Again, you apparently still haven’t read the OP, which started the entire “broad brush” bullshit that has since propogated through this thread. Speaking of which, do you really want me to dig up posts of your’s where you paint with a broad brush? Hell, you’ve even painted conservatives with a broad brush. Remember them not being fun, interesting, nor talented?
A large number of conservatives are pretty heartless toward murderers. Hell, some of them are pretty heartless to people who skip out on a tab at IHOP. On the other hand, I think you’ll be hard pressed to demonstrate that lying and philandering are generally liberal traits. You’ll also come up short handed when trying to find liberals who think his lying and cheating were just peachy. Plenty of people think it’s none of our business, many think it was a witch hunt, and some think it’s just not that big of a deal, but I haven’t seen a lot of “RA RA, gag that intern!” coming from the liberal side of the aisle.
The things you’re saying aren’t mean, they’re just ignorant.
Further, it isn’t necessary for me to police Coulter, Beck and Limbaugh in order for your characterizations to be false, it’s only necessary for them to be false - which they are, as the conservative postings to this thread have already shown.
Besides, the fact of the matter is that when compared to the overall number of conservatives in this country, the percentage actually listening to Limbaugh, et al., and buying their books, is small and has a considerable overlap. Further, and like I said before, right-wing media personalities don’t represent the character of mainstream conservatism any more than the behavior of the Clintons and James Carville (or mediawise, Michael Moore and Randi Rhodes) represents the character of mainstream liberalism.
Another fallacy that comes into play is the assumption that simply buying someone’s book or listening to them on the radio equates to lock-step agreement with everything they have to say. If you were to buy one of Bill Clinton’s books, would that automatically make you prone to being a liar and philanderer given to using young women as humidors? Of course not. It would simply mean that you thought he might have something useful or informative to say. The same with Limbaugh, Coulter, etc., and despite what you may think, no one is wrong all the time and these people can sometimes have insightful things to say.
I sometimes read or listen to Christopher Hitchens, Camille Paglia and Maureen Dowd for the same reason and I doubt that you’d claim I’m very similar to them at all, with the point being that it’s entirely possible to read or listen to someone and still be nothing at all like them yourself.
Finally, it’s amusing that instead of arguing the veracity of your own ignorant and hateful statements you resort to baby talk and accusations of boo-hooing in an effort to minimize the points that I’m trying to make.
Those tactics didn’t work in the fifth grade and they don’t work now.
Where you wearing Old Spice? It was kinda like Eau de Nark, you know. And you didn’t start in right away talking about where to get some of that hot hippy-chick free love, did you? There was a lot more to being a hippy than wild sex. There’s exotic alkoloids, for instance. And candles.
I do recall having said that many of my friends IRL are liberals, and that liberals by and large are more fun and tend to be more talented artistically than conservatives. Is that really much of a surprise to anyone?
And while I, and anyone here with any posting history to speak of, occasionally use generalizations (what you’re referring to as a ‘broad brush’) as an aid to conversation, I have never said anything about liberals that the likes of Hentor and Pochacco have attributed to conservatives in this thread.
When I mention lies, I’m not talking just about Bill’s shaking his finger in our face and denying he had sex with Monica Lewinski. Both Clintons have been monsterous liars their entire careers.
In other words, you don’t think it was right, you just don’t think it was that wrong. :rolleyes:
Still, I’d wager your reaction wouldn’t have been quite so benign had the miscreant in question been GWB or Karl Rove.
Given that you haven’t tried showing the fallacy of my last analogy (i.e., it’s just as wrong to attribute Clinton’s lying and philandering to liberals as it is to attribute GWB/Rovian qualities to all conservatives) I don’t think I’ll bother asking you to explain yourself this time.
My dress at the time was similar to Rock Hudson’s casual look in the Doris Day movies. You know: slacks, narrow belts, cardigan sweaters and shiny leather slip-ons.
But it wasn’t only the nark thing. They were still tense and uptight even after finding out I wasn’t a nark. My look wasn’t part of their culture, so they reacted exactly the same way they criticized straight culture for reacting to them: by looks, not character. Yes, one had to be very conforming in their nonconformity or they simply didn’t fit in.
Opened my eyes right up, it did, and I’ve seen this same reaction from the left time and again throughout my life. Lefties are very tolerant unless you disagree with them; very forgiving unless you offend their sensibilities; very pacifistic unless you hurt or outrage them. Etc., etc.
Well, yeah…there was that! (But usually a couple hits of acid or a lid of grass got me over that hump. When in Rome, you know.)
I keed, I keed.
And incense. Lots of incense. And screechy music. And you had to say ‘man’ and ‘groovy’ a lot.
But Turkey is not that country. Like most Islamic countries, they have a very long tradition of being particularly welcoming of travellers.
Right. So the way she was killed was exactly the type of thing that could happen in Glasgow or New York or wherever.
I get the impression (and I’m not singling you out here Bosda) that many are under the illusion she was doing something monumentally stupid, as if she were in Somalia or Afghanistan or parts of Washington DC. She wasn’t. She was in the more Westernised part of Turkey, which is a (say) 2nd world style area, not outstandlingly dangerous or violent at all. Actually if she were further East in the more rural, religious and conservative areas she would have met with more disapproval as a single woman, but more respect and kindliness probably. Mugging and killing someone for their mobile is an urban thing that could happen anywhere.
Here, let me help you a little bit. I was actually going to link to several of your “broad brush” posts, but it’s probably easier to just link to one of the threads where you go off in that direction. Ah fuck it. Some of these are just too stupid to not post.
This shit goes on forever.
Feel free to tell me why you think that is.
If you’re looking for equivalency in this area, perhaps you shouldn’t compare mocking someone who’s about to be executed with lying about a blowjob.
Yes, the Clintons have a monopoly on lies. Hell, they probably went to war over a lie about a blowjob.
If Bush lied about a blowjob, I’d be pretty “meh” about the whole deal.
Well, I did show the fallacy, but you seemed to have left out that part when you quoted my post. Convenient, that.
Was it not clear from the sentence that followed that I was referring to your disingenuous claim that I said conservatives were not fun, interesting, or talented, when in reality I merely said liberals tended to be more so?
And do what? Illustrate the very thing I’ve already said? I freely acknowledge using generalizations, which is what these examples of yours really are. Everyone here does it. They are a conversational necessity. My complaint in this thread is that several of your compatriots attempted to use their broad brush to paint conservatives with the despicable attitudes of the OP. But I’m sure you know that already…or at least you should, I’ve said it several times now.
And I did that where now?
If they don’t, they certainly come closer than anyone else I can think of.
No, as a matter of fact I don’t think anyone did. Perhaps the time will come when I become convinced otherwise, but until incontrovertible proof should arise I’m withholding judgement.
I don’t think you understand. From the standpoint of the Republicans in Congress - as well as those of us on the right who were privy to the information from the very start thanks to right-wing radio - Clinton was a monstrous liar, and a blatant one at that. Lying was standard operating practice during both his campaigns and his entire time in office, and he didn’t really seem to care if everyone knew it.
People like that acquire a great deal of hostility from their opponents, and once those opponents get a chance to see them hoist on their own petard, they’ll jump at that chance.
Even I will admit that, in the main, Clinton wasn’t that bad of a president. He was certainly better than either Johnson or Carter.
And yet, I was so pissed about his dishonesty and the way he assassinated the character of his former and would-be paramours, and his and Hillary’s blaming his own problems on the now-famous Vast Right Wing Conspiracy™, and the fact that women who claimed he raped them had more credibility than he did but no one would listen, that by the time the Lewinski scandal erupted I was just itching to see his dishonest ass be done in by the very dishonesty that was his hallmark.
And I would imagine that most of the Republicans in Congress, and a pretty fair number of Democrats even they wouldn’t vote against him, felt the same way.
I feel the same way now about Hillary. Even though she would supposedly have a more difficult time defeating McCain than Obama, the electorate cannot be trusted and the only way I can know for sure that that duplicitous, lying harridan won’t wind up in the Oval Office is if she fails to gain the nomination in the first place, so I cheer a little every time another one of her bald-faced lies blows up in her face.
Hmm…Well, I must have missed it. Perhaps you’d care to…ahem…elucidate?
Let me get this straight. Talking about lies and liars, abundant lies, lies of significance and dreadful consequence, important lies…
And the number one, very tippy tip top of the list is…the Clintons. Can’t think of anyone else. Pondered and pondered, couldn’t think of …anyone!…to compare.
So, Diogenes, really. Tell us all that you know about what a false pregnancy is really like. You know it’s not like the doctor just read the test results wrong. And it’s not as if the woman had a late period and jumped to conclusions.
You insufferable, self-satisfied, cocksure, know-it-all. You’ve gone too far this time. In addressing the experience that this one man was having, you’ve made generalizations that apply to others that show your ignorance in big flashing lights.
Since you can’t fathom it, then it can’t be! When some women experience a false pregnancy, their bodies go through the same hormonal changes that a pregnant woman’s does. That’s why she tests positive, has morning sickness, has mood swings and other emotions and physical responses that are hard to describe.
And since a false pregnancy is not normal for a body, the problem doesn’t end when it is determined that there is no baby. Of course it’s not the same as losing a child. But that doesn’t mean that it won’t hurt then and again in remembering.
Just for the record for your doubting mind, a false pregnancy is one of the rare side effects of polycystic syndrome – formerly called Stein-Leventhal Syndrome.
You and your cold smug words are no better than ** Lonesome Polecat. ** It all comes from the same place.
Which, of course, was the point to begin with. It also should be noted that I wouldn’t have felt the need to rehash it agian, Omega, had he not completely misrepresented his previous stance to begin with.
Now that it is there for all to see, complete with the undeniably ridiculous revisionism, I’ll let this dog lie.
I didn’t misreperesent anything. I don’t want to refight this ancient battle, but I was pissed about being jerked around by a misleading thread title. Nobody’s baby died, and comparing that incident to mocking a woman’s murder is asinine.
DTC, It was in the same universe because it arose from coldness about the feelings of others. You use your own personality and priorities as the standard of how it should be. You are the default “normal.” It is as if it never occured to you that emotions aren’t a matter of right and wrong and logic. We can work through them and sometimes control and choose them, but they aren’t the same thing as thoughts.
That is my opinion of what is going on inside your head. It is the most flattering version that I could come up with.
You weren’t just impolite. You were callous and for once – actually twice – you’ve had your facts wrong.
This is one subject that I will be more than happy to let drop. I did not intend to distract from the OP but I didn’t want to be unexpectedly hit in the gut with your stupidity a third time.
