you can't hate that group or members of your own ideology.
Not much of a thinker are you my friend. You are as condescening as you are uneducated. Please, please before you start attacking people that you don't know, make sure you bring some real ammunition to the fight.
Do yourself a favor, stay in the sidelines are read my posts, your education by me is free of charge and we both know how Liberals love free-bees, right?
Do yourself a favor, stay
March 5, 2008 - 21:02 ET by JerDo yourself a favor, stay in the sidelines an(d) read my posts...
Sage advice.
Jer
Jer, Well I am glad that
March 5, 2008 - 21:09 ET by futbolisgreat1Jer,
Well I am glad that you caught my typo and that you know that my advice is a wise one.
Please take it to heart. I am only trying to help you.
Stay on the sidelines and read my posts. You will learn quite a lot from me. As I said, free of charge. We both know how much Liberals love and adore free-bees.
You aren't the first Liberal that hasn't much left to say so they attack my grammar and spelling. You Libs are all the same. Seen one Liberal, you have seen them all. Quite sad don't you think that all of you are carbon copies of each other.
I guess like 99% of Liberals you believe these blogs to be thesis papers or professional papers for a major corporation. Poor you Jer.
Try harder nex time, you come accross as such a Liberal fool.
Feel free to correct my spelling and grammar, since you can't defend you Liberal ideology or your statements it will make you feel good and superior, ok my Liberal friend?
Oh, and careful Jer. I
March 5, 2008 - 19:46 ET by tracheostomyOh, and careful Jer. I honestly believe that large numbers of Christians (both liberal and conservative) are anti-Christian.
But that's another thread entirely. Just wanted to clarify my position.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Jer, Sorry my Liberal
March 5, 2008 - 20:23 ET by futbolisgreat1Jer,
Sorry my Liberal friend, it doesn't work like t hat.
You made the accusation that my assertions were demonstrably absurd, right?
You have done NOTHING to back up this statement of yours, other than claimig that my comments were absurd. You want people to believe that my comments were absure because you said so.
In a court of law I am innocent until proven guilty. It falls on YOU to prove that my comments are demonstrably absure, you made the accusation, now back it up. You wouldn't make much of a lawyer with your attitude.
Yes, like a typical Liberal you want people to believe that my comments are absurd because you said so. Like most Liberals, you believe you are a god and that you are right because you said so. Sorry, doesn't work that way. Back it up or apologize, your choice. Your provided no evidence except you personal believe that my comments are absurd.
you really need to try this time.
Trach, Horowitz? That's
March 5, 2008 - 19:44 ET by LeonTrach,
Horowitz? That's the crux of your argument.
Great work. Citing a known instigator to claim that others are instigators.
If that's what you've got I simply don't have time to waste on you.
What, leaving so soon?
March 5, 2008 - 19:47 ET by tracheostomyIt's a valid specific as opposed to the broad accusation.
Ball's still in your court. You're welcome to refute the specific all you want.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Trach, I see nothing
March 5, 2008 - 19:49 ET by LeonTrach,
I see nothing specific in your post. All I see is pretentious noodling.
Please demonstrate how I am
March 5, 2008 - 19:53 ET by tracheostomyPlease demonstrate how I am being pretentious.
I don't understand "noodling" what is that?
Ball's still in your court, Leon. C'mon. Gimme something real, man.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Trach, Read your post.
March 5, 2008 - 19:58 ET by LeonTrach,
Read your post. Where are your 'specifics'?
Is referencing an entire book by a joke of a man named Horowitz your specifics?
Gotta tell, generally referencing 200 pages of garbage isn't very specific.
Ball's
in my court? Dubious charge. You wrote a lot but you didn't
actually say anything. Although I'm happy you're enjoying your verbal
masturbation.
Bring specifics or be out. How are you going to prove to me that
ALL college campuses are bastions of liberal hate? That's a
generalization. All it takes to prove that wrong is one
college. Liberty University or whatever that scam of an academic
institution is called. There it is. Fut's generalization is
wrong. Now what?
Leon: Read your post.
March 5, 2008 - 20:18 ET by tracheostomyLeon: Read your post. Where are your 'specifics'?
No, you read my post! We're arguing to the man now (a specific person). You can pull specifics from either the man, or specific accusations he has lobbed towards liberals and defend them now. . .instead of hiding behind your general smokescreen. Like I said, anyone here can do it with anyone else. It doesn't have to be Horowitz in particular.
Leon: Is referencing an entire book by a joke of a man named Horowitz your specifics?
More like a 3-in-1 (see above). You know exactly what I'm doing. I can fairly accuse you of being pretentious now. I can also accuse you of fitting the model I gave Bal of the smart liberal. You're playing the same old games. Why don't you argue the specifics like you asked us to?
Just pick one. It doesn't have to be Horowitz, it can be any other conservative for that matter.
Leon: Bring specifics or be out. How are you going to prove to me that
ALL college campuses are bastions of liberal hate? That's a
generalization.
Quotes please. In order to work against the generalizations that you appear to oppose, I'd need something with names and dates and real finger-pointing and such. I think Horowitz is guilty of doing such things. Why don't you lay a good one on us and then we can hash it out?
Instead of stalling.
Leon: All it takes to prove that wrong is one
college. Liberty University or whatever that scam of an academic
institution is called. There it is. Fut's generalization is
wrong. Now what?
I agree Fut wasn't very specific about that, was he, so why didn't you ask him? Why didn't you try to honestly communicate with him?
He did state he was a poli-sci major, so I believe that points to the usual type of professors he was indicating.
But then you just did what I said liberals do when cornered, you pulled Liberty out of left-field and used the rare_exception as the rule.
Why can't we get past this BS, Leon and really get past the broad generalizations you claim to hate so much?
How about you pick a specific?
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
:filing nails: Geez, it's
March 5, 2008 - 20:30 ET by tracheostomy:filing nails:
Geez, it's been over half an hour now, Leon. When are you gonna deliver an argument to my specifics?
:shrugs:
He must be doing research. I'll throw him a bone and check back after an hour or two.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
So Leon, Evidence is
March 5, 2008 - 20:29 ET by futbolisgreat1So Leon,
Evidence is given to you and since you don't like the messenger, Mr. David Horowitz you call the evidence hogwash? haha! another typical Liberal tactic.
So, when Obama or Hillary tell Conservatives that the economy is not doing well we shouldn't take them seriously since Conservatives do not like either Obama or Hillary, right?
How about when Bernie Ward said that Conservatives are all idiots, should Liberals believe them? I am sure you know who Bernie Ward is, right?
Not liking the messenger doesn't make the facts untrue. C'mon Leon, you have to be better than this.
by the way, I graduated from the University of Illinois, how about you? Not sure what that has to do with anything.
Both you and Jer need to start providing evidence with all of your posts regarding every single assertion that you Liberals make. Liberals like you two always beg and demand that Conservatives back up their assertions, yet you have failed to do this today.
Thus, if Jer and you want to be taken seroiusly, start providing hardcore evidence with your posts. I know, I know, Liberals make demands of Conservatives that Liberals aren't willing to do first. I know this game all too well.
As you and Jer have alreay done so, when you can't prove Conservatives wrong, Liberals turn to personal insults. C'mon, I know you two have to be bigger than this, or at least I hope so.
How do you know?
March 5, 2008 - 20:40 ET by tracheostomyLeon: Gotta tell, generally referencing 200 pages of garbage isn't very specific.
I was only asking really for one specific page, chapter, or quote. You don't have to choke on the whole thing really.
Not unless you want to.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Quite simple, really.
March 5, 2008 - 16:42 ET by spiderdanQuite simple, really. Anyone that echoes the left's anti-war mantra, Bush "stole" any election, Bush was "AWOL", Bush invaded Iraq just to sell oil, etc., etc., etc. fall into the septic tank I envision as their domicile.
Half the population? Don't delude yourself. Half may vote Democrat, but hardly a fraction of those qualify for the derision and scorn I enthusiastically direct at these left wing idiots. Legitimate Americans, including the Democrats numbered among those, have nothing but contempt for the lunatics displayed in this piece.
If you're just talking
March 5, 2008 - 16:50 ET by balboaIf you're just talking leftwing idiots, I'm totally with you. :-)
Bal, I'll have you know
March 5, 2008 - 16:45 ET by LeonBal,
I'll have you know that those blanket observations about 50% of all
Americans being exactly the same came through years of tireless study
and late nights in the lab.
They absolutely must spend late nights toiling in a laboratory?
March 5, 2008 - 17:55 ET by tracheostomyAs a matter of fact they don't have to Leon. But piece by piece, the specific stitches the blanket observations are made up of. . .tend to add up over time. See above.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
But trach, do you see how
March 5, 2008 - 18:42 ET by balboaBut trach, do you see how insulting it is to hear these things claimed about everyone on the left when I have, firsthand, met many sensible, mature, hard-working, intelligent people that refute these claims?
So have I Bal. And
March 5, 2008 - 19:00 ET by tracheostomySo have I Bal. And yeah. It is insulting.
That's why every sensible, mature, hard-working, intelligent liberal I have ever met prefers to keep the conversation off politics.
If they cannot avoid the issue and end up (gasp) committed to discuss a particular political topic, then every sensible, mature, hard-working, intelligent liberal I have ever met is smart enough to hedge their bets, go for a general argument when a specific is being discussed, or vice versa.
I know many-many sensible, mature, hard-working, intelligent liberals who are scared to even bother to ask the very questions you've been asking.
That's why I'm telling you to ignore the ad hominem and keep it on topic. Fair is fair. If it's true for the libs, it's true for the conservatives also.
You're coming along nicely. I'd always hoped you wouldn't someday get discouraged and leave NB. Just keep plugging along the way you are.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
I happened to like this
March 5, 2008 - 16:19 ET by ConservativeRexI happened to like this Newbusted video, I actually think they are done in good taste with just the right amount of humor needed to get the point across.
I read some of the comments, they are from kids. Spoiled rotten kids at that. I am not worried about punks like these. In the video my favorite line was the one about recreate '68. I remember those times. I was not old enough to do anything about it at the time. I am now. I wonder if they are going to pull that kind of crap again. I remember at the time it was happening I told myself that I was never going to allow my country to be put through crap like this again. And I will not. I will do whatever it takes to prevent these wannabe loser hippies from wrecking our country again.
humor and PC
March 5, 2008 - 16:23 ET by szampFrom my point of view. I have no clue how leftists can be funny and PC at the same time. Every funny story has one victim. By trying to be funny they automatically violate their PC rules.
victimless...
March 5, 2008 - 16:26 ET by LionKingIf the victim is a conservative, then they really are not a victim.
That's why Prez McChimpy Bush and Rush Painkiller Limbaugh are repeated topics.
Just a thought. I'm yet
March 5, 2008 - 16:53 ET by LeonJust a thought.
I'm yet to meet a single, enthusiastic YouTuber that has any added value in society.
These
are people that communicate to other people via video. They don't
have regular human style interactions. People that do, don't
actively blog on YouTube. You expect rational comments from people like
this?
For regular humans YouTube is nothing more than a way to
catch the latest UFC fight, cool safari video, or disgusting soccer leg
break. Only nutjobs actually comment.
It's fine to point out the vitriol on YouTube, but the ultimate result is a massive, "who cares?"
These
people are pathetic losers. Why do you care if they knock your
video? What point have you proven by illustrating classless
losers being classes?
That is an interesting point
March 5, 2008 - 17:01 ET by Matthew SheffieldI'm not sure I would agree that conservative YouTubers are so irrational though. I think there is a distinct breed of intolerance that the response that the popularity of NewsBusted provokes.
Perhaps Matthew, But I
March 5, 2008 - 17:07 ET by LeonPerhaps Matthew,
But I think I'd argue many of those rational
conservatives were posting here before posting there and that those who
are now posting there are doing so in direct defense of a product
(Newsbusters) that they respect and enjoy.
They have a specific
intent. They aren't just simply YouTube users trolling around
looking for fights because the rest of their virtual lives are so
pathetic.
Leon, Could you not say
March 5, 2008 - 17:22 ET by futbolisgreat1Leon,
Could you not say the same thing about the countless of people that post both on Liberal and Conservative blogs?
At one point in time I would have agreed that people that post online where massive losers who had no human interaction, but i believe that is no longer the case.
I mean, what is the difference between responding to a YouTube video and posting it, to you, me, or anyone else reading a story here on Newsbusters.org and responding to it?
Fut, Simple answer:
March 5, 2008 - 17:28 ET by LeonFut,
Simple answer: Subject Matter
Watching a guy get hit in the nuts just isn't the same as debating the implications of the current political environment.
Leon, Very true....but I
March 5, 2008 - 17:50 ET by futbolisgreat1Leon,
Very true....but I believe Newsbusted is no where near the level of watching a guy getting hit on the nuts....do you?
comedy can be and often is used as political commentary of current events, right?
I will agree that posting on many YouTube videos is a waste of time, but not all YouTube videos are a waste of time. I would hardly claim that watching Newbusted is a waste of time. Just like I believe that watching Colbert Report, John Stewart, Leno, etc is not a waste of time. I disagree with them, some of them I find funny, and some I think are far from being funny. The problem comes in when you only get your current event news from Newsbusted, from Leno, from John stewart, from YouTube. then yes, I would also claim you are a massive loser.
but the subject matter in YouTube is not only about a guy getting hit on the nuts.
Right on! It's about looking for nuts...
March 5, 2008 - 19:57 ET by Syriushttp://www.youtube.c...
Syrius
Syr... Speaking of
March 5, 2008 - 20:04 ET by bigtimerSyr...
Speaking of nuts....cute by half.
99% of Liberals in
March 5, 2008 - 20:59 ET by balboa99% of Liberals in America: Hateful, intolerant, anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Israeli, anti-military, poorly informed.
»→ I disagree, bal
March 6, 2008 - 17:33 ET by Cool ArrowI don't see the percentage as being quite that high.
There are probably more than 1% who are just misguided or ignorant.
♣ a seal
I'll Explain
March 6, 2008 - 08:56 ET by voodoodaddyBasically, liberals never dip into their own pockets to help anyone "Diretly"...they want to dip in everone else's pocket to do it "Indirectly" for them.
The loons do that to
March 6, 2008 - 14:48 ET by suzycreamcheeseThe loons do that to conservative books on Amazon, too.
Pigs..
March 7, 2008 - 20:32 ET by GilI thought about this one for a while.. as to why they act as they do.
The reason the leftists attack with hateful words and blindly rate as "one star" all which opposes their viewpoint is that they are pigs. Oh, not literal ones, the ones Jesus spoke about when He said:
Mat 7:6 Do not give that which is holy to the dogs, neither cast your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
It is rather simple, really. They are just trampling your efforts under their delicate piggy feet and then turning and attempting to "rend" you with their comments. It is in the nature of a "pig" to do so. The pity is that our society is creating so many of them.