|
MagicToenail
Toucan
Joined: Feb 07, 2012
Posts: 276
|
 Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 11:00 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Raptor wrote: | MagicToenail wrote:
| Quote: | | On a personal note, how can you stay in the party of Michelle Malkin who defended Japanese internment quite recently? |
First I’ve heard of her but then again I don’t spend all of my time looking for republicans to wring my hands over. No matter what she says it’s not going to drive me to become a democrat and that's the simple truth...
| Quote: | | Don't mean to be mean or "gotcha," but really, Malkin is a cancer that the Republicans should remove but haven't. |
Why not just go ahead and say what you mean; that all republicans are a cancer.
Marshall wrote:
| Quote: | | The right-wing conservative idea of "Pwning" someone in a political debate is stuffing banana peels in your ears and yelling "neener neener neener, not listening". |
If you get all wrapped around the axle over my posts but I get a kick out of yours then you DO get pwn’d.  |
I didn't say all Republicans are cancerous, but they do have it backwards. They welcome people like Malkin, Santorum (who disagrees with Loving vs Virginia), Pat Buchannan (who believes we should have sided with Nazi Germany against Stalin) and The Pauls (who disagree with the 60's civil rights acts) but remove their healthy tissue so to speak (moderate and liberal Republicans, and even conservatives like John Huntsman, whose only crimes were a belief in global warming , bipartisanship and having an adopted Chinese daughter) Find it a bit hard to believe you never heard of Malkin, because she's a staple on Fox News and Sean Hannity, Do you agree with what she says? |
|
| Back to top |
|
marshall
Under the whirlwind
Joined: Apr 15, 2007
Posts: 9202
Location: Western Michigan
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 11:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Raptor wrote: | | Quote: | | The right-wing conservative idea of "Pwning" someone in a political debate is stuffing banana peels in your ears and yelling "neener neener neener, not listening". |
If you get all wrapped around the axle over my posts but I get a kick out of yours then you DO get pwn’d. |
Hey. If all I had to do to "pwn" people was piss them off by stating my obnoxious reactionary political beliefs I'd pwn more than Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, George Soros, and the Koch Brothers combined. Hell, I'd be able to pwn a whole army of liberal slaves. If that was my goal in life. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Raptor
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 09, 2007
Posts: 4481
Location: Southeast U.S.A.
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 11:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| MagicToenail wrote: | | Raptor wrote: | MagicToenail wrote:
| Quote: | | On a personal note, how can you stay in the party of Michelle Malkin who defended Japanese internment quite recently? |
First I’ve heard of her but then again I don’t spend all of my time looking for republicans to wring my hands over. No matter what she says it’s not going to drive me to become a democrat and that's the simple truth...
| Quote: | | Don't mean to be mean or "gotcha," but really, Malkin is a cancer that the Republicans should remove but haven't. |
Why not just go ahead and say what you mean; that all republicans are a cancer.
Marshall wrote:
| Quote: | | The right-wing conservative idea of "Pwning" someone in a political debate is stuffing banana peels in your ears and yelling "neener neener neener, not listening". |
If you get all wrapped around the axle over my posts but I get a kick out of yours then you DO get pwn’d. |
I didn't say all Republicans are cancerous, but they do have it backwards. They welcome people like Malkin, Santorum (who disagrees with Loving vs Virginia), Pat Buchannan (who believes we should have sided with Nazi Germany against Stalin) and The Pauls (who disagree with the 60's civil rights acts) but remove their healthy tissue so to speak (moderate and liberal Republicans, and even conservatives like John Huntsman, whose only crimes were a belief in global warming , bipartisanship and having an adopted Chinese daughter) Find it a bit hard to believe you never heard of Malkin, because she's a staple on Fox News and Sean Hannity, Do you agree with what she says? |
Hard as it is for you to believe, I really don't watch the news that much. When I do watch it, though, it is indeed FOX and will continue to be. I've heard Hannity's radio show a few times and what little I heard I had to agree with. I don't remember what the topics were at the time, though. Same goes for Limbaugh since I know you'll bring him up next.
You cannot get me to feel bad about being a conservative. No one made me one, I became one completely on my own. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Fnord
Enigmatic Threadkilling Metasyntactic Variable
Joined: May 07, 2008
Posts: 17853
Location: Stendec
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 11:40 pm Post subject: Re: Grover Norquist: A disgrace |
|
|
| Raptor wrote: | I've seen no shortage of blatant contempt from the democrats for anything they consider rich or even middle class.
Even the democrats that are rich themselves have the nerve to hold other rich people in contempt... |
[RANT]
Here are some Liberal behaviors that make me reluctant to discuss anything with them:
• Conversation with liberal are usually peppered with political-correctness booby traps. Try saying "Boy, it's hot out" around a Liberal, and time how fast he or she comes to accusing you of racism.
• Everyone is a victim, except wealthy white males. It does not matter who has what problem, it is somehow a poorly-defined cabal of wealthy white males that is somehow at fault. Just being a white male with a six-figure income automatically makes you a villain to Liberals.
• Liberals constantly violate the unwritten rule that politics, religion, and sexuality should be off-limits in casual conversations. It's as if everything is somehow tied to one or more of these three topics. Whatever you say, whatever you do, somehow has become their area of expertise and they are more than willing to jam their points of view down your throats.
• Political issues are personal issues, and vice versa. If one is a homosexual pygmy eskimo, then sexuality, height, and polar environments are their political obsessions. If one of them has a medical condition, then everybody should care, drop everything, and get involved in finding a cure.
• Finally, Liberals seem more than willing to spend dumploads of money on social programs, as long as none of that money is their own.
[/RANT]
We now return you to the Grover Norquist thread, already in progress... |
|
| Back to top |
|
Master_Pedant
Rocky Anderson for President!
Joined: Mar 15, 2009
Posts: 4707
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 11:42 pm Post subject: Re: Grover Norquist: A disgrace |
|
|
| Raptor wrote: |
Buy all you want and do whatever with them. It's amazing the assumptions you make just by my putting "Southeastern USA" under my user name five years ago when I registered here. Hell, I might not even live there any more and I'm not from there originally, anyway. I could be from Romania and see merit in the southern cause during the war between the states for reasons you'd never think of. |
The inference I made that you (probably) have nostalgia for the Confederacy is based on evidence that comes from this post:
| Raptor wrote: | | Vigilans wrote: | | Raptor wrote: | So one guy comes prepared and the other three don’t. Sort of like an ant vs. grasshopper scenario ‘cept this time the grasshoppers forcibly steal from the ant.
A simple but classical case of collectivism.  |
For some reason this brings to mind a particular situation from the US Civil War. The various states of the Confederacy were very unwilling to share with each other. To this end some states hoarded things from ammunition to uniforms to boots. The end result was the failure of the Confederate military campaign. Had the CSA Federal government coerced the state governments to cooperate fully for the cause of independence they may have stood a better chance. This is the argument that "the Confederacy died of State's Rights". Stubborn individualism has a place in ensuring personal survival but in some cases can be a liability when not looked at in the big picture. It could be the "ant & the grasshopper" situation or it could be more complicated than that (more likely). Not that I'm advocating collectivism. The idea of living in some kind of collective commune sounds like a hippie nightmare to me |
Hording of resources is typical of any bureaucracy; trust me I deal with it five days a week.
And the War of Northern Aggression isn't the touchy spot with me like you'd like to think it is.
Nice try, though  |
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postx176233-105-0.html
Vigilans made a nearly totally innocuous observation about the perils decentralism brought to the Confederate States during the Civil War and you acted butt-hurt as hell.
As for why you admire the Confederacy or (exclusive or inclusive sense) hate the "War of Northern Aggression", most (non-racist) reasons either come down to historical revisionism ("Confederate separatism was soooo not about slavery!") or concern for the civil liberties Lincoln suspended during the war. Of course, time and time again, you've shown yourself to be no civil libertarian, the later case is pretty friggin' doubtful.
_________________
http://www.voterocky.org/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
Raptor
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 09, 2007
Posts: 4481
Location: Southeast U.S.A.
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 11:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marshall wrote: | | Raptor wrote: | | Quote: | | The right-wing conservative idea of "Pwning" someone in a political debate is stuffing banana peels in your ears and yelling "neener neener neener, not listening". |
If you get all wrapped around the axle over my posts but I get a kick out of yours then you DO get pwn’d. |
Hey. If all I had to do to "pwn" people was piss them off by stating my obnoxious reactionary political beliefs I'd pwn more than Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, George Soros, and the Koch Brothers combined. Hell, I'd be able to pwn a whole army of liberal slaves. If that was my goal in life. |
I don't set out to piss people off. What I do is something apparently audacious by posting my generally conservative opinion in a predominantly liberal forum of predominantly liberal topics. I guess to a liberal, most of which can’t stand an independent thought let alone a voiced opinion, it does seem reactionary and obnoxious. Whatever, if you choose to get your panties in a knot over it that’s no fault of mine. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Raptor
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 09, 2007
Posts: 4481
Location: Southeast U.S.A.
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 12:09 am Post subject: Re: Grover Norquist: A disgrace |
|
|
| Master_Pedant wrote: | | Raptor wrote: |
Buy all you want and do whatever with them. It's amazing the assumptions you make just by my putting "Southeastern USA" under my user name five years ago when I registered here. Hell, I might not even live there any more and I'm not from there originally, anyway. I could be from Romania and see merit in the southern cause during the war between the states for reasons you'd never think of. |
The inference I made that you (probably) have nostalgia for the Confederacy is based on evidence that comes from this post:
| Raptor wrote: | | Vigilans wrote: | | Raptor wrote: | So one guy comes prepared and the other three don’t. Sort of like an ant vs. grasshopper scenario ‘cept this time the grasshoppers forcibly steal from the ant.
A simple but classical case of collectivism. |
For some reason this brings to mind a particular situation from the US Civil War. The various states of the Confederacy were very unwilling to share with each other. To this end some states hoarded things from ammunition to uniforms to boots. The end result was the failure of the Confederate military campaign. Had the CSA Federal government coerced the state governments to cooperate fully for the cause of independence they may have stood a better chance. This is the argument that "the Confederacy died of State's Rights". Stubborn individualism has a place in ensuring personal survival but in some cases can be a liability when not looked at in the big picture. It could be the "ant & the grasshopper" situation or it could be more complicated than that (more likely). Not that I'm advocating collectivism. The idea of living in some kind of collective commune sounds like a hippie nightmare to me |
Hording of resources is typical of any bureaucracy; trust me I deal with it five days a week.
And the War of Northern Aggression isn't the touchy spot with me like you'd like to think it is.
Nice try, though |
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postx176233-105-0.html
Vigilans made a nearly totally innocuous observation about the perils decentralism brought to the Confederate States during the Civil War and you acted butt-hurt as hell.
As for why you admire the Confederacy or (exclusive or inclusive sense) hate the "War of Northern Aggression", most (non-racist) reasons either come down to historical revisionism ("Confederate separatism was soooo not about slavery!") or concern for the civil liberties Lincoln suspended during the war. Of course, time and time again, you've shown yourself to be no civil libertarian, the later case is pretty friggin' doubtful. |
Oh boy this is good......... 
Hmmm……I’m not seeing where I’m acting “butt-hurt” by clearly stating that the WONA is not a soft spot with me. You have clearly shot your own argument down. I followed the link, though, and it became obvious that it was just an attempt by you to resurrect your Herman Cain/Country Club Conservative thread. Don’t worry, the Herman Cain boogeyman is no longer a threat to MY country. Thanks for your international concern just the same, though….
You’ve really Pwn3d yourself on this one and saved me the work (not that it's hard).....
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
Kraichgauer
Phoenix
Joined: Apr 13, 2010
Age: 47
Posts: 12756
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 12:14 am Post subject: Re: Grover Norquist: A disgrace |
|
|
| Raptor wrote: | | Kraichgauer wrote: | | Raptor wrote: | | Master_Pedant wrote: | | Raptor wrote: |
If Master_Pedant thinks Grover Norquist is a disgrace and that douchebag from The Young Turds goes off on a typically liberal vulgar tirade over him then that says a lot in favor of Norquist.
|
What's the matter? Scarred that the namby pamby, Alan Colmes left has been replaced with the angry, earthen left? Well, you should be, because the strong left is here to stay. |
You must have run out of things to do in trying to trying to run the United States from Winnipeg.
As an accomplished vulgarian, I'm hardly a'feerd of some liberal crybaby with the Youg Turds.
For everyone he impresses he turns a few off so I guess that's a good thing.
And remember, the hard (blow hard) left will never be as hard as the hard right in THIS country.
Now go back to playing with your toy American soldiers.
|
Liberals will never be as hard as the right "in THIS country," huh?
As I recall, it was liberals like Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman who had carried THIS country to victory in the Second World War. Sounds like they were made of pretty hard stuff to me.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer |
Roosevelt died in 1945 so he’s hardly a contemporary to Norquist. I doubt you’d like FDR, anyway. If things had been done his way post 9/11 all of the Arabs in this country would be thrown behind barbed wire for the duration of the WOT. Just ask any Japanese American that was around during WWII.
He was too in love with Stalin to be as effective of a wartime president as he could have been had he been a good hardcore conservative. By effective I mean securing a bigger chunk of Europe that the communists ultimately ended up with.
What makes FRD such an icon to the American left are his social policies and expansion of federal government power.
Truman dropped the ball in Korea by relieving MacArthur to keep him from whipping up on China.
I’m afraid your two examples of “hard right” don’t have much merit… |
Number 1) Stalin was occupying half of Europe by the end of the war, so it's doubtful that Roosevelt or anyone else could have dislodged the Red Army. The charge that FDR had just handed Stalin Eastern Europe is facetious. On top of that, Stalin was an ally who had made promises to America and Britain to allow free elections - in which case the only one to blame for reneging on those promises lies with Stalin.
And number 2) MacArthur had disrespected his commander-in-chief, who just happened to have been Harry Truman. The general had kept pushing the envelope and disobeying Truman that the president had no choice but to fire him.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer |
|
| Back to top |
|
Master_Pedant
Rocky Anderson for President!
Joined: Mar 15, 2009
Posts: 4707
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 12:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm not sure how twisted Raptor's psychology is, but generally when one sees something as innocent as Viglians reference to military and logistical issues during the Civil War, one doesn't think "he's trying to offend my sensibilities by referencing the confederacy" unless one has said sensibility.
Given your obsession with "pwnage", I think it's pretty obvious that you're a troll, btw.
_________________
http://www.voterocky.org/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
Vigilans
Orgasm Donor
Joined: Jun 20, 2008
Age: 24
Posts: 12091
Location: La belle province
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 12:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
That was a while ago, but if I remember correctly, the reason I chose to reference the Confederacy was because I believe Raptor is a fellow Civil War buff and would probably agree with the "Died of State's Rights" premise. I was trying to demonstrate that individualism is good but cooperation is often key, and "proving" one's individualism by flaunting it instead of cooperating can break down a system
_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do |
|
| Back to top |
|
marshall
Under the whirlwind
Joined: Apr 15, 2007
Posts: 9202
Location: Western Michigan
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 12:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Raptor wrote: | | marshall wrote: | | Raptor wrote: | | Quote: | | The right-wing conservative idea of "Pwning" someone in a political debate is stuffing banana peels in your ears and yelling "neener neener neener, not listening". |
If you get all wrapped around the axle over my posts but I get a kick out of yours then you DO get pwn’d. |
Hey. If all I had to do to "pwn" people was piss them off by stating my obnoxious reactionary political beliefs I'd pwn more than Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, George Soros, and the Koch Brothers combined. Hell, I'd be able to pwn a whole army of liberal slaves. If that was my goal in life. |
I don't set out to piss people off. What I do is something apparently audacious by posting my generally conservative opinion in a predominantly liberal forum of predominantly liberal topics. I guess to a liberal, most of which can’t stand an independent thought let alone a voiced opinion, it does seem reactionary and obnoxious. Whatever, if you choose to get your panties in a knot over it that’s no fault of mine. |
I don't see why calling something the way I see it is "getting my panties in a knot". I also love you're notion that "liberals" (i.e. to you anyone left of Sean Hannity) "can't stand independent thought" because they don't want to sit around singing kumbaya with you. Also, it's not like I haven't had my ear share of conservative Republicans bitching and moaning about Obama. They don't happen to hang out on this site as much as other places but they do exist and they aren't all exactly shy about spouting their opinions loudly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Dox47
Consigliere
Joined: Jan 29, 2008
Posts: 5185
Location: Seattle Area
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 12:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Master_Pedant wrote: | | Given your obsession with "pwnage", I think it's pretty obvious that you're a troll, btw. |
I'd say he's more of a Golem, and one you played a part in constructing at that.
_________________
Unconditional allegiance is the surest way to render one’s beliefs and agenda irrelevant
Any power that government has to do something you like will invariably be used for something you abhor
Murum aries attigit |
|
| Back to top |
|
Kraichgauer
Phoenix
Joined: Apr 13, 2010
Age: 47
Posts: 12756
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 12:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dox47 wrote: | | Master_Pedant wrote: | | Given your obsession with "pwnage", I think it's pretty obvious that you're a troll, btw. |
I'd say he's more of a Golem, and one you played a part in constructing at that. |
I'm pretty certain the Golem was constructed by its makers to defend them.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer |
|
| Back to top |
|
Raptor
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 09, 2007
Posts: 4481
Location: Southeast U.S.A.
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 12:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Master_Pedant wrote:
| Quote: | | Given your obsession with "pwnage", I think it's pretty obvious that you're a troll, btw. |
A classic case of the pot calling the kettle black as I’ve seen here. I’ve been here two years longer than you and I have 1750 posts as of this writing to your 4316 troll bating threads and replies. But like I told one of your cronies in another post; any thought or opinion that runs contrary to liberal ideology counts as trolling in a liberal’s book.
So much for diversity, eh?
You slammed yourself in your last post in this thread and here you do it again by grasping pathetically at straws.
Kraichgauer wrote:
| Quote: | | Number 1) Stalin was occupying half of Europe by the end of the war, so it's doubtful that Roosevelt or anyone else could have dislodged the Red Army. The charge that FDR had just handed Stalin Eastern Europe is facetious. On top of that, Stalin was an ally who had made promises to America and Britain to allow free elections - in which case the only one to blame for reneging on those promises lies with Stalin. |
It’s called let Stalin liberate as much of Eastern Europe as possible then drive them out since the red army would be too bled out and overextended. At that stage they couldn’t do anything about it but cry on the long march back to the Motherland and the western allies would have had at least ALL of Germany to occupy and then some. Anything but making deals with that communist butcher.
| Quote: | | And number 2) MacArthur had disrespected his commander-in-chief, who just happened to have been Harry Truman. The general had kept pushing the envelope and disobeying Truman that the president had no choice but to fire him. |
MacArthur was in it to win while your boy Truman was in bed with the reds like his old boss was. Call it de-escalation but it is what it is; reds taking care of reds. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Kraichgauer
Phoenix
Joined: Apr 13, 2010
Age: 47
Posts: 12756
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 1:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Raptor wrote: | Master_Pedant wrote:
| Quote: | | Given your obsession with "pwnage", I think it's pretty obvious that you're a troll, btw. |
A classic case of the pot calling the kettle black as I’ve seen here. I’ve been here two years longer than you and I have 1750 posts as of this writing to your 4316 troll bating threads and replies. But like I told one of your cronies in another post; any thought or opinion that runs contrary to liberal ideology counts as trolling in a liberal’s book.
So much for diversity, eh?
You slammed yourself in your last post in this thread and here you do it again by grasping pathetically at straws.
Kraichgauer wrote:
| Quote: | | Number 1) Stalin was occupying half of Europe by the end of the war, so it's doubtful that Roosevelt or anyone else could have dislodged the Red Army. The charge that FDR had just handed Stalin Eastern Europe is facetious. On top of that, Stalin was an ally who had made promises to America and Britain to allow free elections - in which case the only one to blame for reneging on those promises lies with Stalin. |
It’s called let Stalin liberate as much of Eastern Europe as possible then drive them out since the red army would be too bled out and overextended. At that stage they couldn’t do anything about it but cry on the long march back to the Motherland and the western allies would have had at least ALL of Germany to occupy and then some. Anything but making deals with that communist butcher.
| Quote: | | And number 2) MacArthur had disrespected his commander-in-chief, who just happened to have been Harry Truman. The general had kept pushing the envelope and disobeying Truman that the president had no choice but to fire him. |
MacArthur was in it to win while your boy Truman was in bed with the reds like his old boss was. Call it de-escalation but it is what it is; reds taking care of reds. |
I don't know where you're getting your history from, but Stalin liberated eastern Europe because geographically the Soviet Union was immediately at hand to occupy the region, whereas at that time, we were fighting for every inch of ground since hitting Normandy. Nobody 'let" Stalin have anything. And again, I'll remind you, Stalin was an ally back then, and so no one was going to deny him the spoils of war. And as far as the Red Army being weak and over extended - that's a myth. In fact, the soviet forces were stronger by the end of the war than they had been at the beginning. Had we attempted a land war against Stalin, it's possible we might have faced a replay of Hitler's failure on the Eastern Front. And incidentally, while Patton had wanted to race the Soviets to Berlin, he wasn't overruled by Roosevelt, but by Eisenhower - who later ran for president as a Republican.
And by the way, Truman's anti-communist credentials were impeccable. He was the guy who rebuilt western Europe in order to keep communism from taking root there, and established an alliance of democratic nations to fight the East Block.
The idea that FDR or Truman had been "in bed with the reds" is nothing but right wing fantasy. Were mistakes made in regard to our international dealings with the communists? Of course; but that was due to a lack of hindsight. Presidents like Roosevelt and Truman did what they perceived to have been right at the time.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
