Posted on 01/20/2010 9:50:36 AM PST by EternalVigilance
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
(Excerpt) Read more at loyaltoliberty.com ...
Oh, I’m sorry. Reading before coffee.
I overlooked “could of” where there should have been a “could have.”
If you are set on preemptive surrender, like most of Keyes’ detractors, you’re no friend of conservatism.
“It seems that every forum I have read, somehow the oldest members of the forum feel like they are morally and intellectually superior.”
Sensitive, much? It is that a new poster must always be looked at to make sure he’s not a mole. In addition, new posters quite often come in midway or near the end of arguments that have been in progress for months, and want to rehash ground already covered.
“You missed my point. It was more about your high minded language”
That’s as PC as anything the Bamtard ever said.
“and self pride in your debate skills”
Mind reading, now? I don’t rely on debate skills, although people who can’t answer an argument often prefer to think it’s a matter of skill rather than a matter of them being just plain wrong.
I rely on a search for the truth.
“and then resorting to calling those who happen to disagree with you ‘libtards’”
There’s another archetypal PC argument. I couldn’t be calling people libtards because it’s appropriate, no, no. It must be that I do that indiscriminately to anyone and everyone who disagrees with me, solely because they disagree.
You hear that a lot on sites where libtards are allowed. Not so much here.
“A term that I have never liked because of the use of ‘tard’—an attack on disabled people.”
Oh, pack it in and head for DU. “Attack,” my aching Hillary.
“I suppose I should preface my posts with my experience as a volunteer on two Reagan campaigns in my state.”
Anyone can say anything. If your posts reflect solid conservatism, no further credentials are required. If you argue leftard positions while presenting yourself as a conservative, no credentials will suffice.
“What you believe about me is about as significant as a teat on a boar hog.”
What posters here believe about you bears on your experience here.
“I know ‘having a feeling’ is not a proper way to enter an argument, but I suppose I will just have to leave it at that.”
Feelings, if informed by experience, can be very useful. Within ten seconds of first seeing them on TV, I had feelings about Beelzebubba and the Bamtard.
“My apologies if I have been too harsh to you personally.”
I have a thick skin. When I jump on something, it means I am interested, not upset.
Make no mistake the Brown win is a major victory in one battle in a larger war. Was it decisive? Yes - in context.
“Oh, pack it in and head for DU. “Attack,” my aching Hillary”
Ok, probably ‘attack’ is not the best word here. My profession is in the field of disability. I taught my children at an early age that ‘retard’ is not an acceptable description for anyone. The implication for any ‘tard’ word is clear, so if it is PC, so be it. Just a pet peeve of mine, I suppose.
I had to google DU. I honestly didn’t know what it was...I have no reason to lie about that as I have minimal time on the computer and wouldn’t waste my time on a site like that.
I do better with sites as a reader as opposed to a poster, as I find myself regretting becoming embroiled in wizzing matches mainly of my own creation.
I’ll be reading...blessings.
“No, I am st on winning...Guys like Keyes (and apparently you) are set on being right.”
What’s the point in winning if you’re not right? If you’re not right, you shouldn’t win.
Everybody arguing your side of this argument is burdened by an adamantine conviction that one can either win or be right, but not both.
This is incorrect.
“I taught my children at an early age that ‘retard’ is not an acceptable description for anyone. The implication for any ‘tard’ word is clear, so if it is PC, so be it. Just a pet peeve of mine, I suppose.”
So, where are the hearts bleeding for people with bad personalities? People like you don’t mind at all when the obnoxious are marginalized, stereotyped, stigmatized – driven from town like common pygmies.
Having a bad personality is as big a handicap in life as subnormal intelligence. Worse, perhaps, as lots of mentally retarded people seem quite happy, but the obnoxious can only pretend.
Nobody bleeds for the unpleasant-therefore-friendless, though. It’s always a preferred group that gets the gravy, while other, equally needy and deserving groups get the cold shoulder.
People are what they are. If they’re fat, they’re fat. If they’re obnoxious, they’re obnoxious. If they’re fools, they’re fools. (If they’re fat, obnoxious, fools, God help them, because no one else is going to.)
People who are mentally retarded are mentally retarded, and insisting on euphemisms serves only to obscure the truth.
The left has gained power by doing exactly what I am talking about. They took over courts, county offices, city offices, state offices and then our lives because they control government at virtually every level. Same thing in schools. It took them 30 years but they did it with small victories every day. Now we have their attitude pervasive in government at all levels.
What is Keyes approval rating? 8 or 10%? What is Scott Brown's? 30-40%? Now Brown has some power and we can work with him to advance our ideas. Keyes comes of as a bitter nut job.
“People who are mentally retarded are mentally retarded, and insisting on euphemisms serves only to obscure the truth.”
And women are and always will be women and I don’t call them bitches.
And Alan Keyes is and will always will be black and I don’t call him a n*****.
Your post is ridiculous, and I hope you would not be so callous to call someone with Down Syndrome, a genetic disorder, a ‘retard’.
A euphemism? How about a vile epithet? I stand by my position. You had much to say about your views on true conservatism, some that I even conceded. To call those with whom you disagree ‘libtards’ only cheapened your dissertation on this subject.
Good day to you. No further comment is needed, unless you would like to have the pleasure of the last word, which I assume will be the case.
How about a vile epithet? I stand by my position…No further comment is needed, unless you would like to have the pleasure of the last word, which I assume will be the case.
Shifty little stratagem, there, to put me in the position of looking bad if I defend myself from your insults. Let anyone dim enough fall for it.
Stand by your position until the sun burns out, I don’t care. It’s not a vile epithet, and you are wrong.
“Many wins of a smaller nature add up to the point where you can win AND then be right. They are not mutually exclusive”
Unless the people who are doing the winning are lying about being wrong, they most certainly are mutually exclusive. Elect somebody who is wrong, and that’s what you get.
“The left has gained power by doing exactly what I am talking about.”
They most certainly did not. Everyone connected in any way to their takeover of “courts, county offices, city offices, state offices and then our lives” was a committed leftist, right to the core. Ask David Horowitz about that.
For them to have done what you are talking about, their candidates could not have been committed ideologues. They would have to have been ready to compromise with conservatism on core issues, just as you recommend electing Republicans who are ready to compromise with Evil on core issues.
“What is Keyes approval rating? 8 or 10%? What is Scott Brown’s? 30-40%?”
And that is entirely due to leftist propaganda by the lamestream media, and people like you who drink that kool-aid. They’re hoping to build Brown up and use him somehow to backstab Governor Palin, who terrifies them.
The leftist media slugs are much more friendly to Brown than Palin or Keyes, and that alone should make any rational person suspicious.
“Now Brown has some power and we can work with him to advance our ideas.”
Bet’cha can’t. Bet he stabs you in the back, then urinates on you as you lie in the gutter bleeding.
You cannot trust a person who endorses baby-killing, especially when he tries to finesse it to seem as though he doesn’t.
“Keyes comes of as a bitter nut job.”
Only to those who drink the left’s kool-aid.
LOL Stay in the cold loser.
“LOL Stay in the cold loser.”
Well, now, there’s an insightful and incisive examination and rebuttal of the arguments I made.
No wonder you don’t like Keyes.
“No, I just don’t feel like wasting time keyboarding an answer to you.”
To continue repeating your now thoroughly discredited apologia for electing RINOs would indeed be a waste of time.
“You made my point in your response.”
With all possible deference to Vera Lynn, wishing will not make it so.
In case you weren’t watching, you failed to advance a single argument that would withstand even moderate scrutiny.
What say you now?
What happened to the MAJOR victory in killing Obamacare?
What happened to the primary mission?
And...what did voting for Brown do?
You are kidding me, right? Replying to a January post??
You’re a tenacious SOB.
But to respond to your snarky comment:
The Senate passed a bill BEFORE Scott Brown got into office. BECAUSE Scott Brown was in office, the House did not have the luxury of voting on a whole new bill.
So the House had to pass the Senate bill AND a second bill with their fixes to the Senate bill. The “fixes” bill STILL has to go through the Senate. Scott Brown’s presence in the Senate will force the democrats to use the nuclear option. But the nuclear option has many restrictions and limits what the democrats can get passed AND it will kill what’s left of their support from independents.
Scott Brown IS preventing a lot of bad crap, including the public option. He may also prevent Obama from taking over the college loan program, depending how the democrats choose to push this bill through the Senate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.