Tom DeLay's House of Shame

[SirNitram]

Point out a radical leftist who doesn't vote democrat across the board in every single election, and maybe then I will concede that that type of person doesn't find a home in the Democratic party.

The Green party.

Point, set, match.

[Ryoga]

Go fuck yourself you arrogant goddamn asshole son of a bitch. It's so easy, so safe to goad people when you are thousands of miles away and safe from any consequences.

Oh my god, did you really just half-assedly threaten someone over the Internets?

You, sir, fail at life.

[Perinquus]

Point out a radical leftist who doesn't vote democrat across the board in every single election, and maybe then I will concede that that type of person doesn't find a home in the Democratic party.

The Green party.

Point, set, match.

Sorry. Not quite. I concede you make a valid point, but this is not quite so total a victory. There are still many fringe leftists who vote Democrat, and would never, ever vote Republican, even if the Democrats and Greens both ran trained cockatoos, because they follow the wisdom that a vote for a third party candidate is a wasted vote, just as many die hard conservatives simply won't vote Libertarian even when the Republicans run... well... Geo. W. Bush for example.

[Darth Wong]

The Democratic party voted overwhelmingly to give the President unilateral authority to declare war on whomever he wanted. The last Democratic president brought in the DOMA, NAFTA, and social spending cutbacks. Only in fringe-nut land could the Democratic party be considered radical leftists, but of course, Perinquus appears to live in fringe-nut land. I wonder what the weather is like there.

Go fuck yourself you arrogant goddamn asshole son of a bitch. It's so easy, so safe to goad people when you are thousands of miles away and safe from any consequences.

Ah look, the pathetic lying little shitstain resorts to veiled threats of physical violence because his lies have been exposed for what they are. Oh boo hoo, I feel so bad for DipshitBoy. Crawl home to your precinct office where you are surrounded only by people who agree with you, fucktard. It's obvious you are incapable of handling yourself in a debate.

Point out a radical leftist who doesn't vote democrat across the board in every single election, and maybe then I will concede that that type of person doesn't find a home in the Democratic party. Apparently, for all your intellec, you are burdened with a severe reading comprehension problem. You seem completely unable to see words I write such as: "In neither case are they representative of the majority of the members of those parties." I concede right there that such people do not make up the mainstream of the democratic party. But apparently, according to you, I think that all Democrats are fringe left peaceniks. Fucking learn to read.

Hey fucktard, this thread is about a fringe wacko being elevated to one of the most powerful positions in the party where most of the people seem to support him anyway. Any time you care to back up your tu quoque fallacy with an actual example of the same thing on the other side, feel free. Until then you're just an arrogant windbag with more attitude than brains. Par for the course, Republitard.

And of course, you also appear to be inexcusably ignorant of how popular sentiment can be whipped up, and how politicians can bend before political winds. No matter how opposed to military action many Democratic (and even some Republican) congressmen and senators may have been, the country was howling for blood in the aftermath of 9/11. A great number of politicians - Democrat as well as Republican - may have been afraid of losing their seats if they were perceived as doves at such a time. I know this will come a great shock to you (this is sarcasm, by the way - I feel constrained to point this out to you in light of your aforementioned reading comprehension problem) but politicians often sacrifice their principles for the sake of staying in office. Or are you really so stupid as to believe that Democrats are all noble idealists who would never sacrifice their principles for something as crass as political manuevering.

Yet more mountains of bullshit. The Democrat party in the US would be considered centrist anywhere but your Republitard fringe-nut land. And while direct quotes have been provided of Delay saying incredibly insane things to back up the claim that he's a fringe-nut, I haven't seen you provide any similar quotes of similarly high-ranking democrats saying similarly insane things to back up your knee-jerk reflexive tu quoque bullshit.

[Darth Wong]

Go fuck yourself you arrogant goddamn asshole son of a bitch. It's so easy, so safe to goad people when you are thousands of miles away and safe from any consequences.

Oh my god, did you really just half-assedly threaten someone over the Internets?

You, sir, fail at life.

What do you expect for a Republitard? This kind of knuckle-dragging troglodyte behaviour must work really well in 6th-grade debates. I guess some people simply don't learn to advance beyond that level.

[SirNitram]

Point out a radical leftist who doesn't vote democrat across the board in every single election, and maybe then I will concede that that type of person doesn't find a home in the Democratic party.

The Green party.

Point, set, match.

Sorry. Not quite. I concede you make a valid point, but this is not quite so total a victory. There are still many fringe leftists who vote Democrat, and would never, ever vote Republican, even if the Democrats and Greens both ran trained cockatoos, because they follow the wisdom that a vote for a third party candidate is a wasted vote, just as many die hard conservatives simply won't vote Libertarian even when the Republicans run... well... Geo. W. Bush for example.

So your response to me meeting your challenge just as you wrote it is... To change the method of the challenge.

This is textbook dishonest debating. Find it under 'Moving The Goalposts'.

[Perinquus]

Go fuck yourself you arrogant goddamn asshole son of a bitch. It's so easy, so safe to goad people when you are thousands of miles away and safe from any consequences.

Oh my god, did you really just half-assedly threaten someone over the Internets?

You, sir, fail at life.

No, I didn't. I merely point out the cowardice of goading someone, when protected by distance, in a way that you would never do when standing face to face with that person. People find it easy to quickly, almost instantly resort to personal insults when they are protected by both the distance and the anonymity of the internet, when they would never in a million years descend to such behavior so quickly when, for example, talking with a coworker around the office watercooler, or conversing with a stranger in line at the grocery store. The reason they would never do such a thing face to face is that most people fear what may happen when they are so insulting to someone's face. That fear is totally absent when they are typing messages to someone thousands of miles away, so they use that as an excuse to engage in inexscusably rude and provocative behavior. What is it then, if not cowardice, if you allow yourself excesses of behavior when it is safe, that you do not allow yourself when there may be immediate consequences? I merely point this out, and I'm supposed to be the one who's acting uncivilized?

[Metatwaddle]

Point out a radical leftist who doesn't vote democrat across the board in every single election, and maybe then I will concede that that type of person doesn't find a home in the Democratic party.

The Green party.

Point, set, match.

Sorry. Not quite. I concede you make a valid point, but this is not quite so total a victory. There are still many fringe leftists who vote Democrat, and would never, ever vote Republican, even if the Democrats and Greens both ran trained cockatoos, because they follow the wisdom that a vote for a third party candidate is a wasted vote, just as many die hard conservatives simply won't vote Libertarian even when the Republicans run... well... Geo. W. Bush for example.

What the fuck is that? You say: "Find a fringe leftist who's not a Democrat." Nitram says: "The Green party." You say: "Well, that doesn't count, because a LOT of fringe leftists still vote Democrat!"

Your claim was that all fringe leftists were Democrats. Stop trying to change it to "some fringe leftists are Democrats." It's not convincing.

[SirNitram]

What is it then, if not cowardice, if you allow yourself excesses of behavior when it is safe, that you do not allow yourself when there may be immediate consequences? I merely point this out, and I'm supposed to be the one who's acting uncivilized?

How can anyone be expected to read this and not see it as 'YOU'D NOT Say THAT IF I COULD PUNCH YOU IN THE FACE! SO YOU'RE A COWARD!', exactly?

The only threat from standing face to face instead of here is physical reaction; and blustering bullshit of it is clearly just an attempt to intimidate.

This is why apologism is bad, folks. You make yourself look like more and more of an asstard as you leap up and try and bullshit, bluster, and flounder your way through leaping to the defense of your favorite idealogical whore.

[Ryoga]

Bahaha, I knew it. Hey Perinquus, while we're on it, does the word 'red herring' mean anything to you? 'You wouldn't talk to me that way if this weren't the Internet!' ...well, it kinda is. Sorry.

[Fire Fly]

The Green and Socialist Party are two primary examples who are much more liberal than the Democratic Party who consistently vote for a 3rd party. Compared to these much more liberal parties, the Democrats are Republicans and the Republicans are facists. Nader continually runs on the theme of "Democrats~Republicans, if you actually want liberal, vote Green."

The Democrats have a solid base, but they don't have a solid base over all liberals where as the Republicans have consolidated a solid base over their conservative spectrum, ranging from buisness republicans, Christian conservatives, and neo-conservative, each segment representing a significant population number. If you look at the 2004 elections, you can clearly see that Bush had a solid base whereas Kerry was working harder than he normally would have to, to gain support form his base.

[SirNitram]

The Democrats have a solid base, but they don't have a solid base over all liberals where as the Republicans have consolidated a solid base over their conservative spectrum, ranging from buisness republicans, Christian conservatives, and neo-conservative, each segment representing a significant population number.

Conservative whackjobs too far for the Republicans do, in fact, exist; apparently the political spectrum will extend as one of the main groups goes farther and farther along. I beleive one of the primary is the 'Constitution' party? Also the Libertarians.

The difference being discussed here is that the Democrats, Right-Wing by any standard but American ones, do not place their extremists in charge. The Republicans, on the other hand, have done just that.

I'm sure we'll now hear some ignorant bluster about how Howard Dean is an extremist, based on the fact he is vocal in his criticism. This will likely be from people who, if you look carefully, state the Democrats should speak up more when there's an opening.

[Lord Zentei]

The Democrats have a solid base, but they don't have a solid base over all liberals where as the Republicans have consolidated a solid base over their conservative spectrum, ranging from buisness republicans, Christian conservatives, and neo-conservative, each segment representing a significant population number.

Conservative whackjobs too far for the Republicans do, in fact, exist; apparently the political spectrum will extend as one of the main groups goes farther and farther along. I beleive one of the primary is the 'Constitution' party? Also the Libertarians.

The difference being discussed here is that the Democrats, Right-Wing by any standard but American ones, do not place their extremists in charge. The Republicans, on the other hand, have done just that.

I'm sure we'll now hear some ignorant bluster about how Howard Dean is an extremist, based on the fact he is vocal in his criticism. This will likely be from people who, if you look carefully, state the Democrats should speak up more when there's an opening.

You forget the Creator's Rights party with Rep. Donkey-fucker Horsely.

Also, are the Libertarians not more liberal on social issues than the Republican leadership?

[SirNitram]

You forget the Creator's Rights party with Rep. Donkey-fucker Horsely.

Ah yes. Horsely. Isn't he who said it's perfectly normal to engage in beastiality, or am I thinking of another whackjob Rightie?

Also, are the Libertarians not more liberal on social issues than the Republican leadership?

I beleive so, but they're also completely batshit insane on a number of other things. Thus, they count as 'Right wing loonies'.

[Darth Servo]

No, I didn't. I merely point out the cowardice of goading someone, when protected by distance, in a way that you would never do when standing face to face with that person. People find it easy to quickly, almost instantly resort to personal insults when they are protected by both the distance and the anonymity of the internet, when they would never in a million years descend to such behavior so quickly when, for example, talking with a coworker around the office watercooler, or conversing with a stranger in line at the grocery store. The reason they would never do such a thing face to face is that most people fear what may happen when they are so insulting to someone's face. That fear is totally absent when they are typing messages to someone thousands of miles away, so they use that as an excuse to engage in inexscusably rude and provocative behavior. What is it then, if not cowardice, if you allow yourself excesses of behavior when it is safe, that you do not allow yourself when there may be immediate consequences? I merely point this out, and I'm supposed to be the one who's acting uncivilized?

Most people here think thats a POSITIVE thing, to be able to NOT need to dance around people's sensitivities in an internet discussion. That way people can cut to the heart of the matter a lot quicker.

Now, are you going to answer the points raised (no democrat elevated a fringe nutcase to one of its highest positions, in stark contrast to the republicans) or will you continue with the thread derailment?

[Lord Zentei]

You forget the Creator's Rights party with Rep. Donkey-fucker Horsely.

Ah yes. Horsely. Isn't he who said it's perfectly normal to engage in beastiality, or am I thinking of another whackjob Rightie?

That would be the one. "When you grow up on a farm in Georgia, your first love is a mule" he said, or some words to that effect. And while on the air.

Also, are the Libertarians not more liberal on social issues than the Republican leadership?

I beleive so, but they're also completely batshit insane on a number of other things. Thus, they count as 'Right wing loonies'.

Well, I'm not too familiar with them as they are pretty minor.

[Perinquus]

The Democratic party voted overwhelmingly to give the President unilateral authority to declare war on whomever he wanted. The last Democratic president brought in the DOMA, NAFTA, and social spending cutbacks. Only in fringe-nut land could the Democratic party be considered radical leftists, but of course, Perinquus appears to live in fringe-nut land. I wonder what the weather is like there.

Go fuck yourself you arrogant goddamn asshole son of a bitch. It's so easy, so safe to goad people when you are thousands of miles away and safe from any consequences.

Ah look, the pathetic lying little shitstain resorts to veiled threats of physical violence because his lies have been exposed for what they are. Oh boo hoo, I feel so bad for DipshitBoy. Crawl home to your precinct office where you are surrounded only by people who agree with you, fucktard. It's obvious you are incapable of handling yourself in a debate.

I'm surrounded by people who agree with me huh? We have everything on my department from gay police sergeants (yes, the plural number is used for a reason), female, liberal Democrat lieutenants, black liberal sergeamts who oppose affirmative action, a black police chief who favors affirmative action, and just about every opinion and belief and conviction you can think of, but I'm surrounded by people who agree with me. Because everybody knows that all cops are ultra right, religious fundie fanatic "republitards". We're all the same. You can judge us as a group.

Careful Wong, your prejudice is showing.

Point out a radical leftist who doesn't vote democrat across the board in every single election, and maybe then I will concede that that type of person doesn't find a home in the Democratic party. Apparently, for all your intellec, you are burdened with a severe reading comprehension problem. You seem completely unable to see words I write such as: "In neither case are they representative of the majority of the members of those parties." I concede right there that such people do not make up the mainstream of the democratic party. But apparently, according to you, I think that all Democrats are fringe left peaceniks. Fucking learn to read.

Hey fucktard, this thread is about a fringe wacko being elevated to one of the most powerful positions in the party where most of the people seem to support him anyway. Any time you care to back up your tu quoque fallacy with an actual example of the same thing on the other side, feel free. Until then you're just an arrogant windbag with more attitude than brains. Par for the course, Republitard.

So Tom Delay is an extremist for saying the things he's said, but Howard Dean is not for saying: "I hate Republicans and everything they stand for"?

And of course, you also appear to be inexcusably ignorant of how popular sentiment can be whipped up, and how politicians can bend before political winds. No matter how opposed to military action many Democratic (and even some Republican) congressmen and senators may have been, the country was howling for blood in the aftermath of 9/11. A great number of politicians - Democrat as well as Republican - may have been afraid of losing their seats if they were perceived as doves at such a time. I know this will come a great shock to you (this is sarcasm, by the way - I feel constrained to point this out to you in light of your aforementioned reading comprehension problem) but politicians often sacrifice their principles for the sake of staying in office. Or are you really so stupid as to believe that Democrats are all noble idealists who would never sacrifice their principles for something as crass as political manuevering.

Yet more mountains of bullshit. The Democrat party in the US would be considered centrist anywhere but your Republitard fringe-nut land. And while direct quotes have been provided of Delay saying incredibly insane things to back up the claim that he's a fringe-nut, I haven't seen you provide any similar quotes of similarly high-ranking democrats saying similarly insane things to back up your knee-jerk reflexive tu quoque bullshit.

Dick Gephardt: "When I'm president, we'll do executive orders to overcome any wrong thing the Supreme Court does tomorrow or any other day." (23 June 2003)

Bye bye separation of powers.

Dennis Kucinich: "Citizens across the United States are now uniting in a great cause to establish a Department of Peace, seeking nothing less than the transformation of our society, to make non-violence an organizing principle, to make war archaic through creating a paradigm shift in our culture for human development, for economic and political justice and for violence control. Its work in violence control will be to support disarmament, treaties, peaceful coexistence and peaceful consensus building. Its focus on economic and political justice will examine and enhance resource distribution, human and economic rights and strengthen democratic values." (9 June 2002)

Dennis Kucinich: "I have a holistic view of the world...I see the world as interconnected and interdependent and that leaves no room for war." (May 2003)

Dennis Kucinich: "Spirit merges with matter to sanctify the universe. Matter transcends to return to spirit. The interchangeability of matter and spirit means the starlit magic of the outermost life of our universe becomes the soul-light magic of the innermost life of our self." (9 June 2002)

No, dovish wackjobs find no home in the Democratic party.

Ted Kennedy: "Dad, I'm in some trouble. There's been an accident and you're going to hear all sorts of things about me from now on. Terrible things."

[SirNitram]

So Tom Delay is an extremist for saying the things he's said, but Howard Dean is not for saying: "I hate Republicans and everything they stand for"?

So called it. Welcome to the Right Wing View Of The World: Your political extremism is not based on actual political views, just on whether they speak out vehemently.

[Perinquus]

What is it then, if not cowardice, if you allow yourself excesses of behavior when it is safe, that you do not allow yourself when there may be immediate consequences? I merely point this out, and I'm supposed to be the one who's acting uncivilized?

How can anyone be expected to read this and not see it as 'YOU'D NOT Say THAT IF I COULD PUNCH YOU IN THE FACE! SO YOU'RE A COWARD!', exactly?

The only threat from standing face to face instead of here is physical reaction; and blustering bullshit of it is clearly just an attempt to intimidate.

This is why apologism is bad, folks. You make yourself look like more and more of an asstard as you leap up and try and bullshit, bluster, and flounder your way through leaping to the defense of your favorite idealogical whore.

Let me put it this way. Could you convict me in court of making a threat? No. You couldn't even get a magistrate to issue an arrest warrant. Why? Because it's not a threat. A threat would be: "if you were standing in front of me I'd punch your lights out." And if that were what I meant, that's what I'd have said. Why not, after all? It's not like I have any fear of the consequences (which is exactly my point). I can't help what people construe. It doesn't change the fact people who behave one way - a very bold and provocative and arrogant way - over the internet, and another way - an altogether more polite and deferential and courteous way - toward people with whom they have physical contact are abusing the rules of politeness simply because they can get away with it. This is not admirable. In fact, it's contemptible.

[Darth Wong]

Go fuck yourself you arrogant goddamn asshole son of a bitch. It's so easy, so safe to goad people when you are thousands of miles away and safe from any consequences.

Oh my god, did you really just half-assedly threaten someone over the Internets?

You, sir, fail at life.

No, I didn't. I merely point out the cowardice of goading someone, when protected by distance, in a way that you would never do when standing face to face with that person. People find it easy to quickly, almost instantly resort to personal insults when they are protected by both the distance and the anonymity of the internet, when they would never in a million years descend to such behavior so quickly when, for example, talking with a coworker around the office watercooler, or conversing with a stranger in line at the grocery store.

So? People don't tell the truth in real-life either; I suppose we should start suspending our honesty rule as well, so that this can be the Tea Room? The whole point of a forum like this is that we do not have to observe the kind of ridiculous bullshit rules that govern "polite" conversation, in which you can't say what you think because you're afraid of offending the kind of belligerent asshole who would actually assault you for calling a spade a spade.

The reason they would never do such a thing face to face is that most people fear what may happen when they are so insulting to someone's face. That fear is totally absent when they are typing messages to someone thousands of miles away, so they use that as an excuse to engage in inexscusably rude and provocative behavior. What is it then, if not cowardice, if you allow yourself excesses of behavior when it is safe, that you do not allow yourself when there may be immediate consequences? I merely point this out, and I'm supposed to be the one who's acting uncivilized?

Yes, because you actually think that arguments are better when physical intimidation is a factor. Thanks, you just demonstrated for the second time that you're a knuckle-dragging troglodyte.

[SirNitram]

Let me put it this way. Could you convict me in court of making a threat? No. You couldn't even get a magistrate to issue an arrest warrant. Why? Because it's not a threat. A threat would be: "if you were standing in front of me I'd punch your lights out." And if that were what I meant, that's what I'd have said. Why not, after all? It's not like I have any fear of the consequences (which is exactly my point). I can't help what people construe. It doesn't change the fact people who behave one way - a very bold and provocative and arrogant way - over the internet, and another way - an altogether more polite and deferential and courteous way - toward people with whom they have physical contact are abusing the rules of politeness simply because they can get away with it. This is not admirable. In fact, it's contemptible.

And of course you've met all of us to know this is actually how we react.

No, wait, you've not.

But of course you've read accounts of how we act, and we clearly are always behaving in this way you describe.

Wait, that's bullshit too. Because the accounts tend to show that.. Yea, we act this way in public.

So basically we're back to square one, you venting your bullshit primitive response to folks who don't agree with you: YOU WOULDN'T SAY THAT IF I COULD PUNCH YOUR FACE IN!

[Perinquus]

So Tom Delay is an extremist for saying the things he's said, but Howard Dean is not for saying: "I hate Republicans and everything they stand for"?

So called it. Welcome to the Right Wing View Of The World: Your political extremism is not based on actual political views, just on whether they speak out vehemently.

And Welcome to the Moving the Goalposts debating tactic, where I am challenged with (and I quote) "And while direct quotes have been provided of Delay saying incredibly insane things to back up the claim that he's a fringe-nut, I haven't seen you provide any similar quotes of similarly high-ranking democrats saying similarly insane things". And I, accordingly respond with such quotes, and that is not held to fulfill the requirements.

[Darth Wong]

Remember the last fucktard who tried this "you're a coward because you say things where I can't beat you up" bullshit? Yup, it was "Virus-X", immortalized on my Hate Mail page. Of course, unlike Perinquus, Virus-X was actually mature enough to admit that he'd fucked up. Perinquus seems to prefer elaborate justifications of his behaviour.

[SirNitram]

So Tom Delay is an extremist for saying the things he's said, but Howard Dean is not for saying: "I hate Republicans and everything they stand for"?

So called it. Welcome to the Right Wing View Of The World: Your political extremism is not based on actual political views, just on whether they speak out vehemently.

And Welcome to the Moving the Goalposts debating tactic, where I am challenged with (and I quote) "And while direct quotes have been provided of Delay saying incredibly insane things to back up the claim that he's a fringe-nut, I haven't seen you provide any similar quotes of similarly high-ranking democrats saying similarly insane things". And I, accordingly respond with such quotes, and that is not held to fulfill the requirements.

It's always hilarious when someone, after quietly retreating from where I pointed out they were using a fallacy, immediately tries(And fails) to employ calling it on me.

It shows so very well that people don't actually understand logical debating, and just parrot what seems successful.

Once more, since you missed it the first time: DeLay's comments show his political position is extreme. Howard Dean's show he is merely loud and vehement. Therefore, it is bullshit to declare Dean an extremist. Loud, vehement, and probably a bit of an asshole, sure. Extremist.. Nope.

In short: Your claim of Moving The Goalposts? Total bullshit. Keep swinging, you might hit something if only you insist we act as if we were physically intimidated a few more times.

[Gil Hamilton]

I've often wondered about this. Who's worse: the people who push the religious right into power at every turn because they are part of the religious right, or the ones who do it because they are afraid to break solidarity? Because I see people bitch all the fucking time about the DeLays and the Bushs and the other loonies and say that these people don't represent them. But tell me, who voted for them into power? Who, if they knew what was coming, would still vote them into power?

At the end of the day, that's why moderate Republicans don't have a leg to stand on. For their complaining, they gave the Religious Right all the power they complain about. They still support the Religious Right, for all their talk, and next election they'll try and vote in yet another member of the Religious Right, because that's almost certainly going to be the candidate with the word "Republican" under the name. Worse, they'll say that anything bad that happens isn't there fault; after all, just because they keep putting them into power doesn't mean they are responsible. Just because it's a representative democracy doesn't mean the candidate they voted for represents them.