The Green party.Perinquus wrote: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.
Point, set, match.
Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital
The Green party.Perinquus wrote: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.
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.SirNitram wrote:The Green party.Perinquus wrote: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.
Point, set, match.
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.Perinquus wrote: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.Darth Wong wrote: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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.Ryoga wrote:Oh my god, did you really just half-assedly threaten someone over the Internets?Perinquus wrote: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.
You, sir, fail at life.
So your response to me meeting your challenge just as you wrote it is... To change the method of the challenge.Perinquus wrote: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.SirNitram wrote:The Green party.Perinquus wrote: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.
Point, set, match.
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?Ryoga wrote:Oh my god, did you really just half-assedly threaten someone over the Internets?Perinquus wrote: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.
You, sir, fail at life.
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!"Perinquus wrote: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.SirNitram wrote:The Green party.Perinquus wrote: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.
Point, set, match.
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?Perinquus wrote: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?
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.Fire Fly wrote: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.
You forget the Creator's Rights party with Rep. Donkey-fucker Horsely.SirNitram wrote: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.Fire Fly wrote: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.
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.
Ah yes. Horsely. Isn't he who said it's perfectly normal to engage in beastiality, or am I thinking of another whackjob Rightie?Lord Zentei wrote:You forget the Creator's Rights party with Rep. Donkey-fucker Horsely.
I beleive so, but they're also completely batshit insane on a number of other things. Thus, they count as 'Right wing loonies'.Also, are the Libertarians not more liberal on social issues than the Republican leadership?
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.Perinquus wrote: 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?
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.SirNitram wrote:Ah yes. Horsely. Isn't he who said it's perfectly normal to engage in beastiality, or am I thinking of another whackjob Rightie?Lord Zentei wrote:You forget the Creator's Rights party with Rep. Donkey-fucker Horsely.
Well, I'm not too familiar with them as they are pretty minor.I beleive so, but they're also completely batshit insane on a number of other things. Thus, they count as 'Right wing loonies'.Also, are the Libertarians not more liberal on social issues than the Republican leadership?
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.Darth Wong wrote: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.Perinquus wrote: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.Darth Wong wrote: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.
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"?Darth Wong wrote: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.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.
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)Darth Wong wrote: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.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.
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 wrote: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"?
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.SirNitram wrote: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?Perinquus wrote: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?
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.
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.Perinquus wrote: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.Ryoga wrote:Oh my god, did you really just half-assedly threaten someone over the Internets?Perinquus wrote: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.
You, sir, fail at life.
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.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?
And of course you've met all of us to know this is actually how we react.Perinquus wrote: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 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.SirNitram wrote: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 wrote: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"?
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.Perinquus wrote: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.SirNitram wrote: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 wrote: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"?