You gave me enough thought to respond to one of my posts, so I guess you could despise me if you put just a little more thought into it.
Ah, the good old “liberal media” folk myth.
I like that scene too.
There isn’t a scene in that movie that isn’t to like.
As for OMG, he didn’t pick up the reference. Round up the usual suspects. (And it doesn’t include Kevin F’in Spacey).
You make it too much of a challenge for others to take you very seriously, starting of course with the teenybopper ‘Omg’ in the username.
Ages back, my then-girlfriend and I visited her grandmother who lived in a double-wide trailer. Can’t speak to the quality of the neighborhood or likelihood of surviving a brisk windstorm, but the interior of that thing was bigger and nicer than any apartment I’ve lived in.
Well, I have two responses to that:
(1) Someone spouting absolute 100% BS could certainly get under my skin… but it would probably depend on the extent to which other people believed them. Obama-born-in-Kenya is as close to a provably-100%-fabrication as we ever get in terms of things-people-believe, but it certainly bugs me (although it also amuses me)
(2) That said, most of the conservative talking points that irritate me aren’t 100% lies, in the sense that they’re not just fabricated from thin air. Rather, they’re misrepresentations, intellectual sleight of hand, exaggerations, irrelevancies, etc. While I’m as willing as the next man to accuse FoxGroverNorquist of lying, I don’t think their MO is just “let’s put 10 fiction writers in a room and have them come up with any statement, no matter its truth value, which would reflect badly on the left”. Rather, it’s more like “here’s the situation as it exists… here’s what we DON’T want people to be talking about, as it reflects badly on us. So let’s take a minor little detail or issue from somewhere ELSE, blow it WAY out of proportion, tack on all sorts of scary words, bend the truth a bit if we have to because who cares, and turn it into a talking point”.
So, I guess in some sense it might be true that a fair number of Talking Points contain a grain of truth, but it’s not the grain of truth that bugs me. If you call me a socialist there’s a tiny grain of truth there in that, while I am in fact not a socialist, I’m probably marginally closer to it than you (ie, on a scale of 0 to 100, you’d be a 52 and I’d be a 47 or something). But your statement would bug me not because it’s partly true but because of the propaganda-weight of the words involved, the fact that you’ve now derailed the discussion and put me on the defensive, and the fact that the same thing has happened to the detriment of the national debate so often.
So? You turn on Fox News, listen to the everything “the news” tells you, and show up as a raging conservative.
Same, same.
Oh, not so much “raging”. Rather dull, actually, esp. when compared with the, ah, guest of honor.
Who, after ten years and more, ought to be at least a ni-dan by now.
Dude, you’re a conservative who deliberately joined what you believe to be a liberal message board. And you continually post how wrong all the liberals are. We’re not stupid: your goal is to get under people’s skin.
Let’s further add that you’ve never once given a decent reason why you are a conservative, despite being in a demographic that largely isn’t conservative, and give no indication of being one due to religious reasons. I don’t think it’s a bad idea to think that you are a conservative because you like getting into arguments with people and getting under their skin.
Your username is itself a defiant statement designed to draw attention to yourself and your political views. Don’t pretend you don’t like it when someone is annoyed by you.
Hell, he won’t even say what *kind *of conservative he purports to be, social or financial or isolationist or religious or what. He won’t share his own beliefs or how he arrived at them in even superficial detail, just as if he hasn’t actually given the subject any serious thought.
OMG, if you’re really here to try to convince others of your views, you might make a slight effort in that direction once in a while, ya know? Otherwise, you simply let us think you’re here only to be annoying.
Try defending a pedophile with outrageous statements about “just playing hide the soap”, or measuring how difficult it is to stick your winkie into a paper towel roll, or how anal rape does not count if the 10 year old victim does not show obvious signs of distress.
In other words, if you want to have a long pit thread about you, you really have to up your game.
Or, if you want to have a 20 page Great Debates thread, you may want to post something interesting for once.
Your choice.
These are difficult choices.
It’s a rare day that I watch the news on TV. That is so sixty years ago.
Actually, I never did read the message board before joining. Seriously.
Not continually. Just whenever they are (or I see it). Now I’m not exactly sure why you’re complaining about this, since one ideological group stating the other one is wrong is and trying to prove their wrong pretty common occurrence in politics, period. Hell, it’s a pretty common occurrence on this message board.
Maybe because I don’t really feel like I should have to emphatically state why I think the way I do in regards to political affiliation, nor do I ask the same of others.
Well, that’s only half right.
Nope. And since I’ve gone over this ad naseum, I’m not going over it anymore. Some of y’all simply need to pay more attention to real life discourse.
I do not like his current posts but I read some of his old stuff. Go back about 5 years. Man this guy rocked. Maybe he lost some finesse over the years, but read his old stuff. He made some really solid points back when
Moar Wee Tadit!!
I agree, OmgaBC was a much more valuable contributor to this board five years ago. Why can’t we get THAT guy back again?
This description applies to me also: a conservative member of a liberal message board, posting frequently to illustrate how wrong liberals are.
My goal is not to get under anyone’s skin. My goal is to see how well my ideas hold up when subjected to strong criticism. It’s not useful for me to say, for example, that I disfavor same-sex marriage on a conservative board, because I would get nothing but laudatory responses and agreement. Posting the same thing here made me work to defend the claim, and indeed to realize that it’s not defensible. So I abandoned that view.
To your credit. I just wish you (and to a much greater extent, Shodan, though I gave up on him years ago) would post less arguendo (without IDing it as such). If you would post more of your actual beliefs, and not so much what you COULD say under CERTAIN circumstances, IF you were willing to ignore clear evidence to the contrary, etc., I think you’d get less grief and a lot more respect. But getting under people’s skins is just a little too enjoyable for you to give that up entirely.
But where are you when we really need you… over in the Paterno Pit Thread That Will Not Die?
***Starving Artist ***has been defending Paterno, and disproving that Sandusky could’ve been guilty, and claiming it’s a witch hunt due in part to Paterno’s “Well-Known Conservatism”.
SA’s claims have been so egregious (read it, I dare you), and his grasp of legal matters is so skewed, that I often refresh the page just in hopes that Bricker’s weighed in.