This has nothing to do with me personally, nor does it have anything to do with any walking back you’ve done on your original position. You claimed political attacks are the same as racism.
And if you want to continue to insult me personally, I suggest you take it to the Pit.
Just imagine what would happen if lance spent as much time arguing against the actual racists and homophobes that inhabit this board as he did falsely accusing people of “using racism logic”.
But you know, being angry at people cheering at arson is a much, much bigger crime than openly claiming other people are inferior…
Watch it. You can call an argument idiotic, but make sure your words can’t be taken as calling a poster an idiot.
Convince me that a majority of Republicans *don’t *support the extreme positions and tactics currently being bandied about by the TP. They seem to tacitly support it at the very least.
Er, you do know that most people here speak English as a first language, or at least a second, not a smattering of a half-dozen words they picked up (as would be necessary for anyone to be fooled by this *sadly *pathetic attempt to misstate my position), right?
And saying that is pretty much denying that the notion of “false equivalency” is meaningful; you don’t really believe that, do you?
By relying on Congress as a check? Pardon me if I lack confidence in Congress’ value in that regard, especially lately. Last time they impeached a POTUS, the whole thing was far more pointless, embarrassing and destructive than were any of the underlying presidential offenses, which had nothing at all to do with “usurping power” anyway.
Many leftists would agree we have “empire” now; but nevertheless I sincerely hope you are not channelling Pat Buchanan. You will never get anything of value from that quarter, nor from paleoconservatism in general.
What, specifically, makes you think he is wrong about the Tea Party?
Extreme, except for some forms of socialism.
They will think otherwise the moment it comes down to specifics.
And if you call a party un-American, traitorous and communist, you can be judged for that too.
lance, can we please henceforth drop your hijack over the question of how far the character of a group’s member can be inferred from other members’? It’s completely irrelevant to the thread. At least when WillFarnaby pounds on the question of what is or is not “extreme,” we are debating actual politics and policies rather than personalities and tribes.
I repeat. And that is directed specifically to Will.
Like hell it doesn’t. You’re justifying all kinds of unfair accusations against others. You can’t exempt yourself from the same treatment.
Nope. I claimed the same logic of racism was being used here to justify political attacks.
The fact that you think I’m insulting you personally, rather than (as I’ve repeatedly explained) trying to explain why your logic is insulting and unfair to others by showing what it would be like if applied against you, shows that you still just don’t get it.
It wasn’t my hijack, but sure.
Convince me that you don’t hate Jews, or Muslims.
(No, I’m not making a personal accusation. It’s just showing you how what you said is unfair. Got it now?)
But you’re still on that “majority” thing. Do you do polls whenever you join an organization to make sure at least half of its members think exactly like you do or something?
If you find that you are repeatedly explaining how you are trying to explain maybe you’re really just beating a dead horse and/or just saying something people disagree with.
I get that your opinion is different. You’ve said it. And said it. And said it. You aren’t saying anything new, as you acknowledge. Anyone who was going to agree probably already agrees. Can we drop it now?
It’s not AS unfair as your demand.*
If you lie down with dogs, you wake up with fleas.
People in leadership positions within the Republican Party (at the relevant levels, such as national, regional, state, and local) can impose consequences upon the Tea Partiers who bandy such positions, tactics and rhetoric, if only to avoid feeding the perception that they support those positions, tactics, and rhetoric. The fact that the vast majority of recorded incidents go by with no real attempt to impose any consequences at all suggests that the improbabililty of being able to satisfy Happy Lendervedder’s demand isn’t really a matter of the demand being “unfair” so much as it being Herculean. IOW, the Republican Party has a LOT of Tea Party “fleas” to live down/explain away.
In contrast, absent some revelations that nobody has brought to light yet, Happy Lendervedder doesn’t seem to have any anti-semite/anti-Muslim “fleas” to live down/explain away at all.
*And yes, I am taking it as axiomatic that there can be differing degrees of “unfairness.” If you reject that axiom, just say so, and we can dispense with further discussion.
I repeat.
So let’s try a new way of thinking about this.
John F. Kennedy was a racist pig.
Right?
Because in 1960, a very large part of the Democratic party, the Southern half, was dominated by racists. They were openly racist, and they imposed racist policies, and fought hard to preserve them during the Civil Rights Movement.
By associating with, and running as the candidate of, the Democrats, that means by your logic JFK was a racist, or at least responsible for his party’s racism.
Furthermore, by your logic, all Democratic voters, even in the North, were racists. So people who voted for JFK, perhaps including your parents or grandparents, were also racist pigs.
Awesome!
Well, yeah, but so what? They’re beating a dead horse too. Doesn’t have any bearing on who is right or wrong.
That applies to those who disagree with me too. No, I won’t drop it unless they do. It’s not my responsibility to drop it just because there are just one of me and three or four of them.