Yay, your back. Too bad you don’t have anything to add but insults, but I take back the coward and will settle with petulant boob.
Interesting, coming from the guy whose third post in this thread called Diogenes an “arrogant asshole,” and who waved a bunch of rolleye smileys in my face before i ever offered an insult to you.
Pot, meet kettle.
DtC is an arrogant asshole, and I tell him every chance I get. You stated your opinion on something and then “period”, as in “that is final”, no more discussion needed on the matter. You don’t have to insult me to get my contempt for something you post. If you think that even a strong disagreement in what you type is an insult to you, then you have verythin skin.
[quote=mhendo]
You mean, like when she wrote:
Yup, she said that. And the entire point of her article was that the media treats Christians and Muslims differently when they, or at least a portion of them, get offended. This may or may not be a valid interpretation (I think it has some value, but that’s neither here nor there), but the idea that her observations are somehow “Anti-Christian” when she notes the difference is nonsense that you made up out of whole cloth.
You haven’t “rebutted” any of my arguments. You’ve simply set up the straw man of an Anti-Christian, Pro-Muslim media bias and attacked it.
shrug So don’t bother. When you started here you actually had some interesting points to make. Lately it seems that it’s all become personal for you and you are simply here to lash out at people who you imagine are somehow against you.
Could a roving mod please fix my coding in my last post? There was supposed to be another
[/quote]
after “Book of Daniel”
That line’s getting a bit tired. You seem to pull out some version of this story in half the threads where i disagree with you. Here’s a clue, moron: i manage to have perfectly rational discussions and disagreements with plenty of folks on this message board.
The fact that you’re an irrational fucktard who never met a liberal he couldn’t needlessly condescend to is the reason that you raise my ire. That, and your increasingly embarrassing attempts to paint yourself as some sort of moderate battling against the extremes of American politics. Pol Pot called his country Democratic Kampuchea; calling it that didn’t make it true, though. Your hysterical bleating against the alleged takeover by the “loony left” speaks louder than your self-proclaimed moderation.
Ahhhh, Pol Pot. Can Goodwin be far behind?
It was simply an observation that how someone describes themself is not necessarily how they actually are.
Why am i not surprised that this was too difficult for you to grasp?
There was a band named “Pol Pot”?
You’ve ignored the issue here (your straw man) in favor of continued insults. That speaks volumes to the lack of substance in your posts. Now go ahead. Call me a moron. Call me an idiot. Ignore that straw man and maybe people will forget about it. Maybe.
Where’s the censorship?
What we have, so far, is one American media company (CNN) and one French paper, choosing on their own to be weenies.
That’s their choice. That’s not censorship.
If it is, then every time the U.S. press changes their reporting due to one party or the other “working the refs,” then that’s censorship too. Which it isn’t.
Actually, a lot of American companies have taken the weenie route. According to this article in The Boston Globe, only the New York Sun has published any of the pictures, as of Friday.
Quite. Fundamentalist Muslim violence has de-facto set limits to free speech, (we can’t say or show certain things because we know we run the risk of a violent and sometimes personally deadly backlash) which was the reason the Danish paper published the cartoons in the first place.
Point proven.