Jesus have mercy. You guys 're embarrassing us all with this shit.
Indeed.
It makes sense to me that a pitting of **magellan01 **would degenerate into a discussion of things other than magellan01. **magellan01 **has always struck me as a second-rater–more of a lickspittle than an instigator. Stupid and obnoxious, but not stupid or obnoxious enough to keep people interested in talking about him even in a thread about him.
Does anyone remember those old cartoons with the two dogs, and the little dog would eagerly bounce around the big dog trying to get his attention? That’s magellan01 trying to curry favor with whichever of our right-wingers is actually generating controversy. Sort of a less insanebrazil89(and that’s not a compliment to either of them).
Yeah, for like the dozenth time now.
So, you’re so dumb you don’t know the difference between 0 and a number greater than 0?
Uh, okay… :rolleyes:
Marley,
I meant to post this a few days ago, but here it is:
Putting our mutual disdain aside—for now— this flap you find yourself in illustrates very well a problem that I find myself embroiled in frequently on these boards. It happens on this board and everywhere were a group of like-minded people gather. It causes a speaker from the majority to get lazy. They use shorthand, assuming that “everyone” agrees with the premises and assumptions that undergird each statement.
You’ve been called on it here with posters that are certainly not coming to my personal defense. They are merely pointing out your use of broad sweeping statements and the assumptions you make, and insist that everyone must share.
Your defense has been weak. That’s expected, as you put yourself in a weak position. In essence, you want to make strong and powerful statements about the Republican party, but when called on your grand sweeping generalities, you back-pedal while registering SHOCK that there could be any problem with your pronouncements. And naturally, any problem MUST be the fault of the stupid reader! But two posters have clearly pointed out your errors—neither of which I think are on the conservative side of the spectrum, as I am.
You’re typing as if you’re talking to a small club, where all of you have the same history and believe the same things. Given the liberal make-up of the SDMB, I understand how you might make that mistake. But there are other here, as well. As much as that evidently pains you. So, you are certainly free to continue with your sweeping generalities, but when you get called on it, the problem is one of your own making.
As time has gone on, you’ve become worse and worse a poster, and especially, a Mod. And that is simply because that you’ve gotten more and more comfortable with the comraderie and protection of the hive.
My advice is to go to some conservative board and argue there. You’ll start to see just how much you rely on assumptions that largely go unchallenged here, and also the assumptions those posters will make for the same reason you make them here.
I know of what I speak. I’d say that half of the flaps I get into is simply because I’m challenging the “assumptions that everyone must share”. So, I try to get people to be specific, to define terms. And even that generates ridicule. How dare someone want to define the terms in a debate!
Anyway, you’ll take this in the worst possible light, no doubt. So be it. After all, you are a dumb fuck and a douche bag and deserving of it. I chose to leave the colorful language out of it until down here so you’d focus on the words, since you have such a difficult time with reading comprehension as it is. Plus, I think the points made could be considered by posters not as dumb, biased and douchey as you, too. In other words, pretty much everyone else other than, maybe, ElvisL1ives. Maybe.
But once backpedalling in this thread. Awesome, in fact.
I now see that **Evil Economist **has climbed out of the woodwork and wishes to join the competition. Sorry, EE. For now you’ll have to content yourself with 3rd Place. But you do show promise.
No, it’s for a much more basic reason than that. 
You try so hard, but being insulted by you is like being attacked by a damp sponge. I want to rub your little pointy head and give you a piece of candy.
It is pretty cute how Magellan thinks he’s the intellectual in the room.
Mag, buddy, you’re a farting imbecile. Learn it, live it, love it.
What an asshole liar you are. Show me where I said “irrational attacks against a sitting President can only be the result of racism.”
Oh, and while you’re at it: Why are you still afraid to comment on your admiration for Karl Rove?
I hope everyone withdraws the charge that the GOP doesn’t welcome Blacks. From another thread we learn of a key Republican detective who has solved the MA370 mystery and who happens to be Black. This brave GOP intellectual, Erik Rush, is affiliated with cutting-edge think tanks like WorldNetDaily and FoxNews.
[QUOTE=Erik Rush]
… The CIA went into action, in concert with the DOD and Boeing engineers. They commandeered Flight 370 en route, digitally, without the foreknowledge of the pilots or crew, diverting it to Diego Garcia.
…
Flight 370’s pilots (one of whom being the pro-Islamist Zaharie Ahmad Shah) may have been afforded the opportunity to continue on to another Muslim country, blend in and take on a new identity, given the sentiments of those in the current administration.
[/QUOTE]
I’m embarrassed to see grown adults argue with the likes of magellan01. At least I reserve my venom for the Brickhead who would be intelligent enough to know how stupid his ideas are, if he could only open his mind. It’s entertaining to watch him twist and play semantic games in order to avoid admitting to himself how corrupt his Republican mentors and idols are.
I’d be more polite to the Brickhead if he’d ever apologize for defecating on one of my threads. He claims to have apologized, but all he ever did was acknowledge what was obvious to all: that he bounded into the thread, prattling nothing but ignorance, despite that his ignorant assumptions were refuted in the OP itself, which he hadn’t condescended to read. The only “apology” I want from him is a promise to either read the OP of threads where he feels the need to defecate, or to just keep his trap shut.
“Otherwise inexplicable” is certainly an interesting caveat.
Well, sure but its clear that at least some of the opposition to Obama is driven by bigotry. Mostly be people who have hated Oabam if he was white but his skin color is like chocolate icing on the cake.
As I said before, there’s a really obvious reason for hating the current president, a reason that’s been really true ever since at least 1993 (and before, but as I recall to a lesser degree): partisan idiocy. I mean, I think it’s pretty legit to hate W personally for his dumb self and morally repellent statements about the death penalty etc., but I’m aware that my belief in the legitimacy of hating W could just be another example of partisan idiocy.
So no, there’s not really that much “otherwise inexplicable” hatred of Obama. There’s the stuff that’s obviously racist, of course, and then there’s the stuff that can be explained otherwise but that still might be due to racism, but racism isn’t the null hypothesis: partisan idiocy is.
I’d be foolish to claim it’s “zero,” of course.
But people hated Clinton – pretty much the same people that now hate Obama. I don’t really see a large delta between those two populations. So I can’t agree that racism is such a tremendous determinative factor.
If Mrs. Clinton had won, I suspect people would be decrying sexism instead of acknowledging that the majority of this crazed hatred derives from partisan difference, period.
Also, what counts as “crazed hatred” is highly subjective.
Yes… except that describing a tragic suicide as a murder and then claiming the president and first lady of the United States planned the murder as a coverup of their other illegal activities, without a shred of actual supporting evidence… I have to imagine that’s “crazed hatred” in almost anyone’s book.
From Salon: “Conservatives have a “racist jokes” culture problem.” (The news-hook is the Latino billionaire Mike Fernandez’ recent resignation from the re-election campaign of Florida Governor Rick Scott, over resentment at staffers’ racist jokes; plus internal racist emails in Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker’s office.)
Don’t you think there would be some even more hostile to Hillary than they were to Bill, on account of her sex alone?
I always assumed it was “a very cunning plan.”
I agree. At the same time, though, I think there are people witha lot of ugly parts of their personality that are stupidly partisan, and they let different parts of their ugly personalities show according to the target of their rage. To flip the tables, these people will call George W an idiot, then they’ll talk about how Sarah Palin is a bimbo but they’d still do her, and they’ll turn around and call Clarence Thomas an Uncle Tom. Their misogyny and racism won’t manifest when talking about W, but they sure will when talking about Palin and Thomas.
The same thing, I am convinced, happens versus Democrats. The worst partisans tend to be not very good people and have a lot of entrenched prejudices. Those prejudices might not come out against Slick Willie (except in fairly trivial ways like the mocking of his accent), but against a nonwhite or female Democrat, those ugly bits will rise to the surface.